J Happiness Stud (2019) 20:971–994

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9978-y

RESEARCH PAPER

Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme

Self‑Reliance?

Ping Ying Choo1 · Jacob M. Marszalek1

Published online: 22 March 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Can self-compassion protect young adults from the pitfalls of self-reliance?
Emerging adults undergo a process of exploring their identities and establishing significant
relationships that is vulnerable to stressors. Extreme self-reliance exacerbates this because
of a lack of access to emotional support, threatening their well-being. Self-compassion
facilitates emotional regulation and enhanced coping, which may protect young adults’
well-being from the consequences of self-reliance. We explored (a) the relationships
among self-reliance, self-compassion and its elements (i.e., self-kindness, self-judgment,
mindfulness, over-identification, common humanity, and isolation), and well-being, and (b)
the potential of self-compassion as either a buffer or a mediator of the relationship between
self-reliance and well-being. At an urban Midwestern public university, we recruited 208
young adults aged between 18 and 30 years (M = 21.94, SD = 3.49) with diverse back-
grounds. We found that self-reliance, self-judgment, over-identification, and isolation were
moderately-to-strongly negatively correlated with well-being, and that self-kindness, mind-
fulness, and common humanity were moderately-to-strongly (i.e., .30 < r < .63) positively
correlated with well-being. Although we found no evidence that self-compassion acts as
a buffer, we found good correlational evidence via path analysis that it acts as a mediator.
Our findings suggest that the potential threat of extreme self-reliance to young adults’ well-
being may be partially explained by self-kindness, mindfulness, and isolation.

Keywords Self-reliance · Self-compassion · Well-being · Protective factor · Buffering ·

Moderation · Mediation

Parts of this manuscript were previously presented as a poster at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the
American Psychological Association in Denver, CO.

* Jacob M. Marszalek
[email protected]
1
Division of Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City,
Kansas City, MO 64110, USA

13
972 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

1 Introduction

Can self-compassion protect young adults from the pitfalls of self-reliance? Consider
that young adults undergo a unique transition as they share a perception of “feeling in
between,” completing the developmental tasks associated with adolescence and taking up
more responsibilities in relation to adulthood (Munsey 2006). Experiences of psycholog-
ical distress and poor mental health are more likely during this transition (Pottick et al.
2008). Despite the challenges, they are less likely to seek professional help by personal
choice (Pottick et al. 2008), which is alarming, especially when young adults are also more
likely to have serious suicidal ideation (Crossby et al. 2011). In fact, globally, suicide is the
second leading cause of death among young adults aged between 15 and 29 years, account-
ing for 8.5% of all deaths within this age group with many more who attempt it unsuc-
cessfully (World Health Organization, WHO 2016). According to the Center for Collegiate
Mental Health (CCMH) Annual Report (2016), nonsuicidal self-injury and serious suicidal
ideation had continued to increase for the sixth year in a row. The CCMH also reported
that college students’ identified stressors appear to be expanding in scope, with anxiety
(19.6%), depression (16.2%), relationship problems (7.2%), stress (6.8%), and interpersonal
functioning (6.3%) being the top five areas of distress.
When viewed against this backdrop, we can see the urgency of investigating potential
protective factors of young adults’ well-being. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the
vulnerable time of young adult transition into adulthood using the framework of Erikson’s
stages of development. We also discuss how excessive self-reliance may be exacerbat-
ing that transition, and how it affects stress and well-being using Lazarus and Folkman’s
(1987) transactional model of stress and coping. Next, we explain how self-compassion can
mitigate the effect of self-reliance on well-being, as seen through Ryff’s (1989) framework.
We also define what we mean by “well-being.” Last, we explain how we collected data on
these constructs, and explored their associations for evidence of self-compassion as a pro-
tective factor.

1.1 Erikson’s Stages of Development

Based on Erikson’s stages of development, both adolescents (i.e., those aged 12–18 years)
and young adults (i.e., those aged 18–35 years) undergo the process of exploring their
identities and establishing significant relationships (Erikson 1963). During this transition,
young adults are more likely to experience psychological distress, and have poorer mental
health (Pottick et al. 2008) due to developmental tasks (e.g., clarifying personal beliefs and
values, making choices related to education and relationships; Jivanjee et al. 2008), life
transitions (e.g., from school to a work setting; Holahan et al. 1994), and societal expec-
tations (e.g., obtaining tertiary education, achieving financial independence, starting a
family; Furstenberg et al. 2003). According to Côté and Bynner (2008), the transition into
adulthood has been prolonged given the economic and social changes since Erikson first
proposed the stages, and this poses greater challenges in identity formation and self-devel-
opment. Thus, young adults need a repertoire of personal resources now more than ever.
Though young adults are more likely to have serious suicidal ideation (Crossby et al.
2011) and be diagnosed with mental disorders, they are less likely to receive mental health
services and seek professional help (Pottick et al. 2008). One possible explanation is that
young adults are still exploring effective coping strategies for their life stressors, and have

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 973

yet to identify seeking professional help as an accessible option. Young adults, particularly
those in college, are still in the process of establishing their identities, and are less likely to
have the same in-depth knowledge of themselves as older individuals, who have more life
experience, including the knowledge of which coping strategies work (Neff and Pommier
2012). Another way to state this is that young adults are still forming their self-concepts,
especially their social and academic self-concepts, with the former embodying the ability
to interact with others and the latter success at school. Both have been shown to be posi-
tively related to one another, especially when it comes to perceived connectedness to and
support from school, and to be negatively related to anxiety and depression (Thomson et al.
2015).
Another explanation may be related to the individualistic culture of the United States,
which promotes the importance of being independent and having great achievement.
Indeed, the effect of receiving help on one’s self-concept (i.e., self-esteem and self-efficacy)
has been shown to be moderated by one’s individualistic tendencies (Chou and Chang
2016). Young adults may interpret this societal expectation as a need to rely on themselves
and avoid seeking help in times of distress, while attempting to better themselves by being
more self-critical of their performances (Neff 2003a). Such extreme independence may fos-
ter separateness, and is detrimental to well-being (Ryan et al. 2005). In fact, ruminating
over personal failings and inadequacies promotes a sense of isolation, which in turn dimin-
ishes individuals’ abilities to cope effectively with stressors (Hall et al. 2013).

1.2 The Role of Self‑Compassion in Self‑Reliance and Well‑Being

Individualism places great emphasis on independence, self-focus, and autonomy (Jen-

nings et al. 2015; Ryan et al. 2005). Autonomy (i.e., a sense of volition and choice) is
often viewed as a basic psychological need, and satisfying this need is essential to personal
growth (Vansteenkiste and Ryan 2013). Thus, individualism is often encouraged. However,
an emphasis on individualism (via self-reliance) may result in individuals feeling reluc-
tant to seek support and share emotional concerns (Ryan et al. 2005), as noted above with
young adults. Smith (2014) supported this notion, stating that extreme independence may
result in isolation and leaving individuals feeling unsupported. As Ryan et al. (2005) fur-
ther stated, emotional support is important in facilitating coping with adversity and sus-
taining individuals’ well-being. This statement corresponds with Lynch’s (2013) observa-
tion that willingness to turn to others for support was associated with greater well-being.
Conversely, a lack of access to emotional support due to extreme individualism (i.e., self-
reliance) may be detrimental to well-being.
In past research, self-reliance often has been defined as the ability to rely on oneself,
and has been framed in a positive light in relation to autonomy (Vergunst 2002). On the
other hand, self-reliance tends to be infused with the constructs of neediness and insecu-
rity, making it a negative construct (Ryan et al. 2005). According to Ryan and colleagues,
autonomy, which concerns the experience of volition and willingness to seek interpersonal
support, and independence, which concerns separateness and reluctance to rely on others
for support, are often not differentiated, and thus are used interchangeably in research stud-
ies. This has created a disparity in theoretical views on the meaning and likely effects of
self-reliance. Fortunately, researchers have begun to differentiate the two, and to explore
the effects of self-reliance as a form of extreme independence. According to Oxford Dic-
tionaries (2014), self-reliance is said to be reliance on one’s own powers and resources

