| Literature DB >> 35039750 |
Qi Fan1, Yang Li2, Yue Gao3, Nabi Nazari4, Mark D Griffiths5.
Abstract
Identifying risk and protective factors for suicidal ideation during adolescence is essential for suicide prevention. One potential risk factor is body dissatisfaction which appears to peak during adolescence. The present study investigated the self-compassion buffering effects in the relationship between body dissatisfaction and suicidal ideation. A convenience sample comprising 580 adolescents (mean age 16.35 years; SD = .87; range 14-18 years) was recruited from public schools. The results indicated a strong positive association between body dissatisfaction and suicidal ideation (Cohen's f 2 = .25). The association was significantly moderated by the self-compassion (β = - .16, SE = .04, p = .01, t = 2.4.34, .95% CI [- .16, - .01]). Structural equation modeling analysis showed that the lack of self-kindness was associated with a moderate suicidal ideation level (Cohen's f 2 = .14). Also, higher levels of self-judgment predicted suicidal ideation with a moderate to large effect size (Cohen's f 2 = .28). The findings suggest that therapeutic programs designed to develop self-compassion should be implemented to reduce the risk of suicidal ideation among adolescents with body dissatisfaction. The findings empirically show that a higher degree of self-judgment is strongly associated with suicidal thoughts among adolescents, which must be systematically addressed in clinical studies on suicidal risk. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11469-021-00727-4.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Body dissatisfaction; Body image; Self-compassion; Suicidal ideation; Suicide
Year: 2022 PMID: 35039750 PMCID: PMC8754517 DOI: 10.1007/s11469-021-00727-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Ment Health Addict ISSN: 1557-1874 Impact factor: 3.836
Fig. 1Proposed model depicted conceptually (A) and statistically (B). X: Independent variable (body dissatisfaction). Y: Dependent variable (suicidal ideation). M: Moderator (self-compassion). XM: Body dissatisfaction × Self-compassion. Path c: Total effect of body dissatisfaction on suicidal ideation
Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 580)
| Categorical variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-square test | |||||
| Gender | |||||
| Men | 246 | 42.4 | χ2 = 13.35 | < .001 | |
| Women | 334 | 57.6 | |||
| Age | |||||
| 15 to 16 | 159 | 27.4 | |||
| 16 to 17 | 200 | 34.5 | χ2 = 10.28 | .006 | |
| 17 to 18 | 221 | 38.1 | |||
| Continuous variables | |||||
| Mean | SD | ||||
| Age (years) | 16.31 | .87 | .06 | ||
| Body dissatisfaction | 30.77 | 7.71 | <.01 | ||
| Suicidal ideation | 24.19 | 9.34 | .13 | ||
| Self-compassion | 29.67 | 7.00 | .07 | ||
SD standard deviation; negative t-value = girls obtained higher score
Correlation matrix of main study variables
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Skewness | Kurtosis | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-Body dissatisfaction | 1.00 | .39 | .76 | 1.61 | ||||
| 2-Suicidal ideation | .33** | 1.00 | .18 | .71 | 1.64 | |||
| 3-Self-compassion | − .44** | − .36** | 1.00 | .30 | .70 | 1.89 | ||
| 4-Age | − .17** | .05 | .04 | 1.00 | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 5-Gender | .06 | − .08 | − .03 | .10* | 1.00 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
N/A non applicable, VIF variance inflation factor
**p < .001; *p < .05
Moderation analysis
| Variable | Path | Beta | 95% CI | Cohen | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body dissatisfaction (X) | .33 | 0.03 | < .001 | 7.39 | 0.24 to 0.41 | ||
| Body dissatisfaction (X) | .18 | 0.05 | < .001 | 3.66 | 0.09 to 0.27 | .03 | |
| Self-compassion (W) | − .26 | 0.04 | < .001 | 6.75 | − .33 to − 0.19 | ||
| Body dissatisfaction × SC (XW) | − .16 | 0.04 | < .001 | 4.34 | − .24 to − 0.09 |
R2 = .20, F [3, 576] = 48.55, p < .001). ∆R2 = .036, F [1, 576] = 26.22, p < .001)
Note: SCS self-compassion; emboldened effect size = significant value
Fig. 2The simple slope for interaction effect body dissatisfaction and self-compassion on suicidal ideation. Note: SCS, self-compassion; SI, suicidal ideation
The standardized effects and effect size of structural equation modeling examining the relationship between the positive dimensions of self-compassion and the negative dimensions of self-compassion with body dissatisfaction and suicidal ideation
| Model and path | Beta | 95% CI | Cohen | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive dimension of the SCS-Y | |||||||
| Self-kindness – > body dissatisfaction | − 0.35 | 0.04 | < .001 | 8.36 | − 0.39 to − 0.24 | ||
| Self-kindness – > suicidal ideation | − 0.28 | 0.04 | < .001 | 6.98 | − 0.35 to − 0.19 | ||
| Common humanity – > body dissatisfaction | − 0.17 | 0.04 | < .001 | 3.77 | − 0.25 to − 0.08 | ||
| Common humanity – > suicidal ideation | − 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 2.48 | − 0.23 to − 0.03 | 0.01 | |
| Mindfulness – > body dissatisfaction | − 0.29 | 0.05 | < .001 | 5.51 | − 0.39 to − 0.19 | ||
| Mindfulness – > suicidal ideation | − 0.24 | 0.04 | < .001 | 6.12 | − 0.33 to − 0.17 | ||
| Negative dimension of the SCS-Y | |||||||
| Self-judgment – > body dissatisfaction | 0.19 | 0.06 | < .001 | 3.56 | 0.09–0.30 | 0.03 | |
| Self-judgment – > suicidal ideation | 0.48 | 0.05 | < .001 | 8.39 | 0.36–0.59 | ||
| Isolation – > body dissatisfaction | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 2.46 | 0.02–0.27 | 0.02 | |
| Isolation – > suicidal ideation | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.80 | 0.25 | − 0.11–0.12 | 0.00 | |
| Over-identification– > body dissatisfaction | 0.30 | 0.06 | < .001 | 5.11 | 0.18–0.41 | ||
| Over-identification – > suicidal ideation | 0.34 | 0.05 | < .001 | 6.46 | 0.21–0.40 | ||
SCS-Y Self-Compassion Scale Youth version; emboldened effect size = nonsignificant value
Fig. 3Structural equation model of effects of self-compassion dimensions on body dissatisfaction and suicidal ideation. Model A: Positive dimensions (including self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness). Model B: Negative dimensions (including self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification)