The Effect of Self-Compassion on Impulse Buying: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Self-Help Intervention

Abstract

Objectives
Impulse buying occurs frequently and leads to many negative consequences, but few intervention studies have addressed this issue. The current study aimed to apply an online self-compassion intervention called the “Positive Self” to intervene in impulse buying, and explored the role played by materialism and self-control in the relationship between self-compassion and impulse buying.

Method
A total of 191 participants were randomly allocated to an intervention group or waitlist control group. The intervention was a 14-day online self-help intervention. Self-compassion, materialism, self-control, and impulse buying were assessed at pretest, posttest, and 1-month follow-up.

Results
Compared to the waitlist control group, the intervention group showed a significant increase in self-compassion and self-control, as well as a significant decrease in materialism and impulse buying. Changes in self-compassion and self-control were maintained at the 1-month follow-up. The reduction of materialism and enhancement of self-control played a chain mediating role in the intervention’s effects on impulse buying.

Conclusions
This study demonstrated the benefits of self-compassion in reducing impulse buying and proved the effectiveness of an online self-help self-compassion course for this purpose.

Preregistration
This study is not pre-registered.

Full text

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360477669
The effects of loving‐kindness and compassion meditation on life
satisfaction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
ArticleinApplied Psychology Health and Well-Being · May 2022
DOI: 10.1111/aphw.12367
CITATIONS
6
READS
315
16 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Appreciative Joy and Appreciative Joy Meditation: Proof of Uniqueness View project
The role of positive interpersonal schema in cognitive process and emotional regulation View project
Xiaodan Gu
Beijing Normal University
8 PUBLICATIONS12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Zhao Xinran
Beijing Normal University
3 PUBLICATIONS6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Yanyan Chen
Beijing Normal University
3 PUBLICATIONS6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Yuan Zheng
Beijing Normal University
7 PUBLICATIONS30 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Xiaodan Gu on 12 March 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

REVIEW ARTICLE
The effects of loving-kindness and compassion
meditation on life satisfaction: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
Xiaodan Gu
1
| Wenting Luo
1
| Xinran Zhao
1
|
Yanyan Chen
1
| Yuan Zheng
1
| Jingyi Zhou
1
|
Xianglong Zeng
1
| Luyi Yan
1
| Yifei Chen
1
|
Xiuqing Zhang
1
| Jing Lv
2
| Yongqi Lang
1
| Zilin Wang
1
|
Chenyu Gao
1
| Yuanchen Jiang
1
| Runze Li
1
1
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied
Experimental Psychology, Faculty of
Psychology, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing, China
2
Department of Psychology, School of
Social Development and Public Policy,
Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Correspondence
Xianglong Zeng, Beijing Normal
University, Room 1515, Houzhulou,
No. 19 Xinjiekouwai St. Haidian District,
Beijing, China.
Email: xzeng@bnu.edu.cn
Abstract
Loving-kindness and compassion meditation (LKCM)
was a promising intervention for improving life satis-
faction, but previous findings have been inconsistent.
The current study provides a systematic review and
meta-analysis, including 23 empirical studies on LKCM
with life satisfaction as an outcome variable. The pri-
mary meta-analysis indicated that LKCM significantly
enhanced life satisfaction in pre-post design (g=0.312,
k=15, n=451), but the significance disappeared in
the additional meta-analysis based on randomized con-
trolled trials (g=0.106, k=6, n=404). Moderator
analyses found significant effects for type of control
(i.e., the effects of LKCM were inferior to active control
group, but superior to waitlist condition), but not for
other moderators (i.e., participant type, previous medi-
tation experience, specific protocol, components of
LKCM, combination with mindfulness mediation, and
intervention length). Narrative review identified self-
compassion and positive emotions as important media-
tors. The practice time of LKCM had indirect but not
direct association with life satisfaction. The findings
Received: 7 December 2021 Revised: 10 March 2022 Accepted: 5 April 2022
DOI: 10.1111/aphw.12367
bs_bs_banner
© 2022 International Association of Applied Psychology.
Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2022;14:1081–1101. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aphw 1081
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

