Xie · Behaviour research and therapy 2024 · prospective longitudinal daily diary cohort study · n=351

Is informal practice associated with outcomes in loving-kindness and compassion training? Evidence from pre-post and daily diary assessments.

Cited 8 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Prospective longitudinal cohort and daily diary study without experimental manipulation of the exposure

PubMed 38608409 · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2024.104537 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Researchers evaluated whether self-reported informal meditation practice (applying techniques outside formal sessions) was associated with psychological outcomes during a two-week smartphone-based loving-kindness and compassion training program. The study enrolled 351 meditation-naïve participants with clinically elevated symptoms. Pre- and post-intervention assessments measured psychological distress, loneliness, empathy, and prosociality. Daily diary assessments also tracked informal practice, distress, and loneliness over the two weeks. Analyses examined pre-post correlations and cross-lagged temporal associations using latent curve models with structured residuals.

What was found

Steeper increases in informal practice showed small associations with pre-to-post improvements in psychological distress (r = -.18, p = .008) and loneliness (r = -.19, p = .009), but not empathy or prosociality. In daily diary cross-lagged modeling, higher current-day informal practice was associated with decreased next-day distress with a very small effect size (betas = -.06 to -.04, p = .018), but was not associated with next-day loneliness. Neither distress nor loneliness predicted next-day informal practice.

Why it matters

This study provides longitudinal, daily-level evidence that spontaneously applying loving-kindness techniques in daily life may modestly help reduce next-day distress during digital mindfulness interventions.

Limits

Informal practice was observed via self-report rather than experimentally manipulated, preventing causal certainty. Effect sizes were very small, the intervention period was only two weeks, and empathy and prosociality were not assessed at the daily level.

Cited by