
Meditation's Benefits Stretch Beyond the Person Who Meditates
Listening to the daily news, with stories of war and conflict, can be disheartening. Unsurprisingly, data suggest that a majority of Americans feel exhausted and hopeless when they think about politics. Some psychologists have argued that Americans suffer from a sort of learned helplessness —the sense that nothing we do will make a difference—from hearing about violence such as mass shootings. We feel the pain of events in the news cycle but see ourselves as powerless to stop them.
In terms of coping with these events, meditation could help in more ways than one. The power of meditation for cultivating personal well-being is hardly a secret. For more than 20 years, neuroscientists have been documenting how mindfulness meditation can help people cultivate calm and improve their mood, among other benefits. Some recent research suggests it can also help people experience deeper psychological transformation, allowing regular practitioners to reach important insights about themselves and their world.
But there's another consequence of meditation that people do not always anticipate. Despite the ways in which wellness movements have emphasized a highly individualistic way of thinking about meditation and self-care, meditation can also help care for and support others.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
When one person takes the time to regularly be still and attend to a specific cue, such as their breath or a mantra, their practice can have spillover benefits for the people around them. It's an idea that several studies have explored to date and one that dovetails with recent investigations into what scientists call the social ripple effect, or the idea that one person's behavior, mood or attitudes can spread throughout a community. It is also a potent reminder of how bringing a spirit of calm and compassion towards oneself may translate into something beneficial to those around us.
Some meditators propose that if enough people had a regular practice, the result would be a world enriched with calm and compassionate people. And there's science to support that idea. Research demonstrates that people who meditate show increased positivity toward others. For instance, training in meditation is linked to increased sensitivity to and engagement with human suffering and an increased tendency toward altruism. Similarly, meditation interventions aimed at increasing kindness are associated with reduced bias toward numerous 'others,' including ethnic out-groups, people experiencing homelessness and people who face stigma because of their weight.
In one classic study, 20 people received eight weeks of meditation training, and another 19 were put on a wait list for training. Afterward each participant came to an appointment and had to wait in a crowded room with just one available seat. When a researcher came in, pretending to be another person with an appointment who had a seemingly painful broken foot, the people who had received meditation training were significantly more likely to give up their seat than study participants who had not received this training.
So why might one person's meditation practice benefit the people around them? There are many plausible mechanisms. For one, as meditation trains participants to be aware in the present moment, it may promote sensitivity to others' perspectives and emotions. Another possibility is that we sometimes dismiss others' pain because it will cause us discomfort—but meditation can help practitioners better cope with negative emotions, making it less painful to engage with and respond to others' suffering. In line with these ideas, researchers published findings in 2023 that showed that meditation increased people's concern for the suffering of others—and that, by comparison, people without this practice were more oriented to their own distress.
Meditation may also help people develop strong interpersonal relationships. The practice may leave people in a better mood overall and build up their emotional control, both of which could improve their interactions with others. Last spring a study that compared 47 physicians who were trained in meditation with 47 who did not have this training found that doctors in the meditation group were less anxious about communicating with their patients and reported having more trust in others. Critically, the meditating participants were also less likely to practice defensive medicine, in which doctors make health care choices based on fear of litigation instead of best practice. The higher-quality social interactions that emerged with meditation training seemed to improve doctor-patient interactions and ultimately the care that doctors provided to their patients.
It's possible that the meditators' improved relationships and interactions have even broader benefits. Research on a phenomenon called the social ripple effect suggests a person's attributes can spread through and beyond their social network. For example, in a study published in 2024, when researchers wanted to find the best way to deliver an intervention aimed at reducing newborn infant mortality to people living in 176 isolated villages in the Honduran highlands, they provided information on prenatal health, safe delivery and newborn care to a subset of people in these communities who had strong social connections. Teaching those socially influential individuals triggered a knowledge spillover by two degrees of separation, such that friends of friends of these villagers knew at least some of the health information two years after the researchers' initial efforts. The researchers thus found a way to target a subset of the population while reaching far more. Although social ripple studies have yet to explore meditation, it's possible a similar phenomenon occurs. Some experienced meditators have argued that cultivating a state of compassion in oneself helps us bring that attitude toward others. Perhaps, in turn, they pass some calm and compassion along too.
