CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 232Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The ‘Flow’ of compassion: A meta-analysis of the fears of compassion scales and psychological functioning

Kirby, James N., Day, Jamin, Sagar, Vinita·2019·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.03.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analysis examined the associations between the fears of compassion and mental health. We extracted 19 studies reporting 154 effect sizes (Pearson's r) from 22 independent samples published during the last seven years, with data from 4723 participants. All studies used the Fears of Compassion Scales (FCS), which includes three subscales; fears of compassion for self, for others, and receiving from others. Specific mental health outcomes included: depression; anxiety; distress; and well-being, as well as the psychological vulnerability factors of self-criticism and shame. The overall association between the three FCS subscales and mental health difficulties was .49, .30 and .48 for fears of self-compassion, fears of compassion for others, and fears of compassion from others, respectively. Across mental health domains and vulnerability factors, pooled effect sizes ranged between r = .13 and .55 (in absolute value), with the strongest associations found between the mental health variables of shame, self-criticism, and depression, and the FCS subscales of fears of self-compassion and fears of receiving compassion. Moderator analyses were also conducted, including, age, gender, publication status, and sample (clinical vs. non-clinical). Overall, clinical populations demonstrated significantly stronger associations between mental health difficulties and fears of self-compassion, relative to non-clinical populations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.03.001

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rosenthal, 1991, Vol. 6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 232

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kirby, J. N., Day, J., & Sagar, V.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Kirby, James N.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
70
Pages
26-39
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2019.03.001
OpenAlex
W2922505176
Cited by
232
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 5
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
self-compassion, compassion for others, depression, anxiety, psychological distress, well-being, shame, self-criticism, psychological vulnerability
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Anxiety, Depression, Empathy, Fear, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Self Concept, Shame, Social Behavior

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