“We need to do more... I need to do more”: Augmenting Digital Media Consumption via Critical Reflection to Increase Compassion and Promote Prosocial Attitudes and Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much HCI research on prompting prosocial behaviors focuses on methods for increasing empathy. However, increased empathy may have unintended negative consequences. Our work offers an alternative solution that encourages critical reflection for nurturing compassion, which involves motivation and action to help others. In a between-subject experiment, participants (N=60) viewed a climate change documentary while receiving no prompts (CON), reflective prompts to focus on their emotions (RE) or surprises (RS). State compassion, critical reflection, and motivation to act or learn were measured at the end of the session (post-video) and two weeks later (follow-up). Despite participants’ condition not affecting compassion, critical reflection was positively correlated with post-video state compassion. RE and RS participants demonstrated deeper reflection and reported higher motivation to learn post-video, and more prosocial behavioral changes during follow-up. RS participants reported better follow-up recall than RE participants. We conclude by discussing implications on designing technology to support compassion and longer-term critical reflection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".