Whatever may be at play, the science of meditation's social consequences are heartening. Often, the challenges of the world can feel overwhelming, and one person's actions may seem to make very little difference. But this research is a reminder that when we improve our own well-being, we can also improve the lives of others. The benefits of just one person cultivating peace and compassion may have a cascading impact.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
26 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Many older people are really eager to be vaccinated
Paula Span, Tribune News Service Kim Beckham, an insurance agent in Victoria, Texas, had seen friends suffer so badly from shingles that she wanted to receive the first approved shingles vaccine as soon as it became available, even if she had to pay for it out-of-pocket. Her doctor and several pharmacies turned her down because she was below the recommended age at the time, which was 60. So, in 2016, she celebrated her 60th birthday at her local CVS. 'I was there when they opened,' Beckham recalled. After getting her Zostavax shot, she said, 'I felt really relieved.' She has since received the newer, more effective shingles vaccine, as well as a pneumonia shot, an RSV vaccine to guard against respiratory syncytial virus, annual flu shots and all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. Some older people are really eager to be vaccinated. Robin Wolaner, 71, a retired publisher in Sausalito, California, has been known to badger friends who delay getting recommended shots, sending them relevant medical studies. 'I'm sort of hectoring,' she acknowledged. Deana Hendrickson, 66, who provides daily care for three young grandsons in Los Angeles, sought an additional MMR shot, though she was vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella as a child, in case her immunity to measles had waned. For older adults who express more confidence in vaccine safety than younger groups, the past few months have brought welcome research. Studies have found important benefits from a newer vaccine and enhanced versions of older ones, and one vaccine may confer a major bonus that nobody foresaw. The new studies are coming at a fraught political moment. The nation's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has long disparaged certain vaccines, calling them unsafe and saying that the government officials who regulate them are compromised and corrupt. On June 9, Kennedy fired a panel of scientific advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and later replaced them with some who have been skeptical of vaccines. But so far, Kennedy has not tried to curb access to the shots for older Americans. The evidence that vaccines are beneficial remains overwhelming. The phrase 'Vaccines are not just for kids anymore' has become a favorite for William Schaffner, an infectious diseases specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 'The population over 65, which often suffers the worst impact of respiratory viruses and others, now has the benefit of vaccines that can prevent much of that serious illness,' he said. Take influenza, which annually sends from 140,000 to 710,000 people to hospitals, most of them seniors, and is fatal to 10% of hospitalized older adults. For about 15 years, the CDC has approved several enhanced flu vaccines for people 65 and older. More effective than the standard formulation, they either contain higher levels of the antigen that builds protection against the virus or incorporate an adjuvant that creates a stronger immune response. Or they're recombinant vaccines, developed through a different method, with higher antigen levels. In a meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 'all the enhanced vaccine products were superior to the standard dose for preventing hospitalisations,' said Rebecca Morgan, a health research methodologist at Case Western Reserve University and an author of the study. Compared with the standard flu shot, the enhanced vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalization from the flu in older adults, by at least 11% and up to 18%. The CDC advises adults 65 and older to receive the enhanced vaccines, as many already do. More good news: Vaccines to prevent respiratory syncytial virus in people 60 and older are performing admirably. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants, and it also poses significant risks to older people. 'Season in and season out,' Schaffner said, 'it produces outbreaks of serious respiratory illness that rivals influenza.' Because the FDA first approved an RSV vaccine in 2023, the 2023-24 season provided 'the first opportunity to see it in a real-world context,' said Pauline Terebuh, an epidemiologist at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine and an author of a recent study in the journal JAMA Network Open. In analysing electronic health records for almost 800,000 patients, the researchers found the vaccines to be 75% effective against acute infection, meaning illness that was serious enough to send a patient to a health care provider. The vaccines were 75% effective in preventing emergency room or urgent care visits, and 75% effective against hospitalisation, both among those ages 60 to 74 and those older. Immunocompromised patients, despite having a somewhat lower level of protection from the vaccine, will also benefit from it, Terebuh said. As for adverse effects, the study found a very low risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition that causes muscle weakness and that typically follows an infection, in about 11 cases per 1 million doses of vaccine. That, she said, 'shouldn't dissuade people.' The CDC now recommends RSV vaccination for people 75 and older, and for those 60 to 74 if they're at higher risk of severe illness (from, say, heart disease). As data from the 2024-25 season becomes available, researchers hope to determine whether the vaccine will remain a one-and-done, or whether immunity will require repeated vaccination. People 65 and up express the greatest confidence in vaccine safety of any adult group, a KFF survey found in April. More than 80% said they were 'very 'or 'somewhat confident' about MMR, shingles, pneumonia, and flu shots. Although the COVID vaccine drew lower support among all adults, more than two-thirds of older adults expressed confidence in its safety. Even skeptics might become excited about one possible benefit of the shingles vaccine: This spring, Stanford researchers reported that over seven years, vaccination against shingles reduced the risk of dementia by 20%, a finding that made headlines. Biases often undermine observational studies that compare vaccinated with unvaccinated groups. 