13
974 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

rather than those of others. In the present study, we define self-reliance as the tendency to
rely on one’s own capabilities in problem solving, and to avoid seeking help from others.
Although there are not many studies directly examining the relationship between self-
reliance and well-being, Ryan et al. (2005) and Lynch (2013) closely approached the ques-
tion. Their research findings indicated that emotional reliance (willingness to turn to others
in emotionally salient situations) was positively associated with well-being, as it facili-
tates stress adaptation. However, it is used selectively with people who are perceived as
supportive. In fact, attachment style plays a role in the level of emotional reliance (Lynch
2013), with those having an avoidant style engaging in more extreme forms of self-reliance
(Mikulincer et al. 2003). However, attachment styles are difficult to change in adulthood,
and mediators between attachment style and well-being seem to have more promise for
change (Bowlby 1988). For example, Wei et al. (2011) showed that those with attachment
anxiety could increase their sense of well-being by increasing their self-compassion. Like-
wise, increasing markers of emotional reliance, such as self-disclosure and closeness with
others, can mitigate the effects of attachment avoidance (Wei et al. 2005).
Ryan et al. (2005) also found that, although such emotional reliance is meaningful
and “desirable in close relationships across the spectrum of individualism and collectiv-
ism” (p.160), the level of emotional reliance seems to differ across gender, where women
showed greater emotional reliance as compared to men. Nonetheless, the beneficial effects
of emotional reliance on well-being remained similar across gender. Ryan et al. (2005)
observation of gender differences in terms of emotional reliance does not come as a sur-
prise, considering the socialization of masculinity among men in many Western cultures.
Men are generally discouraged from expressing vulnerable emotions and dependency in
times of distress, and strict adherence to such traditional male stereotypes further exacer-
bates that distress (Jakupcak et al. 2014; Matthews et al. 2013). Constant reinforcement of
traditional notions of masculinity and self-reliance foster a sense of isolation (Ryan et al.
2005) and lack of support (Burns and Mahalik 2006). The self-reliance emerging from this
sense of interpersonal disconnection does not necessarily reflect a successful pursuit of
well-being (Samuels and Pryce 2008). It is noteworthy that, although masculinity (via self-
reliance) is thought to be strongly socialized among men, Parent and Smiler (2013) found
that women adhere to masculine norms, as well.

1.3 Lazarus and Folkman’s Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

According to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1987) transactional model of stress and coping,
stress often results from the appraisal that environmental or internal demands exceed a
person’s resources. A coping process is initiated in response to appraised demands of the
specific situation (Folkman 2008; Folkman et al. 1986; Lazarus and Folkman 1987). Vari-
ation in coping is partially dependent on the person’s judgment over what is at stake (pri-
mary appraisal) in specific stressful encounters, and on which coping options are available
(secondary appraisal; Folkman, et al. 1986). When people perceive self-esteem as being
threatened (primary appraisal on what is at stake), they tend to seek less social support
(secondary appraisal on what coping resources are available; Folkman et al. 1987). This
reflects the significant influence of a person’s value or belief system on their choice of cop-
ing. Linking this back to our earlier discussion on the interaction between cultural values
(i.e., independence via self-reliance, and concepts of masculinity) and well-being, although
reaching out to social support systems is crucial in young adults’ adaptive transition into
college and adulthood (Denovan and Macaskill 2013), they may not necessarily see it as a

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 975

viable coping resource. This may in turn may create a perceived lack of support given the
seemingly restricted coping resources available.
Lazarus and Folkman (1987) also identified two functions of coping, namely problem-
focused (i.e., alter a changeable person-environment transaction to be more favorable) and
emotion-focused (i.e., accept an unchangeable situation to regulate emotional distress).
Although the young adult transition involves considerable change, several identified stress-
ors are manageable (e.g., living independently, meeting academic expectations; Denovan
and Macaskill 2013) via problem-focused coping (e.g., advance preparation, exploring
resources available on-campus). However, for transitional tasks which are beyond young
adults’ control (e.g., financial and employment concerns, a lack of well-structured sociali-
zation practices in their transition into adulthood; Côté and Bynner 2008), emotion-focused
coping (e.g., regulating emotional experiences via social support networks, framing the sit-
uation in a positive light; Denovan and Macaskill 2013) comes into play, and is an impor-
tant factor facilitating young adults’ developmental transition into college (Johnson et al.
2010).
The original transactional model had little to say about what happens when coping
attempts are unsuccessful, other than individuals will engage in an endless appraisal-cop-
ing-reappraisal process. Folkman (2008) updated the transactional model by introducing
meaning-focused coping: appraisal-based coping that draws on individuals’ beliefs, val-
ues, and existential goals, and used after unsuccessful attempts of problem- and emotion-
focused coping. By engaging in meaning-focused coping (e.g., identifying personal growth
or potential benefits in the face of stressors, creating positive moments out of ordinary
events), individuals will be able to generate positive emotions, restore coping resources,
and provide motivation. This allows continuous revision and development of new coping
strategies in an attempt to adapt effectively in spite of initial unsuccessful attempts (Deno-
van and Macaskill 2013; Folkman 2008).

1.4 Self‑Compassion

Although transition to adulthood involves various controllable stressors, the presence of

uncontrollable stressors in the same process necessitates the exploration of potential cop-
ing resources that are emotion- and meaning-focused. One promising resource is self-com-
passion. Self-compassion is relevant during times of suffering and involves offering sup-
port to the self (Neff 2003a) through three interacting components: (1) self-kindness versus
self-judgment (i.e., the tendency to be caring and understanding with the self rather than
being judgmental or harshly critical), (2) a sense of common humanity versus isolation
(i.e., recognizing that all humans are imperfect and connecting one’s own flawed condition
to the shared human condition), and (3) mindfulness versus over-identification (i.e., being
aware of the present moment in a clear and balanced manner without ignoring or ruminat-
ing over disliked aspects of the self).
The components of self-compassion mutually interact to create a holistic and balanced
frame of mind, which allows individuals to embrace even their personal flaws and short-
comings as they recognize that imperfection is part of the human condition, an aspect of
meaning-focused coping. As a whole, self-compassion allows one to hold one’s feelings of
suffering with a sense of warmth, connection, and concern (Neff and McGeHee 2010), an
aspect of emotion-focused coping. Such a holistic and balanced frame of mind is believed
to be effective and sustainable in promoting positive psychological functioning (Neff et al.
2007), acting as a protective factor against unpleasant events (e.g., homesickness, dissatis-
faction), depression (Terry et al. 2012), and stress (Soysa and Wilcomb 2013). Therefore,

13
976 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

self-compassion promotes emotion- and meaning-focused coping, which then results in

greater well-being.
Despite the emphasis on self-focus (i.e., more concern for self than for others) in indi-
vidualistic cultures (Miller, as cited in Neff 2003a), individuals tend to be harsher and
more unkind toward themselves than to others in hope of self-improvement (Neff 2003a;
Neff and Dahm 2015). This discourages individuals from forgiving their own failings, and
respecting themselves as fully human with imperfections (Neff 2003a). By showing com-
passion to themselves, individuals are able to provide the emotional safety needed to view
themselves more accurately without fear of self-condemnation, and to derive meaning from
their experiences. In addition, self-compassion facilitates emotional regulation in times of
distress (Neff 2003a) and transition into university (Gunnell et al. 2017).
There have been a significant number of research studies conducted on self-compas-
sion as a whole, but less attention has been given to the contribution of its respective ele-
ments (i.e., self-kindness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and
over-identification; Bluth and Blanton 2014; Hall et al. 2013). However, some research-
ers have begun to identify unique contributions of self-compassion elements on identified
dependent variables. For example, all three self-compassion components have been shown
to significantly correlate with and predict perceived stress (Hall et al. 2013; Van Dam et al.
2011). Out of the six elements of self-compassion defining the three components, isolation
seems to have the most consistent and strongest association with negative mood (Bluth
and Blanton 2014), perceived stress (Hall et al. 2013), anxiety, and depressive symptoms
(Korner et al. 2015; Van Dam et al. 2011). In view of these findings, it is important to
examine not only the general construct of self-compassion as a protective factor, but its
constituent elements, as well.

1.5 The Role of Self‑Compassion on Self‑Reliance and Well‑Being

In earlier paragraphs, we saw that self-reliance is thought to have an effect on help-seeking

behaviors (Matthews et al. 2013) and well-being (Ryan et al. 2005), given that it promotes
perceived isolation (Hall et al. 2013; Ryan et al. 2005) and lack of support (Burns and
Mahalik 2006; Smith 2014). Self-compassion, in general, seems to facilitate the use of
effective coping in times of distress (Terry et al. 2012), enhance life satisfaction, facilitate
identity development (Hope et al. 2014), promote resilience (Neff and McGehee 2010) and
coping (Allen and Leary 2010), and generate positive emotions through the acceptance of
negative states (Germer and Neff 2013) or tempering of negative emotions (Sirois et al.
2015).
Terry and Leary (2011) outlined a provisional blueprint on possible pathways through
which self-compassion may play a role in regulating effective health behavior (e.g., emo-
tional regulation, evaluation of coping resources), highlighting the potential moderating
effect of self-compassion on well-being. Gunnell et al. (2017) demonstrated that increases
in self-compassion are associated with increases in psychological need satisfaction (i.e.,
autonomy, competence, relatedness) and well-being, evidence that self-compassion may
be a protective factor for young adults during their transition into university (Hope et al.
2014). This complements Lockard, Hayes, Neff, and Locke’s (2014) recent work, which
found that students in the clinical population tend to have lower self-compassion as com-
pared to students in the general population, reflecting a negative association between self-
compassion and psychological stressors.

