Content uploaded by Marcela Kappelmayer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcela Kappelmayer on Jun 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
A school intervention
promotes compassion,
empathy and social
relationships in children
Marcela Kappelmayer
Belgrano University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Andrea Czar
Belgrano University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Maria Tresca
Belgrano University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Paola D’Adamo
CCT Patagonia Norte, Bariloche, Argenina
Mariana Lozada
CCT Patagonia Norte, Bariloche, Argenina
Abstract
There is increasing evidence to show that compassion and altruism are highly beneficial
when cultivated from an early age. In the present study we explore the benefits of an
intervention programme that seeks to develop affective empathy, compassion and altru-
ism in 9-year-old children from a school of Buenos Aires, Argentina. A pretest-posttest
controlled study was carried out with 48 children, half of whom carried out the inter-
vention. The remaining children, who constituted the waitlist group, participated in aca-
demic tutoring activities conducted by the same research team. The intervention was
successful in promoting children’s altruistic and compassionate attitudes, evidenced by
the results obtained in the universal altruism test, social integration, and affective
response. Effect sizes ranged from medium to large in the intervention group. These
Corresponding author:
Mariana Lozada, CCT Patagonia Norte, Pioneros 2350, Bariloche 8400, Argentina.
Emails: mariana.lozada@gmail.com, lozadam@comahue-conicet.gob.ar
Article
School Psychology International
2023, Vol. 44(5) 515–532
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01430343221145668
journals.sagepub.com/home/spi
positive findings were not observed in the waitlist group (non-significant effect sizes).
This study shows that children’s self-awareness and awareness of others tend to foster
compassion and affective empathy, contributing to individual and collective well-being.
Keywords
Affective empathy, altruism, children, compassion, social integration
Introduction
Growing evidence suggests the need to foster caring behaviours like affection and com-
passion within educational contexts to alleviate psychological suffering (e.g., Potvin
et al., 2022). Present day schools are plagued by severe social conflicts such as exclusion,
bullying, violence, depression, loneliness, anxiety and attentional disorders (e.g.,
Moyano et al., 2019). This context affects social relationships in educational settings,
compromising children’s health and wellbeing. For this reason, the cultivation of socio-
emotional skills like empathy, compassion and altruism during childhood is becoming
increasingly important, and promising results have been achieved by mind–body integra-
tion programmes (e.g., Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Estévez López et al., 2009; Flook et al.,
2015; Lozada et al., 2014a, 2017). The purpose of this research seeks to evaluate whether
a compassionate-based-intervention promotes social integration, affective empathy and
altruistic attitudes in primary school children from Argentina.
Review of terms
Empathy. Empathy has been defined as the capacity to feel and understand other people’s
emotions (Decety & Meyer, 2008; Decety et al., 2016). From an embodied-enactive per-
spective, empathy is the ability to resonate with another person by putting oneself in their
place, overriding self-centeredness (e.g., Decety, 2010; Depraz et al., 2003). Empathy
involves affective and cognitive dimensions (e.g., Singer & Klimecki, 2014).
Cognitive empathy refers to the capacity to understand others’thoughts and feelings
without getting emotionally involved, whereas affective empathy involves feeling the
emotion that another person is experiencing (e.g., Batson & Ahmad, 2001; Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2017). In recognition of the suffering of others, young children tend to
show the affective rather than the cognitive component of empathy (Hoffman, 1996;
McDonald & Messinger, 2011).
Compassion and altruism. It has been proposed that altruism is a human capacity that can
benefit both the helper and the person being helped (Lozada et al., 2011). Compassion
and altruism, associated with affective empathy, require more than just feeling others’
emotions. Altruism involves the intention to benefit others and compassion can be
defined as the intention to relieve others’suffering (e.g., Halifax, 2012; Singer &
516 School Psychology International 44(5)
Klimecki, 2014). Compassionate acts require emotional balance on the part of the person
feeling compassion in order to counteract possible psychological distress. The serenity
that emerges from emotional regulation tends to foster compassion and altruism (e.g.,
Porges, 2017).
Social integration. Peer social relationships are crucial to a child’s healthy development
(Eccles, 1999; Vanaelst et al., 2012). Several studies have shown that negative social
interactions can significantly affect their health and wellbeing (e.g., Carro et al., 2020,
2021; Lozada et al., 2014a, 2017; Ponzi et al., 2016; Vanaelst et al., 2012). We consider
social integration to be a parameter that indicates the diversity and richness of social
bonds and illustrates the degree to which a student feels integrated into their school
peer group (Moyano et al., 2019).
Review of interventions
Previous studies have revealed that empathy is a key factor for the development of com-
passion and healthy interpersonal relationships (e.g., Decety et al., 2016; Eisenberg,
2002; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011). Altruistic behaviour is highly affected
by social contexts (e.g., Carro et al., 2020; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Lozada et al.,
2014b, 2017; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005, 2017), and environments that promote
perspective-taking can foster the development of this human ability (e.g., Batson et al.,
1988). Several studies have shown that empathy, compassion and altruism are strongly
interrelated, and can improve social integration, cognitive function and general wellness
in children (e.g., Carro et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Flook et al., 2015; Lozada et al., 2014a,
2014b, 2017; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015;
Spinrad & Gal, 2018). In particular, the positive effect of altruistic acts on the immune
system and psycho-physiological wellbeing of the helper has been demonstrated (e.g.,
Brown et al., 2005; Cohen & Janicki-Deverts, 2009; Kok & Fredrickson, 2010;
Maratos & Sheffield, 2020). All this evidence highlights the behavioural plasticity of
these vital social skills, and therefore the value of promoting their development in
early childhood.
