| Literature DB >> 28515539 |
Hester R Trompetter1, Elian de Kleine1, Ernst T Bohlmeijer1.
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that positive mental health or wellbeing protects against psychopathology. How and why those who flourish derive these resilient outcomes is, however, unknown. This exploratory study investigated if self-compassion, as it continuously provides a friendly, accepting and situational context for negative experiences, functions as a resilience mechanism and adaptive emotion regulation strategy that protects against psychopathology for those with high levels of positive mental health. Participants from the general population (n = 349) provided measures at one time-point on positive mental health (MHC-SF), self-compassion (SCS-SF), psychopathology (HADS) and negative affect (mDES). Self-compassion significantly mediated the negative relationship between positive mental health and psychopathology. Furthermore, higher levels of self-compassion attenuated the relationship between state negative affect and psychopathology. Findings suggest that especially individuals with high levels of positive mental health possess self-compassion skills that promote resilience against psychopathology. These might function as an adaptive emotion regulation strategy and protect against the activation of schema related to psychopathology following state negative affective experiences. Enhancing self-compassion is a promising positive intervention for clinical practice. It will not only impact psychopathology through reducing factors like rumination and self-criticism, but also improve positive mental health by enhancing factors such as kindness and positive emotions. This may reduce the future risk of psychopathology.Entities:
Keywords: Positive mental health; Psychological wellbeing; Psychopathology; Resilience; Self-compassion
Year: 2016 PMID: 28515539 PMCID: PMC5410199 DOI: 10.1007/s10608-016-9774-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cognit Ther Res ISSN: 0147-5916
Descriptive characteristics and mean scores on questionnaires for all study participants (n = 349)
| %/M (SD) | |
|---|---|
| Age [mean years (SD)] | 32.88 (12.99) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 64.5 |
| Education | |
| Low | 12.0 |
| Intermediate | 39.3 |
| High | 48.7 |
| Marital status | |
| Not married | 69.6 |
| Married | 27.8 |
| Other (divorced, widowed) | 2.6 |
| Cultural background | |
| Dutch | 72.5 |
| Turkish | 13.2 |
| Mixed-dutch | 8.0 |
| Other | 6.3 |
| Religious background | |
| None | 49.9 |
| Roman catholic | 14.3 |
| Islam | 14.9 |
| Dutch reformed | 6.6 |
| Calvinist | 4.6 |
| Other | 9.7 |
| Daily activities | |
| Paid work | 47.9 |
| Student | 37.8 |
| Other | 14.3 |
| Health status | |
| Very good | 25.5 |
| Other | 74.5 |
| SCS-SF | 40.89 (10.62) |
| HADS | 8.55 (5.34) |
| MHC | 57.71 (11.40) |
| mDES negative affect | 16.27 (8.04) |
Fig. 1Mediation model. Total effect (c) = direct effect (c′) + indirect effect (a*b). The indirect effect (a*b) must be interpreted to assess if self-compassion (SCS-SF) significantly mediates the relationship between positive mental health (MHC) and psychopathology (HADS)
Correlations between all measures and descriptive variables
| 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | 12. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | – | |||||||||||
| 2. Gender | −.123a | – | ||||||||||
| 3. Educational level | .050 | −.031 | – | |||||||||
| 4. Marital status | .679b | −.061 | −.016 | – | ||||||||
| 5. Work activities | .331b | −.248b | .111a | .328b | – | |||||||
| 6. Health status | −.081 | .022 | .044 | .019 | .045 | – | ||||||
| 7. Cultural background | .330b | −.149b | −.054 | .210b | .179a | .022 | – | |||||
| 8. Religious background | −.093 | −.050 | .083 | −.158b | −.060 | .021 | .319b | – | ||||
| 9. SCS-SF | .198b | −.148b | .029 | .203b | .213b | .159b | −.049a | −.066 | – | |||
| 10. MHC | −.038 | −.021 | .089 | −.046 | .043 | .214b | −.089 | −.039 | .493b | – | ||
| 11. mDES NA | −.004 | .090 | −.167b | −.010 | −.117a | −.138a | −.054 | −.102 | −.355b | −.305b | – | |
| 12. HADS | −.076 | .064 | −.145b | −.089 | −.195b | −.247b | −.065 | −.018 | −.557b | −.448b | .624b | – |
SCS-SF self-compassion scale—short form, MHC mental health continuum, mDES NA modified differential emotions scale—negative affect, HADS hospital anxiety depression scale
a p < .05
b p < .01
Outcomes of mediation analyses using PROCESS macro (Hayes 2013)
| Coefficient | SE |
|
| K2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total effect (c′) | |||||
| Constant | 21.594 | 1.678 | 12.871 | .000 | |
| Age | −.009 | .029 | −.319 | .750 | |
| Marital status | −.552 | .778 | −.709 | .480 | |
| Educational level | −1.074 | .506 | −2.120 | .035 | |
| Work activities | −1.457 | .537 | −2.714 | .007 | |
| Health status | −1.964 | .546 | −3.601 | .000 | |
| MHC | −.188 | .025 | −7.442 | .000 | |
| Direct effect (c) | |||||
| Constant | 23.673 | 1.578 | 15.002 | .000 | |
| Age | .009 | .025 | .378 | .706 | |
| Marital status | .010 | .627 | .017 | .987 | |
| Educational level | −1.207 | .471 | −2.562 | .011 | |
| Work activities | −.911 | .486 | −1.874 | .062 | |
| Health status | −1.686 | .510 | −3.308 | .001 | |
| SCS-SF | −.212 | .293 | −7.229 | .000 | |
| MHC | −.092 | .025 | −3.692 | .000 | |
| Indirect effect (a*b) | |||||
| SCS-SF | −.096 | .017 | (−.131; −.065)× | .216 | |
Total, direct and indirect effect of the relationship between MHC and HADS with SCS-SF as potential mediator
SE standard error of coefficient, × significance determined by 95 % confidence intervals
Fig. 2Relationship between negative affect (NA) and HADS scores at different levels of moderator SCS-SF as a measure of self-compassion (SC)