The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School MOTIVATING

Home , Altered Traits, Compassion fade

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

MOTIVATING ENGAGEMENT WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES

THROUGH COMPASSION TRAINING:

A MULTI-METHOD RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

A Dissertation in

Psychology

Sinhae Cho

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August 2020

The dissertation of Sinhae Cho was reviewed and approved by the following:

José A. Soto Associate Professor of Psychology Sherwin Early Career Professor in the Rock Ethics Institute Dissertation Advisor Co-Chair of Committee

Robert W. Roeser Professor of Human Development and Family Studies Bennett Pierce Professor of Caring and Compassion Co-Chair of Committee

C. Daryl Cameron Assistant Professor of Psychology Research Associate in Rock Ethics Institute

Michael N. Hallquist Assistant Professor of Psychology Assistant Professor of Institute for Computational and Data Sciences

Kristin A. Buss Professor of Psychology Professor of Human Development and Family Studies Head of the Department of Psychology

iii

ABSTRACT To address issues of racial disparities in the US and effect lasting social changes, it is essential for members of privileged groups to learn about the experiences of marginalized individuals and groups. However, this kind of empathic engagement around social justice issues is often avoided by privileged group members due to the potentially high emotional costs associated with engaging with these issues. This multi-method, randomized controlled trial examined a two-week, online-based, self-administered compassion meditation training (vs. reappraisal training) as a method to counter empathy avoidance among White adults with regard to social justice contexts. Specifically, we investigated (1) whether the compassion training increased White adults’ empathic engagement (i.e., outgroup empathy, approach/avoidance physiology, and willingness to engage in social justice dialogue) in a situation where race-related social injustice is highlighted; and (2) whether such effects occur due to an expansion of social resources following training (i.e., perceived connection with close and distant others). Results showed that compassion training (vs. reappraisal training) did not significantly increase White adults’ empathic engagement in racial disparity contexts. Specifically, there was no significant group differences in changes in outgroup empathy from pre- to post-intervention. Similarly, there was no significant group difference in willingness to engage in social justice dialogue at post-intervention. In addition, approach/avoidance physiological patterns during laboratory empathy task did not significantly differ between training groups. However, the non- significant group difference in physiological patterns at post-intervention indicated a moderate to large effect, such that the compassion group showed physiological response patterns partially consistent with approach orientation (increased cardiac activity coupled with vasodilation) whereas the reappraisal group showed patterns more consistent with avoidance orientation (i.e., increased cardiac activity in the absence of vasodilation). Finally, there was a marginally significant group difference in social resources changes from pre- to post-intervention. Perceived connection with close others increased significantly in the compassion group but increased only marginally significantly in the reappraisal group. Perceived connection with distant others increased significantly in the compassion group but did not change in the reappraisal group. The lack of hypothesized effect and related considerations pertaining to practice compliance, outcome measurement, and training model and content are discussed. Additionally, preliminary findings and limitations of the present study are discussed with an aim to inform future studies. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vii

DEDICATION ...... ix

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Problem Statement ...... 1 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ...... 3 Theory of Change ...... 12 Study Summary and Hypotheses ...... 21

Chapter 2. METHOD ...... 24

Participants ...... 24 Study Design and Randomization ...... 25 Description of Study Conditions ...... 25 Measures ...... 27 Study Procedures ...... 35

Chapter 3. RESULTS ...... 39

Preliminary Analyses ...... 39 Impact Analyses ...... 41

Chapter 4. DISCUSSION ...... 58

Lack of Hypothesized Effects ...... 58 Preliminary Findings ...... 67 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 72 Conclusions ...... 74

References ...... 76

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1. Theory of Change ...... 23

Figure 2. 1. Schematic of the ESTb-SJI ...... 37

Figure 2. 2. Design of the ESTp-SJI Trials ...... 37

Figure 3. 1. Effect Size for Main Impact Analyses ...... 52

Figure 3. 2. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to INTRODUCTION Blocks for Each Group at Post-Training ...... 52

Figure 3. 3. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to WAIT Blocks for Each Group at Post-Training ...... 54

Figure 3. 4. Changes in PWS Connection with Close Others from Pre- to Post-Training in the Compassion and Reappraisal Groups ...... 56

Figure 3. 5. Changes in IWAH Connection with Distant Others from Pre- to Post-Training in the Compassion and Reappraisal Groups ...... 57

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. 1. Physiological changes associated with challenge and threat states ...... 38

Table 3. 1. Correlations between Primary Self-Reported and Behavioral Outcome Variables at Post-Training...... 49

Table 3. 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Empathy Choice at Pre- and Post-Training ...... 49

Table 3. 3. Univariate Tests of Group Difference in CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to INTRODUCTION Blocks at Post-Training ...... 49

Table 3. 4. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to INTRODUCTION Blocks for Each Group at Post-Training ...... 50

Table 3. 5. Univariate Tests of Group Difference in CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to WAIT Blocks at Post-Training ...... 50

Table 3. 6. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to WAIT Blocks for Each Group at Post-Training ...... 50

Table 3. 7. Means and Standard Errors of World in Conversation Measure at Post-Training ..... 51

Table 3. 8. Univariate Analysis of Group x Time Interaction on Social Resources ...... 51

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was made possible through the generous support of the Mind and Life

Institute, and the Pennsylvania State University. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the funding agency.

I would like to thank my advisor and co-chair, Dr. José Soto, for inducting me into graduate school and guiding me throughout the dissertation process and graduate training with intellectual guidance, unconditional support, and remarkable compassion. I would also like to thank my co-chair, Dr. Robert Roeser, for providing me with critical guidance, constant encouragement, and practical opportunities to learn and grow as a researcher and teacher. Being part of the Student Flourishing Initiatives has been a highlight of my graduate training. I want to thank Dr. Daryl Cameron for his guidance on designing measures for my dissertation project and for his insightful questioning that continued to probe my thinking. Thank you to Dr. Michael

Hallquist for his critical questioning and providing practical guidance for data analysis. I am also grateful to my Master’s advisor, Dr. Kyung Ja Oh, whose keen insights and wisdom guided my entire graduate training, and who serve as a stellar role model for female academic.

I would also like to thank my lovely 2013 Psychology cohort: Kay Shin, Sindes Dawood,

Meg Cadden, Rachel Bernier, and Luc LaFreniere. It has been an honor and pleasure to go through graduate training with such a supportive, brilliant, and fun group of friends. I am also grateful to my labmates: Nana Dawson-Andoh, Mark Minnick, Arezou Mortazavi, Anna

Salomaa, Natalia Van Doren, Summer Braun, and Blake Colaianne. Thank you for always being there for me in moments of joy, panic, commiseration, and much more throughout the entire graduate school. I would also like to thank my incredible (pandemic) internship cohort: Neil

Meyer, Melanie Hom, Jesse Kosiba, Sun Yoon, Libby Lewis, and Zak Millman. Their practical viii support and lunchtime laughs made a big difference during the final spurt of my dissertation process. Thanks also to my wonderful research assistants: Emma Burke, Marco Ciappetta, and

Claire Fountas. They made a fantastic and dedicated team, and it has been a privilege to work with such talented young minds.

Finally, I want to extend my deepest gratitude to my family for their unconditional love, guidance, and support. Thank you to my brother, Seungwoo Cho, who is an amazing friend, teacher, and fellow traveler for me in this life. His creative and bright mind helps me pause, reflect, and grow at critical points of my life. Thank you to my father, Young Jo Cho, who is a brilliant real-world academic outside of academia and instilled in me the appreciation of curiosity and academic pursuit. Thank you also for teaching me the beauty of diligence. Thank you to my mother, Myungsuk Hwang, whose dedication to spiritual pursuit and compassionate actions inspired me to explore contemplative practices and clinical psychology. She is the ultimate inspiration in my life.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Myungsuk Hwang, and my father, Young Jo

Cho, with my gratitude for their unwavering love, trust, and inspiration.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

As racial and political polarizations deepen across the country and around the globe, society faces many complex social justice issues requiring difficult intergroup dialogue. To address such polarization productively, members from all sides need to practice empathic understanding and compassion towards out-group members, even in the face of challenging emotions surrounding social justice issues (e.g., guilt, anger) (Watt, 2007). Such empathic engagement among people and groups with differing contemporary and historical experiences and viewpoints is critical for promoting collaborative social changes towards an equitable and inclusive society.

Members of social groups with greater privilege and power have a unique and important role in influencing such social changes. Historically, individuals in oppressed and marginalized groups have been and continue to be the central force in driving important social movements towards equity (e.g., Black Lives Matter; Feminist movement). Yet, this endeavor is convoluted by structural barriers such as lack of resources and social status, making it difficult to influence lasting change, especially on a systemic level. On the other hand, members in privileged groups have more power, status, and opportunities to assist in transforming patterns of injustice and generating systemic and institutional changes. Thus, individuals in privileged groups have a potential to act as an important catalyst for enduring social changes. To actualize this potential, privileged group members must first be motivated to pay attention to and learn about social justice issues and people who are negatively affected by these issues. 2

However, engagement with social justice issues is difficult, and thus is often avoided among privileged group members (Sue, 2013; Tatum, 1992; Valentine et al., 2012). For example,

White students and professors are less willing to engage with discussions around race and racism than their person of color counterparts (Sue, Lin, et al., 2009; Sue, Torino, et al., 2009). This avoidance can manifest in a number of different ways such as refusing to participate in discussions, remaining silent, diverting the conversation to another topic, diluting the importance of the issues being discussed, or intellectualizing the problems (Sue, 2013; Watt et al., 2009).

Avoidance, in turn, limits the possibility of empathic sharing (vicarious resonance with others’ experiences) with members of oppressed groups—an essential first step for developing comprehensive awareness of social justice issues (Watt, 2007). Limited understanding of and continued disengagement with social justice issues among privileged group members further perpetuate the problems of injustice and disparities.

In this study, we sought to investigate ways to mitigate this problem of disengagement with social justice issues among White adults in situations where social justice issues, namely, racial disparities are highlighted. Specifically, we examined a meditation training that cultivates compassion as one method to increase empathic engagement in race-related social justice contexts. We also investigated the mechanism by which the proposed prosocial effect might arise, with a focus on the possible mediating role of social resources indexed via perceptions of connection with others. This work may provide important practical and theoretical implications by examining compassion training as a potential solution to avoidance of social justice issues; and advancing our understanding of the processes through which compassion training shapes prosocial outcomes in a social justice context that is highly relevant to today’s society.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Understanding Empathy Avoidance in Social Justice Situations

Increased Demands in Social Justice Situations. Prior studies have shown that people, in general and on average, avoid feeling empathy (i.e., sharing feelings of others) when the perceived costs of doing so are high. For instance, people avoid engaging in empathy more when doing so is expected to cost money or time (Andreoni et al., 2017; Cameron & Payne, 2011;

Shaw et al., 1994) produce more psychological distress (Cameron et al., 2016), or require more cognitive effort (Cameron et al., 2019). Relatedly, presumably due to the costs, empathy is reduced when individuals are confronted with chronic, large-scale problems such as war or genocide as well as in response to a large number of victims compared to a single victim (Slovic,

2007; Small et al., 2007; Västfjäll et al., 2014). It appears that empathy is hard work to begin with, and when there are additional deterrents (e.g., increased material, cognitive, or emotional costs/demands) to empathy, it becomes even more difficult and is avoided.

For White individuals, being confronted with issues of racial disparities may be a situation where the costs to being empathic are perceived to be rather high (Ancis & Szymanski,

2001; Arminio, 2001; Utsey et al., 2005; Watt, 2007). Three aspects of race-related social justice issues may be worth noting in relation to potential emotional costs to empathy in racial disparity contexts. First, social justice problems are systematic, complex, and chronic. This may result in people being overwhelmed by the perceived magnitude of the problems and feel powerless to do anything to mitigate them. Such increased demands of the problems and associated emotional costs (e.g., feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness; Spanierman et al., 2008) may lead to a motivation to disengage from the problems, resulting in greater empathy avoidance. 4

Second, systematic social justice issues may implicate the identities of White people in the problem under consideration itself. Because the problems of racial inequity manifest on the basis of interlocking hierarchies of power and privilege in our society, factors that place some people at a disadvantage necessarily put others in a relatively advantaged position. Thus, for those with a privileged status (e.g., White individuals in this study), addressing racial disparities necessitates first confronting one’s privileges, biases and role in the system of injustice

(McIntosh, 1989). Bringing unconscious biases to consciousness is likely self-threatening and aversive, because it conflicts with the general proclivity to see the self as good or at least morally neutral (e.g., “racism puts some at disadvantage, but I don’t participate in or benefit from it.”)

(Alicke & Sedikides, 2009). Emotional costs to such a confrontation could include experiences of guilt, anger, fear, and shame. As a result, White individuals may avoid social justice issues all together or use higher order processes (e.g., rationalization) to protect their self-images in discussing racial disparity issues (Tatum, 1992; Watt et al., 2009). Either way, empathic engagement is likely inhibited. On the other hand, for those with social statuses associated with marginalization, engaging with racial disparity problems may present other kinds of emotional challenges associated with their low power/disadvantaged status within the system of inequity

(e.g., anger, sadness, shame, fear, despair). While it may be possible to counter these negative reactions to confronting social justice problems over time (e.g., gaining sense of agency rather than feeling powerless by confronting and working to address social justice problems), the initial process of engaging with social justice contexts may be effortful and costly in both privileged and marginalized group members.

Finally, race-related social justice contexts likely involve interactions among members of various racial groups with different power statuses and thus vastly differing experiences and 5 viewpoints. When the interactional partner is someone who is deemed to be an out-group member, this adds an extra barrier to empathic engagement. Cross-race intergroup contexts have been identified as one type of situation that elicits both psychological and physiological threat responses (Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002). This may be a function of both sensitivity to saying or doing something deemed inappropriate and the fact that we feel less identified with and concerned about those perceived as “out-group” vs. “in-group” members.

Indeed, a wide body of evidence suggests that feelings of empathy and compassion for out-group members compared to in-group members are reduced (e.g., Cikara et al., 2014; Dovidio et al.,

1997; Gutsell & Inzlicht, 2012).

This pattern is consistent with the classic evolutionary perspective on pro-sociality that humans are evolved to extend pro-social behaviors only to a small group of people that are genetically related, because the very purpose of pro-sociality is to promote the reproduction and survival of one’s genes (Hamilton, 1964). Furthermore, evidence suggests that not only is pro- sociality reduced towards others with whom individuals share less commonality (Hammond &

Axelrod, 2006), but people may even exhibit anti-sociality towards dissimilar others (Hamlin et al., 2013). From the evolutionary perspective, out-group anti-sociality may have evolved in the context of the intergroup competition for resources and the need to avoid contagious disease from out-groups (For review of the evolutionary perspectives, see Van Vugt & Park, 2009).