Interventions to foster altruism and compassion in children have been conducted
mainly in developed countries (Perkins et al., 2022). Previous research has shown that
empathic concern, compassion and altruism can be encouraged through the implementa-
tion of the Kindness curriculum, cognitively based compassion training (CBCT) pro-
grammes, and prosocial embodied activities (e.g., Carro et al., 2020; Flook et al.,
2015; Kirby et al., 2017; Lozada et al., 2014a; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle,
2011). For example, interventions based on the Kindness Curriculum performed over
12 weeks favoured self-regulation and altruism in preschool children (e.g., Flook
et al., 2015). In other studies, prosocial-based interventions contributed to the enhance-
ment of altruistic attitudes, while reducing chronic stress (Carro et al., 2020, 2021;
Lozada et al., 2014b, 2017). Moreover, CBCT has been effective in fostering compassion
towards others (e.g., Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Reddy et al., 2013).
These studies have shown that the promotion of empathy, altruism and compassion in
Kappelmayer et al. 517
children is most effectively achieved by the implementation of compassionate-based
interventions together with mindfulness practices, rather than with mindfulness interven-
tions alone (Cheang et al., 2019). These two factors were taken into consideration in this
study, which involved a compassion-based intervention suitable for children inhabiting a
large city in a developing country.
The polyvagal theory (e.g., Porges, 2017) proposes that interventions that encourage
secure, affective, kind and non-judgmental experiences promote empathetic and compas-
sionate attitudes towards peers. Feeling secure promotes social engagement, whereas
feeling threatened elicits defensive behaviour. Safe social contexts favour inner connect-
edness and connectedness with others, nurturing healthy interpersonal interactions and
strengthening compassion and altruism (Porges, 2017).
Description of the present study
We developed an intervention designed to cultivate warm feelings towards oneself and
others. Inspired by previous studies that began to analyse the effects of promoting
empathy, altruism and compassion in children (Perkins et al., 2022), in the current inter-
vention we included 4 types of activities: (a) mindful awareness, to strengthen the ability
to focus on the present moment, (b) affective empathy, to foster self-affection and feel-
ings of warmth and benevolence towards others, (c) cognitive empathy, to strengthen
the participants’ability to recognize that their own perspective might be different from
that of others and (d) kindness and compassion, to develop social skills by proposing
tasks related to helping others. In the present study, we evaluated the impact of this inter-
vention on empathy, altruism and social integration in 9-year-old children from a school
in Argentina, a developing country. We hypothesized that after participating in the inter-
vention, children would show higher levels of the above-mentioned social skills, whereas
these changes would not be observed in children from the waitlist group.
Methods
Participants
The current study, which followed a quasi-experimental design with randomization of
group assignment, involved 48 children (9–10 years old) who attended a private
school in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Two fourth grade groups (from the same school
but with different teachers) were randomly assigned to either the intervention group
(N=26, 16 girls and 10 boys) or the waitlist group (control; N=22, 13 girls and 9
boys). That is, fourth grade A was the Intervention group and fourth grade B the waitlist
group. There were no children with learning disorders and/or psychiatric concerns in
either grade.
It is worth noting that since one of the aims of our study was to work on group dynam-
ics and social integration, a previously established school class constituted our interven-
tion group. This semi-randomized procedure has also been used in previous
investigations, where similar interventions achieved improvements in social relationships
518 School Psychology International 44(5)
within a group of peers (e.g., Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Fuentes et al., 2018a, 2013b;
Lozada et al., 2014a). Thus, the fact that we focused on improving social skills in a
group of classmates already interacting together precluded the use of a randomized
sample. The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CEIC)
and was performed according to the World Medical Association Declaration of
Helsinki guidelines. The intervention activities were first explained to parents and
school authorities, who all gave their informed consent. Furthermore, the children volun-
tarily agreed to participate, and were free to stop doing the activities if they so desired.
The data were kept under conditions of anonymity and confidentiality.
Research procedure. The classroom teacher and two child psychologists from the research
team carried out the programme during 10 weeks in the intervention and the wait-list
groups. The classroom teachers played a key role, as they sustained the programme
from week to week through daily implementation of the learned tasks and activities.
Waitlist group (Control group). In this group the programme sought to develop learn-
ing strategies and study skills through academic tutoring, focusing primarily on fostering
autonomous learning, effective study habits and reading comprehension strategies.
Intervention group. In this group the programme sought to foster empathy and com-
passion, through the practice of two nodal exercises: Connecting Pairs and Loving
Kindness Meditation (LKM) (Figure 1) –performed on a daily basis throughout the
entire programme.
Figure 1. Two core exercises carried out daily: loving kindness meditation and connecting pairs.