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 977

In view of the empirical support for self-compassion as a protective factor, researchers

have begun looking at its potential buffering and mediating effects. In Terry et al. (2012)
work, they found that self-compassion serves as a buffer against social difficulties (e.g.,
homesickness, satisfaction) in young adults’ transition into college, whereas Korner et al.
(2015) observed self-kindness moderates the relationship between perceived isolation and
depression. More recently, Jiang et al. (2017) found self-compassion mediated the relation-
ship between perceived closeness in relationships (i.e., both with parents and with peers)
and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). The feelings of closeness with an identified person
(e.g., parent, friend) promotes self-compassion, and in turn protects against NSSI behav-
iors. Summing these preliminary findings, we are interested in both potential moderation
and mediation effects of self-compassion on the relationship between self-reliance and
well-being.

1.6 Ryff’s Psychological Well‑Being

There is no consensus on the definition of well-being and how it should be measured

(Dodge et al. 2012; Ryan and Deci 2001). In view of young adults’ unique transition
between completing developmental tasks in adolescence and taking up more developmen-
tal tasks in relation to adulthood (Munsey 2006), it is more appropriate to explore an eud-
iamonic approach of well-being (i.e., focusing on broader terms of what constitutes a fully
functioning person through resolution of existential life challenges) instead of a hedonic
approach (i.e., focusing on happiness and defining well-being in terms of pleasure attain-
ment). The eudiamonic approach is associated with cognitive, or psychological, well-being,
and the hedonic approach is associated with subjective well-being.
Ryff’s framework of psychological well-being (PWB; 1989) focuses on personal devel-
opment and self-realization, looking at multiple dimensions (i.e., autonomy, environmental
mastery, positive relations, purpose in life, personal growth, and acceptance). This frame-
work previously has been adopted to examine positive functioning across various popula-
tion groups (Balzarotti et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2016). As summarized above, young adults
undergo a developmental transition exploring identities and establishing close relationships
(Erikson 1963), and they often experience great psychological distress during it (Pottick
et al. 2008). Nevertheless, their perceived independence (self-reliance) inhibits them from
reaching out for support (Ryan et al. 2005; Smith 2014), resulting in a sense of isolation
(Hall et al. 2013) and restricting their use of readily available coping resources (Folkman
et al. 1987). Therefore, coupling theory and research, we define psychological well-being
in the present study as a dynamic state of functioning characterized by (1) acceptance of
multiple dimensions of self (self-acceptance), (2) capability in establishing relationships
with others and thus having access to social and emotional support (positive relations with
others), (3) capability in managing daily stressors including developmental tasks (environ-
mental mastery).

1.7 Purpose

In the preceding paragraphs, we have seen via the framework of Erikson’s stages that
young adults’ unique transition is vulnerable to psychological stressors, and seems to be
exacerbated by a cultural socialization (i.e., independence via self-reliance, masculinity)
that promotes a sense of isolation. We have also seen how this affects stress and well-being
using the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus and Folkman 1987), and that

13
978 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

young adults need to be equipped with internal coping resources. Self-compassion offers
both emotion-(regulates emotional distress) and meaning-focused coping (derives meaning
in face of stressors and previous unsuccessful attempts of coping), and is thus a potential
protection for psychological well-being as defined through Ryff’s (1989) framework. But
the question remains of exactly how self-compassion relates with self-reliance and well-
being. Might it act as a protective factor (i.e., a buffer) such that increased self-compassion
lessens the association between self-reliance and well-being? Or might it act as a mediator,
such that increased self-reliance is associated with decreased self-compassion, which in
turn is associated with decreased well-being? Given the absence of a clear pattern in the
literature, we decided to investigate both. In addition, because of the socialization of US
males in a hyper-masculinized culture of self-reliance and isolation, we wanted to control
for sex. Thus, we had four research questions:

1. How are self-compassion and its elements associated with self-reliance and well-being?
2. How might self-compassion and its elements moderate the relationship between self-
reliance and well-being?
3. How might they mediate the relationship?
4. And how might these associations differ by sex?

2 Methodology

To answer our questions, we used a self-report questionnaire within a cross-sectional cor-

relational research design.

2.1 Sample

We used a nonrandom convenience sampling method in this study, where we recruited

young adults from an urban public Midwestern university via (1) the psychology depart-
ment’s online research participant recruitment system, (2) schools and departments, (3)
student organizations, and (4) on-campus facilities. We sent out a research invitation and
online survey link via the aforementioned channels in the forms of e-mail, Facebook
post, and paper flyer. The eligibility criteria to participate in the study were: (1) aged
18–30 years, (2) currently pursuing an undergraduate, graduate, or professional degree, and
(3) can read and understand English. Given the intended use of multiple regression analysis
with up to nine predictors, power analysis, assuming an alpha level of .05 and a moderate
effect size of f = .15, indicated the need for a sample size of 114 to achieve a power of at
least .80.
We collected data over the course of one fall semester. There was a total of 253 par-
ticipants who participated in this study, but 208 had complete records. The mean age of
the 208 participants was 21.94 years (SD = 3.49), and 161 (77.4%) identified as female,
and 44 (21.2%) as male (other: 2, 1.0%). A total of 170 (81.7%) identified themselves as
heterosexual, 16 (7.7%) as bisexual, 8 (3.8%) as homosexual, and 13 (6.3%) as other. Most
of the sample identified as Caucasian (111, 53.5%), with 45 (21.6%) identifying as African
American, 8 (3.8%) as Hispanic/Pacific Islander, 25 (12.0%) as Asian, and 19 (9.2%) as
other.
We received approval from the institutional review board prior to commencement of this
research study. Participation was voluntary and anonymous; participants could withdraw

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 979

from the study at any time and for any reason. Those who were recruited via the psychol-
ogy recruitment system received psychology class credit; no other incentives were given
for participation.

2.2 Variables and Instrumentation

2.2.1 Self‑Reliance

The Conformity to Masculinity Norms Inventory-46 (CMNI-46; Parent and Moradi 2009)
is a short form of the CMNI developed by Mahalik et al. (2003). We adopted the five-
item self-reliance subscale from the CMNI-46 for this study, because it aligned with our
definition of self-reliance. It included items such as “It bothers me when I have to ask for
help,” and “I am not ashamed to ask for help.” This self-reliance subscale has a four-point
response scale, where higher total scores reflect a higher tendency to avoid seeking help
from others. The CMNI-46 has good evidence of reliability and validity, and the self-reli-
ance subscale in particular has an internal consistency of .84 (Parent and Moradi 2009,
2011). Parent and Smiler (2013) investigated and found configural and metric invariance
of CMNI-46 between men and women. In the same study, the self-reliance subscale also
demonstrated good internal consistency for both men (α = .81) and women (α = .88) and
both convergent and discriminant validity.

2.2.2 Self‑Compassion

To measure self-compassion, we used the 26-item Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff

2003b), which assesses all six of Neff’s (2003a) elements of self-compassion: (1) self-
kindness, (2) self-judgment, (3) common humanity, (4) isolation, (5) mindfulness, and (6)
over-identification. Responses are given on a five-point scale, and the subscale scores are
computed by calculating the mean of the item responses; an overall self-compassion score
can be calculated by summing the subscales’ scores (after first reversing the scores of self-
judgment, isolation, and over-identification), where a higher score represents greater self-
compassion. Neff (2003b) reported good internal consistency of SCS and its corresponding
subscales: SCS, .92; self-kindness, .78; self-judgment, .77; common humanity, .80; isola-
tion, .79; mindfulness, .75; and over-identification, .81. The SCS also demonstrated good
3-week test-retest reliability: SCS, .93; self-kindness, .88; self-judgment, .88; common
humanity, .80; isolation, .85; mindfulness, .85; and over-identification, .88. Neff (2003b)
also reported good content validity and predictive validity. However, it should be noted that
some have called the six-factor structure of the SCS into question, and there is evidence
for a two-factor structure representing positive indicators (e.g., self-kindness, mindfulness,
common humanity) and negative indicators (self-judgement, isolation, over-identification;
Lopez Angarita et al. 2015).