Thus, the empathic responding to the suffering of oppressed racial out-group members may be an inherently challenging task as it may run counter to not only culturally-shaped attitudes and biases, but also evolution-based tendencies as well.

In sum, the perceived magnitude of the systematic social justice problem, a potential threat to identity, and cross-race intergroup contexts together may increase perceived demands of 6 the racial disparity situations in White individuals. This may then motivate White individuals to use avoidant styles of coping whether it is an actual avoidance (e.g., avoiding racial disparity topics) or emotional avoidance (e.g., distancing, rationalizing) during social justice dialogues.

The result is reduced empathic engagement, characterized by reduced motivation to turn towards and share in the feelings and perspectives of racial out-group members suffering from racial disparities related to health, housing, income and so on.

Threat Evaluation and Avoidance Response in High-Demands Situations. The biopsychosocial model of threat and challenge (BPSM; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996), rooted in

Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) appraisal model of coping and stress can be useful in understanding the kinds of considerations made by White individuals when disengaging in racial disparity situations. The BPSM proposes that when faced with a stressful situation, individuals automatically evaluate the demands of the situation as well as their personal resources to meet the demands. Individuals are more likely to approach the situation if they evaluate that they possess the necessary resources to cope with situational demands (challenge evaluation). Threat evaluation, in contrast, occurs when individuals determine that they lack the necessary resources to cope with demands of the situation, which leads to an avoidance response. A number of factors influence the evaluation of demands and resource. For example, danger, novelty, uncertainty, and cognitive effort have been shown to increase perceived demands. On the other hand, factors that increase resources include, but are not limited to, certain dispositions (e.g., optimism), knowledge and abilities relevant to the situation, and social support (Blascovich &

Mendes, 2010).

Applying the threat and challenge framework, it is possible that White individuals may evaluate a racial disparity context as a threat situation where demands outweigh available 7 resources. That is, White individuals may perceive significant emotional costs to being confronted with information regarding racial disparities given the large scale of the problem, a potential threat to identity, and its cross-race intergroup context, while perceiving themselves as unable to cope with such emotional costs and/or remedy such societal problems. This threat evaluation leads to empathy avoidance in racial disparity contexts. Emotional disengagement in turn undermines the development of comprehensive awareness around racial disparity issues, which then further reduces motivation to engage with these issues, and thus, creating a negative cycle that perpetuates the system of injustice (Watt, 2007). Therefore, exploring ways to address and improve the problem of empathy avoidance and lack of engagement with social justice issues in privileged group members is urgently needed in order to break out this negative cycle and start generating positive social changes.

Motivating Empathic Engagement in Social Justice Situations

Compassion Training Promotes Out-group Pro-sociality. The Developmental

Contemplative Science (DCS) perspective on compassion proposes that pro-social qualities such as compassion can be cultivated through deliberate practice and education and directed even to out-group members (e.g., those whom we perceive as neutral or even as “enemies”) (Roeser et al., 2018). Compassion has been conceptualized as a process that involves the following five elements: 1) recognizing suffering, 2) understanding the universality of suffering in human experience, 3) emotionally resonating with the suffering person, 4) tolerating distress, and 5) being motivated to act to alleviate suffering (Strauss et al., 2016). Each of these constituent elements of compassion are hypothesized to be malleable skills that can be cultivated through effort, mentoring and deliberate practice. Moreover, the sphere of empathic concern of individuals can hypothetically be expanded over time from what are referred to as “bounded 8 spheres” where compassion is rather effortlessly extended (e.g., to family and in-group members as suggested by evolutionary theories) to what are referred to as “unbounded spheres” where compassion is extended to a wider group of others (e.g., out-groups, all humanity, sentient beings) (Roeser et al., 2018).

This developmental view on compassion is in line with the perspective from the Eastern contemplative traditions, particularly Buddhist traditions. From this perspective, humans can cultivate unlimited and unconditional pro-sociality towards all living-beings including humans and even non-humans—the ultimate out-group for humans (Dodson-Lavelle, 2017). In the

Buddhist worldview, the ultimate goal of all sentient beings is enlightenment or freedom, which is achieved through the realization of the true nature of self and reality. Compassion is conceptualized as having a central role in this path to enlightenment. As such, various practices to cultivate compassion have been developed and used for centuries. More recently, these practices have influenced the development of modern, secularized compassion trainings in the

West. While these trainings vary meaningfully in their theories and specific practices (Dodson-

Lavelle, 2017), they all aim to cultivate generalized prosocial motivation and action for wider and wider spheres of beings, and to use contemplative practices to achieve these goals.

Research findings support that these compassion trainings (e.g., loving-kindness meditation, compassion meditation) have promising potentials for cultivating pro-sociality and positive interpersonal outcomes (Condon et al., 2013; Klimecki et al., 2013; Leiberg et al., 2011;

Weng et al., 2013). Several studies have reported that compassion trainings increase compassionate feelings and helping behaviors. For example, an eight-week compassion training increased helping behaviors towards a suffering stranger (confederate) in an ecologically valid experimental paradigm (Condon et al., 2013). In another study, a two-week compassion training 9 led to greater prosocial behaviors towards an unfairly treated stranger in a computer based economic decision-making game (Weng et al., 2013). Similarly, even a one-day (6 hours) loving-kindness meditation workshop led to an increase in compassionate feelings and prosocial behaviors towards strangers in a computer based economic decision-making game requiring cooperation, even in situations when there was no possibility of getting any help in return

(Leiberg et al., 2011). Thus, compassion meditation trainings appear to be a promising intervention for enhancing prosocial engagement in social justice contexts.

Compassion Training Expands Social Resources. While many studies reported the prosocial benefit of compassion training, the process through with compassion training facilitates prosocial outcomes is still unclear. One such process may be related to the expansion of individuals’ resources, namely, their social resources (i.e., perceptions of connection with others). Previous studies have shown that compassion trainings increase perceived connection with others. Even a brief loving-kindness meditation exercise increased a perceived sense of connection toward strangers (Hutcherson et al., 2008). A seven-week loving-kindness meditation increased perceived social support and positive relations with others (Fredrickson et al., 2008).

Moreover, compassion training increased brain activations in medial orbitofrontal cortex, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, and ventral striatum—areas typically associated with affiliation and social connectedness (Klimecki et al., 2013).

When individuals feel more connected to close others, they are more inclined to engage with the challenging task at hand. For example, increasing the accessibility of the representation of close others by visualizing close positive relationships in laboratory settings increases willingness to continue engaging with self-threatening information (Kumashiro & Sedikides,

2005) and willingness to interact with potentially threatening out-group members (Mikulincer & 10

Shaver, 2001). Parallel effects have also been observed in empathically demanding situations.

Being primed with supportive others both implicitly and explicitly led to more empathy and helping behavior when faced with distressed individuals in need (Mikulincer et al., 2001, 2005).

Importantly, this effect was observed even when the target individuals in need were out-group members (Mikulincer et al., 2001).

Compassion meditation may increase perceived connection with close others, that is, social resources by increasing the accessibility of their social representations in individuals’ minds. In compassion training, individuals are asked to deliberately visualize close relational others in their mind and generate compassion towards them. Through repeatedly accessing social representations of close others and imbuing them with positive valence (e.g., sending compassion), such perceived social resources may be more readily accessible in relevant situations (See Roeser & Pinela, 2014 for discussion), which in turn, may motivate greater engagement in empathically demanding situations.

In addition to increasing perceived connection to close people (Fredrickson et al., 2008), compassion training may also increase perceived connection with distant others who are not in their immediate social circle (e.g., all humans, all sentient beings), further expanding social resources. In compassion training, individuals are asked to visualize and extend compassion to not only close relational others but also more distant others including strangers, difficult others, and all humanity. Theoretically, this process is designed to help practitioners expand their targets of compassion to eventually include all humans and all sentient beings. As one’s sphere of compassion expands to include more people and groups of varying backgrounds, individuals may experience greater sense of connection with people in general—all humanity. Although the perceived connection with all humanity has never been studied as resources in the approach 11

(challenge) vs. avoidance (threat) framework, we propose that this also functions as resources, just as perceived connection with close others do, and motivates engagement in empathically demanding situations.

Social Resources Offset Demands and Motivate Approach Response. The positive effects of social resources in promoting approach responses in threatening situations is line with the social baseline theory (Coan & Sbarra, 2015). This theory proposes that because humans are social species that have evolved to function most optimally within the social group, human brains by default expect access to social relationships that are characterized by interdependence, trust, and shared goals. This means that the brain interprets situations in which social relationships are not available as unpredictable and unusual, which leads to an over-estimation of the overall demands one is confronting. On the other hand, the presence of social relationships decreases perceived demands in the environment. For example, standing next to a friend literally makes hills appear less steep (Schnall et al., 2008). Similarly, simple handholding can substantially decrease neural responses associated with threat and pain (Coan et al., 2006), and the effect becomes stronger with higher relationship quality (Coan et al., 2013). Thus, it looks as though human brains take into account the availability of relational others when assessing their own resources. When social resources are available, personal resources are literally expanded, and individuals may perceive themselves as more capable of meeting environmental demands and be more likely to approach demanding situations. Compassion meditation trainings may generate approach responses in empathically challenging situations through this same route, by increasing perceptions of connection with others (close others and all humanity), thus, expanding social resources. 12

In sum, the developmental contemplative science perspectives (Roeser et al., 2018) suggest that out-group pro-sociality can be cultivated through deliberate practices such as compassion training. Previous research suggests that compassion meditation training cultivates greater perceptions of connections with others (e.g., Fredrickson et al., 2008). Based on both the challenge vs. threat framework (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996) and social baseline theory (Coan

& Sbarra, 2015), it appears that increased perceptions of connections with others may function as social resources, which allow individuals to approach, rather than avoid, empathically challenging situations. However, no studies have yet to test this possibility in White adults populations encountering information about racial disparities in US society. In this study, we sought to examine if compassion meditation training indeed promotes greater empathic engagement among White individuals in situations where racial disparity issues are highlighted, and whether the proposed effect is mediated by the expansion of social resources1.

Theory of Change

Based on Blascovich and Tomaka’s (1996) conceptualization of resources/demands evaluations associated with threat (avoidance) and challenge (approach) responses, social justice issues, when coupled with insufficient resources may be perceived as highly demanding and threatening, leading to greater avoidance and reduced empathic engagement. Theoretically, increasing resources may offset the high demands of these situations and motivate greater empathic engagement. In this study, we propose that compassion meditation may motivate greater empathic engagement in highly demanding social justice situations through increasing social resources (Figure 1.1). Even though we were mainly interested in social resources as a potential mediator in this study, we acknowledge that the full logic model of the pathway

1 This study has been pre-registered at the American Economic Association’s registry for randomized controlled trials (socialsicenceregistry.org) (RCT ID: AEARCTR-0003828; Cho, 2019) 13 through which compassion training leads to a greater empathic engagement may include other key elements of compassion discussed above but not included in our model, such as increased distress tolerance and emotional resonance skills. The effects of these other variables are outside the scope of this study and should be examined in future research.

In addition to examining the training effect on motivation to engage with social justice issues, this study also sought to replicate Weng et al.’s (2013) finding on altruistic behaviors.

Using the same training protocol as the one used in this study (see Method for details), Weng and colleagues (2013) found that compassion training increased altruistic behaviors in a computer- based economic decision-making game. This replication effort will enable us to test if compassion training under investigation had an intended effect of increasing prosocial behaviors outside of racial disparity contexts. Based on prior research (Condon et al., 2013; Weng et al.,

2013), we propose that compassion training will lead to greater altruistic behaviors. Furthermore, we propose that the link between compassion meditation and altruistic behaviors may be mediated by increased social resources. A description of each portion of the logic model, as well as hypothesized causal dynamics, is presented in the next section.

Compassion Meditation and Importance of Practice

Based on Strauss et al.’s (2016) five-part model of compassion, we operationalized compassion as a process that involves 1) recognizing suffering, 2) understanding the universality of suffering in human experience, 3) emotionally resonating with the suffering person, 4) tolerating distress, and 5) being motivated to act to alleviate suffering. In compassion meditation training, meditators actively generate this process of compassion by deliberately bringing the suffering person into their mind, understanding the common wish of humans to be happy and not to suffer, recognizing and resonating with their suffering while tolerating distress, and generating 14 wishes to alleviate that person’s suffering. Meditation sessions usually begin with the practitioner directing compassion to a loved one who may be suffering, and then to the self, a stranger, and a difficult person as well. This systemic process of generating compassion seeks to extend the scope of compassion from bounded to unbounded spheres, and to gradually lead to insight regarding the pervasiveness and universality of suffering in one’s own life and in the lives of others, thereby increasing a broadly applied motivation to reduce suffering in self and others.

While research on compassion meditation has increased dramatically in recent years, one of the common criticisms about these studies is the absence of active control condition

(Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015). Previous studies often examined the effect of training in the absence of control condition or utilizing a wait-list control design, making it difficult to interpret if the reported findings were indeed caused by training-specific factors. This is in part due to challenges in finding or creating a control training condition that is compatible to compassion meditation. Ideally, a compatible control training would need to be matched with compassion training in terms of its structure (e.g., individual vs. group, length), training expectation, teacher training, certification, and experiences, etc. Yet, despite these challenges, utilizing an active control group is an important next step to enhance our understanding of the effects and mechanisms of compassion meditation.

Another important criticism in meditation intervention research is the lack of explicit and reliable assessment of fidelity in intervention delivery and practice (Kirby et al., 2017). The majority of meditation intervention research utilizes an add-on or sometimes stand-alone home practice as an important component of intervention. As such, information about practice compliance and practice dose is critical for examining the intervention effect more thoroughly. 15

However, prior research often did not include explicit assessment of these measures (Kirby et al.,

2017; Quach et al., 2017). Furthermore, when practice data is included, it often is measured based on retrospective self-reports. Self-reported responses are susceptible to memory bias and social desirability, limiting the interpretability of reported information. In this study, we tried to address these limitations in our study design.

Using a randomized controlled trial design with an active control condition, this study examined the effect of compassion training on prosocial outcomes in social justice contexts. We used a two-week, online-based, self-administered compassion meditation training developed by

Weng et al. (2013) (See Methods for details). This training utilizes an active control condition

(reappraisal training) that was matched in its training and delivery structure and developer’s experience and expertise. We also assessed practice compliance using both self-report and participants’ patterns of training website use that are automatically logged.

