A new study has revealed that mindfulness – a practice often praised for its personal and societal benefits – does not universally increase generosity, but instead, its positive effects are most pronounced among individuals who are more group-oriented. This finding, recently published and reported by PsyPost, challenges the widespread assumption that mindfulness always leads to greater kindness and altruism.
Mindfulness, widely promoted in Thai schools, workplaces, and temples, has rapidly gained popularity in recent years, with advocates claiming it can make people calmer, healthier, and more compassionate. In Thailand, this practice aligns closely with Buddhist traditions, where mindfulness meditation is viewed not only as a path to personal enlightenment but also as a means to support social harmony. However, the latest study suggests that the prosocial effects of mindfulness, such as generosity, may depend more on the underlying personality traits or social orientations of individuals than previously thought.
The research involved surveying and observing participants as they engaged in mindfulness meditation, and then measuring their willingness to share resources with others in economic games that simulate acts of generosity. Intriguingly, the researchers found that people who already value group goals and interdependence—traits often cultivated in traditional Thai communities and Buddhist monastic life—demonstrated greater generosity after practicing mindfulness. In contrast, those with more individualistic outlooks showed little or no change in their behavior.
According to expert commentary cited in the original article, these results “highlight the important role of individual differences in shaping the outcomes of mindfulness interventions,” suggesting that simply encouraging mindfulness may not result in more sharing or cooperative behaviors among everyone. For group-minded individuals, however, the practice can reinforce tendencies toward altruism, possibly by enhancing feelings of connectedness to others.
These findings have profound implications for Thailand, where collectivist values are typically emphasized in family life, schools, temples, and community organizations. The practice of mindfulness (sati) is often embedded within a wider cultural framework that prizes social harmony, mutual aid (namjai), and intergenerational responsibility (bunkhun). It is perhaps in these settings that mindfulness training is most likely to translate into tangible acts of generosity, echoing the deeply-rooted Thai concept of giving (danā) promoted by Buddhist teachings.
However, the study also raises questions for contemporary Thai society, especially as trends of urbanization and globalization have introduced more individualistic attitudes among youth and professionals. The rise of mindfulness-based stress reduction programs in Bangkok’s corporate offices or international schools often emphasizes personal wellbeing over communal benefit. This research suggests that unless these programs also cultivate a sense of group orientation or responsibility to others, their impact on societal generosity may be limited.
Historical and cultural context demonstrates that, in Thailand, communal generosity is not just the province of spiritual leaders but is woven into daily life, from collective merit-making (tham bun) ceremonies to disaster relief efforts. These traditions may serve as fertile ground for nurturing the kind of group orientation that allows mindfulness to truly flourish as a driver of generosity. On the other hand, as more Thais adopt modern, individualistic lifestyles, educators and policymakers may need to rethink how mindfulness is taught if they hope to sustain these social benefits.
Looking ahead, experts suggest that future mindfulness initiatives in schools, temples, and workplaces could be enhanced by incorporating explicit lessons on group identity, empathy, and collective responsibility. For Thai policymakers and health professionals, this research is a valuable reminder that simply transplanting mindfulness techniques from individualistic to collectivist contexts—or vice versa—may not yield identical results. Instead, tailoring programs to reinforce existing group values could maximize their positive social impact.
For Thai readers interested in promoting a more caring society, the message is clear: while mindfulness can be a powerful tool, its ability to foster generosity depends on our sense of belonging and responsibility to the community. Families, schools, and spiritual leaders should continue nurturing these values alongside mindfulness itself. At the individual level, regular participation in group-based acts of kindness, from temple activities to volunteer work, may enhance both personal wellbeing and social cohesion—allowing the spirit of mindfulness to benefit all.
For those curious to learn more, the study is featured on PsyPost with links to the full research article and additional expert commentaries.