2.2.3 Psychological Well‑Being

There are different versions of the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being (PWB), rang-
ing from 3 to 20 items per subscale. According to Seifert (2005), the 14-item per subscale
version is strongly correlated with the original 20-item per subscale version with coeffi-
cients ranging from .97 to .99. For this study, we adopted the three subscales from the
14-item version that were the most salient for young adult transitioning: self-acceptance

13
980 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

(“In general, I feel confident and positive about myself”), positive relations with others
(“I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns”),
and environmental mastery (“I often feel overwhelmed by my responsibilities”). The PWB
items employ a six-point response scale, where higher score reflects greater self-accept-
ance, positive relations with others, and environmental mastery. These three subscales have
been reported to have good to excellent internal consistency (self-acceptance, .91; positive
relations with others, .88; environmental mastery, .86; Seifert 2005), and construct validity
(Van Dierendonck 2004) construct validity. The identified three subscales from the par-
ent scale also have good 6-week test-retest reliability (Ryff 1989): self-acceptance, .85;
positive relations with others, .83; environmental mastery, .81. In addition, Ryff (1989)
reported good evidence of convergent validity.

2.2.4 Sex

We operationalized sex as self-identification as male (sex = 0) or female (sex = 1). Two par-
ticipants identified as “other,” and one was missing a value for this variable. We chose to
exclude these participants from analyses involving sex.

3 Results

3.1 Preliminary Analysis

Data were missing for 1% of the cases, and we imputed the missing data using expectation
maximization (except for sex). The data were also inspected for multivariate outliers, but
none were detected.

3.1.1 Reliability

The Cronbach’s alpha for self-reliance was .76, indicating acceptable internal consist-
ency. The Cronbach’s alpha for environmental mastery, positive relations with others, and
self-acceptance subscales were good to excellent at .86, .86, and .92, respectively. Note
that these three subscales from PWB were summed to represent well-being in this study
instead of all six PWB subscales. The Cronbach’s alpha for these three subscales combined
was excellent at .95. The Cronbach’s alpha for SCS as a whole was also excellent, at .92,
and the SCS subscale reliabilities ranged from fair to good: self-kindness, α = .81; self-
judgment, α = .83; common humanity, α = .70; isolation, α = .79; mindfulness, α = .70; and
over-identification, α = .79.

3.1.2 Bivariate Correlation Analysis

We conducted bivariate correlation analysis to examine the relationships among the scores
of: (1) sex, (2) self-reliance, (3) self-kindness, (4) self-judgment, (5) common humanity,
(6) isolation, (7) mindfulness, (8) over-identification, and (9) PWB. There were statistically
significant relationships among the aforementioned variables, which partially addressed
Research Question 1 (RQ1) and supported further exploration with multiple regression.
Self-reliance (r = − .30), self-judgment (r = − .49), isolation (r = − .55), and over-identifi-
cation (r = − .49) were moderately to strongly negatively correlated with PWB in at the .01

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 981

level of significance. Self-kindness (r = .51), common humanity (r = .38), and mindfulness

(r = .44) were moderately to strongly positively correlated with PWB at the .01 level. Sex
was significantly correlated at the .05 level with common humanity (r = .15) and over-iden-
tification (r = .16), such that females tended to score higher on those two subscales, which
partially addressed RQ4 and supported the inclusion of sex in our multiple regression mod-
els. See Table 1 for correlation coefficients.

3.2 Moderation Analysis

Because self-reliance and all six self-compassion subscales (i.e., self-reliance, self-kind-
ness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification)
demonstrated significant correlations with PWB, we carried out multiple regression analy-
ses to estimate the association of each variable with PWB while controlling for sex and
the other variables. The eight variables altogether explained an estimated 39% of the vari-
ance in PWB [Adj. R2 = .39, F(8, 196) = 17.61, p < .01], but only three—sex, isolation, and
mindfulness—had significant regression coefficients, and even they were weak in mag-
nitude (β < |.30|). In particular, self-reliance had a weak, nonsignificant association with
PWB after controlling for sex and the SCS subscales (β = − 0.09, p = .13). See Table 2 for
more information.
Next, we incorporated an interaction term in the model in order to address RQ2, how
self-compassion (i.e., each of the SCS subscale scores) would moderate the association
between self-reliance and PWB. Because we wanted to estimate the unique contribution
of each of the potential moderator, we conducted a separate hierarchical multiple regres-
sion for each one, in which the main effects terms were entered into the regression model
in the first block (i.e., the model described above), then the interaction term was entered in
the second block. The contribution of the moderation effect (i.e., the interaction term) was
estimated by the change in R2 between blocks. We ran six such models, one for each SCS
subscales. However, the blocks with the interactions did not account for significant propor-
tions of the variance in PWB: self-kindness (∆R2 < .01, p = .69), self-judgment (∆R2 < .01,

Table 1  Correlation Between sex, self-reliance, Self-Kindness Subscale, Self-Judgment Subscale, Isolation
Subscale, Mindfulness Subscale, self-compassion, and well-being (N = 208)
Variable 1b 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. ­Sexa –
2. Self-reliance − .01 –
3. Self-kindness .06 − .28† –
4. Self-judgment .09 .43† − .58† –
5. Common humanity .15* − .15* .59† − .34† –
6. Isolation .05 .33† − .48† .66† − .34† –
7. Mindfulness < .01 − .15* .57† − .35† .48† − .37† –
8. Over-identification .16* .31† − .48† .71† − .29† .66† − .46† –
9. Self-compassion − .03 − .38† .81† − .83† .63† − .79† .67† − .81† –
10. Well-being .12 − .30† .51† − .49† .38† − .55† .44† − .49† − .63†

*p < .05; †p < .01

a
0 = male. 1 = female, bn = 205

13
982 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

Table 2  Regression of well-being on sex, self-reliance, and Self-Compassion Subscales (N = 205)

Variables B SE 95% CI β t p

Constant 161.32 18.15 (125.53, 197.11) 8.89 < .001

Sexa 10.49 4.31 (2.00, 18.98) 0.14 2.44 .016
Self-reliance − 1.11 0.72 (− 2.53, 0.432) − 0.09 − 1.54 .126
Self-kindness 7.11 3.66 (− 0.12, 14.34) 0.16 1.94 .054
Self-judgment − 1.31 3.46 (− 8.13, 5.50) − 0.04 − 0.38 .705
Common humanity 1.59 3.05 (− 4.42, 7.60) 0.04 0.52 .603
Isolation − 9.11 2.70 (− 14.44, − 3.79) − 0.26 − 3.38 .001
Mindfulness 6.56 3.28 (0.09, 13.03) 0.14 2.00 .047
Over-identification − 4.48 2.96 (− 10.31, 1.37) − 0.13 − 1.51 .133

F(8, 196) = 17.61, p < .01, Adj. R2 = .39

a
0 = male. 1 = female

p = .27), common humanity (∆R2 < .01, p = .96), isolation (∆R2 < .01, p = .25), mindfulness
(∆R2 < .01, p = .29), and over-identification (∆R2 = .01, p = .55).
We also ran a regression on PWB with self-reliance and total self-compassion score
as the independent variables, and sex as a covariate. This model was significant (F[3,
201] = 45.48, p < .01), and explained a large amount of the variance in PWB (Adj. R2 = .40).
Self-compassion had a significant and large regression coefficient (β = 0.59, p < .01), sex
had a significant, small one (β = 0.13, p = .02), but self-reliance had a nonsignificant one
(β = − 0.08, p = .16). Next, we added an interaction term, self-reliance x self-compassion,
to test the total self-compassion score as a moderator, Again, no moderation was found
(∆R2 = .01, p = .42). Thus regarding RQ2, we failed to detect any moderation of the rela-
tionship between self-reliance and PWB by the SCS subscales in this study.
In RQ4, we asked whether the results would differ across sex, and we addressed this
regarding moderation by incorporating sex in a three-way interaction with self-reliance and
each of the self-compassion subscales in each of the aforementioned regression models.
Using sex in this way provided a comparison of the previous two-way interactions involv-
ing self-reliance between those identifying as male and those identifying as female. As
before with the two-way interactions, none of the three-way interactions was significant,
and ∆R2 was much less than .01.