Kappelmayer et al. 519
Intervention. The intervention consisted of 10 sessions carried out in 50-min weekly
encounters that took place within the school day. The programme was inspired by the
Kindness curriculum and CBCT interventions (e.g., Flook et al., 2015; Ozawa-de Silva
& Dodson-Lavelle, 2011) but recreated by the researchers for the Argentinian population
being studied, using storytelling books and imagery exercises, which were supported by
visual, graphic and audio material as well as music, stories and role-play activities, as
described below.
The intervention consisted of four lines of work: (1) Mindful awareness and emotional
regulation, (2)1 affective empathy, (3) cognitive empathy, and (4) compassionate acts.
(1). Mindful awareness and emotional regulation.This aspect of the intervention,
carried out at the beginning of each session, aimed to promote the ability to focus
on the present moment, emotional regulation and interoceptive awareness (awareness
of bodily sensations). Participants were invited to concentrate on their own breathing,
to develop mindful awareness. They were guided to perceive their thoughts and their
bodily sensations (interoception). At this point we intended to control the “monkey
mind”(i.e., the wandering non-present mind), by trying to focus on a specific activity
and be aware of when the mind wandered and interfered with the task.
After the second encounter, children were invited to perform LKM, a practice that pro-
motes a state of unconditional kindness and compassion toward all beings (e.g.,
Fredrickson et al., 2008; Hofmann et al., 2011). This meditation cultivates feelings of
unconditional love, affection and empathy, focusing on the progressive expression of
friendly wishes, from close relationships to all humanity.
Other activities in this part of the intervention included storytelling and imagery exer-
cises, supported by visual, graphic and audio material as well as music, stories and role-
play activities, such as “How full is your bucket”by Tom Rath and Mary Reckmeyer,
“The invisible boy”by Trudy Ludwig, “I wish you more”by Amy Krouse Rosenthal
and Tom Lichtenheld and “The golden rule”by Ilene Cooper, in addition to developing
kindness awareness programmes at school, garlands of gratitude, etc.
(2). Affective empathy (Opening our hearts). The goal of this aspect was to foster self-
affection and feelings of warmth and benevolence toward others, by accepting difficult
emotions, cultivating gratitude and resonating with others’pain. We aimed to develop
the ability to “read”the emotions of others by evaluating their facial microexpressions.
Furthermore, context reading was promoted by paying special attention to the kind of
information provided by contextual cues when faces were not seen. We used the meta-
phor of the detective to motivate the children to become good ‘investigators’and iden-
tify their own and others’emotions. Children were taught that every emotion has a
meaning and expresses a message that is important to understand if we are to
connect meaningfully with others.
520 School Psychology International 44(5)
Along the same lines, the value of emotions was explored by attempting to recognize the
underlying needs they expressed. Affective empathy was fostered through empathic lis-
tening in order to connect with the emotions of others, while overriding self-centeredness.
The Affective Connecting Pairs (ACP) component was the core exercise of this line of work:
the children were asked to work in pairs previously assigned by the research team, consider-
ing the positive and negative elections of the group’s pre-test sociogram (described below).
At the start of this intervention the children were asked to play with their chosen peers (posi-
tive elections), and towards the end they were paired up with their non-chosen peers (negative
elections). During the ACP exercise children were invited to share ‘white pearls’of gratitude:
the gestures of others that we feel grateful for, and ‘black pearls’, the gestures that hurt them
or made them suffer. Each child took turns to share a white and a black pearl, while the
partner listened empathically. ACP time took place for five minutes every day, guided by
the teacher, as one of the core activities of the intervention.
(3). Cognitive empathy (Understanding others’thoughts).The goal of this aspect was
to favour metacognition skills by considering other people’s points of view as well as
the participants’own, strengthening their ability to recognize that their own perspec-
tive might be different from that of others. They were invited to try to understand
others’thoughts, motives and feelings, even when these were very different from
their own. This was achieved through the Perspective Connecting Pairs activity, in
which each pair was given a set of cards with different characters and situations.
By taking turns, each child was invited to share what the different characters might
be thinking, while the partner listened empathically. The aim was to help children
appreciate alternative points of view, under the premise: ‘My point of view is just
one of many’. This activity, conducted for 5 minutes on a daily basis and guided by
the classroom teacher, was carried out after the ACP. Both empathic instances there-
fore constituted the connecting pair time, a core activity of the intervention (Figure 1).
(4). Acts of kindness and compassion (Compassion kid-t): The fourth aspect focused
on kindness and compassionate acts. The goal was to develop social skills by propos-
ing tasks related to helping others (i.e., how would you help someone in need or with
certain difficulties). Each session included stories and poems which exemplified acts
of kindness that favoured the development of a loving disposition towards the suffer-
ing of others. This was the most thorough line of work and took place over 4 weeks.
We first focused on acts of kindness and then shifted towards compassionate acts (i.e.,
moving away from: ‘Who did something good to me this week?’,to‘Who did some-
thing good to someone suffering?’). Impartiality and equanimity skills were also
worked on at this point. As people tend to be kinder to their loved ones, we sought
to develop the aforementioned qualities towards others, which involved a true compas-
sionate attitude (mental disposition). To this end, we proposed tasks of increasing dif-
ficulty, progressing from kindness to a dear friend to kindness to someone in need.