We hypothesize that if practiced, compassion meditation (vs. active control training) will lead people to develop greater awareness and construct accessibility of representations of close others, as well as greater connection to and construct accessibility of distant other social representations. The availability and accessibility of these social resources is hypothesized to provide resources that offset the demands of engaging with social justice issues, and thus lead to greater approach motivation and engagement in such contexts (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).

Social Resources

Based on work by Fredrickson et al. (2008) and the five-part model of compassion

(Strauss et al., 2016), we operationalized social resources–a key mediating process in our proposed model of change–as perceptions of connection with close and distant social others. 16

Perceived Connection with Close Others. Previous studies have operationalized social resources mostly in relation to relationships with close others – whether the focus was on the perceived availability of social supports (Kumashiro & Sedikides, 2005), the physical presence of social supports (Coan et al., 2006), perceptions of positive relationships and connection

(Fredrickson et al., 2008), or secure attachment style developed through receiving adequate care during development (Mikulincer et al., 2001). In line with these conceptualizations, this study also focuses on resources provided by close others, which were measured via the perceptions of positive relationships and connection in one’s immediate social environment.

Perceived Connection with Distant Others. In addition, we also considered perceptions of connection with distant others (i.e., all humanity) as another source of social resources. Even though this type of social connection has never been included in the conceptualization of social resources in previous studies, we think that this could be another important aspect of resources in this study. This is because compassion training entails the systematic generation of compassion towards not only close others but also distant others, which may over time enhance the awareness of the interconnected nature of human lives and increase perceived connection with all humanity. We believe that examining the perceived connection with all humanity along with connection with close others under the construct of social resources would provide an interesting opportunity to extend previous work.

Motivation to Engage with Social Justice Issues (SJI)

We used multi-method measures to assess participants’ motivation to engage with SJI, including behavioral, physiological, and self-report measures. These include (1) willingness to choose to turn towards and emphasize with out-group victims of social injustice in a behavioral choice task, (2) challenge physiology (vs. threat physiology) when asked to empathize with out- 17 group victims of social injustice, and (3) self-reported willingness to participate in actual social justice dialogues offered at the university where the study took place.

Willingness to Engage in Out-group Empathy. First, we were interested in whether or not compassion training indeed increases willingness to choose to turn towards and feel empathy for racial out-group members suffering due to race-related social injustices in the U.S. (e.g., racial disparities in housing, health care, employment, law enforcement, etc.). Empathy plays a vital role in motivating cooperation and resolving conflicts (Preston, 2013), and emotional sharing has been found to be an essential ingredient for constructive social justice dialogues that lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the problem (Watt, 2007). Therefore, individuals’ conscious decision to share the emotions and perspectives of those that are suffering from social injustice is one of important markers of empathic engagement.

In this study, to assess White individuals’ willingness to turn towards the suffering caused by racial disparities, we adapted a laboratory measure of real time empathy decision- making (Empathy Selection Task; Cameron et al., 2019). In the original task, participants are presented with a social target (e.g., the face of distressed person) and are asked to choose between emotionally empathizing and objectively describing the target over repeated trials.

Previous studies using the EST have reliably shown that people tend to avoid feeling empathy and choose to remain detached from social targets especially when perceived costs of empathy are deemed high (i.e., more effortful, stressful, and inefficacious) (Cameron et al., 2019). For this study, we modified the EST and created a new set of stimuli that were pilot tested prior to this study. In the modified EST, the social target stimuli represent out-group (African American) adults described as suffering from racial disparities related to issues like housing, employment, health care, etc. (ESTb-SJI; See Method for details). Based on previous research showing that 18 compassion training enhances the motivation to turn towards those who are suffering and engage in altruistic behavior (e.g., Condon et al., 2013; Weng et al., 2013), we hypothesize that compassion training will promote higher rates of choosing to emotionally emphasize with (rather than objectively describe) out-group individuals suffering from racial disparities.

Challenge (Approach) vs. Threat (Avoidance) Physiology. In addition to assessing behavioral choice to empathize, we were also interested in assessing White individuals’ physiological reactions when they were asked to empathize with out-group members suffering from racial disparities. Participants’ physiological responses were collected using a physiological version of EST-SJI (ESTp-SJI; see Method for details). We aimed to examine whether compassion training leads to greater challenge (approach) rather than threat (avoidance) responses in the presence of racial disparity information compared to control training.

Studies have shown that individuals’ threat and challenge evaluations differ in their physiological profiles (Blascovich, 2013), which can provide a relatively unbiased assessment of the demands-resources evaluation process. Given that demands-resources evaluations can also occur at a less conscious and more automatic level (Blascovich & Mendes, 2010), physiological responses when asked to empathize in a racial disparity context complement conscious decision to engage in empathy as measured via the behavioral EST (ESTb-SJI) described above.

Physiological profiles of threat and challenge were first proposed in the theory of physiological toughness informed by animal research (Dienstbier, 1989). These profiles were later validated in humans (Blascovich, 2013). Both threat and challenge responses are associated with greater sympathetic neural and adrenal medullary (SAM) axis activation. This activation increases myocardial contractility, especially left ventricle (the final pumping chamber of the heart forcing blood to the body) contractility (VC) and heart rate (HR). Such activation also 19 produces increased release of epinephrine into the bloodstream. This then leads to a further increase of HR and a dilation of the arteries, thus, decreasing total systemic peripheral vascular resistance (TPR). This will eventuate in increased blood flow to the periphery, indexed by cardiac output (CO).

However, in addition to SAM activation, physiological threat responses are also associated with activation of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis. This activation leads to sustained adrenal cortical release of cortisol which dampens the abovementioned SAM effects on TPR. The results are eliminations of both SAM-driven decreases in TPR and related increases in blood flow (CO). Thus, threat responses, while still coupled with increased sympathetic activation, are characterized by reduced cardiac efficiency and vasoconstriction (i.e., increases in

VC and HR, but little changes in CO and little changes or even increases in TPR).

In this study, to assess challenge and threat physiology. we measured participants’ physiological responses in anticipation of, as well as during, empathy generation trials of the

ESTp-SJI (See Method for details). We assessed physiology both before and during the empathy tasks because demands-resources evaluations are ongoing processes, and thus, the evaluation process during anticipation of the empathy task and the evaluation process during actual performance may be distinct. We predict that compassion training would expand individuals’ social resources to offset high demands in empathically challenging racial disparity contexts, and therefore, will be associated with challenge physiological responses (vs. threat physiological responses).

Willingness to Participate in Social Justice Dialogues. A third way we measured individuals’ motivation to engage with SJI is in terms of participants’ self-reported interest in participating in social justice dialogues around race—a situation where difficult emotions around 20 social justice issues might normally increase demands and motivate avoidance responses.

Specifically, we were interested in participants’ willingness to participate in intergroup social justice dialogues offered by Penn State’s World in Conversation (worldinconversation.org).

World in Conversation is a Penn State’s student-driven intergroup dialogue program, started in

2002. World in Conversation’s mission is to explore controversial yet important topics around diversity and inclusion that people tend to avoid. It hosts about 3,000 domestic and international dialogues per year, and participants come from all Penn State campuses as well as universities and local organization around the world (e.g., China, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) The intergroup dialogue, while often perceived as difficult to engage in due to its high emotional costs, has been found to be an excellent catalyst for increasing balanced awareness around social justice problems (Watt, 2007). Indeed, 70% of World in Conversation domestic participants from 2018-

2019 academic year indicated that the dialogues made them want to learn more about the topic discussed, 83% indicated that this experience allowed them to think more critically about the topic, and 91% indicated that the conversations they started would make a difference (World in

Conversation Annual Report, 2019). As such, the willingness to engage in World in

Conversation dialogues upon the completion of the study would serve as a meaningful and ecologically valid measure of engagement with SJI.

Altruistic Behaviors

In addition, we were also interested in examining whether or not the compassion training under investigation has any effect in increasing altruistic behaviors outside of racial disparity contexts. In the original study that examined the effect of the current compassion meditation training (Weng et al., 2013), participants who received compassion training compared to those who received reappraisal training showed significantly greater altruistic behaviors. The altruistic 21 behavior was measured by the amount of money individuals spent in order to re-allocate unfair distribution of monetary resources from the dictator to the victim in the Redistribution Game—a computer-based economic decision-making game (See Measures for details). The present study used the same measure and attempted to replicate the previous finding. This measure would serve as a measure of altruistic behaviors outside of racial disparity contexts, and thus, supplement other measures focused specifically on responses to SJI.

Study Summary and Hypotheses

This multi-method, randomized controlled trial examined a two-week, online-based, self- administered compassion meditation training (vs. reappraisal training) as a method to counter empathy avoidance among White adults with regard to social justice contexts. Specifically, we investigated (1) whether the compassion training increased White adults’ empathic engagement

(i.e., outgroup empathy, approach/avoidance physiology, and willingness to engage in social justice dialogue) in a situation where race-related social injustice is highlighted; and (2) whether such effects occur due to an expansion of perceived social resources following training (i.e., perceived connection with close and distant others). The following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1: Participants in compassion group (vs. reappraisal group) will show a greater increase, from pre- to post-training, in their willingness to empathize with racial out- group victims of social injustice in the ESTb-SJI

Hypothesis 2: At post-training, participants in compassion group (vs. reappraisal group) will demonstrate physiological responses more consistent with challenge states (approach- orientation) when asked to empathize with racial out-group victims of social injustice in the

ESTp-SJI. 22

Hypothesis 3: At post-training, participants in compassion group (vs. reappraisal group) will indicate a greater willingness to learn about and engage in the World in Conversation dialogues.

Hypothesis 4: At post-training, participants in compassion group (vs. reappraisal group) will exhibit more altruistic behaviors in the Redistribution Game, replicating prior study (Weng et al., 2013).

Hypothesis 5: The above effects, when present, will be mediated by the increase in social resources in compassion group as measured by perceptions of connection with close and distant others.

Figure 1. 1. Theory of Change Motivation to

Intervention and Practice Social Resources Engagement with SJI

↑ Empathy Choice

↑ Perceived Connection with Close Others Compassion ↑ Challenge Meditation Practice Physiology ↑ Perceived Connection with Distant Others ↑ Social Justice Dialogue

Altruistic Behaviors

↑ Donation in Redistribution Game

Chapter 2

METHOD

Participants

The sample size for this training study was determined based on a power analysis. A priority power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) indicated that on the basis of the effect size reported in previous study using the same training protocol (Weng et al., 2013; d = 0.65), a sample size of 76 would be needed to detect the effect as significant at the 5% level with the recommended power of .80 (Jacob Cohen, 1992).

Participants were recruited from a large state university in the Northeastern United States through online and offline advertisements. Eligibility criteria included being (1) Caucasian-

American born and raised in the U.S., (2) English-speaking, (3) at least 18 years old, (4) having no pre-existing, diagnosed mental health conditions, (5) having no prior experience with regular meditative practice, and (6) having no prior experience with cognitive behavioral therapy. Five- hundred ninety-two participants completed the initial eligibility screening survey. The study team conducted a phone interview with eligible participants to provide more detailed information about the study procedures, answer any questions, and schedule laboratory assessment sessions for those who decided to enroll.

Eighty participants enrolled in the study. Two participants were found to not meet eligibility criteria during their pre-training visit (i.e., non-US citizen, born and raised outside of the US) and thus were excluded from the study. Among the remaining 78 participants, 73 participants completed the study (ncomp = 36, nreap = 37). Mean age of participants was 21.04 (SD

= 2.44), 63% of participants were female (nfemale = 46, nmale = 27), and 93% of participants were college students (nstudent = 68, nnon-student = 5). 25

Participants received monetary compensation up to $110 for their participation in this study, depending on their participation rate. More specifically, participants received $30 compensation for each of the two 3-hour laboratory visits ($60 total) in addition to $2 compensation for completing each daily survey during the 14-day training period. To incentivize on-going completion of measures, participants received an additional bonus of $12 if they completed at least 80% of the daily surveys (11 out of 14 surveys). Finally, participants had a chance to earn additional $10 while playing the Redistribution Game at their post-training laboratory visit.

Study Design and Randomization

The study design is a randomized control trial with an active control group. Using an active control group was preferable to a waitlist control or no control design in order to rule out nonspecific factors that might account for treatment effects (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015).

Participants were randomly allocated to one of two, 2-week trainings (compassion training or cognitive reappraisal training; Weng et al., 2013), stratified by gender (male, female) and age

(under 21, 21-25, over 25) to insure equal representation of varying gender and age groups across the 2 training groups. Before and after the training period, participants completed a laboratory assessment consisting of self-report, behavioral, and physiological measures of social resources and motivation to engage with SJI.

Description of Study Conditions

The compassion and reappraisal trainings under investigation have been developed and tested by Weng and colleagues (2013). Both trainings entailed 30 minutes of daily home practice using recorded audio guides. Participants accessed the training audio guide on the training website, which was accessed through a daily link sent out to participants via email or phone text 26 message every morning at 8AM. Participants who did not access the sent link by 5PM and

9:30PM received a reminder message at 5PM and 9:30PM. Participants practiced the training at the place and time of their choosing.

Compassion training involved contemplating others’ suffering and wishing them to be free from that suffering, moving from close/easy to more distant/challenging targets (e.g., persons or groups). As participants practiced compassion for an envisioned target, they were invited to silently repeat the phrases such as “May you be free from suffering. May you have joy and happiness.” They were also invited to visualize a golden light extending from their heart to others to help ease their suffering. The practice of generating compassion began with a loved one

(e.g., friends, family, pet) and then shifted to the self, to a stranger (e.g., a bus driver, someone on the street), and eventually, to a difficult person in one’s life (e.g., coworker or significant other with whom one has a conflict). In this way, the practice aims to cultivate compassion and the wish for socially close and distant others to be well and free from suffering.

In reappraisal training, participants were asked to think about an upsetting event in the past in a different, less upsetting way, using 3 different strategies. These strategies included (1) thinking about the situation from another person’s perspective (e.g., friend, parent), (2) viewing it in a way where they would respond with very little emotion, and (3) imagining how they would view the situation if a year had passed, and they were doing very well. As participants applied each strategy, they were instructed to write down their new thoughts and rate the intensity of their feelings in a worksheet.

Measures

Practice Compliance

Participants’ practice compliance was assessed via both objective (training website usage log) and subjective measures (self-report measure). As the training audio recordings were accessed online daily, the amount of time participants stayed on the online training page, as well as how many times a mouse was clicked on that page, were automatically logged. The average minutes (per day) that participants spent on the online training page was used as a marker of daily practice “dose”. In addition, the objective number of training days was computed by counting the number of days participants clicked on the online training page at least once (which is required to play the training audio guide). These two measures served as relatively more objective indicators of practice compliance. Participants also completed a daily online self-report measure assessing whether or not they completed the assigned training on a given day. We used this self-report measure to calculate a subjective indicator of practice compliance, namely, the number of self-reported training days completed.

