The Influence of Compassion Meditation on the Psychotherapist’s Empathy and Clinical Practice: A Phenomenological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mindfulness and compassion meditation practices have repeatedly been shown to have a positive impact on empathy and prosocial behavior. This study examines the perceived influence of compassion meditation on the psychotherapist’s empathy and clinical practice, beyond benefits already gained from a practice of mindfulness meditation. Three psychotherapists, who had already been practicing regular mindfulness meditation, engaged in compassion meditation training over a 4-week period. Repeated semistructured interviews were conducted before and after the 4-week period, as well as 1 month later. Phenomenological analysis of the interview data showed a perceived influence of compassion meditation on four main aspects labelled as follows: (a) The therapist’s relation to self, (b) Experiencing empathy, (c) Living a therapeutic relationship, and (d) Integrating change. Challenges and other stumbling blocks on these practices on compassion were also addressed by participants. These findings provide evidence for the inclusion of compassion meditation training in psychotherapy training curricula, as well as in burnout-prevention workshops.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".