supported that LKCM is promising in increasing life
satisfaction, but more studies are needed to investigate
the effects with more rigorous designs. Future studies
should investigate other potential mechanisms and
clarify whether LKCM change the reality or the percep-
tion of life.
KEYWORDS
compassion, life satisfaction, loving-kindness, meditation, self-
compassion
INTRODUCTION
Life satisfaction refers to subjective cognitive-judgmental process about life based on the
standard established by oneself (Diener et al., 1985). Life satisfaction is associated with many
other positive outcomes and could also predict fewer psychiatric disorders (Meyer et al.,
2004). In addition to mental health, life satisfaction also contributes to physical health
(Boehm & Kubzansky, 2012). Of note, life satisfaction is often discussed together with posi-
tive emotions and negative emotions, as these three components constitute the concept of
subjective well-being, which is a core topic in research on well-being (Liu et al., 2020). How-
ever, in comparison with fleeting emotions, life satisfaction, as an overall evaluation of life,
is considered to be more stable (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Gentile et al., 2020). Therefore,
many interventions have focused on life satisfaction as an independent outcome
(e.g., Pretty & Barton, 2020). Some studies have also considered life satisfaction as the ulti-
mate variable, and considered emotions as mediators of change (e.g., Fredrickson et al.,
2008). Furthermore, life satisfaction emphasizes subjective satisfaction, which also differs
from concepts such as quality of life, which is concerned with more objective aspects of life
(Torrijos-Zarcero et al., 2020).
A potential positive psychological intervention for enhancing life satisfaction is loving-
kindness and compassion meditation (LKCM). LKCM is also referred to as “four immeasur-
able meditations”(Lv et al., 2020), whose aim is to cultivate prosocial attitudes, namely, the
four immeasurables: loving-kindness (friendliness), compassion (willing others to cease their
suffering), appreciative joy (happiness for the others' success), and equanimity (calm toward
the fate of others based on wisdom; Zeng et al., 2015). Usually, LKCM is practiced by repeat-
ing blessings to a target. Specifically, there are four subtypes of LKCM that differ from each
other: loving-kindness meditation involves repeating a phrase like “may you be happy”to a
targeted person; compassion meditation involves repeating a phrase like “may you be free
from suffering”to a person in suffering; appreciative joy meditation involves repeating a
phrase like “may you not lose what you gain”to a person in success or happiness; and
equanimity meditation involves repeating a phrase like “he or she is the bearer of his or her
fate”to people in various fates (Sujiva, 2007). In addition, the targets vary from easy to
difficult, ranging from a friend to a stranger, and then to a dislike person, and finally all
beings (Zeng et al., 2015).
1082 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Research on the effect of LKCM has grown rapidly in recent years (see Galante, 2014;Lv
et al., 2020, for reviews). Recent reviews and studies have supported that LKCM could
increase positive emotions (see Zeng et al., 2015, for review) and improve attitudes toward
others and oneself (e.g., Neff & Germer, 2013; Zeng et al., 2018). These effects make LKCM
a promising intervention for improving life satisfaction: studies have shown that positive
emotions broaden attention and thinking, which increase resources and ultimately enhance
life satisfaction (Fredrickson et al., 2008); attitudes toward oneself, which is conceptually
self-compassion, also strongly contribute to life satisfaction (Neff & Germer, 2013). The
effects of LKCM on life satisfaction have also been tested directly, but previous studies have
reported inconsistent findings. Zeng et al. (2018) adopted a protocol of practicing appreciative
joy meditation for 4 weeks, which improved life satisfaction. In contrast, Lang et al. (2019)
adopted a 10-week protocol that focused on compassion meditation, but it also involved
4 weeks of mindfulness meditation at the beginning, which decreased life satisfaction. The
detailed structure (the length of intervention) and components (e.g., featuring different sub-
types of LKCM; integrated with mindfulness meditation or not) of LKCM vary among stud-
ies. Presently, there is no meta-analysis focusing on the impact of LKCM on life satisfaction.
Two previous reviews included the effects of LKCM on life satisfaction, but these reviews
were limited to specific populations (Galante, 2014; Koydemir et al., 2020). More importantly,
these reviews consider only overall effects in brief and do not illustrate the underlying mech-
anisms (mediators) or factors that impact the results (moderators). In summary, the effect of
LKCM interventions on life satisfaction is still unclear, and there is a need to summarize
previous literature.
Therefore, the current study intended to provide a comprehensive review of the effects of
LKCM interventions on life satisfaction. Meta-analysis will be used to provide statistical analy-
sis for the effects. In addition to exploring the overall effect of LKCM on life satisfaction, this
study also examined the impact of studies variations, which might explain the inconsistent
results of previous studies. Based on previous studies of LKCM (e.g., Lv et al., 2020), the current
meta-analysis will conduct moderator analysis on the following aspects: (1) control type for ran-
domized controlled trials (RCTs) (i.e., active control group or waitlist control group), (2) partici-
pant type (e.g., healthy adults, adults with clinical conditions, and adolescents), (3) subtypes of
LKCM, (4) targets of LKCM (e.g., LKCM for self and LKCM for others), (5) combination with
mindfulness meditation, (6) previous meditation experience, (7) specific protocol, (8) length of
intervention, and (9) baseline level of life satisfaction. Information that is not suitable for meta-
analysis will be presented in a narrative way.
METHOD
Literature search
The literature search was conducted on April 2, 2021, and the databases included ISI Core, Psy-
cInfo, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, following previous systematic
reviews of LKCM (e.g., Lv et al., 2020). Studies were queried with the words “immeasurable*
OR kindness OR compassion OR ((appreciative OR sympathetic) AND Joy) OR equanimity OR
metta OR mudita OR karuna OR upekkha”combined with “meditat*”in the title, abstract or
keywords sections. All studies that met both criteria were included.
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1083
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Selection of studies
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) articles published in academic journals or
dissertations in English, (2) empirical articles that used LKCM in the laboratory or interven-
tions, and (3) articles that measured life satisfaction as an outcome. The exclusion criteria were
as follows: (1) articles with a percentage of LKCM less than 50% and (2) studies generating
similar attitudes without LKCM (e.g., imagining receiving compassion or love from others;
Judge et al., 2012).
Two authors screened the records by reading the titles and abstracts. Then, two researchers
scanned the full papers to identify those using LKCM training and then selected those that mea-
sured life satisfaction. If there was a disagreement between the two researchers, a third
researcher helped reach a final consensus. If there were missing data in the studies, we con-
tacted the authors to ask for more detailed data through emails, although not all authors
responded to emails or provided useful data.
Data extraction and coding
Hedges' gwas used to determine the effect size for both RCTs and uncontrolled trials. Hedges'
gwas computed as follows: (1) transforming means and standard deviations into Hedges' gor
(2) transforming the tvalue or Fvalue into Hedges' g. The correlation between pre- and post-
intervention was defined as .5 if that data were missing (Follmann et al., 1992). In addition, if
there were more than two control conditions in a trial, the effect sizes of the control groups
were pooled together.
Every study was coded from the following aspects: study design (RCT and uncontrolled
trial), control type (active control group and waitlist control group), participant type (adults and
adolescents; healthy people and people with clinical conditions), specific protocol, intervention
components (e.g., featuring the subtypes of LKCM; targets of LKCM), combination with mind-
fulness meditation, length of intervention, previous meditation experience, baseline level of life
satisfaction, moderator, mediator, required practice time, follow-up interval, and effect. Addi-
tionally, article quality was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool (see Higgins et al.,
2011, for details). Each study was coded by two authors, and any discrepancy was discussed
until an agreement was reached with the help of a third person.
Strategy of meta-analysis
Data analysis was performed by Comprehensive Meta Analysis 3 (CMA3), and random effects
modules were adopted (Hedges & Vevea, 1998). Hedges' gwas used as the effect size, with
values smaller than 0.2 indicating a small effect size, values between 0.2 and 0.5 indicating a
medium effect size, and values larger than 0.8 indicating a large effect size (Cohen, 1988).
Funnel plots were adopted to determine whether there was publication bias with Egger's regres-
sion intercept and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill.
The Qtest, I
2
statistic and τ
2
were adopted to check heterogeneity. If heterogeneity existed,
the source of heterogeneity was identified by moderator analysis, which required two trials in
each subgroup (i.e., k> 1 for that subgroup).
1084 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