Social Resources

Positive Relations with Others Subscale of the Psychological Well-being Scale

(PWS). The Positive Relations with Others subscale of the Psychological Well-being Scale

(Ryff, 1989) is composed of 7 items that measure perceptions of connection with close others in their life. Items include, “I know that I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me” and “I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns

[reversed].” Higher scores indicate greater connection with close others. We decided to include this scale to assess the first component of social resources—perceived connection with close others. Participants completed the PWS at both Visits 1 and 2. The PWS has demonstrated the 28 sensitivity to intervention-induced changes in previous study (Fredrickson et al., 2008). In the original validation study (Ryff, 1989), the PWS showed an excellent internal consistency (α =

.91), and good test-retest reliability (α = .83) over a 6-week period. In our study, the alpha coefficients were acceptable at both Visit 1 (α = .78) and Visit 2 (α =.79).

Identity with All Humanity Scale (IWAH). The IWAH (McFarland et al., 2012) is a 9- items scale assessing individuals’ identification with all humans everywhere. For each item, participants rated their responses with respect to three different groups including people in their community, Americans, and all humans everywhere, using a 5-point Likert scale. The ratings with respect to all humans everywhere is referred to as identification with all humanity. Items include, “How close do you feel to people all over the world?” and “How much do you identify with (that is, feel a part of, feel love toward, have concern for) all humans everywhere?” Higher scores indicate greater identification with all humanity. We chose this scale to assess the second component of social resources—perceived connection with distant others, that is, all humans irrespective of in-group and out-group status. Participants completed the IWAH at both Visits 1 and 2. In the original validation study (McFarland et al., 2012), the IWAH showed good internal consistency in student (α = .81) and adult samples (α = .83) as well as acceptable test-retest correlation (r = .69) over a 10-week period. In our sample, the IWAH also showed good internal consistency with alpha coefficients of .81 at Visit 1, and .85 at Visit 2.

Motivation to Engage with Social Justice Issues (SJI)

Empathy Selection Task for Behavioral Measurement—Social Justice Issues

Version (ESTb-SJI). To assess individuals’ choice to engage with out-group empathy in racial disparity contexts, we used an adapted version of the Empathy Selection Task (EST; Cameron et al., 2019), a free-choice task in which over 20 trials participants choose between engaging in 29 empathy (FEEL option) with or remaining objectively detached (DESCRIBE option) from a series of social targets presented as visual images. In the EST, after choosing an option, participants are asked to either share in the emotional experiences of the social target and write one sentence describing their feelings (FEEL option) or notice external features of the social target and write one sentence describing their gender and age (DESCRIBE option).

For this study, we modified the original EST so that presented sufferings of social targets convey information about social disparity2 (Figure 2.1). To do this, on each trial of the ESTb-SJI, participants were presented with an image of a distressed out-group member along with a brief vignette describing the context of the suffering. The vignettes described contexts in which social disparity issues are highlighted (e.g., “Blacks in the US are more than twice as likely than Whites to be poor. The person in the photograph has been struggling with poverty.”) The outcome variable of interest, out-group empathy choice, was the ratio of trials where the FEEL option was chosen relative to the total number of trials. Participants completed the ESTb-SJI at both Visits 1 and 2.

2 In the ESTb-SJI, the social target was presented as a picture of a distressed out-group member (Black American). Picture stimuli were selected from a large pool of publicly available pictures, initially collected through a wide internet search. Selected pictures depicted one Black individual experiencing some form of negative affect (e.g., sadness, frustration, anxiety, etc.) with no contextual information about the specific, identifiable cause of distress. The context of distress was provided in a vignette presented below the picture. All vignettes consisted of two sentences: the first sentence describing a particular racial disparity topic (e.g., “Black Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed than White Americans”), and the second sentence linking the target’s suffering to the given disparity (e.g., “ The person in the photograph has been struggling to find a job”). All vignettes were created based on actual racial disparity statistics available on public database. (e.g., U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Stanford Center on Poverty & Inequality, etc.). To improve readability of vignettes, some details of the disparity information (e.g., specific year of the survey; detailed statistical figures, etc.) were removed or interpreted during the editing process. Disparity areas included poverty, unemployment, housing, health insurance, physical health, mental health, education, and legal system. Preliminary findings on the task development and validation have been presented elsewhere (Cho et al., 2019). More details of the task development and validation results are forthcoming as a separate study. 30

Empathy Selection Task for Physiological Measurement—Social Justice Issues

Version (ESTp-SJI). Participants’ physiology of challenge (approach) vs. threat (avoidance) was assessed using a version of the EST-SJI, modified for physiological measurement.

Physiological responses were collected at both Visits 1 and 2. In the ESTp-SJI, participants were presented with an image of distressed out-group members along with a social disparity vignette and were assigned to either feel empathy for (FEEL trial) or objectively describe the target

(DESCRIBE trial) over 6 trials. The length of each trial was 6 minutes long. There were 3 FEEL trials and 3 DESCRIBE trials, and the order of trials was randomized. While the task consisted of both FEEL and DESCRIBE trials, this study focused only on data from FEEL trials, and whether these responses differed between training groups.

Each trial of the ESTp-SJI consisted of 5 blocks (Figure 2.2). The first block was a 2-min

BASELINE block where participants’ baseline psychophysiological responses were collected.

This was followed by a 1-min INTRODUCTION block where participants were presented with the EST stimuli and were told that they would be asked to empathize [describe] shortly. This was again followed by a 1-min WAIT block where participants waited for a cue to start empathizing

[describing] while stimuli were temporarily removed from the screen. Participants then started a

1-min TASK block where they empathized with the target and spoke out loud about these feelings [or described out loud the external features of the target and the photograph]. This was followed by a 1-min RECOVERY block where all stimuli were removed from the screen and participants were instructed to relax. Psychophysiological responses collected during the

INTRODUCTION block served as an indicator of relatively more immediate challenge/threat responses in reaction to the presentation of the EST stimuli and learning about the task assignment (FEEL or DESCRIBE). Reponses during the WAIT block reflected challenge/threat 31 responses while anticipating to begin the assigned task. In addition, responses collected during the TASK block served as challenge/threat responses while performing the assigned task.

To assess threat/challenge responses, we measured participants’ cardiovascular changes from BASELINE block to blocks of interest (INTRODUCTION, WAIT, and TASK) during the

ESTp-SJI. Based on Blascovich and Mendes (2010), we were particularly interested in changes in heart rate (HR; the number of heart beats in one minute), cardiac output (CO; the amount of blood ejected from heart in one minute), left-ventricular contractility (VC; strength of left ventricular contraction) indexed by a decrease in pre-ejection period (PEP; the time from the initiation of left ventricular contraction until the aortic valve opens), and total peripheral resistance (TPR; the amount of vasoconstriction/vasodilation occurring in the periphery). VC was calculated by multiplying PEP by -1, so that higher values indicate greater contractility. TPR was calculated by using the following formula: (mean arterial pressure/cardiac output) x 80

(Sherwood et al., 1990). Once the change scores in these indices (from BASELINE block to the blocks of interest [INTRODUCTION, WAIT, and TASK]) were derived for each of the three

FEEL trials, we examined the within-subject differences in these change scores across trials.

With the exception of TPR change from BASELINE to TASK blocks at pre-training, F(2, 102) =

3.38, p = .038, change scores from BASELINE block to blocks of interests for all indices did not differ across the three trials at both pre- and post-training, all ps > .05. Thus, we averaged the change scores for each physiological index across the three trials to calculate one average change score for each physiological index, which served as the primary outcome variables in the final physiological data analyses.

Both challenge and threat responses are theorized to occur in motivated performance situations where individuals are engaged in goal-directed behaviors. Goal-directed behaviors are 32 associated with an increase in HR. Challenge states are associated with increases in CO and VC and a decrease in TPR, whereas threat states are associated with an increase in VC but a decrease or no change in CO and an increase or no change in TPR (Table 2.1) (Blascovich, 2013;

Kubzansky et al., 2012; Mendes et al., 2002).

Participants’ cardiac data were recorded using a Mindware impedance cardiograph

(MW2000) in conjunction with the Biopac© MP150 device consisting of an eight-channel polygraph and a microcomputer. Data were collected second-by-second using AcqKnowledge© software and analyzed using Mindware© software. Electrocardiography (EKG), which provides a measure of cardiac activity, was measured through three Biopac pre-gelled, self-adhering, disposable electrodes placed at three places on the torso: the right clavicle at the midclavicular line, just above the last bone of the ribcage at the left midaxillary line, and just below the last bone of the ribcage at the right midaxillary line. The EKG signals were used to derive HR and

PEP. Cardiac impedance was collected with self-adhering electrodes – one placed at the suprasternal notch (jugular notch), one at the inferior end of the sternum (xiphoid process), and two on the back (one located roughly at the fourth cervical vertebra and one located roughly at the eighth thoracic vertebrae). CO was derived from cardiac impedance.

Blood pressure data were recorded using a GE Carescape V100 Periodic Blood Pressure

Monitor. A blood pressure cuff was placed on participants’ dominant upper arm. The dominant arm was used so that blood pressure measurement does not interfere with the measurement of peripheral pulse and skin conductance level on the non-dominant hand. Data were collected once every minute, thus, resulting in one blood pressure measurement per each block of each ESTp-

SJI trial. Each measurement was aimed to occur approximately in the midpoint of each block.

Mean arterial pressure was derived from blood pressure data. In addition, the peripheral pulse 33 and skin conductance level were collected from the non-dominant hand. Peripheral pulse was collected using a photoplethysmograph placed at the distal phalanx of the middle finger. Skin conductance level was collected with self-adhering, disposable electrodes placed on the middle phalanx of the index and ring fingers.

World in Conversation Measure (WinC). To measure participants’ motivation to engage with social justice dialogues, we developed the WinC—a 5-item self-report measure assessing the interest in participating in World in Conversation dialogues. Participants used a 5- point Likert scale to rate their level of interest in learning more about the World in Conversation program, receiving emails about future World in Conversation dialogues, receiving emails about ways to support the World in Conversation program, and signing up for a World in Conversation dialogue session at this time or sometime in the future. Although the actual participation in the

World in Conversation was outside the scope of this study, for those who indicated an interest in being involved with the World in Conversation after the debriefing, we directed them to the

World in Conversation website for more information about different opportunities. Participants completed the WinC only once at Visit 2. In our sample, the WinC demonstrated an excellent level of internal consistency with alpha coefficient of .91.

Redistribution Game

Participants’ altruistic behaviors outside of the specific racial disparity context were assessed using the Redistribution Game, a laboratory economic decision-making game.

Participants were told that they will be playing a money-allocating computer game with two other study participants who have already played their parts in the game. Participants played 2 trials: unfair and fair trials. The order of unfair and fair trials was randomized. In the unfair trial, participants first observed unfair distribution of resources ($1) from a dictator (endowed with 34

$10) to a recipient who had no resources. Participants were then provided with a $5 endowment and asked to make decision about how much of their own endowment (up to $5) to use in order to redistribute funds from the dictator to the recipient. In the fair trial, participants observed relatively fair distribution of resources ($4) from a dictator (endowed with $10) to a recipient who had no resources. Participants were then provided with another $5 endowment and asked to make a decision about how much of their endowment (up to $5) to use to redistribute funds from the dictator to the recipient. In both trials, the money participants spent was not given to either the dictator or the recipient. However, the dictator was forced to redistribute, from their remaining endowment, twice the amount that participants spent to the recipient. Participants were paid their remaining endowment upon completion of the study, and thus, distribution decisions directly affected monetary gains (up to $10). After the study was completed, participants were asked to rate the degree to which they believed they were playing the game with real participants in the study using a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 4 (Completely), as a manipulation check. Participants with ratings of 2 or above were considered to have passed the manipulation check and included in Redistribution Game data analysis. Participants’ decision in the unfair trial was the primary outcome of interest. Participants completed the Redistribution

Game only once at Visit 2.

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale 13-Item Short Form (MCSD-Short)

We administered a social desirability scale along with our focal constructs survey in order to account for socially desirable responding on self-report and behavioral measures used in this study. We used the MCSD-Short (Reynolds, 1982), a 13-item measure of social desirability.

Items included “It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged,” and

“I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my own way.” Participants rated whether each item 35 is true or false as it pertains to them. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated greater social desirability. Participants completed the MCSD-Short at both Visits 1 and 2. In the original validation study (Reynolds, 1982), the MCSD-Short demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency reliability (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 = .76). In the current sample, the

MCSD-Short showed acceptable internal consistency with alpha coefficients of .61 at Visit 1, and .72 at Visit 2.

Study Procedures

Laboratory Visit 1

Prior to being randomly assigned to an intervention group, participants made their first visit to the laboratory. Upon signing the consent form, participants completed self-report measures assessing demographic information, social desirability, and social resources. Then, participants’ motivation to empathize with racial out-group members suffering from social injustice was assessed using the ESTb-SJI. This was followed by the ESTp-SJI where participants’ physiological responses were collected. Upon completion of laboratory assessment, participants were randomized to either a compassion or reappraisal group. Participants then received a tutorial from a research team member on how to access the training website and were given the opportunity to ask questions.

Training Period

Participants then went through 2 weeks of training (compassion or reappraisal), consisting of daily practice for 30 minutes using an online audio guide at a place and time of their choosing. Participants also completed online measures of practice compliance each day.

The training audio guide and online surveys were accessed through a link sent to participants via 36 an email or text message every day at 8AM, followed by conditional reminder messages at 5PM and 9:30PM.

Laboratory Visit 2

Visit 2 occurred within 1 week after the end of the training. Participants went through the same laboratory assessment procedure as Visit 1. In addition, at Visit 2, participants’ willingness to participate in social justice dialogues as well as their altruistic behaviors in the Redistribution

Game were measured.

Figure 2. 1. Schematic of the ESTb-SJI

DESCRIBE FEEL

Figure 2. 2. Design of the ESTp-SJI Trials

BASELINE INTRO WAIT TASK RECOVERY x 6 2 min 1 min 1 min 1 min 1 min ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Stimuli Introduced Stimuli Removed Stimuli Re-introduced Stimuli Removed

Table 2. 1. Physiological changes associated with challenge and threat states

Challenge (Approach) Responses Threat (Avoidance) Responses CO Change ↑ ↓ or Ø VC Change ↑ ↑ TPR Change ↓ ↑ or Ø

Chapter 3.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Study Attrition and Missingness

A chi-square test of independence showed that there was no significant relationship between Group and study completion, χ2(1, N = 78) = 1.61, p = .204. Little’s MCAR Test indicated that data were missing completely at random, χ 2 = 533.17, df = 538, p = .931. The proportion of missing data was 4.35% of the overall data. The listwise deletion method was used to handle missing data in the subsequent analyses.

Practice Compliance

Practice compliance was examined using both objective (training website usage log) and subjective (self-report) data. Specifically, we examined descriptive statistics of an objective measure of daily practice dose (how long participants stayed on the online training page), an objective measure of practice days (number of days participants clicked at least once on the online training page), and a subjective measure of practice days (self-reported practice days).

Average daily practice dose based on website usage log was 15 minutes 16 seconds (SD = 9 minutes 41 seconds) per day. The objective measure of practice days indicated that participants on average practiced 7.38 days (SD = 3.96 days) throughout the 2-week training period. This was contrasted with the subjective measure of practice days which indicated that participants on averaged practiced 11.68 days (SD = 2.38 days). The correlation between the objective and subjective measures of training days was positive and small-to-moderate in magnitude, r = .27, p

= .021. Additionally, website-usage log indicated that there were two participants who never played the audio guide once throughout the entire training period, receiving 0 dose of training. 40

According to self-report data, however, these two participants on average reported practicing

12.5 days (SD = .71 days) during the training period.

Independent sample t-tests examined group difference in all practice compliance measures. The Compassion and Reappraisal groups did not significantly differ in average daily practice dose (t[71] = -1.18, p = .241), and the objective number of training days (t[71] = -1.20, p

= .235). On the other hand, there was a significant group difference in the subjective number of training days, such that Compassion group (M = 12.36, SD = 1.48) reported training more days than Reappraisal group (M = 11.03, SD = 2.88), t(54) = -2.50, p = .016.

Given the varying levels of practice compliance and its implication for examining group- level differences, we controlled for practice compliance in all subsequent impact analyses.

Specifically, we used average daily practice dose based on website-usage log, because they may provide more reliable information about participants’ training engagement compared to self- report-based measure. Finally, two participants who never played the training audio guide, and thus, received 0 dose of intervention were excluded from the subsequent analyses, leaving 71 participants in final sample (ncomp = 36, nreap = 35).

Baseline Equivalence

We first examined the baseline equivalence of demographic characteristics between the

Compassion and Reappraisal groups. An independent samples t-test revealed that participants in the Compassion and Reappraisal groups did not significantly differ in their age, t(69) = 0.44, p =

.665. In addition, a chi-square test of independence showed that the two groups did not significantly differ in gender, χ2(1, N = 71) = 0.01, p = .928, and college student status (student vs. non-student), χ2(1, N = 71) = 0.25, p = .620. 41

Next, we examined the baseline equivalence of social desirability between the

Compassion and Reappraisal groups. An independent samples t-test showed that the two groups did not significantly differ on social desirability at baseline, t(69) = 1.11, p = .271.

Relationship between Primary Self-Reported and Behavioral Outcome Variables

We explored the relationships between all self-reported and behavioral outcome variables at post-training (Table 3.1). There was a significant positive relationship between participants’ empathy choice on the ESTb-SJI and the amount of money spent on the Redistribution Game at post-training, r = .25, p = .041. In addition, there was a significant positive relationship between participants’ interest in future World in Conversation dialogues and their perceived connection with distant others at post-training, r = .37, p = .001. Finally, there was a marginally significant positive relationship between perceived connection with close others and perceived connections with distant others at post-training, r = .21, p = .08.

Impact Analyses

Results of impact analyses are presented by hypotheses. Daily practice dose was controlled for in all analyses. Additionally, given the possibility that participants’ self-report and behavioral data are influenced by self-screening due to social desirability, we controlled for social desirability in all self-report and behavioral data analysis. For all analyses, effect size estimates (partial eta squared) are reported in addition to significance testing. The summary of all effect size estimates is presented in Figure 3.1. To interpret the size of partial eta squared, we used Cohen’s (1988) references of small = 0.01, medium = 0.06, and large = 0.14. If the omnibus test of hypothesized effects indicated a significant result or a non-significant but larger than

2 medium effect (ηp > .06), we conducted follow-up analyses to decompose the potential effect. 42

Means and standard deviations of empathy choice at pre- and post-training are presented in Table 3.2. To test whether there was a significant group difference in change in empathy choice from pre- to post-training, controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability, a repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. Though we also report main effects of Group and Time, we were mainly interested in Group x Time interaction effect to test for the group differences in changes in empathy choice. The result revealed that the main

2 effect of Group was non-significant, with a minimal effect size, F(1, 67) = 0.14, p = .709, ηp =

.002. On the other hand, the main effect of Time was significant, with a medium to large effect

2 size, F(1, 67) = 4.95, p = .029, ηp = .07, such that empathy choice was significantly higher at pre-training compared to post-training. Finally, the Group x Time interaction on empathy choice

2 in the ESTb-SJI was non-significant, with a minimal effect size, F(1, 67) = 0.15, p = .698, ηp =

.002.

ESTp-SJI.

The following analyses followed the methodology used in previous studies of challenge- threat physiology (Mendes et al., 2002, 2007). Among 71 participants (ncomp = 36 , nreap = 35) who completed the study and practiced the assigned training at least once, 14 participants were excluded in physiological data analyses due to random physiological noise and technical 43 problems during data collection. The final sample for physiological data analyses included 57 participants (ncomp = 29 , nreap = 28).

Motivated Performance Situation Check. We first examined whether the ESTp-SJI generated a motivated performance situation—a necessary pre-requisite for testing the threat- challenge physiology. A series of paired sample t-tests examined whether HR significantly increased from the BASELINE block to the block of interest (INTRODUCTION, WAIT, and

TASK) during the empathy trials of the ESTp-SJI. Results indicated that HR increased significantly from BASELINE block to the block of interest (INTRODUCTION, WAIT, and

TASK) at both pre- and post-trainings (all ps < .001), confirming that the ESTp-SJI was successful at generating a motivated performance situation.

Physiological Responses at Pre-Training. Next, to establish intervention group equivalence at pre-training, we conducted a series of multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) with CO, VC, and TPR change scores from BASELINE block to the block of interest (INTRODUCTION, WAIT, and TASK) during the empathy trials of the ESTp-SJI. The results indicated that there was no significant group difference in CO, VC, and TPR changes from the BASELINE to INTRODUCTION blocks, with a small to medium effect size, Wilks’

2 Lambda = .97, F(3, 53) = 0.57, p = .635, ηp = .03. The group difference in CO, VC, and TPR changes from BASELINE block to WAIT block was also non-significant, with a minimal effect

2 size, Wilks’ Lambda = 1.00, F(3, 53) = 0.03, p = .994, ηp = .001. Similarly, the group difference in CO, VC, and TPR changes from BASELINE block to TASK block was non-significant, with a

2 small to medium effect size, Wilks’ Lambda = .95, F(3, 53) = 0.90, p = .449, ηp = .05).

INTRODUCTION Block Responses at Post-Training. To examine the group differences in cardiovascular responses at post-training, controlling for practice dose, we 44 conducted a series of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with CO, VC, and TPR change scores from BASELINE block to block of interest (INTRODUCTION, WAIT, and

TASK). The result indicated that the group difference in CO, VC, and TPR changes from

BASELINE block to INTRODUCTION block was non-significant, with a medium to large

2 effect size, Wilks’ Lambda = .92, F(3, 52) = 1.55, p = .212, ηp = .08.

2 Although non-significant, the moderate to large effect size (ηp = .08) suggests that with a larger sample this effect may reach significance. As such, we decided to conduct follow-up analyses to explore this potential effect. A series of univariate ANCOVAs, controlling for daily practice dose, examined the group differences on each of the physiological indices of challenge and threat (Table 3.3). The results showed that there was a significant group difference in CO changes from BASELINE to INTRODUCTION blocks, such that CO increased in the

2 Compassion group but decreased in the Reappraisal group, F(1, 54) = 4.06, p = .049, ηp = .07.

Additionally, TPR changes from the BASELINE to INTRODUCTION blocks were marginally significantly different between groups, such that TPR decreased in the Compassion group but

2 increased in the Reappraisal group, F(1, 54) = 3.65, p = .061, ηp = .06. There was no significant group difference in VC changes from the BASELINE to INTRODUCTION blocks, F(1, 54) =

2 0.11, p = .738, ηp = .002.

To test whether the magnitude of changes in each of these cardiovascular indices from

BASELINE to INTRODUCTION blocks was statistically significant, we conducted a series of paired-sample t-test for the Compassion and Reappraisal groups separately (Table 3.4, Figure

3.2). In the Compassion group, from BASELINE to INTRODUCTION blocks, VC significantly increased (t[28] = -4.11, p < .001), and TPR significantly decreased (t[28] = 2.10, p = .045), consistent with the challenge physiological pattern. However, the increase in CO was not 45 statistically significant (t[28] = -1.66, p = .107), making the overall pattern only partially consistent with the challenge physiology. In the Reappraisal group, from BASELINE to

INTRODUCTION blocks, CO did not change significantly (t[27] = 1.16, p = .257), VC significantly increased (t[27] = -4.34, p < .001), and TPR did not change significantly (t[27] = -

0.23, p = .821), consistent with the threat physiological pattern.

WAIT Block Responses at Post-Training. Looking at the cardiovascular changes from

BASELINE to WAIT blocks, the group differences in CO, VC, and TPR changes were non- significant, with a medium to large effect size, Wilks’ Lambda = .92, F(3, 52) = 1.62, p = .196,

2 ηp = .09. Given the presence of the medium to large effect size, although non-significant, we conducted follow-up analyses to explore this potential effect. A series of univariate ANCOVAs, controlling for daily practice dose, examined the group differences on each of the physiological indices of challenge and threat (Table 3.5). The results showed that there was a significant group difference in CO changes from BASELINE to WAIT blocks, such that CO increased in the

2 Compassion group but decreased in the Reappraisal group, F(1, 54) = 4.23, p = .045, ηp = .07.

On the other hand, there were no significant group differences in both VC and TPR changes

2 from the BASELINE to WAIT blocks, F(1, 54) = 0.28, p = .601, ηp = .01, F(1, 54) = 1.65, p =

2 .204, ηp = .03, for VC and TPR respectively.

To test whether the magnitude of changes in each of these cardiovascular indices from

BASELINE to WAIT blocks was statistically significant and were in the predicted directions, a series of paired-sample t-test was conducted for the Compassion and Reappraisal groups separately (Table 3.6, Figure 3.3). In the Compassion group, from BASELINE to WAIT blocks,

CO marginally significantly increased (t[28] = -2.04, p = .051), VC significantly increased (t[28]

= -2.37, p =.025), and TPR marginally significantly decreased (t[28] = 1.73, p = .095), consistent 46 with the challenge physiological pattern. In the Reappraisal group, from BASELINE to WAIT blocks, all three indices did not change significantly, consistent with the threat physiological pattern except missing the increase in VC, t(27) = 0.77, p = .449, t(27) = -1.51, p = .144, t(27) =

-0.63, p = .534, CO, VC, and TPR, respectively.

TASK Block Responses at Post-Training. The group difference in CO, VC, and TPR changes from BASELINE block to TASK block was non-significant, with a medium effect size,

2 Wilks’ Lambda = .94, F(3, 52) = 1.06, p = .376, ηp = .06.

Hypothesis 3: At post-training, participants in compassion group (vs. reappraisal group) will indicate a greater willingness to learn about and engage in World in Conversation dialogues.

An ANCOVA was conducted to test if there was a group difference in participants’ interest in future social justice dialogues (World in Conversation dialogues) at post-training, controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability. The result indicated that there was no

2 significant group difference, with a small effect size, F(1, 67) = 0.47, p = .496, ηp = .01.

Estimated marginal means and standard errors of the World in Conversation measure, controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability, are presented in Table 3.7.

Among 71 participants, 6 participants did not pass the manipulation check (i.e., ratings below 2 on the Redistribution Game manipulation check item) and were excluded from the subsequent analysis, leaving 65 participants in the final sample. Descriptive statistics showed that during the Unfair trial of the Redistribution Game at post-training, participants in

Compassion group on average spent $1.78 (SD = .96) and participants in Reappraisal group on 47 average spent $1.46 (SD = 1.02). An ANCOVA was used to examine the group differences in altruistic behaviors in the Redistribution Game at post-training, controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability. The result indicated that group differences in participants’ spending

2 was non-significant and had a small effect size, F(1, 61) = 1.42, p = .238, ηp = .02.

Hypothesis 5: The above effects, if present, will be mediated by the increase in perceived social resources in compassion group as measured by perceptions of connection with close and distant others

Mediating effect of social resources was not tested because hypotheses 1-4 were not supported. However, we wanted to still examine whether compassion training had any effect in increasing social resources (perceived connections with close and distant others). To do this, we conducted a repeated measures MANCOVA, controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability. The PWS connection with close others and the IWAH connection with distant others were included as outcome variables. Again, we were mainly interested in Group x Time interaction effect to test for the group difference in changes in social resources from pre- to post- training. The result indicated that the main effect of Group was non-significant, with a small

2 effect size, Wilks’ Lambda = .98, F(2, 66) = 0.62, p = .541, ηp = .02. On the other hand, the main effect of Time was significant, with a large effect size, Wilks’ Lambda = .75, F(2, 66) = 11.03, p

2 < .001, ηp = .25, such that both the PWS connection with close others and the IWAH connection with distant others were significantly higher at post-training compared to pre-training. Finally, the Group x Time interaction on social resources was marginally significant, with a medium to

2 large effect size, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, F(2, 66) = 2.49, p = .090, ηp = .07. To decompose this interaction effect, we examined the Group x Time interaction on each dependent variable separately, using repeated measures univariate ANCOVAs (Table 3.8). The results showed that 48 there were marginally significant Group x Time interactions on the PWS connection with close

2 others (F[1, 67] = 3.14, p = .081, ηp = .05), and the IWAH connection with distant others (F[1,

2 67] = 3.02, p = .087, ηp = .04).

To further decompose these effects, we conducted a series of separate repeated measures univariate ANCOVA on each dependent variable for each group separately (Figure 3.4; Figure

3.5). Results showed that the PWS connection with close others significantly increased from pre-

2 to post-training in the Compassion group (F[1,33] = 19.41, p < .001, ηp = .37), but the increase

2 in the Reappraisal group was only marginally significant (F[1,32] = 3.67, p = .064, ηp =.10). The

IWHA connection with distant others significantly increased from pre- to post-training in the

2 Compassion group (F[1,33] = 10.34, p = .003, ηp = .24) but did not change significantly in the

2 Reappraisal group (F[1,32] = 0.34, p = .562, ηp = .01).

Table 3. 1. Correlations between Primary Self-Reported and Behavioral Outcome Variables at

Post-Training

1 2 3 4 5 1. Empathy Choice 1 2. Interest in World in Conversation .17 1 3. Spending in Redistribution Game .25* -.01 1 4. Perceived Connection with Close Others -.01 .05 .07 1 5. Perceived Connection with Distant Others .19 .37* -.06 .21+ 1 Note. + p < .10; * p < .05; nredistribution-game = 65, nothers = 71.