3.3 Mediation Analysis

To address RQ3, we conducted path analysis to examine the role of self-compassion

as a mediator of the relationship between self-reliance and well-being. Using Amos
v23, we fit a path model depicting partial mediation of the effect of self-reliance on
PWB through the six elements of self-compassion while controlling for sex. Because
we allowed the disturbances of all six elements to covary, the model was saturated,
and therefore, global fit was perfect: χ2(0) = 0, CFI = 1.00, NNFI = 1.00, RMSEA = n/a,
SRMR = .00. The direct path between self-reliance and PWB was nonsignificant
(B = − 1.11, SE = 0.71, p = .12, β = − 0.09), but most of the other direct paths were sig-
nificant, including the direct paths from self-reliance to each of the six SCS subscales,
and the direct paths from self-kindness, isolation, and mindfulness to PWB. In addition,
most of the direct paths from sex to the other variables in the model were nonsignificant,

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 983

except those to self-reliance, common humanity, over-identification, and PWB. None

of the standardized direct path coefficients was more than moderate in strength (i.e.,
|0.30| < β < |0.50|), and most were weak. This pattern suggested that the effect of self-
reliance on PWB was fully mediated by the SCS subscale scores.

a
Self-Kindness

Sex Self-Judgment

Isolation

Psychological
Self-Reliance Well-Being

Mindfulness

Common
Humanity

Over-
Identification

b
Self-Compassion

Psychological
Self-Reliance Well-Being

Sex

Fig. 1  Two path models of the mediation of the effect of self-reliance on well-being through self-compas-
sion: a the top model specifies self-compassion as six separate elements, and b the bottom model specifies
self-compassion as a single variable. Sex is included as a control variable, but only paths significant at the
.05 level are included in the model. Not depicted: disturbances for self-compassion and its elements, and
well-being. The disturbances of the self-compassion elements in (a) are all significantly correlated to one
another. Note. This figure was created with Microsoft Word

13
984 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

Table 3  Global model fit indices for all path models (N = 205)
Model χ2(df) p ∆χ2(df) p CFI NNFI RMSEA(.95CI) SRMR

Initial SCS subscale model 0.00(0) 1.00 – – 1.00 1.00 – .00

Trimmed SCS subscale model 13.42(9) .15 13.42(9) .15 .99 .98 .05 (.00, .10) .03
Initial total SCS model 0.00(0) 1.00 – – 1.00 1.00 – .00
Trimmed total SCS model 2.33(3) .51 2.33(3) .51 1.00 .98 .00 (.00, .11) .03

SCS Self-Compassion Scale, CFI Comparative Fit Index, NNFI Non-Normed Fit Index, RMSEA Root
Mean-Squared Error of Approximation, SRMR Standardized Root Mean-Squared Residual

We trimmed the model of the path from self-reliance to PWB, and all other nonsig-
nificant paths (see Fig. 1a), and refit the data. Model fit was good [χ2(9) = 13.42, p = .15;
CFI = .99; NNFI = .98; RMSEA = .05, 95% CI = (.00, .10); SRMR = .03], and was not sig-
nificantly different than that of the original model: ∆χ2(9) = 13.42, p = .15 (see Table 3 for
fit indices of all path models). The model explained a large amount of variance, 40%, in
PWB (R2 = .40), and small to moderate amounts of variance in the SCS subscales (R2 val-
ues ranged from .02 to .20). The total effect of self-reliance on PWB was small (B = − 2.54,
SE = 0.65, p < .01, β = − 0.22). Indirect path coefficients were estimated and tested using
maximum likelihood bootstrapping with 5000 iterations and bias-corrected standard
errors. The results indicated significant, small indirect paths from self-reliance to PWB
via self-kindness (B = − 0.76, SE = 0.33, p < .01, β = − 0.06) and mindfulness (B = − 0.30,
SE = 0.21, p < .05, β = − 0.03), and a significant, moderate indirect path via isolation
(B = − 1.49, SE = 0.44, p < .01, β = − 0.13). See Table 4 for further details. In each case, as
self-reliance increased, the self-compassion element and PWB decreased. However, higher
levels of the self-compassion elements were associated with higher levels of PWB, so we
observed that the negative indirect path of self-reliance to PWB was weaker for higher lev-
els of self-compassion.
We followed a similar modeling process for total SCS score. We first specified a path
model in which total SCS partially mediated the path from self-reliance to PWB while
controlling for sex. Again, the model was saturated, and therefore, global fit was perfect:
χ2(0) = 0, CFI = 1.00, NNFI = 1.00, RMSEA = n/a, SRMR = .00. The direct path from self-
reliance to PWB was nonsignificant, as were the direct paths from sex to self-reliance and
SCS. After trimming the nonsignificant paths (see Fig. 1b), we refit the model and obtained
good fit [χ2(3) = 2.33, p = .51; CFI = 1.00; NNFI = .98; RMSEA < .01, 95%CI = (.00,
.11); SRMR = .03], which was not significantly different than that of the original model:
∆χ2(3) = 2.33, p = .51. The direct path from self-reliance to SCS was moderate but signifi-
cant (B = − 0.09, SE = 0.02, p < .01, β = − 0.39), and that from SCS to PWB was strong and
significant (B = 32.28, SE = 2.83, p < .01, β = 0.62). The indirect path from self-reliance to
PWB via SCS was small but significant: B = − 2.84, SE = 0.65, p < .01, β = − 0.24). The
model explained 40% of the variance in PWB (R2 = .40; see Table 5).
Thus, regarding RQ3, self-compassion seems to mediate the association between self-
reliance and PWB via the elements of self-kindness, mindfulness, and isolation. Regarding
RQ4, these mediation relationships hold even when controlling for sex, and sex itself is
only associated (weakly) with common humanity, over-identification, and PWB.

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 985

Table 4  Parameter Estimates of the trimmed multiple mediator path model (N = 205)
Direct path coefficients
Path Unstandardized (SE) Stand-
ardized

CMNI-SR → SCS-SK − 0.08 (0.02)‡ − 0.28

CMNI-SR → SCS-IS 0.12 (0.02)‡ 0.34
CMNI-SR → SCS-MF − 0.04 (0.02)* − 0.15
CMNI-SR → SCS-SJ 0.14 (0.02)‡ 0.45
SCS-SK → PWB 9.98 (3.11)† 0.23
SCS-IS → PWB − 12.98 (2.15)‡ − 0.37
SCS-MF → PWB 7.72 (3.08)† 0.17
CMNI-SR → SCS-CH − 0.04 (0.02)* − 0.15
CMNI-SR → SCS-OI 0.11 (0.02)‡ 0.31
Sex → SCS-OI 0.22 (0.10)* 0.10
Sex → SCS-CH 0.22 (0.10)* 0.13
Sex → PWB 9.37 (4.17)* 0.12
Variances
Variable Unstandardized (SE) R2

CMNI-SR 7.02 (0.70)‡ –

Sex 0.17 (0.02)‡ –
d1 (SCS-SK) 0.46 (0.05)‡ .08
d2 (SCS-SJ) 0.56 (0.06)‡ .20
d3 (SCS-IS) 0.72 (0.07)‡ .11
d4 (SCS-MF) 0.45 (0.04)‡ .02
d5 (SCS-CH) 0.49 (0.05)‡ .04
d6 (SCS-OI) 0.74 (0.07)‡ .11
d7 (PWB) 590.12 (58.43)‡ .40
Nondirected path coefficients
Variable Unstandardized (SE) r

d1 ↔ d3 − 0.23 (0.04)‡ − .40

d1 ↔ d4 0.25 (0.04)‡ .55
d3 ↔ d4 − 0.18 (0.04)‡ − .33
d2 ↔ d1 − 0.26 (0.04)‡ − .52
d5 ↔ d1 0.27 (0.04)‡ .55
d6 ↔ d1 − 0.25 (0.04)‡ − .43
d2 ↔ d3 0.38 (0.05)‡ .59
d2 ↔ d4 − 0.15 (0.04)‡ − .31
d2 ↔ d5 − 0.16 (0.04)‡ − .31
d2 ↔ d6 0.42 (0.05)‡ .67
d5 ↔ d3 − 0.18 (0.04)‡ − .30
d6 ↔ d3 0.44 (0.06)‡ .61
d5 ↔ d4 0.22 (0.04)‡ .47
d6 ↔ d4 − 0.25 (0.04)‡ − .43
d5 ↔ d6 − 0.17 (0.04)‡ − .28

13
986 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

Table 4  (continued)
Indirect path coefficients
Path Unstandardized (SE) Stand-
ardized

CMNI-SR → SCS-SK → PWB − 0.76 (0.33)† − 0.06

CMNI-SR → SCS-IS → PWB − 0.30 (0.21)* − 0.03
CMNI-SR → SCS-MF → PWB − 1.49 (0.44)† − 0.13

CMNI-SR Conformity to Masculinity Norms Inventory-Self-Reliance, SCS-SK Self-Compassion Scale-Self-

Kindness, SCS-SJ Self-Compassion Scale-Self-Judgment, SCS-IS Self-Compassion Scale-Isolation, SCS-
MF Self-Compassion Scale-Mindfulness, SCS-CH Self-Compassion Scale-Common Humanity, SCS-OI
Self-Compassion Scale-Over-Identification, PWB psychological well-being
*p < .05, †p < .01, ‡p < .001