RESULTS
Search results and characteristic of the studies
As shown in Figure 1, 2413 records were identified from the databases, and after removing
duplicates (n=667), 1746 records were screened based on title and abstract, leaving 458 records
for full-text review. After excluding those that were not LKCM studies (n=217) and adding
records from other resources (n=35), 276 articles were identified as LKCM studies. Among
them, 23 measured life satisfaction and were included in the current study. Six articles were
based on the same data (Cohn, 2009; Fredrickson et al., 2008; Galante, 2014; Galante et al.,
2016; Johnson, 2010; Johnson et al., 2011), and seven articles did not provide full data for meta-
analysis (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2010; Fredrickson et al., 2008; Galante et al., 2016; Gentile et al.,
2020; Liu et al., 2020; Koopmann-Holm et al., 2013; Mongrain et al., 2018). In addition, three
articles included two independent trials in each study (Brito-Pons et al., 2018; Neff & Germer,
2013; Sheffield, 2017), and notably, study 2 from Brito-Pons et al. (2018) was removed because
it had the same data as study 1. As a result, the meta-analyses included six trials with an RCT
design and nine trials with an uncontrolled design. Overall, for RCTs, 29.2% had a low risk of
bias, 33.3% had an unclear risk of bias, and 37.5% had a high risk of bias across trials and risk
categories. For nonrandomized trials, 28.6% had a low risk of bias, 36.5% had a moderate risk of
bias, 20.6% had a serious risk of bias, 12.7% had a critical risk of bias, and 1.6% had no
information across trials and risk categories. Detailed information is presented in Tables SA.1
and SA.2.
Primary meta-analysis
Handling of effect size
To conduct a meaningful meta-analysis with limited studies, the primary meta-analysis
evaluates the changes in life satisfaction through the interventions by combining the data of
uncontrolled interventions and data of the LKCM intervention group in RCTs. Three
trials (Brito-Pons et al., 2018; Neff & Germer, 2013; Sheffield, 2017) contained two independent
studies, each of which was independently included in the meta-analysis. Finally,
15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The information that was used can be seen in
Table 1.
Overall effect
The weighted average effect across 15 trials was g=0.312 (95% CI =[0.191, 0.434]), indicat-
ing a medium effect of the LKCM intervention on improving life satisfaction. A forest plot is
shown in Figure 2, suggesting variation across studies. A funnel plot is shown in Figure 3
with Egger's regression intercept (intercept =0.414, t[13] =0.375, p=.714), indicating that
there was no publication bias. The Qtest and I
2
statistics (Q(14) =21.41, p=.092,
I
2
=34.611 (τ
2
=0.019)) suggested medium heterogeneity, indicating a need to conduct a
moderator analysis.
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1085
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

FIGURE 1 Flowchart of studies selection
1086 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

TABLE 1 Summary of trails included in primary Meta-analysis
Study name Participants type PME Protocol Length Components LKCM Focus self Include MM Hedges' g
Johnson, 2011 Adult Clinical Not reported NA 6 weeks LKM Few No 0.440
Neff, 2013-1 Health Adult Yes MSC 8 weeks LKM Few Few 0.476
Uchino, 2016 Health Adult Not reported Fredrickson (2008) 6 weeks LKM Few No 0.277
Krieger, 2016 Health Adult Yes MBCL 7 weeks LKM Not reported Few 0.496
Malaktaris, 2020 Health Adult Not reported CBCT 10 weeks CM Few Few 0.462
Roca, 2020 Health Adult Yes CCT 8 weeks CM,LKM Few Few 0.283
Sheffield, 2017-1 Health Adult Yes NA 3.5 weeks LKM Not reported No 0.278
Sheffield, 2017-2 Health Adult No NA 8 weeks LKM Few No 0.411
Brito-pons, 2018-1 Health Adult Yes CCT 9 weeks LKM,CM Few Few 0.443
Neff, 2013-2 Health Adult Yes MSC 8 weeks LKM Few Few 0.526
Zeng, 2018 Health Adult Yes HOJ 4 weeks AJM Few No 0.362
Kieger, 2019 Adult Clinical Yes MBCL 7 weeks LKM Few Few 0.411
Lang, 2019 Adult Clinical Not reported CBCT 10 weeks CM Few Few 0.620
Kropp, 2019 Health Adult No NA 6 weeks LKM Few No 0.158
Weytens, 2014 Health Adult Not reported Fredrickson (2008) 6 weeks LKM Not reported No 0.322
Note: MSC =Mindful Self-Compassion; MBCL =Mindfulness-based Compassionate Living; CBCT =Cognitively-Based Compassion Training; CCT =Compassion Cultivation Training;
HOJ =Heart of Joy; LKM =Loving Kindness Meditation; CM =Compassion Meditation; AJM =Appreciative Joy Meditation.
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1087
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

FIGURE 2 Forest plot for primary meta-analysis
1088 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Moderator analysis
The planned moderator analyses did not observe any significant moderator effects. Specifically,
the effect sizes for healthy adults were higher and significant ( g=0.330, 95% CI =[0.227,
0.432], k=12), while the effect size for adults with clinical conditions was lower and insignifi-
cant (g=0.106, 95% CI =[0.494, 0.706], k=3). However, no significant difference was found
between healthy and clinical adults (Q(1) =0.52, p=.471). It is notable that all studies were
based on adults, and no study for adolescents was found. Similarly, no significance was found
for previous meditation experience (Q(1) =0.893, p=.345), and there was no significant differ-
ence between participants with previous meditation experience ( g=0.369, 95% CI =[0.260,
0.478], k=8) or without (g=0.096, 95% CI =[0.459, 0.651], k=2). For specific protocols
that were evaluated in more than one trial, Compassion Cultivation Training (g=0.316, 95%
CI =[0.137, 0.496], k=2), Mindfulness-based Compassionate Living ( g=0.444, 95% CI =
[0.214, 0.674], k=2) and Mindful Self-Compassion ( g=0.502, 95% CI =[0.202, 0.803], k=2)
all showed significant effect sizes and no significant effect was found in Cognitively-Based Com-
passion Training (g=0.065, 95% CI =[1.125, 0.995], k=2) or the unnamed protocol devel-
oped in Fredrickson et al. (2008)(g=0.305, 95% CI =[0.070, 0.680], k=2). The difference
across protocols was not significant (Q(4) =2.239, p=.692). Based on the coding for compo-
nents of LKCM, there was no significant difference among trials (Q(2) =0.589, p=.745), but
the use of loving-kindness meditation and mixed multiple subtypes significantly increased life
satisfaction (g=0.342, 95% CI =[0.217, 0.466], k=10 for loving-kindness meditation;
g=0.316, 95% CI =[0.137, 0.496], k=2 for mixed multiple subtypes), while the effect of com-
passion meditation on life satisfaction was not significant (g =0.065, 95% CI =[1.125,
0.995], k=2). Additionally, interventions that combined mindfulness meditation ( g=0.343,
95% CI =[0.157, 0.530], k=8) or not (g=0.264, 95% CI =[0.115, 0.413], k=7) significantly
improved life satisfaction, but the difference between the two groups was not significant (Q(1)
=0.422, p=.516). The length of intervention ranged from 25 days to 10 weeks, and meta-
FIGURE 3 Funnel plot for primary meta-analysis
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1089
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