It is noteworthy that throughout the programme LKM and Connecting Pairs (Pearls and
Cards) were carried out daily by the teacher (Figure 1).
Kappelmayer et al. 521
Furthermore, the level of difficulty of the activities and tasks increased progressively
throughout the programme. For example, at first children were grouped with the peers
they chose to play with, while later they were grouped with children they had less affinity
with. This was achieved by letting the children spontaneously group together at the begin-
ning and then pairing them up later with their non-chosen peers.
Measurement/assessment
Before and after the intervention, children from both the experimental and control groups
were individually invited by a psychologist from the research team to complete the ques-
tionnaires described below. These were administered at school in the Spanish language,
and lasted approximately 15 min. The questionnaires were designed to shed light on the
participants altruistic behaviour, affective empathy and social integration, which were
estimated through the following dependent variables: universal altruism test, affective
response, and social preference index, as detailed below.
Altruistic behaviour was assessed by means of the Universal Altruism test, an adaptation of
the Dictator Game (e.g., Avinun et al., 2011), in which students had to make a decision in order
to benefit unknown children. The children received 10 pieces of candy and were given the fol-
lowing choice: they could place as many as they desired in a box for hospitalized children or
keep them all for themselves. This single-trail pre- and post-intervention task was conducted
under confidential conditions, each child performing the task without being observed (by
their peers or the researcher). The total number of candies donated by each group was compared
before and after the intervention. This test, which consists of a single question, was previously
performed in Carro et al. (2020) and proved to be valid for Argentine children of this age group.
Social integration within each group was evaluated by means of a Sociogram (Moreno,
1972). In this Sociometric Questionnaire children were asked to list peers they would
choose to play with and those they would not. Playmate choice during childhood encom-
passes reciprocity and pro-sociality (Garaigordobil, 2005), and is a valid methodology for
assessing peer acceptance (e.g., Oberle, 2018; Wentzel et al., 2004). This questionnaire,
which has been found to have test–retest reliability (e.g., Kalfus & Berler, 1985), was admi-
nistered pre and post-intervention in both groups. Variations in the number of chosen (i.e.,
positive elections) and non-chosen peers (i.e., negative elections) illustrate differences in
the social preference pattern for each participant. This pattern of social relationships was
compared before and after the intervention by means of the Social Preference index,
which subtracts the number of peers not chosen to play with from the ones who were
chosen. This methodology, widely used to assess social relationships in children, consists
of spontaneously answered questions that capture social relationship dynamics between
peers and can be used as an indicator of social integration within a group. Sociograms
are widely applied to assess social relationships within a group of children (Carro et al.,
2022; Fuentes et al., 2018a, 2018b; Lozada et al., 2014b). This sociometric instrument
depicts the intricacy of social links, reflecting the structure and patterns of interpersonal
relationships in a group (Moreno, 1972). In educational contexts, social interrelationships
have been extensively explored and interpreted through this valuable tool (Carro et al.,
2022; Fuentes et al., 2018a, 2018b; Lozada et al., 2014b).
522 School Psychology International 44(5)
We evaluated the children’sAffective empathy by means of the Affective Response
dimension extracted from the Multidimensional Scale of Empathy, a scale adapted for
9- to 12-year-old Argentine children. This scale assesses the predisposition of an individ-
ual to resonate with others’emotions and was addressed by the following questions: (a)
‘When I see someone crying, I feel like crying myself’; (b) ‘When I see someone dancing,
I feel like moving my feet’; (c) ‘When I am with someone who is sad, I also feel sad’.
Participants had to indicate their agreement with each item on a scale with four
options (i.e., always, often, sometimes and never). This scale showed good validity
and reliability: the McDonald’s omega of this dimension was 0.714 for the experimental
group, and 0.78 for the control group.
Statistics
We conducted intraindividual paired comparisons, because we were interested in evalu-
ating pre- post-intervention changes per child. In this way, we intended to go beyond
interpersonal variability, which is particularly relevant for small samples. We thus pre-
cluded the effect of potential differences in initial values between groups.
Normal distribution was evaluated by means of the Shapiro Wilk test. The Wilcoxon
matched pair test was used for evaluating pre-post changes for non-normal data sets,
while the paired t test was used when data followed a normal distribution. The IBM
SPSS Statistics 23 programme was used for statistical analysis.
Cohen’sdwas calculated as a measure of effect size. The effect size provides add-
itional information about the magnitude of the differences observed while statistical sig-
nificance reports the existence of a significant effect. However Pvalue does not show the
size of the effect (Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). Therefore, this quantitative measure estimates
the magnitude of the intervention effect (i.e, a larger effect size indicates a greater effect),
since it compares effects not biased by the sample size.
Results
Most of the data followed a non-normal distribution, except for the Social Preference
Index of the intervention group (Table 1).
Table 1. Normality test values for data set.