Table 5  Parameter estimates of the trimmed total SCS mediator path model (N = 205)
Path coefficients Variances
Path Unstand. (SE) Stand. Variable Unstand. (SE) R2

CMNI-SR → SCS − 0.09 (0.02)‡ − 0.39 CMNI-SR 7.02 (0.70)‡ –

SCS → PWB 32.28 (2.83)‡ 0.62 Sex 0.17 (0.02)‡ –
Sex → PWB 10.29 (4.14)* 0.14 d1 (SCS) 0.31 (0.03)‡ .15
CMNI-SR → SCS → PWB − 2.84 (0.65)† − 0.24 d2 (PWB) 587.91 (58.21)‡ .40

CMNI-SR, Conformity to Masculinity Norms Inventory-Self-Reliance, SCS Self-Compassion Scale, PWB

psychological well-being
*p < .05, †p < .01, ‡p < .001

4 Discussion

The unique challenges of transition for young adults makes them vulnerable to psycho-
logical stressors, which seems to be exacerbated by a cultural socialization toward self-
reliance that leads to a sense of isolation. Young adults need to be equipped with inter-
nal coping resources to help protect them, and self-compassion offers both emotion- and
meaning-focused coping skills. However, exactly how self-compassion might act as
a protective factor has been largely unaddressed until now. We addressed four related
research questions: (1) How are self-compassion elements related to self-reliance and
well-being? (2) Is it a buffer (i.e., a moderator that lessens the association between self-
reliance and well-being)? (3) Or is it a mediator (i.e., increased self-reliance is associ-
ated with decreased self-compassion, which in turn is associated with decreased well-
being)? (4) And what role might sex play? In the following paragraphs, we summarize
our evidence to support RQ1, RQ3, and RQ4 (but not RQ2), and discuss its limitations
and implications.

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 987

4.1 Research Question 1

4.1.1 Self‑Reliance on Well‑Being

Our study corresponded with Ryan et al. (2005) work, where extreme independence
(self-reliance) was associated with poorer well-being. The tendency of overly relying
on oneself and avoiding seeking support may result in a sense of isolation (Smith 2014)
and possible separation in social relationships given the resulting perception of a lack
of support (Burns and Mahalik 2006). This finding sheds light on the differentiation
between self-reliance and autonomy, highlighting that, although having control over
decision-making processes pertinent to oneself and experiencing a sense of volition
(autonomy) are important, overly relying on oneself in times of distress and avoiding
seeking support from others (self-reliance) may actually pose an undesirable influence
on one’s psychological well-being.
In Côté and Bynner’s (2008) examination of prolonged young adulthood, the gradual
paradigm shift—in reference to increased defining characteristics of adulthood on the basis
of psychological factors (e.g., accepting responsibility, making independent decisions)—
poses challenges to young adults’ identity formation and self-development given the lack
of collective support and identifiable social markers of adulthood. In order to navigate
through this developmental transition and its associated challenges, young adults need a
repertoire of personal resources more so then than ever. Given that young adults are still in
exploration of their identities and purpose of existence, they are less likely to have in-depth
knowledge of themselves and what coping strategies work for them (Neff and Pommier
2012).
Emotional support is important in facilitating coping with adversity and sustaining
individuals’ well-being (Lynch 2013; Ryan et al. 2005), particularly during the transition
to college and adulthood (Denovan and Macaskill 2013). When young adults engage in
the behavior of turning away (i.e., self-reliance) and isolating themselves, they are actu-
ally inhibiting their access to emotional support, restricting the use of the coping resources
available, and prohibiting them from learning from others in the exploration of effective
coping strategies or alternative perspectives of extant stressors. Aligning this with Lazarus
and Folkman’s (1987) transactional model of stress and coping, perceived stress arises
when environmental demands exceed a person’s coping resources. Therefore, it does not
come as a surprise that exertion of self-reliance poses a threat to a person’s well-being.

4.1.2 Self‑Compassion Elements on Well‑Being

Self-compassion is a holistic and balanced construct where it offers both emotion-

(through self-kindness) and meaning-focused (through mindfulness and common
humanity) coping. Understanding that transition to adulthood involves various control-
lable (e.g., living independently; Denovan and Macaskill 2013) and more uncontrol-
lable stressors (e.g., financial and employment concerns; Côté and Bynner 2008), we
believe self-compassion serves as an effective coping strategy for psychological stress-
ors (Soysa and Wilcomb 2013) and developmental tasks (Gunnell et al. 2017) by pro-
moting positive psychological functioning (Neff et al. 2007). Our findings are similar
to other research outcomes (e.g., Bluth and Blanton 2014; Hall et al. 2013; Terry et al.
2012) such that self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness were positively

13
988 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

correlated with well-being, while self-judgment, over-identification, and isolation were

negatively correlated. Although there is abundant empirical support for a protective
effect of self-compassion as a whole, research examining unique contributions of the
self-compassion elements is still in its infancy (Bluth and Blanton 2014). Our findings
add to the literature by examining the unique contribution of each self-compassion ele-
ment on well-being.
Our findings also aligned with the few research studies that have explored the
unique contributions of self-compassion elements on certain dependent variables.
Wong and Mak (2013) found that the positive elements (i.e., self-kindness, com-
mon humanity, and mindfulness) of self-compassion were negatively associated with
depression. These findings do not come as a surprise as each of the aforementioned
self-compassion elements serves as an internal coping resource in the face of stress-
ors. The notion of being kind with oneself without judgment (self-kindness), recogniz-
ing that imperfection is a shared human condition (common humanity), and embracing
internal experiences with an open mind (mindfulness) provides emotion- and mean-
ing-focused coping. Emotion-focused coping allows one to regulate emotional distress
(Lazarus and Folkman 1987), whereas meaning-focused coping (Folkman 2008) gen-
erates positive emotions and restores coping resources. This reflects the significance of
self-compassion on young adults’ well-being, and poses significant clinical implica-
tions (which we describe later).
Hall et al. (2013) found that individuals who engaged in more self-judgmental
thoughts and isolation were more likely to express depressive symptomatology due to
rumination over their own perceived deficiencies and isolation. Soysa and Wilcomb
(2013) found that isolation and over-identification predicted stress. Our research find-
ings support their conclusions, where self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification
were negatively associated with well-being. In view of their process of establishing
identities and relationships, young adults are less likely to have an in-depth knowledge
of themselves and which coping strategies work for them (Neff and Pommier 2012);
the perpetual encouragement of independence in individualistic, Western cultures can
be misinterpreted, and in turn, foster a sense of isolation (Ryan et al. 2005). Young
adults often share a perception of “feeling in between” because they are expected to
become full-grown adults at the split second they “graduate” from being an adolescent;
such an expectation poses great pressure, and it is natural that they feel overwhelmed
given that they have relatively fewer resources as compared to older adults (Neff and
Pommier 2012). Linking this back to the transactional model (Lazarus and Folkman
1987), when young adults are faced with challenges during their transition and their
coping attempts are unsuccessful, they are likely to engage in endless an appraisal-
coping-reappraisal process and get carried away with their undesirable emotions (over-
identification). The vicious cycle of internal criticism-isolation-rumination repeats
itself until young adults are equipped with the coping strategies needed to break away.
Out of the six elements, self-kindness, isolation, and mindfulness made significant
unique contributions to explaining well-being after controlling for the other elements,
sex, and self-reliance, with isolation being the largest contributor, followed by self-
kindness and mindfulness. This finding comports with theory, because isolation essen-
tially diminishes an individual’s ability to cope with stressors (Hall et al. 2013). Our
findings are in accord with previous studies where isolation has been identified as the
one most consistent and strongest predictor of depression (Van Dam et al. 2011), stress
(Soysa and Wilcomb 2013), negative mood, and life satisfaction (Bluth and Blanton
2014).

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 989

4.2 Research Question 2

We found neither self-compassion nor its elements to moderate the relationship between
self-reliance and well-being, even after controlling for sex. Thus, we found no evidence
that self-compassion buffers the effect of self-reliance on well-being (i.e., the relation-
ship between self-reliance and well-being lessens as self-compassion increases). However,
moderation effects are often weak, and our sample size may not have been large enough to
detect them.

