Understanding university students’ conceptualizations and perceptions of kindness: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attending university can present a host of challenges for undergraduate students and the mental health of students has increasingly become a concern as students struggle to meet the demands of new academic and social expectations. Despite several studies assessing the effects of being kind on well-being, there remains a dearth of research identifying how students understand and enact kindness. The aims of this study were to integrate a kindness assignment into undergraduate coursework, to explore how students define and enact kindness, and to examine how being kind impacted students’ perceptions of themselves, their peers, and their campus. Students were asked to complete a series of five kind acts and administered a series of pre- and post-assignment measures and open-ended prompts. Consistent with our hypotheses, participants who completed at least 3 of the 5 planned acts of kindness reported significantly higher scores on measures of in-person kindness (d = 0.46, p = .04) and peer connectedness (d = 0.46, p = .04). Participants did not, however, report significantly higher scores on measures of self-perceived online kindness (d = 0.12, p = .59) or on their perception of the kindness of their campus community (d = 0.09, p = .68). Participants in this study planned a total of 492 acts, which were coded using content analysis. The salient themes in kind acts were Helping Others, Giving, Demonstrating Appreciation, and Communicating. This study demonstrated that a curriculum-based kindness intervention was well received by students and resulted in students performing varied acts of kindness that positively impacted their self-ratings of kindness and peer connectedness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".