Shapiro Wilk Test
Statistic df p- value
Affective Response Intervention Group 0.91 25 .03∗
Affective Response Control Group 0.89 25 .01∗
Universal Altruism Intervention Group 0.72 25 .00∗
Universal Altruism Intervention Group 0.79 23 .00∗
Social Preference Intervention Group 0.94 25 .17
Social Preference Control Group 0.91 23 .05∗
Kappelmayer et al. 523
After the intervention, significant changes in every parameter were detected in the
intervention group. The results obtained from the pre-post intervention comparison
of the Universal Altruism test showed a significant increase (70%) in the children
who took part in the programme (p=.031). In contrast, no significant changes were
found in the control group (p=.7) (Figure 2). Cohen’s d test was 0.73 for the experi-
mental group, showing a large effect, while d=0.1 for the control group, showing no
effect. Thus, participants shared significantly more candies at the end of the interven-
tion, expressing greater compassion for hospitalized children who were completely
unknown to them. Moreover, children from the intervention group displayed a
greater Affective Response at the end of the intervention (p=.05) (Table 2), a
pattern not observed in the children from the control group (p=.26). This empathic
concern dimension suggests caring resonance with the emotions of others. Effect size
was medium for the experimental group (Cohen’sd=0.5) and small for the control
group (d=0.36).
Interestingly, after the intervention a significant increase (43.3%) in the social prefer-
ence index (paired ttest −2.22; p=.022) was detected in the children who took part in the
activities. This indicates that fewer children were rejected while more were chosen as
playmates. Conversely, this trend was not observed in the control group, whose
Figure 2. Pre- and post-intervention comparisons of the Universal Altruism test results for the
intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG). Effect size for Universal Altruism was large
for the IG (d=0.73), while it was non-significant for the CG (d=0.1).
524 School Psychology International 44(5)
pattern of social relationships did not change substantially (Wilcoxon p=.95) (Figure 3).
The effect size, indexed by Cohen’sdtest was medium for the experimental group (d=0.50)
while no effect was found for the control group (d=0.02).
Table 2. Mean values (±SE) of affective response, altruism test and social preference index pre-and
post-intervention for both the experimental and control groups. Wilcoxon p-value.
PRE POST p-value
Affective response
Intervention group 6.7 (0.48) 7.5 (0.37) .05∗
Control group 10.2 (0.32) 10.8 (0.28) .26
Altruism test
Intervention group 1.36 (0.34) 2.32 (0.55) .03∗
Control group 2.48 (0.48) 2.61 (0.55) .7
Social preference
Intervention group 4.24 (0.87) 6.08 (0.93) .02∗
Control group 3.43 (0.62) 3.39 (0.61) .95
Figure 3. Pre- and post-intervention comparisons of the social preference index (SPI) for the
intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG). Effect size was medium for the IG (d=0.50)
while no effect was found for the CG (d=0.02).
Kappelmayer et al. 525
Discussion
This study shows that a long-term school intervention that sought to cultivate mindful
awareness, emotional regulation, empathic concern, and acts of kindness and compassion
promoted universal altruism and affective responses. Moreover, social integration was
also enhanced within the group that took part in the programme. Thus, our intervention
fostered compassionate attitudes in the participants, since their intention to alleviate the
suffering of unknown hospitalized children was greatly increased, as were their positive
emotions and affective empathy. In contrast, these changes were not observed in the wait-
list group. Our findings indicate that when children are given the opportunity to develop
self-awareness and awareness of others in a socio-affective and socio-cognitive context,
feelings of compassion and caring emerge. In other words, consciousness of shared
humanity could have contributed to the emergence of compassion. An overall positive
affective resonance is therefore nurtured, and healthy social relationships are
strengthened.
The mindfulness practices carried out at the beginning of each session have shown to
play a significant role in the promotion of serenity and appeasement, as reported in other
studies (e.g., Dambrun et al., 2019; Nadler et al., 2017; Wisner, 2014). This is in line with
the Polyvagal Theory, which proposes that physiological states of calmness are crucial
for experiencing compassion and social engagement (Porges, 2017). Furthermore, this
theory posits that prosocial behaviour is influenced by vagal pathways involved in the
stress response (Porges, 2017). In addition to encouraging calmness and serenity, the
intervention focused on developing equanimity and impartiality, thus compassionate atti-
tudes were enhanced, which in turn contributed to greater social integration. This was
also evidenced by the fact that after the intervention participants were more prone to
sharing their goods with children in need who were unknown to them. The condition
of anonymity under which the intervention was conducted precluded any possible exter-
nal pressure which might have influenced children’s decision making, thereby highlight-
ing the emergence of their intrinsic altruistic motivation. Compassion and altruism entail
feelings of warmth and concern for others in need and willingness and action to help them
(Gu et al., 2017; Halifax, 2012; Lozada et al., 2011; Singer & Klimecki, 2014).
Interestingly, these human virtues display great behavioural plasticity during childhood,
as shown in several investigations (Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Flook et al., 2015; Lozada
et al., 2014a; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Viglas & Perlman, 2018;
Warneken & Tomasello, 2009).
An increase in the affective empathic response, described as the capacity to perceive
and share the emotions of others, was observed. This finding suggests that socio-
emotional skills were enhanced through the intervention. It has been proposed that
young children tend to express affective empathy, as they intend to comfort those who
are suffering, rather than exhibit more detached ways of understanding others’emotions
and thoughts (Hoffman, 1996; McDonald & Messinger, 2011). Our results are in line
with this developmental tendency to empathize since affective empathy was promoted
by the intervention. This affective attunement with others has been associated with com-
passion (e.g., Halifax, 2012; Porges, 2017) and may have contributed to the increase
526 School Psychology International 44(5)
observed in the social integration of the group of classmates after the intervention.
