CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Process of Science: A Critical Evaluation of more than 15 Years of Research on Self-Compassion with the Self-Compassion Scale

Open access
Muris, Peter, Otgaar, Henry·2020·Mindfulness
DOI 10.1007/s12671-020-01363-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: Falsification is regarded as a cornerstone of science. Anomalous data—even when highly credible—do not always lead to an adjustment of theory. In this paper, we discuss reasons for why current theories are not modified despite a corpus of work falsifying (parts of) the theory, using the case of self-compassion as an example. During more than 15 years, this psychological construct has been heralded as a protective factor against stress and emotional adversity. Methods: A search in the Web of Science database using [SELF-COMPASSION in title] as the search term was conducted and found empirical papers were critically evaluated. Results: Good evidence abounds indicating that the theoretical definition of self-compassion is limited and that as a consequence its proper assessment with the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) is obscured as the measure is contaminated by psychopathological characteristics. Surprisingly, few researchers take these critical notes into account when conducting and reporting new studies on this topic. We argue that this might be due to all kinds of (conscious and unconscious) tendencies and cognitive biases of researchers and clinicians. Conclusion: Research lines are not always guided by solid data but strongly determined by social factors. We close by providing a recommendation for researchers regarding the assessment of self-compassion including the continued use of the SCS.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-020-01363-0

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Corsius, N. (2018). Further exploration of the face validity of the Self-Compassion Scale (unpublished master’s thesis). Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  2. Germer, C., & Neff, K. D. (2017). Teaching the mindful self-compassion program. A guide for professionals. New York: The Guilford Press.
  3. Gilbert, P. (2000). Social mentalities: internal ‘social’ conflict and the role of inner warmth and compassion in cognitive therapy. In P. Gilbert & K. G. Bailey (Eds.), Genes on the couch: exploration in evolutionary psychotherapy (pp. 118–150). Hove: Psychology Press.
  4. Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: a handbook on fallacies and bias in thinking, judgment, and memory (pp. 79–96). Hove: Psychology Press.
  5. Seppälä, E. M., Simon-Thomas, E., Brown, S. L., Worline, M. C., Cameron, C. D., & Doty, J. R. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of compassion science. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 162

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Muris, P., & Otgaar, H.
Affiliations
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Muris, Peter
ORCID
Venue
Mindfulness
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-04-07
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
1469-1482
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
DOI
10.1007/s12671-020-01363-0
OpenAlex
W3015412611
Cited by
162
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Maastricht University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
self-compassion, Self-Compassion Scale, falsification, theory revision, measurement contamination, psychopathology, construct definition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review