MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241645457 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/fdrmq

Prosocial motivation as a mediator between dispositional mindfulness and prosocial behavior

2021· preprint· en· W4241645457 on OpenAlexaff
Hali Kil, D.H. O’Neill, Joan E. Grusec

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsocial behaviorMindfulnessPsychologyFacet (psychology)Personal distressDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyEmpathyBig Five personality traitsPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have theorized that mindfulness leads to prosocial behavior through awareness of one’s personal goals and motivations. The present research examined the mediating effect of internalized prosocial motivation on the link between dispositional mindfulness and prosocial behavior. Undergraduate students (N=232) completed questionnaires assessing prosocial motivation and mindfulness. Prosocial behavior was assessed with the social mindfulness decision-making task. The results indicated that internalized prosocial motivation mediated the link between the mindfulness facet of acting with awareness and social mindfulness. The results suggest the importance of individual characteristics such as internalized prosocial motivation as mediators of the link between dispositional mindfulness and prosocial behavior. Given that only one facet of mindfulness—acting with awareness—was indirectly associated with prosocial behavior, the results also indicate that general measures of dispositional mindfulness may not be sufficiently nuanced when investigating these associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207