Accordingly, previous studies have proposed that compassion and empathy result in
deeper and more positive social bonds (e.g., Decety et al., 2016; Post, 2005).
Moreover, the lack of pre-post variation recorded in the waitlist group supports the
possibility that the changes observed in the intervention group can be attributed to par-
ticipation in the programme. However, it is noteworthy that although social preference
rates were similar in both groups, the experimental group began the intervention with
lower Universal Altruism and Affective Response values than the waitlist group. This
might be due to group characteristics that are beyond our control, for example a certain
group might evidence healthier relationships than another one. Despite this limitation,
our aim was to compare pre-post changes in each individual, thus lessening the poten-
tial deviation introduced by between-person variability. The relative changes pro-
moted during the intervention might not be affected by baseline levels.
Notwithstanding, a ‘low-baseline’effect might be possible; therefore, further research
is needed to assess the benefits of this kind of intervention in a larger and more diverse
sample, for example, in groups with different initial altruism and empathy levels.
Since there is a lack of research involving compassion-based interventions in develop-
ing countries, this study aims to redress this situation, as it has been conducted with
children living in a large city of South America. A potential limitation of the
current survey might be the fact that universal altruism was measured through a single-
trail pre- and post-intervention task that evaluated altruistic attitudes through a specific
response which might not reflect long lasting behavioural changes. It would be inter-
esting for future studies to include alternative measurement assessments involving
tasks that could improve the methods of analysing the behavioural plasticity of this
social skill.
In conclusion, the present intervention enhanced children’s compassionate attitudes,
evidenced by the increase found in their affective and altruistic responses, positive emo-
tions and social integration. The safe, affective environment generated by the intervention
promoted a greater sense of connectedness among participants, both with themselves and
with others, which encouraged acts of kindness and compassion. These positive out-
comes are in line with previous studies which reveal that when compassion and empathic
concern are cultivated, significant benefits to health and wellbeing can be accrued (e.g.,
Brown & Brown, 2015; Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Lozada et al., 2011, 2014a, 2014b;
Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Porges, 2017; Post, 2005). Within the
current global post-pandemic context, in which social ties have been particularly affected
(e.g., Larivière-Bastien et al., 2022), fostering social integration and empathic attitudes
might be of particular importance for school psychologists. The promotion of compassion
and altruism in the school environment could contribute to enhanced individual and col-
lective psychological wellbeing.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the children who participated in the study, and their parents and
schoolteachers.
Kappelmayer et al. 527
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The intervention was conducted by MK,
AC and MT. Data collection and analysis were performed by MK, AC, MT, PD and ML. The first
draft of the manuscript was written by PD and ML, and all authors commented on previous versions
of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National University of Comahue and
National Council of Scientific and Technological Research of Argentina; Fondo para la
Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y
Técnicas (grant number PICT-2020-SERIEA-03363, PIP # 11220170100498C).
Ethical approval
All research procedures were performed according to the World Medical Association Declaration of
Helsinki.
Informed consent
This includes obtaining fully informed consent from the parents of children who participated in the
study.
ORCID iD
Mariana Lozada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-5479
References
Avinun, R., Israel, S., Shalev, I., Gritsenko, I., Bornstein, G., Ebstein, R. P., & Knafo, A. (2011).
AVPR1A variant associated with preschoolers’lower altruistic behavior. PloS ONE,6(9),
e25274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025274
Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2001). Empathy–induced altruism in a prisoner’s dilemma II: What if
the target of empathy has defected? European Journal of Social Psychology,31(1), 25–36.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/ejsp.26
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt,
C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,55,52–77. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/
0022-3514.55.1.52
Brown, S. L., & Brown, R. M. (2015). Connecting prosocial behavior to improved physical health:
Contributions from the neurobiology of parenting. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,55,
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.04.004
528 School Psychology International 44(5)
Brown, W. M., Consedine, N. S., & Magai, C. (2005). Altruism relates to health in an ethnically
diverse sample of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences,60(3), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/60.3.P143
Carro, N., D’Adamo, P., & Lozada, M. (2020). An effective intervention can contribute to reducing
perceived stress while promoting social integration in children. EJREP,18(1), 183–201. https://
doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v18i50.2600
Carro, N., D’Adamo, P., & Lozada, M. (2021). A school intervention helps decrease daily stress
while enhancing social integration in children. Behavioral Medicine,1–8. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08964289.2020.1738319
Carro, N., Kuperman, M., D’adamo, P., & Lozada, M. (2022). Social relationships in children:
favourable influence of activities promoting self-awareness and empathic interaction. Journal
of Complex Networks,10(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnab049
Cheang, R., Gillions, A., & Sparkes, E. (2019). Do mindfulness based interventions increase
empathy and compassion in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Child
and Family Studies,28(7), 1765–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01413-9
Cohen, S., & Janicki-Deverts, D. (2009). Can we improve our physical health by altering our social
networks? Perspectives on Psychological Science,4(4), 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.
