Differences in Guided Imagery between High and Low Self-Critical Participants: Consensual Qualitative Research Analysis

As self-criticism is considered to be the major underlying factor of all sorts of psychopathology, it is meaningful to explore the differences between how people deal with their self-criticism based on their level of self-criticism. The aim of this study was to categorise descriptions and investigate differences between 5 high and 5 low self-critical participants in their self-critical, self-protective and self-compassionate imageries. The total sample consisted of 10 university students, who were selected from a larger sample of 88 participants based on their extreme score from The Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking and Self-Reassuring Scale. For analysis, we exploited Consensual Qualitative Research with two assessors and one auditor. The compassionate imagery was used to evoke the inner critic, protector and compassionate voice. The results showed differences in the imageries based on the level of self-criticism. Both high and low self-critics displayed difficulties in overcoming their self-criticism. Contrary to high self-critics, low self-critics showed more constructive and positive strategies for dealing with their self-criticism. Our study presented several different patterns between high and low self-critical participants in self-critical, self-compassionate, and self-protective imagery which could be used for diagnostic purposes in the future

Factor Structure of the Self-Compassion Scale in 11 International Samples

In this study, different factor analysis models were employed to test the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) in 11 distinct populations (n = 15,266) in different countries. The results strongly suggest that the most appropriate use of the SCS is to measure levels of Self-Compassionate responding (positive items) and Self-Uncompassionate responding (negative items) separately

The role of social connection on the experience of COVID-19 related post-traumatic growth and stress

Background Historically social connection has been an important way through which humans have coped with large-scale threatening events. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns have deprived people of major sources of social support and coping, with others representing threats. Hence, a major stressor during the pandemic has been a sense of social disconnection and loneliness. This study explores how people's experience of compassion and feeling socially safe and connected, in contrast to feeling socially disconnected, lonely and fearful of compassion, effects the impact of perceived threat of COVID-19 on post-traumatic growth and post-traumatic stress. Methods Adult participants from the general population (N = 4057) across 21 countries worldwide, completed self-report measures of social connection (compassion for self, from others, for others; social safeness), social disconnection (fears of compassion for self, from others, for others; loneliness), perceived threat of COVID-19, post-traumatic growth and traumatic stress. Results Perceived threat of COVID-19 predicted increased post-traumatic growth and traumatic stress. Social connection (compassion and social safeness) predicted higher post-traumatic growth and traumatic stress, whereas social disconnection (fears of compassion and loneliness) predicted increased traumatic symptoms only. Social connection heightened the impact of perceived threat of COVID-19 on post-traumatic growth, while social disconnection weakened this impact. Social disconnection magnified the impact of the perceived threat of COVID-19 on traumatic stress. These effects were consistent across all countries. Conclusions Social connection is key to how people adapt and cope with the worldwide COVID-19 crisis and may facilitate post-traumatic growth in the context of the threat experienced during the pandemic. In contrast, social disconnection increases vulnerability to develop post-traumatic stress in this threatening context. Public health and Government organizations could implement interventions to foster compassion and feelings of social safeness and reduce experiences of social disconnection, thus promoting growth, resilience and mental wellbeing during and following the pandemic

The primacy of the inner self in decision-making preferences across cultures

We investigated the universality versus cultural specificity of preferences for internal decision-making strategies (intuition or deliberation) over external strategies (advice from friends or crowds). Participants from diverse samples spanning five continents (N=3,517), including Indigenous communities, considered scenarios involving choosing between attractive options or balancing personal and social responsibilities. Most participants in each society preferred and expected to feel better using internal strategies. However, many participants believed their peers would seek out advice, revealing a discrepancy between personal preferences and expected preference of one’s cultural group. The preference for internal strategies manifested across diverse cultural contexts and scenario types. Nevertheless, substantial sample-level and individual differences emerged, with individualism and need for cognition linked to stronger preference for internal decision-making, and collectivism and outsider view reflective style associated with greater preference for external decision-making. Our findings challenge traditional views of collectivist cultures as predominantly advice-following, inviting a revision of common understanding of cross-cultural differences in social dynamics and behavior