regression found that length was not a significant predictor of effects (p=.836). Similarly,
meta-regression showed that there was no significance for baseline level of life satisfaction
(p=.994). The planned moderator for focused targets in LKCM was not conducted because all
trials that reported such information were coded as “focus little on self”(k=12), while other
studies did not provide such information.
Additional meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials
Handling of effect size
To fully use the available data, additional meta-analysis was conducted for the six RCTs to eval-
uate the effectiveness of LKCM compared with control conditions. Two trials adopted two con-
trol conditions (Kropp & Sedlmeier, 2019; Weytens et al., 2014), where pooled effect sizes were
used. Therefore, there were six independent effect sizes in the RCT meta-analysis, and their
details are presented in Table 2.
Overall effects
The weighted average effect size across six independent effect sizes was g=0.106 (95% CI =
[0.216, 0.427]), indicating a small and nonsignificant effect of the LKCM intervention on life
satisfaction. The forest plot is presented in Figure 4. The Qtest and I
2
statistics suggested high
heterogeneity, with Q(5) =11.91, p=.036 and I
2
=58.033% (τ
2
=0.091), indicating that a
moderator analysis is required. The funnel plot (as shown in Figure 5) and Egger's regression
intercept (intercept =4.292, t(4) =1.51, p=.207) showed no significant asymmetry, indicat-
ing no publication bias.
Moderator analysis
The moderator analysis for control type was significant (Q(1) =11.668, p=.001). Notably, there
was a negative effect on life satisfaction compared with active control (g=0.481, 95% CI =
[0.909, 0.052], k=2), and by contrast, the effect was positive when the control type was a
waitlist (g=0.387, 95% CI =[0.134, 0.641], k=3). Using baseline level of life satisfaction of
training group as a predictor, meta-regression found no significance for that (p=.969). Consis-
tent with the primary meta-analysis, participant type, intervention length, and the combination
of mindfulness meditation were not significant moderators. Specifically, the effect sizes for
healthy adults ( g=0.125, 95% CI =[0.309, 0.558], k=4) and clinical adults (g=0.022, 95%
CI =[0.709, 0.754], k=2) were both insignificant, and no significant difference was observed
between the two participant types (Q(1) =0.056, p=.814). Similarly, interventions combined
with mindfulness meditation or not both showed no significant effect on life satisfaction (com-
bined with mindfulness meditation: g=0.202, 95% CI =[0.242, 0.646], k=3; not combined
with mindfulness meditation: g=0.013, 95% CI =[0.522, 0.547], k=3) and no significant dif-
ference between the two subgroups (Q(1) =0.284, p=.594). The length of interventions was also
not a significant predictor (p=.520). Due to limited trials, the following moderators could not be
tested (k< 2 in each subgroup): specific protocol (six studies adopted six different intervention
1090 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

TABLE 2 Summary of RCTs included in Meta-analysis
Study
name
Participants
type PME Protocol Length
Components
LKCM Focus self
Include
MM Control type
Hedges'
g
Neff, 2013 Health Adult Yes MSC 8 weeks LKM Few Few Waitlist 0.475
Zeng, 2018 Health Adult Yes HOJ 4 weeks AJM Few No Waitlist 0.399
Kieger, 2019 Adult Clinical Yes MBCL 7 weeks LKM Few Few Waitlist 0.335
Lang, 2019 Adult Clinical Not
reported
CBCT 10 weeks CM Few Few Active control 0.423
Kropp, 2019 Health Adult No NA 6 weeks LKM Few No Active control 0.511
Weytens,
2014
Health Adult Not
reported
Fredrickson
(2008)
6 weeks LKM Not
reported
No Active control/
waitlist
0.106
Note: MSC =Mindful Self-Compassion; MBCL =Mindfulness-based Compassionate Living; CBCT =Cognitively-Based Compassion Training; HOJ =Heart of Joy; LKM =Loving Kindness
Meditation; CM =Compassion Meditation; AJM =Appreciative Joy Meditation.
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1091
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

protocols), subtypes of LKCM (loving-kindness meditation, k=4; appreciative joy meditation,
k=1; compassion meditation, k=1), targets of LKCM (focus little on self, k=5; others were
not reported), and previous meditation experience (people without previous meditation experi-
ence, k=1; people with previous meditation experience, k=3; others were not reported).
Narrative review
Potential moderator and mediator
Self-compassion was the most widely evaluated mediator. Johnson et al. (2011) found that there
was a significant improvement in self-compassion, positive emotions and life satisfaction.
FIGURE 4 Forest plot for randomized controlled trial (RCT)
FIGURE 5 Funnel plot for randomized controlled trial (RCT)
1092 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