Table 3. 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Empathy Choice at Pre- and Post-Training

Group Compassion Reappraisal Time M SD M SD df t p Pre-Training .56 .21 .57 .19 69 .16 .876 Post-Training .52 .21 .51 .19 69 -.17 .868

Table 3. 3. Univariate Tests of Group Difference in CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to INTRODUCTION Blocks at Post-Training

Estimated Marginal Mean (SE) 2 Dependent Variable Compassion Reappraisal df F p ηp CO Change 0.16 (0.08) -0.07 (0.08) 1, 54 4.06 .049* .07 VC Change 1.16 (0.26) 1.03 (0.27) 1, 54 0.11 .738 .002 TPR Change -56.85 (22.87) 5.57 (23.28) 1, 54 3.65 .061+ .06 Note. + p < .10; * p < .05. Estimated marginal means and standard errors are calculated controlling for daily practice dose.

Table 3. 4. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to

INTRODUCTION Blocks for Each Group at Post-Training

Compassion Reappraisal CO Change Ø 0.15 Ø -0.07 VC Change ↑ 1.16*** ↑ 1.04*** TPR Change ↓ -55.47* Ø 4.33 Note. ↑ = significant increases from baseline; ↓ = significant decreases from baseline; Ø = no significant changes from baseline. * p < .05; *** p < .001.

Table 3. 5. Univariate Tests of Group Difference in CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to WAIT Blocks at Post-Training

Estimated Marginal Mean (SE) 2 Dependent Variable Compassion Reappraisal df F p ηp CO Change 0.11 (0.06) -0.06 (0.06) 1, 54 4.23 .045* .07 VC Change 0.86 (0.31) 0.63 (0.32) 1, 54 0.28 .601 .005 TPR Change -26.07 (30.76) 30.40 (31.30) 1, 54 1.65 .204 .03 Note. * p < .05. Estimated marginal means and standard errors are calculated controlling for daily practice dose.

Table 3. 6. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to WAIT Blocks for

Each Group at Post-Training

Compassion Reappraisal CO Change ↑ 0.10+ Ø -0.04 VC Change ↑ 0.79* Ø 0.55 TPR Change ↓ -24.39+ Ø 22.43 Note. ↑ = significant increases from baseline; ↓ = significant decreases from baseline; Ø = no significant changes from baseline. + p < .10; * p < .05.

Table 3. 7. Means and Standard Errors of World in Conversation Measure at Post-Training

Group Compassion Reappraisal 2 Time Madj SE Madj SE df F p ηp Post-Training 1.91 .16 1.75 .17 1, 67 0.47 .496 .01 Note. Estimated marginal means and standard errors are calculated controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability.

Table 3. 8. Univariate Analysis of Group x Time Interaction on Social Resources

Estimated Marginal Mean (Standard Error) Compassion Reappraisal 2 Dependent Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 df F p ηp PWS Connection with Close Others 5.56 5.92 5.76 5.91 1, 67 3.14 .081+ .05 (.15) (.13) (.16) (.13) IWAH Connection with Distant Others 3.20 3.40 3.15 3.19 1, 67 3.02 .087+ .04 (.10) (.11) (.11) (.11) Note. + p < .10. Estimated marginal means and standard errors are calculated controlling for daily training dose and social desirability.

Figure 3. 1. Effect Size for Main Impact Analyses

Note. 0.01 = small, 0.059 = medium, 0.138 = large (Cohen, 1988)

Figure 3. 2. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to

INTRODUCTION Blocks for Each Group at Post-Training

Note. * indicates that changes from BASELINE to INTRODUCTION blocks are significant at p

< .05; *** p < .001.

Figure 3. 3. Univariate Tests of CO, VC, and TPR Changes from BASELINE to WAIT Blocks for

Each Group at Post-Training

Note. + indicates that changes from BASELINE to WAIT blocks are significant at p < .10; * p <

.05.

Figure 3. 4. Changes in PWS Connection with Close Others from Pre- to Post-Training in the

Compassion and Reappraisal Groups

PWS Connection with Close Others 6.2

6 p = .064

5.8 Compassion p < .001 Reappraisal 5.6

5.4

5.2 Connection with CloseOthers Connectionwith 5 Pre-Training Post-Training

Note. Estimated marginal means and standard errors used in the graphs are calculated controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability.

Figure 3. 5. Changes in IWAH Connection with Distant Others from Pre- to Post-Training in the

Compassion and Reappraisal Groups

IWAH Connection with Distant Others 3.6

3.5

3.4 p = .003 3.3 Compassion Reappraisal 3.2 p =.562 3.1

2.9 Connection with DistantOthers Connectionwith 2.8 Pre-Training Post-Training

Note. Estimated marginal means and standard errors used in the graphs are calculated controlling for daily practice dose and social desirability.

Chapter 4.

DISCUSSION

This randomized controlled trial aimed to test (1) the effects of a two-week internet-based compassion meditation training (vs. reappraisal training) on White individuals’ motivation to engage with SJI and altruistic behaviors; and (2) the potential mediating role of social resources in the proposed effects. Results showed that compassion training compared to reappraisal training had no significant effects on increasing motivation to engage with SJI across behavioral

(ESTb-SJI), physiological (ESTp-SJI), and self-report (World in Conversation) measures of motivation to engage with SJI. In addition, compassion training compared to reappraisal training had no effects on increasing altruistic behaviors on a computer-based economic decision-making game (Redistribution Game), failing to replicate the previous finding reported in Weng et al.

(2013). Because there were no significant direct effects of compassion training on motivation to engage with SJI and altruistic behaviors, the mediating effect of social resources was not explored. Although not statistically significant, there were some preliminary findings suggesting that physiological responses during the ESTp-SJI were in the predicted directions, reflecting greater challenge (approach) responses in the Compassion group and greater threat (avoidance) responses in the Reappraisal group. Finally, there was a marginally significant group difference in social resources changes from pre- to post-training in the predicted directions. The overall pattern of findings is discussed in greater detail below with a goal of stimulating ideas for future research.

Lack of Hypothesized Effects

We first discuss the failure to find support for the hypothesized effects in the present study and factors that may be related to this lack of support. Specifically, we discuss issues 59 pertaining to practice compliance, outcome measurement, and the compassion training model used.

Practice Compliance Issues

First, given the low practice compliance, it is possible that participants did not receive enough of a practice dose to demonstrate meaningful changes in outcome. The compliance measures based on website-usage log indicated that participants practiced only about 50% of their assigned training (7.38 days out of 14 days; 15 min 16 sec/day). The fact that the previous findings using the Redistribution Game (Weng et al., 2013) were not replicated in the present study also suggests that the current sample may not have received a sufficient training dose.

Low compliance, both in the form of premature drop-out and completion with insufficient participation, is a well-known problem with online intervention studies (Eysenbach,

2005). One systematic review of 16 studies of internet-based treatment for psychological disorders reported an average drop-out rate of 35%, with a range of 2% to 83% (Melville et al.,

2010). A similar problem has been observed in internet-based compassion intervention studies.

For example, in one study investigating the feasibility of an online self-compassion intervention, only about 50% of participants accessed at least some of the intervention materials, even after excluding 40.5% of initial sample who did not complete the post-intervention survey (Mitchell et al., 2018).

While low compliance may be the rule, rather than the exception, in internet-based self- guided interventions (Eysenbach, 2005), some evidence suggests that personalized content and intermittent personal assistance outside of the program’s built-in structure (e.g., in-person, telephone, or email contact) predict higher adherence (Beatty & Binnion, 2016) and greater intervention effect sizes (Gellatly et al., 2007; Palmqvist et al., 2007; Spek et al., 2007). In the 60 present study, we provided some personal assistance during the training period (i.e., daily text messages; phone check-in by research personnel), but there was no personalization of training content or structure. Furthermore, there was no variation in training content throughout the training period. The lack of personalization and variation in training content may have made the training less interesting, thus, reducing participants’ motivation to adhere to training regimen.

In addition, our randomized controlled trial (RCT) study design and the lack of intrinsic motivation for the assigned training may have further reduced training compliance in this study.

The RCT design, developed in the context of medication trials and often considered the gold standard for clinical research, uses a random assignment to reduce selection bias and control for individual difference factors such as motivation. However, in behavioral interventions, unlike pharmacological interventions, participants’ intrinsic motivation for a particular intervention tends to have a substantial influence on intervention compliance (Alfonsson et al., 2017). Studies have shown that self-initiation of behavioral intervention enhances both intervention compliance

(Lindhiem et al., 2014) and effect sizes (Brown et al., 2015). Thus, the RCT design may deflate the effects of behavioral interventions by removing the intrinsic motivation—an essential and inherent ingredient of behavioral interventions.

If so, is it actually useful to partial out the intrinsic motivation in compassion training research by using random assignment? Perhaps there is no one right answer to this question, as approaches with random and self-initiated participants each have their pros and cons. Outside of laboratories, most people who participate in compassion training would be self-selected participants with at least some level of intrinsic motivation. Thus, studying self-initiated participants may provide more practical and translatable information for compassion training in real world, because they more closely resemble “real-world participants” and are more likely to 61 adhere to training regimen. On the other hand, investigating the training effect using a random sample can be important for the purpose of “scaling up” (e.g., developing school curriculum to cultivate compassion), as establishing training efficacy can inform a systematic dissemination to wider populations. Given that both approaches have different benefits, the choice of study design in compassion training research should carefully consider the specific study questions and goals, rather than assuming the superiority of one approach over another. When random assignment is indeed used to examine training effects in broader populations, the first-order task in demonstrating the value of compassion training would be establishing practice compliance, thus, showing that the training, when provided, will actually be used.

Measurement Issues

With regard to the null effect on empathy choice in the ESTb-SJI, there are a few measurement-related issues worth noting. As the ESTb-SJI was developed for this study, a test- retest reliability was not tested. Thus, it is possible that the task itself was not sensitive enough to assess changes over time. Interestingly, however, empathy choice in the ESTb-SJI significantly decreased from pre- to post-training in both training groups. That is, participants were less motivated to turn towards empathizing with out-group sufferings caused by racial disparities at post-training compared to pre-training.

The motivated empathy framework can provide some explanations for this observed reduction in empathy choice (Cameron et al., 2017). From the motivated empathy perspectives, empathy is conceptualized as a goal-driven behavior that is actively chosen rather than being passively compelled. Here, the specific goal that is pursued through empathy choice can vary

(e.g., understanding another; consoling another; helping to improve the situation), but they are generally centered around the altruistic goal of promoting another’s welfare. As such, altruistic 62 goals motivate individuals to utilize empathy as a means to an end, rather than empathy being the end-goal itself (i.e., choosing to share in sadness of a grieving friend to help ease their suffering, rather than choosing to feel just for the sake of feeling).

Importantly, in the ESTb-SJI, participants had no opportunities to work to enhance the targets’ welfare through empathy. Even if participants had altruistic goals of promoting another’s welfare, their choice to empathize with targets in this given task does not get them closer to their goals. Thus, empathy loses its utility value as a means to an end in the ESTb-SJI. If one does not see the relevance of empathy choice for altruistic outcomes (i.e., FEEL trials do not lead to any altruistic outcome), altruistic goals may eventually become irrelevant in the context of the ESTb-

SJI. When altruistic goals are not activated, the demands-resources evaluations associated with such goals may not take place, making the threat-challenge evaluation irrelevant for determining participants’ behaviors. That is, participants may choose not to empathize, not because it is too threatening (i.e., threat vs. challenge evaluation) but because it is simply not useful to begin with.

As altruistic goals become irrelevant for the ESTb-SJI, other goals with greater relevance (e.g., saving time and effort) in the given situation could have been prioritized, motivating participants to choose an alternative option (i.e., DESCRIBE trials) more in line with their goals.

An interesting question is whether this reduction of empathy choice would disappear or be reversed if the ESTb-SJI was to be modified in a way where selecting empathy could be perceived to get participants closer to their altruistic goals, and thus, restoring empathy’s utility value. For example, if the connection between empathy choice, the subsequent increase in understanding of victim’s experiences, and social changes were made salient to participants prior to the task, altruistic motives may become more important in determining empathy choice.

Additionally, modifying the FEEL trial instructions to include a step to generate wishes for the 63 target to be free from suffering (i.e., compassionate wish) following the experience sharing may create a sense of progress towards mitigating the suffering, and thus, getting closer to their altruistic goals. These modifications may make altruistic goals more relevant and salient within the ESTb-SJI (regardless of whether or not participants decide to engage with such goals), setting the stage for better examining the resource-demands evaluation in pursuit of these goals.

Considering the current design of the ESTb-SJI, another way to explain the observed reduction in empathy choice over time is by applying the idea of operant conditioning (Skinner,

1991). In the FEEL trials of the ESTb-SJI, participants choose to share in feelings of the suffering targets repeatedly, thus, expose themselves to negatively valanced experiences (i.e., punishment). In addition, participants are not able to exert any influence on targets’ suffering

(e.g., soothing someone and witnessing the reduction in pain), and thus, do not experience any positive outcome of their decision to empathize (i.e., absence of a positive reinforcer). Thus, the choice to feel in the ESTb-SJI may decrease over time as a function of punishment in the absence of a positive reinforcer. In this way, empathy avoidance could have been learned throughout the repeated implementations and trials of the ESTb-SJI.

Taken together, our ability to confirm hypothesized training effects may have been constrained by the scope and design of the measures included in the study. Thus, it is unclear whether the null findings on empathic motivation in social justice contexts are due to the true lack of effects or limitations in measurement or both. Even so, we acknowledge that the current measure of empathic motivation may have been limited by its design, deflating motivation to engage with empathy by structurally removing the function of empathy as a means to achieve altruistic goals. By addressing this limitation in measurement, we will be able to better understand the present null finding and more effectively study compassion meditation effects in 64 social justice contexts. Further discussion on how to improve measurement issues is presented in the future directions.