'People who are healthier and more health-motivated are the ones who get vaccinated,' said Pascal Geldsetzer, an epidemiologist at the Knight Initiative for Brain Resilience at Stanford and lead author of the study. 'It's hard to know whether this is cause and effect,' he said, 'or whether they're less likely to develop dementia anyway.' So the Stanford team took advantage of a 'natural experiment' when the first shingles vaccine, Zostavax, was introduced in Wales. Health officials set a strict age cutoff: People who turned 80 on or before Sept. 1, 2013, weren't eligible for vaccination, but those even slightly younger were eligible. In the sample of nearly 300,000 adults whose birthdays fell close to either side of that date, almost half of the eligible group received the vaccine, but virtually nobody in the older group did. 'Just as in a randomized trial, these comparison groups should be similar in every way,' Geldsetzer explained. A substantial reduction in dementia diagnoses in the vaccine-eligible group, with a much stronger protective effect in women, therefore constitutes 'more powerful and convincing evidence,' he said. The team also found reduced rates of dementia after shingles vaccines were introduced in Australia and other countries. 'We keep seeing this in one dataset after another,' Geldsetzer said. In the United States, where a more potent vaccine, Shingrix, became available in 2017 and supplanted Zostavax, Oxford investigators found an even stronger effect.


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data
A federal judge ruled Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue to access sensitive data on millions of Americans at certain agencies, handing at least a temporary defeat to the labor unions that have sued to block the practice. Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in D.C. declined to grant the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, pending further proceedings in the case. The AFL-CIO and other unions filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent DOGE employees from accessing information such as medical files, financial histories, social security numbers, and addresses. In his ruling, Bates said that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of harm to merit an injunction, although he remained concerned about the prospect of DOGE's access. 'Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits,' he wrote. 'And without irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction cannot issue.' Still, Bates acknowledged the sensitivity of the data access, writing that the 'DOGE Affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government.' '[T]he Court's concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs' harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits,' he wrote. Bates asked the parties to propose a schedule for reaching summary judgment. The ruling is yet another setback for the labor unions, who first brought their suit in February and have been twice denied temporary restraining orders. Bates himself has ruled on a number of Trump-related cases and has at times drawn ire from the president. He has ordered the administration to restore certain government websites and ruled that Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block was unconstitutional. A host of lawsuits over DOGE's access to private government data are slowly playing out across federal courts. A federal judge ruled last week that the government must submit a report detailing DOGE's level of access to personally identifiable information at the Office of Personnel Management in response to another lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO. The Supreme Court earlier this month allowed DOGE to proceed in its efforts at the Social Security Administration, staying a preliminary injunction in a case brought by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.


The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities
A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-N.J.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small break-out time.' 'I was very disappointed that we learned very little about the inventory of high-enriched uranium — 60 percent enriched uranium — its whereabouts and what that meant for the breakout time to Iran's first nuclear device,' Foster said. 'The 60 percent-enriched material, while not weapons-grade, is weapons-usable. The Hiroshima device was a mixture of 50 percent and higher enriched uranium. And that worked pretty well.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he continued. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Radcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence who has clashed with Trump over the threat of Iran's nuclear program, did not attend either briefing. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). 'I think their key facilities have been disabled and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Republicans are siding clearly with the latter. 'You can dismiss the low-level initial assessment, and you can rely upon what the CIA has said, because these are first-hand accounts,' Johnson said. 'The greatest evidence that we have of the effectiveness of this mission was that Iran came immediately and was willing to engage in a ceasefire agreement,' he added. 'That would have been unthinkable just a few weeks back.' Indeed, Trump said Wednesday that administration officials will meet with Iranian officials next week, when the U.S. will press Iran on ending its nuclear ambitions. At least one prominent Democrat, for his part, did air some satisfaction with the briefing: Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Rubio clarified that the objective of the mission 'was to set back or destroy Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table.' But whether that goal was achieved remains an open question. Himes said that even though the U.S. wants to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, it does not mean Tehran will follow suit. 'There's two questions: Did we, in fact, set back or destroy? And two, Will they come to the table?' Himes said. 'It's really too early to tell what the intentions of the Iranians are. If the intentions are to go to the negotiating table, great. 'But the intentions may also be to just go underground and produce a device.'