However, due to the limitation of sample size (n=17), the mediating effect could not be con-
firmed. Later, Neff and Germer (2013) tested self-compassion as the mediator, supporting the
significant contribution of self-compassion to life satisfaction, but the contribution became
insignificant when mindfulness was added to the model.
Two studies supported the chain-mediating effects by which LKCM intervention influenced
positive emotions, which then influenced resources and finally affected life satisfaction.
Fredrickson et al. (2008) tested 18 resources and found that positive emotions significantly
affected 9 of the 18 resources (mindfulness, pathways thinking, savoring the future, environ-
mental mastery, self-acceptance, purpose in life, social support received, positive relations with
others, and illness symptoms) to influence life satisfaction. These resources were loosely divided
into two groups: having a loving attitude toward oneself and others and having a feeling of
competence about one's life. The remaining six of nine resources (agency thinking, savoring the
past, savoring the present, optimism, personal growth, and autonomy) significantly affected life
satisfaction but were not significantly affected by positive emotions.
In addition to directly testing the mediating variables, some studies explored the correlation
between life satisfaction and other variables. Uchino et al. (2016) found that changes in life sat-
isfaction were significantly associated with decreased depression but had no significant correla-
tion with social support or social negativity. Zeng et al. (2018) found that life satisfaction was
significantly related to positive emotions, positive attitudes, low-arousal negative emotions,
appreciative joy, and envy, and other correlations were nonsignificant (i.e., high- and medium-
arousal negative emotions, negative attitudes). These significant correlations between life satis-
faction and the variables suggested some potential mediators that could be further explored in
the future.
Long-term effect
Only eight trials explored the long-term effects of intervention on life satisfaction, and the inter-
val from posttest to follow-up ranged from 1 month to 1 year. Of these, seven trials indicated a
significant improvement in life satisfaction from pretest to follow-up (Brito-Pons et al., 2018;
Johnson, 2010; Johnson et al., 2011; Zeng et al., 2018) or maintained it from posttest to follow-
up (Krieger et al., 2016,2019; Neff & Germer, 2013). Among them, Neff and Germer (2013)
applied measurements at multiple timepoints, and the increased life satisfaction was
maintained from posttest to the 6-month follow-up and significantly increased again from post-
test to the 1-year follow-up. Unlike the other studies above, Mongrain et al. (2018) found that
LKCM did not result in a greater increase in life satisfaction than the control condition at
postmeasure, and the results at follow-up were still insignificant.
Contribution of practice time
Among the 23 articles reviewed in the current study, only Fredrickson et al. (2008) examined
the direct association between practice time and life satisfaction. The results showed that
weekly practice time did not have a direct association with life satisfaction, with the exception
that the correlation between practice time in week 2 and life satisfaction was significant. More
importantly, practice time predicted an increase in positive emotions, which further improved
other outcomes, including life satisfaction. That is, practice time had an indirect association
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1093
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

with life satisfaction. Among the other trials, two trials found that practice time significantly
predicted self-compassion, which mediated the change in life satisfaction, but they did not test
the direct association between practice time and life satisfaction (Krieger et al., 2016,2019).
Sheffield (2017) found that baseline life satisfaction was positively correlated with the length of
practice time and with the mediating role of self-compassion, but the relationship between
practice time and change in life satisfaction was not calculated.
DISCUSSION
Current status of investigation and overall effects
Empirical studies on LKCM have increased sharply, as 63.04% of the identified studies on
LKCM were published in the past 5 years (2016 to 2021). Only 23 studies on LKCM measured
life satisfaction, but 60.87% of them were published in the last 5 years. Such a finding indicates
that life satisfaction, which is the ultimate outcome of positive psychology, receives less but
increasing attention in the field.
Due to the limited number of studies, the primary meta-analysis focused on the change
from pretest to posttest (n=15). The meta-analysis showed that the effect of LKCM interven-
tion on life satisfaction was significant, and most studies with follow-up measures supported
the long-term effects on life satisfaction, supporting the effectiveness of LKCM intervention on
life satisfaction. However, it is notable that the result based on the pretest-posttest comparison
might be influenced by the expectancy effect and other confounding factors. The meta-analysis
of RCTs (n=6) showed mixed results. Moderator analysis showed that the effect of LKCM
was better than that of the waitlist condition but worse than that of the active control group.
This might mean that the LKCM intervention was effective for life satisfaction but not as
effective as other active controls, such as body scan meditation. Notably, although the modera-
tor analysis results were significant in RCTs, the number of RCTs was very small and should
be investigated in the future. In summary, these results suggest that LKCM is promising in
increasing life satisfaction, but the comparison with other interventions needs to be explored
further.
Reviewed studies and other studies on LKCM noted that the practice of LKCM is diffi-
cult, which might explain why the effect of LKCM on life satisfaction is smaller than that
of other interventions. The core operation of LKCM was imaging a target and repeating
specific words to that person (Zeng et al., 2017), which might be difficult for participants
without much related practice, and frustration during practice might induce lower life satis-
faction. Lumma et al. (2015) showed that LKCM requires more cognitive effort than breath-
ing meditation. Kropp and Sedlmeier (2019) found that LKCM had less effect on life
satisfaction than body scan meditation and breathing meditation, and this finding was
attributed to the difficulty of generating loving-kindness in accordance with the instruc-
tions. In addition, Lang et al. (2019) found that compassion meditation was related to
decreased life satisfaction. A previous qualitative analysis has suggested that compassion
meditation might induce bad thoughts and may not match the personality of the partici-
pant (e.g., Lang et al., 2019). Consistently, qualitative feedback in another intervention
showed that the lack of conformity between practice technique and personality was the
main reason for the high dropout rate (43%) in the compassion meditation group (Weytens
et al., 2014).
1094 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Effects among groups
Participant type
In the current meta-analysis, most trials targeted healthy adults, and only a few trials recruited
clinical adults, which partially explains why the difference between the two types of partici-
pants was not significant. Nevertheless, the findings of the primary meta-analysis suggested that
LKCM training could effectively increase life satisfaction among healthy adults. In contrast, the
effect sizes for clinical adults were smaller and did not reach significance, and the range of clini-
cal disorders was also quite limited. In fact, LKCM interventions have been applied to treat a
wide range of mental disorders (see Graser & Stangier, 2018, for reviews). Therefore, future
studies should further explore how LKCM interventions benefit people with clinical conditions
in terms of life satisfaction as an important indicator of well-being. Additionally, the current
review identified no study of adolescents. In fact, LKCM has been used in adolescents
(e.g., Jal
on et al., 2020), but no studies have examined the effect of LKCM on life satisfaction
among adolescents. Future studies should further explore the effects of LKCM on life satisfac-
tion in specific participants (e.g., clinical adults and adolescents).
Previous meditation experience
Due to the limited number of studies and the low power of subgroup analysis, no significant
effects were found in the moderator analysis of previous meditation experience. However, the
results indicated that participants with previous meditation experience reported significant
improvement in life satisfaction in the primary meta-analysis, but no significant improvement
was found among those who did not meditate previously. There are commonalities across medi-
tation modalities, such as attention stability and learning to come back from distraction
(e.g., Sheffield, 2017). Furthermore, LKCM is not easy for participants, and some LKCM train-
ing did not begin directly with LKCM but was based on mindfulness meditation (e.g., Krieger
et al., 2016; Malaktaris et al., 2020). In addition, Fredrickson et al. (2008) found that positive
emotions steadily increased from the second week, indicating that it took practice to master the
skill of loving-kindness meditation. Therefore, for novices, it would be better to give them more
time to practice to better benefit from LKCM.
LKCM intervention components
The LKCM trainings varied substantially in terms of their structure and components, and only
five standardized protocols evaluated their effects on life satisfaction more than once. Although
the primary meta-analysis suggested that Compassion Cultivation Training, Mindfulness-based
Compassionate Living, Mindful Self-Compassion could significantly enhance life satisfaction,
more studies are required to evaluate their effects among various samples. To better understand
the potential impact of the various components, the current study coded the components and
evaluated their impacts across protocols.
The results of the primary meta-analysis on subtypes of LKCM indicated that loving-
kindness meditation could significantly enhance life satisfaction. Compassion meditation
showed no significance in enhancing life satisfaction, but the intervention combining loving-
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1095
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