Training Issues

Finally, the training itself may not have been effective in generating prosocial outcomes in highly demanding social justice contexts. The compassion training under investigation followed the general structure of compassion meditation (i.e., generating compassion to a loved one, the self, a stranger, and a difficult person) and was not tailored to specific challenges of racial disparity situations (e.g., generating compassion to a racial outgroup victim suffering due to a large-scale, systematic problem that is potentially self-threatening). This type of compassion training had shown positive effects on increasing general prosocial behaviors in previous studies

(e.g., Condon et al., 2013; McCall et al., 2014) but was never studied in the context of systematic, large-scale social justice issues. If the current training generated empathic engagement in racial disparity contexts, this would have meant that training effect was generalized to other, highly challenging real-life contexts that were not directly targeted in training. Unfortunately, we did not see this generalization in this study.

Several training related factors are worth noting with regard to this lack of generalized effects. First, this may have been in part due to the short-term nature of the training. Previous studies have shown that short-term compassion trainings have a targeted prosocial effect but not a generalized effect. For example, a brief one-time loving-kindness meditation reduced racial biases towards the population targeted in the training but not towards those not included in the training (Stell & Farsides, 2016). On the other hand, a longer loving-kindness meditation (6- week) reduced implicit bias against stigmatized groups not directly targeted in the training (Kang et al., 2013). Given these findings, a longer duration of training (i.e., greater overall training 65 dose) may have been needed to see generalized effects in social justice contexts. Of course, given the training compliance issues described above, this suggestion is paradoxical. In the absence of training compliance, altering the dose, especially increasing it, seems counterproductive. Thus, altering the dose necessitates first addressing training non-compliance.

The consideration of an optimal practice schedule (e.g., longer daily practice over a shorter training period vs. shorter daily practice extended over a longer training period) for enhancing practice compliance and training effects is suggested (see Goleman & Davidson, 2017 for discussion).

Alternatively, adapting the training content to specific racial disparity context may have generated more effects even with a relatively short training cycle. For example, as participants practiced extending compassion to social targets of varying levels of closeness in the compassion training, they could have practiced extending compassion to racial out-group victims suffering from large-scale societal problems (e.g., racial disparities in healthcare, job, housing, etc.). Such targeted and contextualized compassion training may have allowed participants to more effectively mitigate varying deterrents to prosocial responding in social justice contexts (e.g., negative affective experiences such as guilt, anxiety, anger, etc.) and generate greater prosocial outcomes. Adapting the compassion training to more explicitly focus on social justice situations is an interesting future direction in compassion training research.

Furthermore, it is possible that beyond the use of general targets (vs. racial disparity relevant targets) in the compassion training, the overall structure and content of the training itself was not well suited for generating prosocial motivation with regard to social justice contexts.

The social justice contexts studied here, racial disparities in the U.S. society, represents a kind of advanced and challenging empathic situations due to the magnitude of problem (e.g., structural 66 inequality), the potential threat of racial disparities to self (e.g., implication of one’s own privilege in the disparities), and the need for cross-racial social interactions. Learning to extend sustainable compassion in these challenging situations might require a different approach than the current training. One alternative training model that has shown a promising result is the

Sustainable Compassion Training (SCT; Dodson-Lavelle, 2017; Makransky, 2007). A recent study has shown that a SCT-based intervention program (Call to Care-Israel) reduced Israeli-

Jewish youth’s prejudiced attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian outgroup while increasing their motivation to engage with Israeli-Palestinian youth (Berger et al., 2018).

What is the difference between the current training and the SCT? In the SCT model, the capacity to extend sustainable compassion to others is seen to arise from experience and practice of (1) receiving compassion from secure caring figures (e.g., family, spiritual or historic figures, nature, etc.) and (2) generating and practicing deep self-compassion. The practice of receiving compassion and generating self-compassion enable individuals to develop a secure base

(“relational starting point”; Condon & Makransky, in press) for extending compassion to others in a way that may be more sustainable and resilient. The structure of SCT reflect this developmental process of compassion by first training in receiving compassion and generating self-compassion, before moving to extending compassion to others. Perhaps this groundwork of developing a strong “relational starting point” for compassion was what was missing in the current compassion training, failing to motivate prosocial responding in highly challenging social justice situations.

Finally, it is possible that training that cultivates compassion may not have been sufficient for motivating prosocial actions in complex social justice situations. Even if compassion meditation increases individuals’ compassionate motivation to work to enhance the 67 welfare of out-group members suffering from racial disparities, they may still face other deterrents to prosocial engagement. For example, factors such as low self-efficacy, lack of instrumental knowledge about how to impact positive social changes, difficulty in cognitive problem-solving, or difficulty regulating emotions may prevent the compassionate motivation from being translated into actions. Thus, complex social justice problems may require a complex and integrated solution with multiple elements. Compassion training and prosocial motivation may be one of those elements that fundamentally need to interact with remaining elements to generate prosocial actions. Examining these interactions (e.g., interaction between compassion and instrumental knowledge about impacting social changes) would provide important practical implications to inform and increase prosocial actions in social justice situations.

Preliminary Findings

In this section, I discuss the effects of compassion training on physiological patterns of threat and challenge, as well as on social resources. These findings, in part interpreted based on effect size estimates in the absence of significant p-level, are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, considering the arbitrary nature of the .05 p-level (Kirk,

1996; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989), the use of effect size estimates is encouraged (Wilkinson,

1999) due to its resistance to sample size influence (Ferguson, 2009). As such, we discuss our preliminary findings here to spark ideas for future research.

Compassion Training and Physiology of Threat and Challenge

Individuals in the Compassion group showed responses partially consistent with challenge (approach) states (no change in CO, increase in VC, decrease in TPR during

INTRODUCTION block; marginal increase in CO, increase in VC, marginal decrease in TPR during WAIT block), whereas those in the Reappraisal group showed responses partially 68 consistent with threat (avoidance) states (no change in CO, increase in VC, no change in TPR during INTRODUCTION block; no changes in CO, VC, and TPR during WAIT block). Overall, these patterns reflect greater cardiac efficiency in the Compassion group (increased cardiac activity coupled with vasodilation) compared to the Reappraisal group (increased cardiac activity in the absence of vasodilation) when anticipating having to empathize with racial out-group members in social justice contexts.

This finding is interesting especially in the light of the lack of group differences in behavioral choice to empathize in the ESTb-SJI. While individuals in Compassion and

Reappraisal groups did not differ in their behavioral choice to empathize with the racial out- group victim, those in the Compassion group (vs. Reappraisal group) appeared to have experienced physiological changes more consistent with an approach orientation when faced with and asked to empathize with the suffering out-group member.

In order to understand this discrepancy between physiological and behavioral responses, it is useful to consider the process of empathic decision-making. According to the biopsychosocial model of threat and challenge (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996), the evaluation of resources-demands, which leads to challenge-threat responses occurs automatically when individuals are faced with a goal-oriented situation. While the challenge-threat evaluation is an on-going process that continues to change over time, the responses in the early phase of this process would reflect more immediate, automatic evaluation of a given situation. Thus, it is possible that physiological responses in the INTRODUCTION and WAIT blocks of the ESTp-

SJI may be reflecting more immediate, automatic reaction tendencies (“gut reaction”) when presented with a challenging empathic situation. This initial gut reaction may reflect more approach motivation in the Compassion group and more avoidance motivation in the Reappraisal 69 group. Even so, the initial gut reaction and eventual choice may not always agree, as a variety of factors other than the initial reaction could influence a subsequent course of action. For example, one may have been initially drawn to share in the feelings of another, but later realized that there are other competing goals in the situation such as saving time or effort. Thus, in this study, compassion training may have been effective in producing some level of initial approach motivation in challenging empathic situations, but not to an extent that it led to an actual choice to engage with empathy.

On the other hand, the discrepancy between physiological and behavioral responses may be related to the different designs employed for the physiological and behavioral empathy tasks.

In the physio-version of the task, unlike its behavioral counterpart, participants were assigned to either empathy or describe trial, rather than choosing the trial based on their preference. As such, an empathic goal was externally forced upon participants during the physio task, whereas it was up to participants to choose the empathic goal in the behavioral version of the task. Due to the design of the behavioral task discussed previously, participants may not elect the empathic goal themselves, which may prevent the demands-resources evaluation from taking place at all.

However, when an empathic goal is externally imposed and thus the sharing of negative experiences is expected (such as in the physio task), the evaluation of resources in relation to demands may become more important in determining further approach vs. avoidance responses.

Similarly, we can expect that the demands-resources evaluation will become more important in dilemma situations where participants have intrinsically motivated empathic goals (vs. externally motivated empathic goals) but perceive significant costs to empathy.

The present physiological findings provide some insight into the process of demands- resources evaluations in situations where empathic goals are activated, and the impacts that 70 compassion training may have on this process. Although preliminary, the findings suggest that compassion training may lead to greater challenge responses, reflecting the evaluation that one has sufficient resources to meet the situational demands of empathizing with racial out-group members suffering from systematic disparities. Such challenge responses associated with compassion training may lead to greater approach behaviors in demanding social justice situations. More research on compassion training and its effect on physiology of threat and challenge in social justice situations is needed to confirm these conjectures.

Because this is the first study, to our knowledge, that examines the physiology of threat and challenge in racial disparity focused empathic situations, the study provides several methodological implications for future research. First, this study showed that cardiovascular indices of threat and challenge can be effectively used to examine the process of empathy at an autonomic/implicit level. This can be especially useful when studying out-group empathy, because behavioral and self-report responses may be influenced by social norms and expectations. Second, it is interesting that the training group effect was larger in the

INTRODUCTION and WAIT blocks compared to the TASK block. In other words, the observed effects were more pronounced when participants were anticipating having to empathize rather than when they were actively empathizing. At the simplest level, this finding shows that the threat-challenge evaluation is an on-going process that continues to shift over time. Furthermore, it suggests that the physiology of threat and challenge can be especially useful in examining the empathic motivation as opposed to the empathic action, which is in line with the biopsychosocial model of threat and challenge (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996).

Compassion Training and Social Resources

There were marginally significant group differences in social resources changes from pre- to post-training, such that individuals’ perceived connection to close others increased significantly in the Compassion group but increased only marginally significantly in the

Reappraisal group; perceived connection to distant others significantly increased in the

Compassion group but did not change in the Reappraisal group.

The significant increase in connection with close others in the Compassion group was consistent with our prediction. This finding is also in line with previous studies reporting the positive effects of loving-kindness meditation on increasing perceived connection with others

(Fredrickson et al., 2008) and activating brain areas associated with social connectedness and affiliation (Klimecki et al., 2013). Furthermore, the significant increase in perceived connection with distant others (i.e., all humanity) in the Compassion group was also consistent with our prediction and is in line with theory of compassion meditation (Dodson-Lavelle, 2017). While being mindful of the aforementioned statistical limitations, the current findings suggest that compassion training may expand individuals’ social resources by increasing perception of connection with close relational others as well as all humanity. It is these processes, putatively, that have been posited to lead to greater engagement with suffering others (e.g., Strauss et al.,

2016).

Despite the increase in social resources, however, individuals trained in compassion did not show greater engagement with social justice issues over time in this study. As previously discussed, there are measurement and training related issues that could have affected this lack of effect. Alternatively, it is possible that the increase in social resources in the Compassion group was not large enough to offset the high demands of social justice contexts, failing to motivate 72 engagement with social justice issues. More studies are warranted to examine whether a longer- term or more targeted compassion training with an explicit focus on building a “relational starting point” (e.g., the receiving compassion practice; accessing the representation of social justice mentors such as Desmond Tutu or Mother Theresa in practice, etc.) could lead to a greater expansion of social resources and whether such expansion could then motivate more approach responses in social justice contexts.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has several limitations, some of which have already been discussed, that inform directions for future studies. Most importantly, online practice compliance was low.

The low compliance is a common problem in online intervention studies. Despite this challenge, however, an online self-guided training format has a number of practical advantages including cost-efficiency (Palmqvist et al., 2007), ease of access, and scalability (Aikens et al., 2014).

Thus, this format continues to be an appealing mode of delivery for disseminating compassion training. Future studies on online compassion trainings should consider developing trainings that are more engaging, personalized, and interactive (Beatty & Binnion, 2016). Based on the evidence that personalized assistance (in-person meeting, telephone or email contact) enhances online intervention compliance (Beatty & Binnion, 2016; Gellatly et al., 2007; Palmqvist et al.,

2007; Spek et al., 2007), it may be useful to consider a hybrid model of compassion training where the online training is supplemented with less frequent, but regular trainer contact. In addition, other means of increasing training compliance such as the use of daily online quiz (Lim et al., 2015) has been employed successfully and can be considered in future studies. Finally, our findings showed that self-report and behavior-based measures of practice compliance can be 73 substantially different. Future research should consider using multiple measures of compliance including both subjective and objective measures (Beatty & Binnion, 2016; Kirby, 2017).

Next, our laboratory outcome measures, while enabling a well-controlled, multi-method assessment of outcome, may have lacked ecological validity. Thus, it is possible that our outcome measures do not fully reflect prosocial responding in real-world social justice situations.

In the real world, individuals’ empathy and environment (i.e., target of empathy, cause of suffering) interact with each other and simultaneously shape the empathy process (e.g., expression of empathy from one person reduces intensity of pain in another person, and this reduction in pain reinforces subsequent empathy). Moreover, we know that the salience and urgency of distress cues increases the motivation to empathize with others (Preston & de Waal,

2002). It would be interesting to examine effects of compassion training on engagement with social justice issues in a more ecologically valid setting. While we attempted to partially achieve this goal by assessing individuals’ interests in World in Conversation dialogues, this self-report measure is still a proxy for actual engagement with social justice issues. Previous studies have employed ecologically valid laboratory measures of prosocial responding by using a confederate design (Condon et al., 2013; Lim et al., 2015). Examinations of such designs as well as other creative solutions are urgently needed to improve measurement of prosocial responding in social justice contexts.

In addition, our sample size was likely a limitation for assessing certain impacts of training. Our preliminary findings on physiological responses and social resources are interesting but inconclusive, in part due to small sample size. While our initial sample size was determined though a power analysis based on the effect size reported in a previous study, we actually found smaller effect sizes for both physiology and social resources findings in this study. In addition, 74 for physiological data analysis, there was a further reduction in sample size during data cleaning procedure. As a result, findings on physiological responses and social resources were underpowered. These findings need to be investigated in a larger sample with adequate statistical power.

Finally, this study focused on healthy, young, educated, White individuals’ responses to racial out-group members in the US. Thus, we do not know if findings from this study can be generalized to other populations in different cultural contexts (e.g., older, less educated, South

Korean individuals’ responses to suffering of North Korean refugees). Nevertheless, we believe that this study represents a meaningful step in the field’s collective exploration of potential solutions for mitigating deterrents to out-group empathy and motivating more engagement with complex social justice issues. Investigation of compassion training in diverse populations across different cultural and social justice contexts is needed.

