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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“skala ta jest jednak krytykowana, amożliwość generalizacji uzyskanej przez Neff struktury podawana jest wwątpliwość [25-27].”
From The Polish adaptation of the Self-Compassion Scale Short Form (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
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
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Society and the Adolescent Self-Image
Rosenberg, M. (1965) · doi:10.1515/9781400876136 · Cited by 30,126
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001 · Cited by 21,170
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Hall, M. B., & Kuhn, T. S. (1963) · The American Historical Review · doi:10.2307/1847040 · Cited by 7,755
The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion
NEFF, K. D. (2003) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298860309027 · Cited by 6,436
Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself
NEFF, K. (2003) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298860309032 · Cited by 5,440
Behavioral Study of obedience.
Milgram, S. (1963) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0040525 · Cited by 4,918
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
Hutchison, T. W., & Popper, K. R. (1964) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2551371 · Cited by 4,232
Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-3719 · Cited by 3,646
Lehman, H. (1972) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/288419 · Cited by 3,008
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Corsius, N. (2018). Further exploration of the face validity of the Self-Compassion Scale (unpublished master’s thesis). Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Germer, C., & Neff, K. D. (2017). Teaching the mindful self-compassion program. A guide for professionals. New York: The Guilford Press.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Self-compassion: Theory, method, research, and intervention
Neff, K. D. (2023) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031047 · Cited by 931
Compassion: From Its Evolution to a Psychotherapy
Gilbert, P. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586161 · Cited by 365
“Identifying core processes can help us to share conceptualizations but the exact phenomenon included in a cluster or factor can vary, sometimes quite considerably and in the clinical sciences be unreliable ways of identifying specific syndromes [see for example the controversies on one approach to self-compassion (Mur…”
BackgroundEgan, S. J., Rees, C. S., Delalande, J., Greene, D., Fitzallen, G., Brown, S., Webb, M., & Finlay-Jones, A. (2022) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-021-01170-2 · Cited by 140
Muris, P., & Otgaar, H. (2023) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s402455 · Cited by 171
Self-citationSuh, H., & Jeong, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633482 · Cited by 128
Metadata
- Authors
- Muris, P., & Otgaar, H.
- Affiliations
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Muris, Peter
- Venue
- Mindfulness
- Published
- 2020-04-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1469-1482
- ISSN
- 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
- 1868-8535
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