kindness meditation and compassion meditation did significantly enhance life satisfaction. The
qualitative analysis in Lang et al. (2019) suggested that compassion meditation might induce
unpleasant thoughts, resulting in no significant increase in life satisfaction. On the other hand,
previous studies found that compared with appreciative joy meditation, compassion meditation
produced significantly less positive emotions and increased negative emotions (Zeng et al.,
2017). Considering that life satisfaction is associated with emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2008;
Galante, 2014), the effect on life satisfaction would be influenced. In addition, most studies did
not describe the detailed introduction of meditation (e.g., Uchino et al., 2016; Weytens et al.,
2014), and the current meta-analysis coded according to the subtypes that articles reported.
However, a previous study indicated that the term “loving-kindness meditation”can generally
refer to LKCM or the specific subtype that cultivates loving-kindness (Zeng et al., 2015), making
it difficult to identify the specific subtype of LKCM used. Therefore, the moderator analysis of
the LKCM component in this meta-analysis may be biased. At the same time, this confusion
highlights the importance of clarifying the details of meditation in reports.
Among the reviewed studies, eight trainings integrated small portions of mindfulness medi-
tation. Due to the limited studies, the current meta-analysis did not find a significant difference
between LKCM training combined with mindfulness meditation and LKCM alone for the pri-
mary meta-analysis, but it is still notable that those trainings with mindfulness meditation
tended to have larger effects. Kropp and Sedlmeier (2019) suggested that increased mindfulness
by practicing mindfulness meditation could enhance life satisfaction. Additionally, mindfulness
meditation might help participants cultivate stable attention and learn the basic principle of
meditation, which might facilitate learning LKCM in later stages. More importantly, studies
have well documented that mindfulness meditation also benefits life satisfaction, and some
studies even reported mindfulness meditation enhanced life satisfaction better than loving-
kindness meditation (e.g., Kropp & Sedlmeier, 2019); that is, mindfulness meditation may
directly contribute to life satisfaction. However, if this is the case, how much effect of LKCM
trainings should be attributed to the LKCM becomes questionable considering the fact that
many LKCM incorporated with mindfulness meditation. Therefore, although the current study
cannot draw solid conclusions on this issue, future studies should pay attention to the contribu-
tion of mindfulness meditation, which is important for understanding the active components in
so-called “LKCM trainings.”
Intervention length and contribution of meditation
LKCM is a time-consuming training, and it is important to clarify the contribution of interven-
tion length to life satisfaction. For the trials included in the current meta-analysis, the interven-
tion was conducted for a period ranging from 25 days to 10 weeks. The results of the primary
meta-analysis indicated that the length of the intervention did not significantly impact life satis-
faction. Notably, the length of the LKCM intervention did not correspond to the depth and
intensity of the training (Lv et al., 2020), so it was understandable that intervention length did
not make a large difference in life satisfaction. A previous meta-analysis found no significant
correlation between intervention length and positive emotions (Zeng et al., 2015). However, a
marginally significant relationship between intervention length and depression symptoms was
found in another meta-analysis (Lv et al., 2020). Therefore, the intervention length might have
an effect, but the effect depends on the outcome considered. Additionally, the lack of
1096 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

significance found in this study may be due to the insufficient number of studies, and more
studies are needed for further exploration in the future.
Meditation practice is at the heart of LKCM interventions, but only one study explored
whether more meditation led to greater life satisfaction. No study has assessed the direct corre-
lation between practice time and life satisfaction, focusing instead on indirect effects, which
were rarely found in previous meta-analyses (e.g., Zeng et al., 2015). While indirect relation-
ships are important to explore and fit the positioning of life satisfaction as the ultimate variable
(Fredrickson et al., 2008), direct relationships are also worth exploring. LKCM, especially appre-
ciative joy meditation, leads participants to recall good things in their lives during meditation
(Zeng et al., 2018), so it may directly increase life satisfaction via a direct effect.
Baseline level of life satisfaction
The current study also explored baseline level of life satisfaction as a moderator. The results
showed that baseline level of life satisfaction was not a significant predictor in the primary
meta-analysis and additional RCT meta-analysis. That indicated that the baseline level of life
satisfaction did not significantly affect the intervention effect, and the effects were not impacted
by strong floor or ceiling effect. The results suggested that LKCM could be used widely. How-
ever, as noted above, previous studies mainly targeted health adults, whose level of life satisfac-
tion was within normal range. In the future, more studies are needed to explore whether
LKCM intervention is still effective when targeted low level of life satisfaction such as clinical
participants.
Mechanism of change
Life satisfaction is an assessment of life as a whole (Diener et al., 1985), but it could be
enhanced by a multiweek LKCM intervention (e.g., Malaktaris et al., 2020; Roca et al., 2021).
Therefore, the underlying mechanism is worth noting. Current studies have focused more
attention on self-compassion and positive emotions. Indirect effects have been investigated,
with positive emotions affecting resources and thus life satisfaction (Fredrickson et al., 2008). A
direct effect of self-compassion on life satisfaction was found, but the significant effect of self-
compassion disappeared when other factors were controlled for (Neff & Germer, 2013). Consis-
tent with the fact that life satisfaction is influenced by various factors, many other potential
mediators have also been explored. For example, positive attitudes, appreciative joy, envy and
depression were all significantly correlated with life satisfaction (Uchino et al., 2016; Zeng
et al., 2018), but more studies are needed to support the effects.
As highlighted above, as an overall judgment of life, life satisfaction depends on many
aspects of life. The reasons for the change in life satisfaction can be roughly divided into two
aspects: changes in objective aspects such as changes in life realities and changes in the evalua-
tion of life. Fredrickson et al. (2008) indicated that changes in life satisfaction resulted from
changes in resources brought about by positive emotions, which made life more successful and
better. In addition, studies have suggested that self-compassion helps reduce depression and
anxiety (Neff & Germer, 2013; Pauley & McPherson, 2010) and is correlated with quality of life
(Van Dam et al., 2011), which contributes to increased life satisfaction. On the other hand, self-
compassion is about kindness (Pauley & McPherson, 2010) and self-kindness may change how
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1097
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