4.3 Research Question 3

However, based on the regression analysis conducted earlier, self-reliance lost its associa-
tion with well-being after controlling for the elements of self-compassion and sex, a pre-
liminary indicator of mediation. Our subsequent mediation analysis revealed significant but
weak indirect paths from self-reliance to well-being through self-kindness and mindfulness,
and a significant, moderate indirect path through isolation. As noted earlier, self-kindness
is an emotion-focused form of coping with stress, and mindfulness is a meaning-focused
form of coping. Thus, these pathways support at least two positive elements, and one nega-
tive element, of self-compassion as explanatory factors of how self-reliance is related to
well-being. As self-reliance increases, self-kindness and mindfulness both decrease, and
as self-kindness and mindfulness decrease, so does well-being. In addition, as self-reliance
increases, isolation increases, and as isolation increases, well-being decreases.
Extreme independence fosters separateness and promotes a sense of isolation (Ryan
et al. 2005; Smith 2014), which in turn diminishes the ability to cope effectively with
stressors (Hall et al. 2013) and reduces well-being (Neff and McGeHee 2010). Based on
Erikson’s (1963) stages of development, young adults undergo a process of exploring their
identities and establishing significant relationships, during which they explore the purpose
of their existence and establish healthy boundaries in relation to their identities and signifi-
cant relationships. When young adults engage in extreme self-reliance, they are less likely
to engage in meaningful social interaction and gain access to emotional support, which
influences their transition and process of developing effective coping strategies in response
to life stressors. Therefore, the observed correlations and mediation analysis results agree
with what developmental theory and the transactional model would predict, that isolation
mediates the relationship between young adults’ self-reliance and well-being.

4.4 Research Question 4

We adopted the self-reliance subscale from CMNI-46 (which was originally developed
with college men to measure masculinity, and subsequently validated in both men and
women; Parent and Moradi 2009; Parent and Smiler 2013) to measure self-reliance
in this study. Given that our sample was made up of a greater number of females, the
research findings highlighted thus far do offer new and interesting insights on the inter-
action between self-reliance, self-compassion elements, and well-being. In addition to
the perpetual encouragement and excessive celebration of independence, socialization
of masculinity and emotional toughness further exacerbates emotional distress (Jakup-
cak et al. 2014; Matthews et al 2013) as they foster a sense of isolation (Ryan et al.
2005) and perceived lack of support (Burns and Mahalik 2006). Although masculinity

13
990 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

is commonly thought to be significant to men, it is essentially an abstract construct that

functions similarly for both men and women (Parent and Smiler 2013). This was echoed
by the lack of moderation by sex in our regression analyses, and the lack of direct paths
to self-reliance and self-compassion in the path analysis.

5 Limitations

Because we adopted a correlational cross-sectional design to examine the relation-

ships among the identified variables (i.e., self-reliance, self-compassion, and well-
being), we could not establish clear causal connections among the variables. For
example, increased well-being might lead to increased self-kindness and mindfulness,
and decreased isolation, all of which in turn may lead to decreased self-reliance. We
attempted to reduce the impact of subject characteristics on internal validity by recruit-
ing participants from diverse backgrounds. However, certain subject characteristics
(e.g., sex, sexual orientation, nationality) seem to dominate within this sample. Because
participants were recruited from one public university, the degree to which these results
can be generalized to other young adult populations is limited. Also, it should be noted
that there is no developed scale which specifically measures self-reliance as defined in
this study, and that the SCS has a mixed record of support for its hypothesized six-factor
structure (Lopez Angarita et al. 2015).

5.1 Implications of Present Findings and Future Directions

The present study sheds light on the relationships among self-reliance, self-compassion
and its elements (i.e., self-kindness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindful-
ness, and overidentification), and well-being in young adults. To our knowledge, this is the
first study to have ever done so. Our findings reflect the potential role of self-compassion,
and certain self-compassion elements, as a protective factor for young adults’ well-being,
including a mediating role between self-reliance and well-being. Institutions may take
these into consideration when developing a program aiding young adults’ transition into
college settings and later developmental stages, and mental health professionals may take
the study findings into consideration when engaging with their clients. For instance, mental
health professionals can address the influences of self-reliance and isolation on their cli-
ents’ well-being in sessions, and incorporate self-kindness and mindfulness exercises (e.g.,
meditation, see Boellinghaus et al. 2014) to enhance clients’ psychological functioning.
This is similar to interventions recommended for anxious attachment styles, and indicates
its possible utility for avoidant attachment styles, of which self-reliance is an indicator.
With the emerging research addressing self-reliance, we recommend its further
exploration in relation to well-being across the general population instead of revolving
just around men. Researchers may consider conducting qualitative studies to gain an
in-depth understanding of young adults’ lived experiences of self-reliance and of facili-
tating factors in reaching out for support. The findings from qualitative studies could
be employed to develop a scale that specifically measures self-reliance. We also recom-
mend further exploration of how self-compassion elements contribute to well-being, as
well as how they may serve as protective factors against other threats.

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 991

6 Conclusion

In summary, we found correlational evidence that a potential barrier, self-reliance, prevent-

ing young adults from seeking support from others, may harm well-being. We also found
correlational evidence that self-compassion, in the form of self-kindness, mindfulness, and
lack of isolation, may promote well-being. Finally, we found that self-compassion medi-
ated the negative association of self-reliance and well-being, suggesting an explanatory
role for self-kindness, mindfulness, and isolation. Although there is increased attention to
self-compassion and self-reliance in the field, more work needs to be done to examine their
influence and interplay with well-being to better understand how we can support young
adults in their transition to adulthood.

References
Allen, A. B., & Leary, M. R. (2010). Self-compassion, stress, and coping. Social and Personality Psychol‑
ogy Compass, 4(2), 107–118. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00246​.x.
Balzarotti, S., Biassoni, F., Villani, D., Prunas, A., & Velotti, P. (2016). Individual differences in cognitive
emotion regulation: Implications for subjective and psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 17(1), 125–143. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​2-014-9587-3.
Bluth, K., & Blanton, P. W. (2014). The influence of self-compassion on emotional well-being among early
and older adolescent males and females. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 219–230. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/17439​760.2014.93696​7.
Boellinghaus, I., Jones, F. W., & Hutton, J. (2014). The role of mindfulness and loving-kindness meditation
in cultivating self-compassion and other-focused concern in health care professionals. Mindfulness,
5(2), 129–138. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1267​1-012-0158-6.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development. New York:
Basic Books.
Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2006). Physical health, self-reliance, and emotional control as moderators
of the relationship between locus of control and mental health among men treated for prostate cancer.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(6), 561–572. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1086​5-006-9076-1.
Center for Collegiate Mental Health. (2016). 2016 annual report. Retrieved from https​://sites​.psu.edu/ccmh/
files​/2017/01/2016-Annua​l-Repor​t-FINAL​_2016_01_09-1gc2h​j6.pdf.
Chou, S. Y., & Chang, T. (2016). Being helped and being harmed: A theoretical study of employee self-
concept and receipt of help. Journal of Happiness Studies. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​2-016-9788-z.
Côté, J., & Bynner, J. M. (2008). Changes in the transition to adulthood in the UK and Canada: The role
of structure and agency in emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(3), 251–268. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/13676​26080​19464​64.
Crossby, A. E., Han, B., Ortega, L. A. G., Parks, S. E., & Gfroener, J. (2011). Suicidal thoughts and behav‑
iors among adults aged ≥ 18 years: United States, 2008-2009. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/pdf/ss/ss601​3.pdf.
Denovan, A., & Macaskill, A. (2013). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of stress and coping
in first year undergraduates. British Educational Research Journal, 39(6), 1002–1024. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/berj.3019.
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing. Interna‑
tional Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222–235. https​://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. New York: Basic Books.
Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 21(1),
3–14. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10615​80070​17404​57.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a
stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. https​://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514-50.5.992.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in stress and coping pro-
cesses. Psychology and Aging, 2(2), 171–184. https​://doi.org/10.1037//0882.7974.2.2.171.
Furstenberg, F. F., Kennedy, S., McCloyd, V. C., Rumbaut, R. G., & Settersten, R. A. (2003). Between
adolescence and adulthood: Expectations about the timing of adulthood (No. 1). Research network