1745-6924.2009.01141.x
Dambrun, M., Berniard, A., Didelot, T., Chaulet, M., Droit-Volet, S., Corman, M., Juneau,
C., & Martinon, L. M. (2019). Unified consciousness and the effect of body scan medita-
tion on happiness: Alteration of inner-body experience and feeling of harmony as central
processes. Mindfulness,10(8), 1530–1544. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12671-
019-01104-y
Decety, J. (2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental Neuroscience,
32(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1159%2F000317771
Decety, J., Bartal, I. B. A., Uzefovsky, F., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2016). Empathy as a driver of pro-
social behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,371(1686), 20150077. https://doi.org/
10.1098%2Frstb.2015.0077
Decety, J., & Meyer, M. (2008). From emotion resonance to empathic understanding: A social
developmental neuroscience account. Development and Psychopathology,20(4), 1053–1080.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579408000503
Depraz, N., Varela, F. J., & Vermersch, P. (2003). On becoming aware: A pragmatics of experien-
cing (Vol. 43). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.43
Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children,9(2), 30–44.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1602703
Eisenberg, N. (2002). Empathy-related emotional responses, altruism, and their socialization. In
R. J. Davidson, & A. Harrington (Eds.), Visions of compassion: Western scientists and
Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature (pp. 131–164). Oxford University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195130430.003.0007
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon, & R. A. Fabes (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology (pp. 701–777). New York: Wiley.
Estévez López, E., Martínez Ferrer, B., & Jiménez Gutiérrez, T. I. (2009). Las relaciones sociales en
la escuela: El problema del rechazo escolar. Educational Psychology,15(1), 45–60. https://
www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=613765489007
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and
self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum.
Developmental Psychology,51(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038256
Kappelmayer et al. 529
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build
lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential per-
sonal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95(5), 1045–1062. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0038256
Fuentes, M. A., Cárdenas, J. P., Carro, N., & Lozada, M. (2018a). Development and complex
dynamics at school environment. Complexity,1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3963061
Fuentes, M. A., Cárdenas, J. P., Carro, N., & Lozada, M. (2018b). Social network plasticity in children.
Transylvanian Review,1(11). https://transylvanianreviewjournal.org/index.php/TR/article/view/2211
Garaigordobil, M. (2005). Programa Juego 6-8 años. Juegos cooperativos y creativos para grupos
de niños de 6 a 8 años. Madrid: Pirámide. http://hdl.handle.net/11162/61134
Gu, J., Cavanagh, K., Baer, R., & Strauss, C. (2017). An empirical examination of the factor struc-
ture of compassion. PLoS ONE,12(2), e0172471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172471
Halifax, J. (2012). A heuristic model of enactive compassion. Current Opinion in Supportive and
Palliative Care,6(2), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1097/spc.0b013e3283530fbe
Hoffman, M. L. (1996). Empathy and moral development. The Annual Report of Educational
Psychology in Japan,35, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.5926/arepj1962.35.0_157
Hofmann, S. G., Grossman, P., & Hinton, D. E. (2011). Loving-kindness and compassion medita-
tion: Potential for psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology Review,31(7), 1126–1132.
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cpr.2011.07.003
Kalfus, G. R., & Berler, E. S. (1985). Test-Retest reliability of sociometric questionnaire across four
grade levels. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,14(4), 345–347. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15374424jccp1404_13
Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Steindl, S. R. (2017). A meta-analysis of compassion-based inter-
ventions: Current state of knowledge and future directions. Behavior Therapy,48(6), 778–792.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.06.003
Kok, B. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Upward spirals of the heart: Autonomic flexibility, as indexed
by vagal tone, reciprocally and prospectively predicts positive emotions and social connectedness.
Biological Psychology,85(3), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.biopsycho.2010.09.005
Larivière-Bastien, D., Aubuchon, O., Blondin, A., Dupont, D., Libenstein, J., Séguin, F., Tremblay,
A., Zarglayoun, H., Herba, C. H., & Beauchamp, M. H. (2022). Children’s perspectives on
friendships and socialization during the COVID–19 pandemic: A qualitative approach. Child:
Care, Health and Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12998
Lozada, M., Carro, N., D’Adamo, P., & Barclay, C. (2014a). Stress management in children: A
pilot study for 7-9 year olds. Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics,35, 144–147.
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/26677. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000026
Lozada, M., Carro, N., Kapelmayer, M., Kelmanowicz, V., Czar, A., & D’Adamo, P. (2017).
Fostering positive changes in health and social relationships in children. In C. Proctor (Ed.),
Positive psychology interventions in practice (pp. 143–161). Springer International
Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51787-2_9
Lozada, M., D’Adamo, P., & Carro, N. (2014b). Plasticity of altruistic behavior in children. Journal
of Moral Education,43(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2013.878244
Lozada, M., D’Adamo, P., & Fuentes, M. (2011). Intrinsic benefits of human altruism. Journal of
Theoretical Biology,289,12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.08.016
Maratos, F. A., & Sheffield, D. (2020). Brief compassion-focused imagery dampens physiological
pain responses. Mindfulness,11(12), 2730–2740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01485-5
McDonald, N. M., & Messinger, D. S. (2011). The development of empathy: How, when, and why.
In J. J. Sanguineti, A. Acerbi, & J. A. Lombo (Eds.), Moral behavior and free will: A neurobio-
logical and philosophical approach (pp. 333–359). IF-Press.
