The development of compassionate engagement and action scales for self and others

Background Studies of the value of compassion on physical and mental health and social relationships have proliferated in the last 25 years. Although, there are several conceptualisations and measures of compassion, this study develops three new measures of compassion competencies derived from an evolutionary, motivational approach. The scales assess 1. the compassion we experience for others, 2. the compassion we experience from others, and 3. self-compassion based on a standard definition of compassion as a ‘sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a commitment to try to alleviate and prevent it’. We explored these in relationship to other compassion scales, self-criticism, depression, anxiety, stress and well-being. Methods Participants from three different countries (UK, Portugal and USA) completed a range of scales including compassion for others, self-compassion, self-criticism, shame, depression, anxiety and stress with the newly developed ‘The Compassionate Engagement and Actions’ scale. Results All three scales have good validity. Interestingly, we found that the three orientations of compassion are only moderately correlated to one another (r < .5). We also found that some elements of self-compassion (e.g., being sensitive to, and moved by one’s suffering) have a complex relationship with other attributes of compassion (e.g., empathy), and with depression, anxiety and stress. A path-analysis showed that self-compassion is a significant mediator of the association between self-reassurance and well-being, while self-criticism has a direct effect on depressive symptoms, not mediated by self-compassion. Discussion Compassion evolved from caring motivation and in humans is associated with a range of different socially intelligent competencies. Understanding how these competencies can be inhibited and facilitated is an important research endeavour. These new scales were designed to assess these competencies. Conclusions This is the first study to measure the three orientations of compassion derived from an evolutionary model of caring motivation with specified competencies. Our three new measures of compassion further indicate important complex relationships between different potentiation’s of compassion, well-being, and vulnerability to psychopathologies.N/

Measuring competitive self-focus perspective taking, submissive compassion and compassion goals.

Research in the last 20 years has provided good evidence that developing compassion-focused motives for self and others has a range of benefits. However, people can behave in prosocial ways for different reasons, not all of which are genuinely care focused. This paper reports research comparing submissive compassion (being helpful to be liked) to “genuine” compassion in relation to domains of empathy and perspective taking. We developed a new short (5 item) self-report scale (the competitive perspective taking scale) to explore how people might use perspective taking for self-focused reasons. We investigated its association with validated empathy and compassion measures.N/

When to Use Your Head and When to Use Your Heart

Four studies explored whether perspective-taking and empathy would be differentially effective in mixed-motive competitions depending on whether the critical skills for success were more cognitively or emotionally based. Study 1 demonstrated that individual differences in perspective-taking, but not empathy, predicted increased distributive and integrative performance in a multiple-round war game that required a clear understanding of an opponent’s strategic intentions. Conversely, both measures and manipulations of empathy proved more advantageous than perspective-taking in a relationship-based coalition game that required identifying the strength of interpersonal connections (Studies 2-3). Study 4 established a key process: perspective-takers were more accurate in cognitive understanding of others, whereas empathy produced stronger accuracy in emotional understanding. Perspective-taking and empathy were each useful but in different types of competitive, mixed-motive situations—their success depended on the task–competency match. These results demonstrate when to use your head versus your heart to achieve the best outcomes for oneself. </jats:p

Effects of Smoking on Hand Tendon Repair: Scientific Study & Literature Review

Purpose: The clinical effect of smoking on after tendon repair in smokers vs non-smokers was investigated, via exploring effects on flexor and tendon repair, and incidence of wound complications. Methods: Retrospective review of patients treated by 1 orthopedic surgeon, fellowship trained in hand surgery, and 3 occupational therapists working together in 1 physical therapy institution. 56 patients (20 smokers and 36 non-smokers) with acute traumatic tendon lacerations, fixed via direct (end-to-end) method, within 3 weeks from date of injury. Total Active Motion (TAM) was measured via American Society for Surgery of the Hand protocol. Results: Overall percentage of TAM regained in smokers was 70% vs 75% of TAM by non-smokers. No significant differences in TAM between smokers and non-smokers. Flexor tendon TAM was significantly higher in both the smoking and non-smoking groups vs extensors tendon TAM, displaying a larger effect of smoking on flexor vs extensor tendons. No significant dose dependent effect in “heavy” vs “light” smokers on numerous parameters. When grouping excellent, good and fair results, vs poor results, no significant difference exists, telling us tendon repairs universally do “poor” in terms of TAM, despite the fact if they are flexor or tendon repairs, and if the patient is a smoker or not. “Surgical wound complications”, were exceptionally low, 1 in the smokers, 2 in the non-smokers. Conclusion: Despite the undisputable harsh effects of smoking, it is scientifically inaccurate to claim patient post-operative range of motion in flexor and extensor tendon injuries is significantly affected by this unhealthy habit. Nor can we claim surgical site complications are more common in smokers in the setting of such injuries. Study/Level Of Evidence: (Level 3) Retrospective chart review & Review of the Literature. Therapeutic & Prognostic Analysis