individuals evaluate their lives and increase life satisfaction. Additionally, Zeng et al. (2018)
suggested that LKCM might alter people's evaluations by allowing them to recall good
memories of the past, be aware of good things in the present, and have hope for the future. The
mechanisms of life satisfaction changes are of great importance, and more studies are needed to
further explore this in the future.
Limitations
While the discussion above summarizes the limitations of past studies and future directions for
empirical studies, the current review also has its own limitations. First, the number of studies
was limited; thus, the power of the moderator analysis was relatively low, and the results were
unstable. And due to the limited studies of RCT, the current study was unable to adequately
compare whether LKCM intervention or other types of intervention were more beneficial across
variables, which have been explored for mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., Goldberg et al.,
2022). Second, since previous studies did not conduct LKCM for adolescents, the current meta-
analysis actually targeted adults, which made the generalization of the research results have cer-
tain limitations. Third, the protocol code may be subjective because detailed information was
not clearly illustrated in all interventions. Fourth, only English articles were included in the cur-
rent review. Despite the limitations, the current study suggests that LKCM training is promising
for increasing life satisfaction and highlights directions for future studies to better understand
the effects of various conditions and mechanisms underlying the changes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
X.L.Z. designed the study, X.D.G, W.T.L and X.R.Z reviewed studies and extracted the data.
X.D.G conducted the meta-analysis. All authors screened the studies for eligibility. The research
was conducted in the absence of any funding.
ETHICS STATEMENT
There were no ethical issues involved in the research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data of the research was available.
ORCID
Xiaodan Gu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2707-5486
Xianglong Zeng https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4793-7146
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Boehm, J. K., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2012). The heart's content: The association between positive psychological
well-being and cardiovascular health. Psychological Bulletin,138(4), 655–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0027448
1098 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

*Brito-Pons, G., Campos, D., & Cebolla, A. (2018). Implicit or explicit compassion? Effects of compassion cultiva-
tion training and comparison with mindfulness-based stress reduction. Mindfulness,9(5), 1494–1508. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0898-z
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
*Cohn, M. A. (2009). Positive emotions: short-term mechanisms, long-term outcomes, and mediating processes
(Publication No. AAI3328791) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
*Cohn, M. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). In search of durable positive psychology interventions: Predictors and
consequences of long-term positive behavior change. The Journal of Positive Psychology,5(5), 355–366.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.508883
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personal-
ity Assessment,49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Follmann, D., Elliott, P., Suh, I., & Cutler, J. (1992). Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with contin-
uous response. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,45(7), 769–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-q
*Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive
emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,95(5), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262
*Galante, M. J. (2014). Internet-based randomised controlled trial of the effect of loving-kindness meditation on
wellbeing and helping behaviour (Publication No. U620877) [doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Galante, J., Bekkers, M. J., Mitchell, C., & Gallacher, J. (2016). Loving-kindness meditation effects on well-being
and altruism: A mixed-methods online RCT. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being,8(3), 322–350.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12074
*Gentile, D. A., Sweet, D. M., & He, L. (2020). Caring for others cares for the self: An experimental test of brief
downward social comparison, loving-kindness, and interconnectedness contemplations. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being,21(3), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-019-00100-2
Goldberg, S. B., Riordan, K. M., Sun, S., & Davidson, R. J. (2022). The empirical status of mindfulness-based
interventions: A systematic review of 44 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science,17(1), 108–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620968771
Graser, J., & Stangier, U. (2018). Compassion and loving-kindness meditation: An overview and prospects for the
application in clinical samples. Harvard Review of Psychiatry,26(4), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1097/hrp.
0000000000000192
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods,
3(4), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F.,
Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., Cochrane Bias Methods Group, & Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. (2011).
The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ,343(oct18 2), d5928.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928
Jal
on, C., Montero-Marin, J., Modrego-Alarc
on, M., Gasc
on, S., Navarro-Gil, M., Barcel
o-Soler, A., Delgado-
Su
arez, I., & García-Campayo, J. (2020). Implementing a training program to promote mindful, empathic,
and pro-environmental attitudes in the classroom: A controlled exploratory study with elementary school
students. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on DiversePsychological Issues. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12144-020-00962-3
*Johnson, D. P. (2010). Loving-kindness meditation to enhance the psychological recovery of individuals with persis-
tent negative symptoms of schizophrenia: A pilot study (publication no.AAI3366358) [doctoral dissertation,
University of North Carolina]. ProQuest dissertations and theses global.
*Johnson, D. P., Penn, D. L., Fredrickson, B. L., Kring, A. M., Meyer, P. S., Catalino, L. I., & Brantley, M. (2011).
A pilot study of loving-kindness meditation for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia
Research,129(2–3), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2011.02.015
Judge, L., Cleghorn, A., McEwan, K., & Gilbert, P. (2012). An exploration of group-based compassion focused
therapy for a heterogeneous range of clients presenting to a community mental health team. International
Journal of Cognitive Therapy,5(4), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2012.5.4.420
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1099
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

