Self–Compassion is Best Measured as a Global Construct and is Overlapping with but Distinct from Neuroticism: A Response to Pfattheicher, Geiger, Hartung, Weiss, and Schindler (2017)

Abstract

Pfattheicher and colleagues recently published an article entitled ‘Old Wine in New Bottles? The Case of Self‐compassion and Neuroticism’ that argues the negative items of the Self‐compassion Scale (SCS), which represent reduced uncompassionate self‐responding, are redundant with neuroticism (especially its depression and anxiety facets) and do not evidence incremental validity in predicting life satisfaction. Using potentially problematic methods to examine the factor structure of the SCS (higher‐order confirmatory factor analysis), they suggest a total self‐compassion score should not be used and negative items should be dropped. In Study 1, we present a reanalysis of their data using what we argue are more theoretically appropriate methods (bifactor exploratory structural equation modelling) that support use of a global self‐compassion factor (explaining 94% of item variance) over separate factors representing compassionate and reduced uncompassionate self‐responding. While self‐compassion evidenced a large correlation with neuroticism and depression and a small correlation with anxiety, it explained meaningful incremental validity in life satisfaction compared with neuroticism, depression, and anxiety. Findings were replicated in Study 2, which examined emotion regulation. Study 3 established the incremental validity of negative items with multiple well‐being outcomes. We conclude that although self‐compassion overlaps with neuroticism, the two constructs are distinct. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Self–Compassion as A Facet of Neuroticism? A Reply to the Comments of Neff, TóTh–KiráLy, and Colosimo (2018)

“…

In this paper, we respond to comments by Neff et al (2018) made about our finding that the negative dimensions of self-compassion were redundant with facets of neuroticism (rs ≥ 0.85;Pfattheicher et al, 2017) and not incrementally valid. We first provide epistemological guidance for establishing psychological constructs, namely, three hurdles that new constructs must pass: theoretically and empirically sound measurement, discriminant validity, and incremental validity-and then apply these guidelines to the self-compassion scale.

…”

“…Obviously, Table 1. A content analysis of outcome measures of Study 3 in Neff et al (2018) and their overlap with established constructs of personality as measured with the NEO-PI-R (Costa Jr. & McCrae, 1992), IPIP items (Goldberg, 1999), and HEXACO-PI items (Lee & Ashton, 2004) Construct of outcome measure Note: [R] indicates that this item must be understood reversed to match the corresponding item.…”

“…We first provide epistemological guidance for establishing psychological constructs, namely, three hurdles that new constructs must pass: theoretically and empirically sound measurement, discriminant validity, and incremental validity-and then apply these guidelines to the self-compassion scale. We then outline that the critique of Neff et al (2018) is contestable. We question their decisions concerning data-analytic methods that help them to circumvent instead of passing the outlined hurdles.…”

Mechanisms of mindfulness: Rumination and self-compassion

“…On the other hand, Neff (e.g. Neff, 2016a, 2016bNeff, Toth-Kiraly, & Colosimo, 2018) argue that the use of a total score is warranted, and in line with the intention of the scale. As self-compassion is conceptualized as a dynamic system, the lack of self-compassion is as important to the definition as the presence of selfcompassion and using a total SCS score to assess the relative balance of the systems components is meaningful.…”

Self-compassion and Adolescents’ Positive and Negative Cognitive Reactions to Daily Life Problems

“…Moreover, compassionate and uncompassionate selfresponding components in the SCS have been demonstrated to relate in a different way to external constructs (e.g., Brenner et al 2017;Brenner et al 2018;Coroiu et al 2018;Lopez et al 2018;Neff et al 2018aNeff et al , 2018b. This can be linked to Gilbert's (2000) Theory of Social Mentalities, which proposes that there are two distinct but related processing systems that underlie people's patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior in response to interpersonal challenges: the safeness system and the threat-defense system.…”