Conclusions

Promoting prosocial engagement among privileged group members in response to out- group members suffering from structural disparities is a challenging yet important mission for our society. This multi-method study investigated compassion meditation training as a potential solution, utilizing a randomized controlled trial design with an active control group.

Unfortunately, our results showed that compassion training did not have any significant effects in increasing engagement with social justice issues. Nevertheless, the study raised several key considerations pertaining to practice compliance, outcome measurement, and compassion training model, that inform future studies of compassion training. In addition, preliminary findings suggest that compassion meditation may increase individuals’ social resources and generate physiological responses more consistent with approach motivation in empathically 75 challenging social justice situations. These findings call for continued investigations of compassion training as a potential method to help mitigate social justice problems highly relevant to today’s society.

References

Aikens, K. A., Astin, J., Pelletier, K. R., Levanovich, K., Baase, C. M., Park, Y. Y., & Bodnar,

C. M. (2014). Mindfulness goes to work: Impact of an online workplace intervention.

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(7), 721–731.

https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000209

Alfonsson, S., Johansson, K., Uddling, J., & Hursti, T. (2017). Differences in motivation and

adherence to a prescribed assignment after face-to-face and online psychoeducation: An

experimental study. BMC Psychology, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-017-

0172-5

Alicke, M., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and

what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 1–48.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802613866

Ancis, J. R., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Awareness of White privilege among White

counseling trainees. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 548–569.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000001294005

Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M., & Trachtman, H. (2017). Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on

altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. Journal of Political Economy, 125(3), 625–653.

https://doi.org/10.1086/691703

Arminio, J. (2001). Exploring the nature of race-related guilt. Journal of Multicultural

Counseling and Development, 29(4), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-

1912.2001.tb00467.x

Beatty, L., & Binnion, C. (2016). A systematic review of predictors of, and reasons for,

adherence to online psychological interventions. International Journal of Behavioral 77

Medicine, 23(6), 776–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-016-9556-9

Berger, R., Brenick, A., & Tarrasch, R. (2018). Reducing Israeli-Jewish pupils’ outgroup

prejudice with a mindfulness and compassion-based social-emotional program.

Mindfulness, 9(6), 1768–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0919-y

Blascovich, J. (2013). Challenge and threat. In Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation

(pp. 432–444).

Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2010). Social psychophysiology and embodiment. In

Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 194–227).

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001006

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver

threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80(2), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.253

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation. In

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 1–52).

Brown, J. G., Joyce, K. E., Stacey, D., & Thomson, R. G. (2015). Patients or volunteers? The

impact of motivation for trial participation on the efficacy of patient decision aids: A

secondary analysis of a cochrane systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 419–

435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15579172

Cameron, C. D., Cunningham, W. A., Saunders, B., & Inzlicht, M. (2017). The ends of empathy:

Constructing empathy from value-based choice. PsyArXiv.

Cameron, C. D., Harris, L. T., & Payne, B. K. (2016). The emotional cost of humanity:

Anticipated exhaustion motivates dehumanization of stigmatized targets. Social

Psychological and Personality Science, 7(2), 105–112. 78

https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615604453

Cameron, C. D., Hutcherson, C. A., Ferguson, A. M., Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., &

Inzlicht, M. (2019). Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its

cognitive costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(6), 962–976.

https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000595

Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2011). Escaping affect: How motivated emotion regulation

creates insensitivity to mass suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

100(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021643

Cho, S. (2019). “Motivating Engagement with Social Justice Issues through Compassion

Training: A Multi-Method Randomized Control Trial.” AEA RCT Registry.

https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3828-1.0.

Cho, S., Soto, J. A., Roeser, R. W., Cameron, C. D., & Weng, H. Y. (2019). Motivating

engagement with social justice issues through compassion training: A multi-method

randomized control trial. Penn State Graduate Exhibition 2019.

Cikara, M., Bruneau, E., Van Bavel, J. J., & Saxe, R. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How

intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007

Coan, J. A., Kasle, S., Jackson, A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2013). Mutuality and the

social regulation of neural threat responding. Attachment and Human Development, 15(3),

303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.782656

Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and

effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87–91.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.021 79

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the

neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032–1039.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. In Statistical Power

Anaylsis for the Behavioural Science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale.

Cohen, Jacob. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W. B., & DeSteno, D. (2013). Meditation increases

compassionate responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2125–2127.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613485603

Condon, P., & Makransky, J. (2020). Recovering the relational starting point of compassion

training : A foundation for sustainable and inclusive care. Perspectives on Psychological

Science. https://doi.org/10.31231/osf.io/dmxj7

Davidson, R. J., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2015). Conceptual and methodological issues in research on

mindfulness and meditation. American Psychologist, 70(7), 581–592.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039512

Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and

physical health. Psychological Review, 96(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295X.96.1.84

Dodson-Lavelle, B. (2017). Compassion in context: Tracing the Buddhist roots of secular,

compassion-based contemplative programs. In The Oxford Handbook of Compassion

Science (pp. 1–16). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464684.013.2

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). 80

Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(4), 401–420.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1327

Eysenbach, G. (2005). The law of attrition. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), e11.

https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical

power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior

Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Ferguson, C. J. (2009). Is psychological research really as good as medical research? Effect size

comparisons between psychology and medicine. Review of General Psychology, 13(2),

130–136.

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 personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5),

1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262

Gellatly, J., Bower, P., Hennessy, S., Richards, D., Gilbody, S., & Lovell, K. (2007). What

makes self-help interventions effective in the management of depressive symptoms? Meta-

analysis and meta-regression. Psychological Medicine, 37(9), 1217–1228.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291707000062

Goleman, D., & Davidson, R. J. (2017). Altered traits: Science reveals how meditation changes

your mind, brain, and body. Penguin.

Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states:

Neural evidence of an empathy gap. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(5), 81

596–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr035

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical

Biology, 7(1), 17–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6

Hamlin, J. K., Mahajan, N., Liberman, Z., & Wynn, K. (2013). Not like me = bad: Infants prefer

those who harm dissimilar others. Psychological Science, 24(4), 589–594.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457785.Not

Hammond, R. A., & Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of ethnocentrism. Journal of Conflict

Resolution, 50(6), 926–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002706293470

Hutcherson, C. A., Seppala, E. M., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Loving-kindness meditation increases

social connectedness. Emotion, 8(5), 720–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013237

Kang, Y., Gray, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2013). The nondiscriminating heart: Lovingkindness

meditation training decreases implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 143(3), 1306–1313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034150

Kirby, J. N. (2017). Compassion interventions: The programmes, the evidence, and implications

for research and practice. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,

90(3), 432–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12104

Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Steindl, S. R. (2017). A meta-analysis of compassion-based

interventions: Current state of knowledge and future directions. Behavior Therapy, 48(6),

778–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.06.003

Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746–759.

Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Lamm, C., & Singer, T. (2013). Functional neural plasticity and

associated changes in positive affect after compassion training. Cerebral Cortex, 23(7), 82

1552–1561. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs142

Kubzansky, L. D., Mendes, W. B., Appleton, A. A., Block, J., & Adler, G. K. (2012). A heartfelt

response: Oxytocin effects on response to social stress in men and women. Biological

Psychology, 90(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.02.010

Kumashiro, M., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Taking on board liability-focused information.

Psychological Science, 16(9), 732–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01603.x

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In The handbook of behavioral

medicine (Vol. 282325). New York: Guilford.

Leiberg, S., Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2011). Short-term compassion training increases

prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e17798.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017798

Lim, D., Condon, P., & De Steno, D. (2015). Mindfulness and compassion: An examination of

mechanism and scalability. PLoS ONE, 10(2), 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118221

Lindhiem, O., Bennett, C. B., Trentacosta, C. J., & McLear, C. (2014). Client preferences affect

treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: A meta-analysis. Clinical

Psychology Review, 34(6), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002

Makransky, J. (2007). Awakening through love: Unveiling your deepest goodness. Simon and

Schuster.

McCall, C., Steinbeis, N., Ricard, M., & Singer, T. (2014). Compassion meditators show less

anger, less punishment, and more compensation of victims in response to fairness

violations. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 424.

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and 83

studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

103(5), 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724

McIntosh, P. (1989). White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Peace and Freedom,

August. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351133791-4

Melville, K. M., Casey, L. M., & Kavanagh, D. J. (2010). Dropout from internet-based treatment

for psychological disorders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(4), 455–471.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466509X472138

Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Threatened by the

unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating

partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 698–716.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.698

Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Lickel, B., & Hunter, S. (2002). Challenge and threat during

social interactions with White and Black men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

28(7), 939–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/01467202028007007

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001).

Attachment theory and rections to others’ needs: Evidence that activiation of the sense of

attachment security promotes empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81(6), 1205–1224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1205

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that

priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.81.1.97

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and altruism. Current 84

Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-

7214.2005.00330.x

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and

altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 817–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.89.5.817

Mitchell, A. E., Whittingham, K., Steindl, S., & Kirby, J. (2018). Feasibility and acceptability of

a brief online self-compassion intervention for mothers of infants. Archives of Women’s

Mental Health, 21(5), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-018-0829-y

Palmqvist, B., Carlbring, P., & Andersson, G. (2007). Internet-delivered treatments with or

without therapist input: Does the therapist factor have implications for efficacy and cost?

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 7(3), 291–297.

https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.7.3.291

Preston, S. D. (2013). The origins of altruism in offspring care. Psychological Bulletin, 139(6),

1305–1341. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031755

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018

Quach, D., Gibler, R. C., & Jastrowski Mano, K. E. (2017). Does home practice compliance

make a difference in the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions for adolescents?

Mindfulness, 8(2), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0624-7

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the marlowe-crowne

social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125.

https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38 85

Roeser, R. W., Colaianne, B. A., & Greenberg, M. A. (2018). Compassion and human

development: Current approaches and future directions. Research in Human Development,

15(3–4), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2018.1495002

Roeser, R. W., & Pinela, C. (2014). Mindfulness and compassion training in adolescence: A

developmental contemplative science perspective. In New Directions for Youth

Development (Issue 142, pp. 9–30). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20094

Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Definition and interpretation of interaction effects.

Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.143

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.

Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Social support and the

perception of geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1246–

1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.011

Shaw, L. L., Batson, C. D., & Todd, R. M. (1994). Empathy avoidance: Forestalling feeling for

another in order to escape the motivational consequences. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67(5), 879–887. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.879

Sherwood, A., Allen, M. T., Fahrenberg, J., Kelsey, R. M., Lovallo, W. R., & Van Doornen, L. J.

P. (1990). Methodological guidelines for impedance cardiography. Psychophysiology,

27(1), 1–23.

Skinner, B. F. (1991). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. BF Skinner

Foundation.

Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. 86

Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8647-1_3

Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of

deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005

Spanierman, L. B., Oh, E., Poteat, V. P., Hund, A. R., Mcclair, V. L., Beer, A. M., & Clarke, A.

M. (2008). White university students’ responses to societal racism: A qualitative

investigation. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(6), 839–870.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006295589

Spek, V., Cuijpers, P., NykIíček, I., Riper, H., Keyzer, J., & Pop, V. (2007). Internet-based

cognitive behaviour therapy for symptoms of depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Medicine, 37(3), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706008944

Stell, A. J., & Farsides, T. (2016). Brief loving-kindness meditation reduces racial bias, mediated

by positive other-regarding emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 40(1), 140–147.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9514-x

Strauss, C., Lever Taylor, B., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., & Cavanagh, K. (2016).

What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures.

Clinical Psychology Review, 47(June), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004

Sue, D. W. (2013). Race talk: The psychology of racial dialogues. American Psychologist, 68(8),

663–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033681

Sue, D. W., Lin, A. I., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., & Rivera, D. P. (2009). Racial

microaggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Cultural Diversity and

Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014191 87

Sue, D. W., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., Rivera, D. P., & Lin, A. I. (2009). How White

faculty perceive and react to difficult dialogues on race: Implications for education and

training. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(8), 1090–1115.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009340443

Tatum, B. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity

development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.1.146k5v980r703023

Utsey, S. O., Gernat, C. A., & Hammar, L. (2005). Examining White counselor trainees’

reactions to racial issues in counseling and supervision dyads. The Counseling Psychologist,

33(4), 449–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004269058

Valentine, K., Prentice, M., Torres, M. F., & Arellano, E. (2012). The importance of student

cross-racial interactions as part of college education: Perceptions of faculty. Journal of

Diversity in Higher Education, 5(4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030109

Van Vugt, M., & Park, J. H. (2009). Guns, germs, and tribal social identities: Evolutionary

perspectives on the social psychology of intergroup relations. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 3, 927–938.

Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mayorga, M., & Peters, E. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity

are greatest for a single child in need. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e100115.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100115

Watt, S. K. (2007). Difficult dialogues, privilege and social justice: Uses of the privileged

identity exploration (PIE) model in student affairs practice. College Student Affairs Journal,

26(2), 114–126.

Watt, S. K., Curtis, G. C., Drummond, J., Kellogg, A. H., Lozano, A., Nicoli, G. T., & Rosas, M. 88

(2009). Privileged identity exploration: Examining counselor trainees’ reactions to difficult

dialogues. Counselor Education and Supervision, 49(2), 86–105.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00090.x

Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, D. E., Caldwell, J. Z. K., Olson, M. C.,

Rogers, G. M., & Davidson, R. J. (2013). Compassion training alters altruism and neural

responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1171–1180.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612469537

Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.

American Psychologist, 54(8), 594.

World in Conversation Annual Report. (2019). https://worldinconversation.org/

VITA

Sinhae Cho

Sinhae was born and raised in Seoul, South Korea. She moved to the U.S. during high school and acquired her B.S. in Psychology with Honors-Distinction from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Upon graduating college, Sinhae moved back to South Korea and worked in Samsung Everland for several years before starting her graduate training. She acquired her

M.A. in Psychology (Area: Clinical Psychology) from Yonsei University, Korea, under the mentorship of Dr. Kyung Ja Oh. Sinhae then moved back to the U.S. and joined the Psychology

Department at the Pennsylvania State University for her doctoral training in Clinical Psychology under the mentorship of Dr. José Soto and Dr. Robert Roeser. During this time, Sinhae received several awards including Francisco J. Varela Grant for Contemplative Sciences Research from the Mind and Life Institute to pursue her dissertation study. Sinhae also completed her APA- accredited clinical internship at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. Upon completion of her Ph.D., Sinhae will pursue a postdoctoral fellowship in the OCD Institute at McLean

Hospital/Harvard Medical School. Sinhae’s research focuses on psychological and physiological processes of emotions and the use of contemplative methods to alter and enhance these processes. Her clinical work focuses on treatment of mood and anxiety disorders, with an emphasis on mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral approaches.