530 School Psychology International 44(5)
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and altruism. Current
Directions in Psychological Science,14(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.
00330.x
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2017). An attachment perspective on compassion and altruism. In
P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Concepts, research and applications (pp. 187–202). Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315564296-11
Moreno, J. L. (1972). Fundamentos de la sociometría. Paidós.
Moyano, N., Ayllón, E., Antoñanzas, J. L., & Cano, J. (2019). Children’s social integration and low
perception of negative relationships as protectors against bullying and cyberbullying. Frontiers
in Psychology,10, 643. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00643
Nadler, R., Cordy, M., Stengel, J., Segal, Z. V., & Hayden, E. P. (2017). A brief mindfulness practice
increases self-reported calmness in young children: A pilot study. Mindfulness,8(4), 1088–1095.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0685-2
Oberle, E. (2018). Early adolescents’emotional well–being in the classroom: The role of personal
and contextual assets. Journal of School Health,88(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.
12585
Ozawa-de Silva, B., & Dodson-Lavelle, B. (2011). An education of heart and mind: Practical and
theoretical issues in teaching cognitive-based compassion training to children. Practical
Matters,4(4), 1–28.
Perkins, N., Sehmbi, T., & Smith, P. (2022). Effects of kindness-and compassion-based meditation
on wellbeing, prosociality, and cognitive functioning in children and adolescents: A systematic
review. Mindfulness,1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01925-4
Ponzi, D., Muehlenbein, M. P., Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2016). Cortisol, salivary
alpha-amylase and children’s perceptions of their social networks. Social Neuroscience,
11(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1045988
Porges, S. W. (2017). Vagal pathways: Portals to compassion. In E. M. Seppälä, E. Simon-Thomas,
S. L. Brown, M. C. Worline, C. D. Cameron, & J. R. Doty (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of com-
passion science (pp. 189–202). Oxford University Press.
Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of
Behavioral Medicine,12,66–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_4
Potvin, A. S., Penuel, W. R., Dimidjian, S., & Jinpa, T. (2022). Cultivating skillful means of care in
schools through compassion practice and individual and joint inquiry. Mindfulness,15,1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01867-x
Reddy, S. D., Negi, L. T., Dodson-Lavelle, B., Ozawa-de Silva, B., Pace, T. W. W., Cole, S. P.,
Raison, C. L., & Craighead, L. W. (2013). Cognitive-based compassion training: A promising
prevention strategy for at-risk adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies,22(2), 219–
230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9571-7
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., Lawlor, M. S., Abbott, D., Thomson, K., Oberlander, T. F., &
Diamond, A. (2015). Enhancing cognitive and social–emotional development through a
simple-to-administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary school children: A rando-
mized controlled trial. Developmental Psychology,51(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038454
Singer, T., & Klimecki, O. M. (2014). Empathy and compassion. Current Biology,24(18), R875–R878.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054
Spinrad, T. L., & Gal, D. E. (2018). Fostering prosocial behavior and empathy in young children.
Current Opinion in Psychology,20,40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.004
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough.
Journal of Graduate Medical Education,4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-
D-12-00156.1
Kappelmayer et al. 531
Vanaelst, B., De Vriendt, T., Huybrechts, I., Rinaldi, S., & De Henauw, S. (2012). Epidemiological
approaches to measure childhood stress. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology,26(3), 280–297.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01258.x
Viglas, M., & Perlman, M. (2018). Effects of a mindfulness-based program on young children’s
self-regulation, prosocial behavior and hyperactivity. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
27(4), 1150–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0971-6
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human altruism. British Journal of
Psychology,100(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X379061
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences
on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,96(2), 195. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.195
Wisner, B. L. (2014). An exploratory study of mindfulness meditation for alternative school stu-
dents: Perceived benefits for improving school climate and student functioning. Mindfulness,
5(6), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0215-9
Author biographies
Andrea Czar is a clinical psychologist. She obtained a degree in psychology and psycho-
pedagogy. She dedicates her professional clinical practice to work with children and their
families. She specializes in the design of positive interventions for children focusing on
the promotion of compassion and prosocial behavior.
Paola D’Adamo is a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technological
Research and at the National University of Comahue, in Argentina. She has a PhD in
Biological Sciences. Her research topics focus on cognitive and socio-affective processes
related to health and well-being.
Marcela Kappelmayer is a clinical psychologist specialized in working with children
and families. Her research interest is the Design of Positive Interventions for the
Cultivation of Compassionate Disposition and Prosocial Behavior in Children.
Mariana Lozada is a researcher in the National Council of Science and Technology of
Argentina and the National University of Comahue. She got her PhD in neurobiology.
Her research topics are linked to embodied and situated approaches of social cognition
in children. She is particularly interested in enactive perspectives of cognitive science,
health and wellbeing.
Maria Tresca is an educational psychologist (psychopedagogue). She completed her
training at the Ramos Mejía Hospital in Buenos Aires. She is an assistant professor at
Favaloro University and a postgraduate professor at San Isidro University. She leads a
team that treats children with learning disabilities. Her research interests include Study
Skills and Learning strategies.
532 School Psychology International 44(5)
