Dataset Information

Self-compassion and the Mitigation of Negative Affect in the Era of Social Distancing.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The outbreak of contagious diseases and their associated non-pharmaceutical interventions can lead to negative mental health consequences. This study aimed to investigate online self-compassion exercises' effectiveness in alleviating people's negative affect (anxiety and negative emotions) during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Methods

Study 1 examined the associations between self-compassion and negative affect using an anonymous online survey. In study 2, two pilot experiments were conducted to examine online self-compassion exercises' (i.e., instructor-guided meditation and self-guided writing) effectiveness to mitigate individuals' negative affect. In study 3, a randomized controlled study was conducted to further examine online self-compassion writing's effectiveness in reducing people's negative affect.

Results

The results of study 1 indicated a significant negative association between self-compassion and participants' negative affect. Participants in study 2a reported significant decreases in negative affect after completing the self-compassion meditation. Study 2b showed that participants who completed the self-compassion writing reported significantly more self-compassion and less anxiety when compared to participants who did not. Study 3 showed substantial pre/post-test changes in participants who completed self-compassion writing. Importantly, there were significant increases in participants' self-compassion and decreases in negative affect when compared to participants in the control condition.

Conclusions

Self-compassion exercises were effective to alleviate individuals' anxiety and reduce negative emotions (even within a brief session) during the pandemic lockdown.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12671-021-01674-w.

SUBMITTER: Guan F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8236748 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) as a single measure has been pointed out as problematic by many authors and its originally proposed structure has repeatedly been called into question. The negative facets of this construct are more strongly related to psychopathology than the positive indicators. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the different structures proposed for the SCS, including a new measure based only on the negative factors, and to assess the psychometric features of the more plausible solution. METHOD:The study employed a cross-sectional and cross-cultural design. A sample of Brazilian (n = 406) and Spanish (n = 416) primary care professionals completed the SCS, and other questionnaires to measure psychological health-related variables. The SCS factor structure was estimated using confirmatory factor analysis by the maximum likelihood method. Internal consistency was assessed by squaring the correlation between the latent true variable and the observed variables. The relationships between the SCS and other constructs were analyzed using Spearman's r s . RESULTS:The structure with the best fit was comprised of the three negative first-order factors of "self-judgment", "isolation" and "over-identification", and one negative second-order factor, which has been named "self-criticism" [CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI = 0.05-0.07); SRMR = 0.05]. This solution was supported by both samples, presented partial metric invariance [CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI = 0.05-0.06); SRMR = 0.06], and showed significant correlations with other health-related psychological constructs. Reliability was adequate for all the dimensions (R ? 0.70). CONCLUSIONS:The original structure proposed for the SCS was not supported by the data. Self-criticism, comprising only the negative SCS factors, might be a measure of uncompassionate behaviors toward the self, with good psychometric properties and practical implications from a clinical point of view, reaching a stable structure and overcoming possible methodological artifacts.

Project description:BackgroundThe spread of COVID-19 has highlighted the long-standing health inequalities across the U.S. as neighborhoods with fewer resources were associated with higher rates of COVID-19 transmission. Although the stay-at-home order was one of the most effective methods to contain its spread, residents in lower-income neighborhoods faced barriers to practicing social distancing. We aimed to quantify the differential impact of stay-at-home policy on COVID-19 transmission and residents' mobility across neighborhoods of different levels of socioeconomic disadvantage.MethodsThis was a comparative interrupted time-series analysis at the county level. We included 2087 counties from 38 states which both implemented and lifted the state-wide stay-at-home order. Every county was assigned to one of four equally-sized groups based on its levels of disadvantage, represented by the Area Deprivation Index. Prevalence of COVID-19 was calculated by dividing the daily number of cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases by the number of residents from the 2010 Census. We used the Social Distancing Index (SDI), derived from the COVID-19 Impact Analysis Platform, to measure the mobility. For the evaluation of implementation, the observation started from Mar 1st 2020 to 1 day before lifting; and, for lifting, it ranged from 1 day after implementation to Jul 5th 2020. We calculated a comparative change of daily trends in COVID-19 prevalence and Social Distancing Index between counties with three highest disadvantage levels and those with the least level before and after the implementation and lifting of the stay-at-home order, separately.ResultsOn both stay-at-home implementation and lifting dates, COVID-19 prevalence was much higher among counties with the highest or lowest disadvantage level, while mobility decreased as the disadvantage level increased. Mobility of the most disadvantaged counties was least impacted by stay-at-home implementation and relaxation compared to counties with the most resources; however, disadvantaged counties experienced the largest relative increase in COVID-19 infection after both stay-at-home implementation and relaxation.ConclusionsNeighborhoods with varying levels of socioeconomic disadvantage reacted differently to the implementation and relaxation of COVID-19 mitigation policies. Policymakers should consider investing more resources in disadvantaged counties as the pandemic may not stop until most neighborhoods have it under control.