13
992 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

working paper. Retrieved from https​://www.resea​rchga​te.net/publi​catio​n/23723​4266_Betwe​en_Adole​

scenc​e_and_Adult​hood_Expec​tatio​ns_about​_the_Timin​g_of_Adult​hood.
Germer, C. K., & Neff, K. D. (2013). Self-compassion in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
69(8), 856–867. https​://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22021​.
Gunnell, K. E., Mosewich, A. D., McEwen, C. E., Eklund, R. C., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2017). Don’t be so
hard on yourself! Changes in self-compassion during the first year of university are associated with
changes in well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 43–48. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2016.11.032.
Hall, C. W., Row, K. A., Wuensch, K. L., & Godley, K. R. (2013). The role of self-compassion in physi-
cal and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 147(4), 311–323. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00223​980.2012.69313​8.
Holahan, C. J., Valentiner, D., & Moos, R. H. (1994). Parental support and psychological adjustment during
the transition to young adulthood in a college sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(2), 215–223.
Hope, N., Koestner, R., & Milyavskaya, M. (2014). The role of self-compassion in goal pursuit and well-
being among university freshmen. Self and Identity, 13(5), 579–593. https​://doi.org/10.1090/15298​
868.2014.88903​2.
Jakupcak, M., Blais, R. K., Grossbard, J., Garcia, H., & Okiishi, J. (2014). “Toughness” in association with
mental health symptoms among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking Veterans Affairs health
care. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15(1), 100–104. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0031​508.
Jennings, K. S., Cheung, J. H., Britt, T. W., Goguen, K. N., Jeffirs, S. M., Peasley, A. L., et al. (2015). How
are perceived stigma, self-stigma, and self-reliance related to treatment-seeking? A three-path model.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 38(2), 109–116. https​://doi.org/10.1037/prj00​00138​.
Jiang, Y., You, J., Zheng, X., & Lin, M. (2017). The qualities of attachment with significant others and self-
compassion protect adolescents from non suicidal self-injury. School of Psychology Quarterly, 32(2),
143–155. https​://doi.org/10.1037/spq00​00187​.
Jivanjee, P., Kruzich, J., & Gordon, L. J. (2008). Community integration of transition-age individuals:
Views of young with mental health disorders. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research,
35(4), 402–418. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1141​4-007-9062-6.
Johnson, V. K., Gans, S. E., Kerr, S., & LaValle, W. (2010). Managing the transition to college: Family
functioning, emotion coping, and adjustment in emerging adulthood. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(6), 607–621. https​://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0022.
Korner, A., Coroiu, A., Copeland, L., Gomez-Garibello, C., Albani, C., Zenger, M., et al. (2015). The role
of self-compassion in buffering symptoms of depression in the general population. PLoS ONE, 10(10),
1–14. https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.01365​98.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European
Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169. https​://doi.org/10.1002/per.24100​10304​.
Lockard, A. J., Hayes, J. A., Neff, K., & Locke, B. D. (2014). Self-compassion among college counseling
center clients: An examination of clinical norms and group differences. Journal of College Counseling,
17(3), 249–259. https​://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2014.00061​.x.
Lopez Angarita, A., Sanderman, R., Smink, A., Zhang, Y., van Sonderen, E., Ranchor, A., et al. (2015). A
reconsideration of the self-compassion scale’s total score: Self-compassion versus self-criticism. PLoS
ONE, 10(7), e0132940. https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.01329​40.
Lynch, M. F. (2013). Attachment, autonomy, and emotional reliance: A multilevel model. Journal of Coun‑
seling & Development, 91(3), 301–312. https​://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00098​.x.
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003).
Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1),
3–25. https​://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3.
Matthews, D., Hammond, W. P., Nuru-Jeter, A., Cole-Lewis, Y., & Melvin, T. (2013). Racial discrimina-
tion and depressive symptoms among African-American men: The mediating and moderating roles of
masculine self-reliance and John Henryism. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(1), 35–46. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/a0028​436.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamic
development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion,
27, 77–102.
Munsey, C. (2006). Emerging adults: The in-between age. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monit​or/
jun06​/emerg​ing.aspx.
Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself.
Self and Identity, 2, 85–101. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15298​86039​01298​63.
Neff, K. D. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Iden‑
tity, 2(3), 223–250. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15298​86039​02090​35.

13
Self‑Compassion: A Potential Shield Against Extreme… 993

Neff, K. D., & Dahm, K. A. (2015). Self-compassion: What it is, what it does, and how it relates to mindful-
ness. In D. B. Ostafin, D. M. Robinson, & P. B. Meier (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness and regulation
(pp. 121–137). New York, NY: Springer.
Neff, K. D., & McGeHee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among adolescents and
young adults. Self and Identity, 9(3), 225–240. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15298​86090​29793​07.
Neff, K. D., & Pommier, E. (2012). The relationship between self-compassion and other-focused concern
among college undergraduates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self and Identity, 12(2),
160–176. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15298​868.2011.64954​6.
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self-compassion in relation to
positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4),
908–916. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002.
Oxford Dictionaries. (2014). Oxford dictionaries: Language matters. Retrieved from http://www.oxfor​ddict​
ionar​ies.com/us/.
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the conformity to masculine norms
inventory and development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory-46. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 10(3), 175–189. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a001-5481.
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms:
Psychometric properties of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 12(4), 339–353. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0021​904.
Parent, M. C., & Smiler, A. P. (2013). Metric invariance of the conformity to masculine norms inventory-46
among women and men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(3), 324–328. https​://doi.org/10.1037/
a0027​642.
Pottick, K. J., Bilder, S., Stoep, A. V., Warner, L. A., & Alvarez, M. F. (2008). US Patterns of mental health
services utilization for transition-age youth and young adults. The Journal of Behavioral Health Ser‑
vices & Research, 35(4), 373–389. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1141​4-007-9080-4.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​
ev.psych​.52.1.141.
Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J. S., Chirkov, V., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the interpersonal
regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships, and cultures. Personal Rela‑
tionships, 12(1), 145–163. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00106​.x.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychologi-
cal well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https​://doi.
org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069.
Samuels, G. M., & Pryce, J. M. (2008). “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”: Survivalist self-reli-
ance as resilience and risk among young adults aging out of foster care. Children and Youth Services
Review, 30(10), 1198–1210. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.child​youth​.2008.03.005.
Seifert, T. A. (2005). The Ryff Scales of psychological well-being. Retrieved from http://www.liber​alart​
s.wabas​h.edu/ryff-scale​s/.
Sirois, F. M., Kitner, R., & Hirsch, J. K. (2015). Self-compassion, affect, and health-promoting behaviors.
Health Psychology, 34(6), 661–669. https​://doi.org/10.1037/hea00​00158​.
Smith, A. (2014). What’s wrong with being independent? Retrieved from http://www.psych​ology​today​.com/
blog/conte​mpora​ry-psych​oanal​ysis-in-actio​n/20140​9/whats​-wrong​-being​-indep​enden​t.
Soysa, C. K., & Wilcomb, C. J. (2013). Mindfulness, self-compassion, self-efficacy, and gender as predic-
tors of depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being. Mindfulness, 6(2), 217–226. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1267​1-013-0247-1.
Sun, X., Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. (2016). Self-compassion and psychological well-being among adolescents
in Hong Kong: Exploring gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 288–292.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.011.
Terry, M. L., & Leary, M. R. (2011). Self-compassion, self-regulation, and health. Self and Identity, 10(3),
352–362. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15298​868.2011.55840​4.
Terry, M. L., Leary, M. R., & Mehta, S. (2012). Self-compassion as a buffer against homesickness, depres-
sion, and dissatisfaction in the transition to college. Self and Identity, 12(3), 278–290. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15298​868.2012.66791​3.
Thomson, K. C., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Oberle, E. (2015). Optimism in early adolescence: Relations
to individual characteristics and ecological assets in families, schools, and neighborhoods. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 16(4), 889–913. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​2-014-9539-y.
Van Dam, N. T., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., & Earleywine, M. (2011). Self-compassion is a better pre-
dictor than mindfulness of symptom severity and quality of life in mixed anxiety and depression. Jour‑
nal of Anxiety Disorders, 25(1), 123–130. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxd​is.2010.08.011.

13
994 P. Y. Choo, J. M. Marszalek

Van Dierendonck, D. (2004). The construct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-being and its
extension with spiritual well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 629–643. https​://
doi.org/10.1013/S0191​-8869(03)00122​-3.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological
need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration,
23(3), 263–280. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0032​359.
Vergunst, P. J. B. (2002). The potentials and limitations of self-reliance and self-sufficiency at the local
level: Views from southern Sweden. Local Environment, 7(2), 149–161. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13549​
83022​01364​54.
Wei, M., Liao, K. Y. H., Ku, T. Y., & Shaffer, P. A. (2011). Attachment, self-compassion, empathy, and
subjective well-being among college students and community adults. Journal of Personality, 79(1),
191–221. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677​.x.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, comfort with self-
disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshmen college students: A longitudinal design.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 602–614.
Wong, C. Y., & Mak, W. S. (2013). Differentiating the role of three self-compassion components in buffer-
ing cognitive-personality vulnerability to depression among Chinese in Hong Kong. Journal of Coun‑
seling Psychology, 60(1), 162–169. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0030​45116​2.
World Health Organization, WHO. (2016). World health statistics 2016: Monitoring health for the SDGs,
sustainable developmental goals. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitst​ream/10665​/20649​
8/1/97892​41565​264_eng.pdf.

13