Peer Acceptance and Nonsuicidal Self-injury among Chinese Adolescents: A Longitudinal Moderated Mediation Model

Wu, Nini; Hou, Yang; Chen, Peiyi; You, Jianing

doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01093-0

Cited by 35 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We looked for correlation reports, and corresponding authors were contacted for correlation results of the six subscales of the SCS, if not already provided in the manuscripts. Through email requests, seven provided the requested data (Xavier et al, 2016;LoParo et al, 2018;Hatchel et al, 2019;Sun et al, 2019;Wu et al, 2019;Zeifman et al, 2019;Vigna et al, 2020).…”

Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, this study was excluded. Other studies used one or two items to assess STBs or NSSI, but these items were treated as ordinal variables with more than two response options (Jiang et al, 2016;Hasking et al, 2019;Hatchel et al, 2019;Wu et al, 2019;Sun et al, 2020;Vigna et al, 2020). For example, Hatchel et al (2019) asked two questions to assess suicidal ideation and attempt, which were "During the past 30 days, have you seriously thought about killing yourself?"…”

Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the current study included the correlation table from over Chang et al (2017) because correlation results between self-compassion and STBs were more detailed (total score of the self-compassion scale was included). For (b) studies, Jiang et al (2016), Sun et al (2020), andWu et al (2019), the same sample seems to have been used as evidenced by the same research design (i.e., longitudinal study) and participant characteristics (e.g., Chinese adolescents). However, different dependent variables were reported: STBs (Sun et al, 2020) and NSSI (Jiang et al, 2016;Wu et al, 2019).…”

Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For (b) studies, Jiang et al (2016), Sun et al (2020), andWu et al (2019), the same sample seems to have been used as evidenced by the same research design (i.e., longitudinal study) and participant characteristics (e.g., Chinese adolescents). However, different dependent variables were reported: STBs (Sun et al, 2020) and NSSI (Jiang et al, 2016;Wu et al, 2019). Therefore, Sun et al (2020)…”

Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a study reported separate correlation coefficients for each subscale of the SCS instead of a composite score, a weighted average r (calculated by CMA) was utilized to generate an overall effect size of self-compassion. With longitudinal studies (Wu et al, 2019;Sun et al, 2020) that measured STBs or NSSI more than once, a weighted average r was entered. With studies (Hatchel et al, 2019;Sun et al, 2020) that reported separate results for suicide (e.g., suicide ideation and suicide attempt), a weighted average r was utilized to create one effect size between self-compassion and STBs.…”

Section: Overall Data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Association of Self-Compassion With Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors and Non-suicidal Self Injury: A Meta-Analysis

Suh

Jeong

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Self-compassion functions as a psychological buffer in the face of negative life experiences. Considering that suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) are often accompanied by intense negative feelings about the self (e.g., self-loathing, self-isolation), self-compassion may have the potential to alleviate these negative attitudes and feelings toward oneself. This meta-analysis investigated the associations of self-compassion with STBs and NSSI.Methods: A literature search finalized in August 2020 identified 18 eligible studies (13 STB effect sizes and seven NSSI effect sizes), including 8,058 participants. Two studies were longitudinal studies, and the remainder were cross-sectional studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using CMA 3.0. Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and publication bias analyses were conducted to probe potential sources of heterogeneity.Results: With regard to STBs, a moderate effect size was found for self-compassion (r = −0.34, k = 13). Positively worded subscales exhibited statistically significant effect sizes: self-kindness (r = −0.21, k = 4), common humanity (r = −0.20, k = 4), and mindfulness (r = −0.15, k = 4). For NSSI, a small effect size was found for self-compassion (r = −0.29, k = 7). There was a large heterogeneity (I2 = 80.92% for STBs, I2 = 86.25% for NSSI), and publication bias was minimal. Subgroup analysis results showed that sample characteristic was a moderator, such that a larger effect size was witnessed in clinical patients than sexually/racially marginalized individuals, college students, and healthy-functioning community adolescents.Conclusions: Self-compassion was negatively associated with STBs and NSSI, and the effect size of self-compassion was larger for STBs than NSSI. More evidence is necessary to gauge a clinically significant protective role that self-compassion may play by soliciting results from future longitudinal studies or intervention studies.

show abstract