*Koopmann-Holm, B., Sze, J., Ochs, C., & Tsai, J. L. (2013). Buddhist-inspired meditation increases the value of
calm. Emotion,13(3), 497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031070
Koydemir, S., Sökmez, A. B., & Schütz, A. (2020). A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of randomized controlled
positive psychological interventions on subjective and psychological well-being. Applied Research in Quality
of Life (Prepublish). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09788-z
*Krieger, T., Martig, D. S., Erik, V., & Berger, T. (2016). Working on self-compassion online: A proof of concept
and feasibility study. Internet Interventions,6.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.001
*Krieger, T., Reber, F., von Glutz, B., Urech, A., Moser, C. T., Schulz, A., & Berger, T. (2019). An internet-based
compassion-focused intervention for increased self-criticism: A randomized controlled trial. Behavior
Therapy,50(2), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2018.08.003
*Kropp, A., & Sedlmeier, P. (2019). What makes mindfulness-based interventions effective? An Examination of
Common Components. Mindfulness,10(10), 2060–2072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01167-x
*Lang, A. J., Malaktaris, A. L., Casmar, P., Baca, S. A., Golshan, S., Harrison, T., & Negi, L. (2019). Compassion
meditation for posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans: A randomized proof of concept study. Journal of
Traumatic Stress,32(2), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22397
*Liu, C., Chen, H., Chia-Yi, L., Rung-Tai, L., & Wen-Ko, C. (2020). The effect of loving-kindness meditation on
flight Attendants' spirituality, Mindfulness and Subjective Well-Being. Health,8(2), 174. https://doi.org/10.
3390/healthcare8020174
Lumma, A.-L., Kok, B. E., & Singer, T. (2015). Is meditation always relaxing? Investigating heart rate, heart rate
variability, experienced effort and likeability during training of three types of meditation. International Jour-
nal of Psychophysiology,97(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.04.017
Lv, J., Liu, Q., Zeng, X., Oei, T. P. S., Liu, Y., Xu, K., Sun, W., Hou, H., & Liu, J. (2020). The effect of four Immea-
surables meditations on depressive symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology
Review,76, 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101814
*Malaktaris, A., Lang, A. J., Casmar, P., Baca, S., Hurst, S., Jeste, D. V., & Palmer, B. W. (2020). Pilot study of
compassion meditation training to improve well-being among older adults. Clinical Gerontologist,1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2020.1839826
Meyer, C., Rumpf, H. J., Hapke, U., & John, U. (2004). Impact of psychiatric disorders in the general population:
Satisfaction with life and the influence of comorbidity and disorder duration. Social Psychiatry and Psychiat-
ric Epidemiology,39(6), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-004-0755-3
*Mongrain, M., Barnes, C., Barnhart, R., & Zalan, L. B. (2018). Acts of kindness reduce depression in individuals
low on agreeableness. Translational Issues in Psychological Science,4(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/
tps0000168
*Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-
compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology,69(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923
Pauley, G., & McPherson, S. (2010). The experience and meaning of compassion and self-compassion for individ-
uals with depression or anxiety. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,83, 129–143.
https://doi.org/10.1348/147608309x471000
Pretty, J., & Barton, J. (2020). Nature-based interventions and mind–body interventions: Saving public health
costs whilst increasing life satisfaction and happiness. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health,17(21), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217769
*Roca, P., Diez, G., McNally, R. J., & Vazquez, C. (2021). The impact of compassion meditation training on psy-
chological variables: A network perspective. Mindfulness,12(4), 873–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-
020-01552-x
*Sheffield, K. (2017). Exploring 'loving kindness meditation': Understanding the practice, and its relationship with
wellbeing (order no. 10755395). [doctoral dissertation, University of Northampton]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
Sujiva, V. (2007). Loving-kindness meditation. Retrieved from http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-
MAG/mag140106.pdf
Torrijos-Zarcero, M., Mediavilla, R., Rodríguez-Vega, B., Río-Diéguez, M. D., L
opez-lvarez, I., Rocamora-
Gonz
alez, C., & Palao-Tarrero, A. (2020). Mindful self-compassion program for chronic pain patients: A ran-
domized controlled trial. European Journal of Pain.https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1734
1100 GU ET AL.
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

*Uchino, B. N., Bowen, K., de Grey, R. G. K., Smith, T. W., Baucom, B. R., Light, K. C., & Ray, S. (2016).
Loving-kindness meditation improves relationship negativity and psychological well-being: A pilot study.
Psychology,7(01), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.71002
Van Dam, N. T., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., & Earleywine, M. (2011). Self-compassion is a better predictor
than mindfulness of symptom severity and quality of life in mixed anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders,25(1), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.08.011
*Weytens, F., Luminet, O., Verhofstadt, L. L., & Mikolajczak, M. (2014). An integrative theory-driven positive
emotion regulation intervention. PLoS ONE,9(4), e95677. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095677
Zeng, X., Chiu, C. P. K., Wang, R., Oei, T. P. S., & Leung, F. Y. K. (2015). The effect of loving-kindness medita-
tion on positive emotions: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1693. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2015.01693
Zeng, X., Chan, V. Y. L., Liu, X., Oei, T. P. S., & Leung, F. Y. K. (2017). The four Immeasurables meditations: Dif-
ferential effects of appreciative joy and compassion meditations on emotions. Mindfulness,8(4), 949–959.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0671-0
*Zeng, X., Wang, R., Oei, T. P., & Leung, F. Y. (2018). Heart of joy: A randomized Controlled Trail evaluating the
effect of an appreciative joy meditation training on subjective well-being and attitudes. Mindfulness,1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0992-2
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the pub-
lisher's website.
How to cite this article: Gu, X., Luo, W., Zhao, X., Chen, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhou, J., Zeng,
X., Yan, L., Chen, Y., Zhang, X., Lv, J., Lang, Y., Wang, Z., Gao, C., Jiang, Y., & Li, R.
(2022). The effects of loving-kindness and compassion meditation on life satisfaction: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being,14(3),
1081–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12367
LKCM LIFE SATISFACTION 1101
bs_bs_banner
17580854, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aphw.12367 by Beijing Normal University, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
View publication stats