9802_Domain-Specific Self-Compassion in Individuals High versus Low in Social Anxiety

Wilfrid Laurier University
Wilfrid Laurier University
Scholars Commons @ Laurier
Scholars Commons @ Laurier
Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive)
2020
Domain-Specific Self-Compassion in Individuals High versus Low
Domain-Specific Self-Compassion in Individuals High versus Low
in Social Anxiety
in Social Anxiety
Leah Brassard
bras6500@mylaurier.ca
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd
Part of the Social Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Recommended Citation
Brassard, Leah, “Domain-Specific Self-Compassion in Individuals High versus Low in Social Anxiety”
(2020). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 2298.
https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/2298
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @
Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.

Domain-Specific Self-Compassion in Individuals High versus Low in Social Anxiety
by
Leah Brassard
Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University

MASTER’S THESIS

Submitted to the Department of Psychology/Faculty of Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Master of Arts in Social Psychology

© Leah Brassard 2020

ii
Abstract
Self-compassion involves showing kindness and understanding to the self during times of
hardship. Individuals with social anxiety have been shown to exhibit lower levels of self-
compassion than the general population. The present set of studies seeks to build support for a
domain-specific conceptualization of self-compassion, as it relates to social anxiety. Study One
(N=160) explored self-compassionate responding in three domains of stress from self-generated
recollections in an online format. It was predicted that individuals high in levels of social anxiety
would be more self-compassionate in scenarios involving non-social situations (i.e., burnout,
physical illness) than in a socially evaluative scenario. Results indicated that individuals with
higher levels of social anxiety were least self-compassionate in the domain of social judgement,
whereas individuals with lower levels of social anxiety were least self-compassionate in times of
burnout. Self-compassionate responding in times of burnout was particularly low overall for the
entire sample. This initial support for the domain specificity of self-compassion led to the
conceptualization of Study Two (N=158). This study sought to replicate the findings of Study
One using an in-lab paradigm and different domains of stress. Undergraduate students were
randomly assigned to complete a challenging anagram task in the lab either alongside a group of
other participants (social judgement condition) or alone (time-limit condition). It was
hypothesized that individuals high in social anxiety would be less self-compassionate in the
social judgement condition than the time-limit condition. A significant interaction effect emerged
for the self-kindness subscale of the state self-compassion scale, however, it was in the opposite
direction of what was hypothesized. Individuals high in social anxiety felt less self-compassion
in the time-limit condition compared to the social judgement condition. Finally, Study Three
(N=230), sought to replicate Study One using the same paradigm and procedure, while also

iii
exploring potential mechanisms behind the differences in self-compassionate responding. Unlike
Study One, there was no significant interaction of social anxiety by condition on state self-
compassion. However, there was a significant main effect of scenario condition which provides
partial support for the domain-specific conceptualization of self-compassion. Those in the
physical illness scenario were significantly more self-compassionate than those in both the social
judgement and burnout scenarios. Self-blame, and external and personal control mediated the
relationship between scenario condition and state self-compassion. Overall, the present set of
studies provides support for a domain-specific conceptualization of self-compassion, and partial
support for this domain-specificity in relation to social anxiety.

iv
Acknowledgements

First, I would like to extend my greatest thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Nancy Kocovski. I
am extremely lucky to have worked with such an amazing, supporting, encouraging supervisor
over the past two years. Thank you for everything you have done to make this thesis possible and
thank you for countless off-topic meetings about hockey, family, and everything else under the
sun. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Anne Wilson and Dr. Christian
Jordan, for their continued support and interest in my research. Your feedback in both my thesis
meetings, and Brown Bag presentations, have been invaluable. I also wish to thank Dr. Kristine
Lund for serving as my external committee member.

Importantly, I would like to thank my dear friend Lindsey Feltis for her continued
encouragement and enthusiasm throughout my many research struggles. Thank you for being my
sounding board on new ideas, my safe space to vent, and my go-to advice-giver. I would not
have made it through these past two years without your support. I would also like to thank my
boyfriend, Faruk, for being my number one fan, and my dog, Sota, for listening to my endless
self-talk throughout the writing process. Finally, I extend my gratitude to Nancy’s lab members
for all of their help and feedback over these two years.

v
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………….……………………..………..ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………..iv
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..vi
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………..….vii
List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………………….viii
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Study One………………………………………………………………………………………….9

Method………………………………………………………………..………………….10

Results……………………………………………………………………………………15

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..23
Study Two…………………………………………………………………………………….….26

Method……………………………………………………………………………………27

Results……………………………………………………………………………………35

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..46
Study Three………………………………………………………………………………………53

Method……………………………………………………………………………………58

Results……………………………………………………………………………………63

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..80
General Discussion………………………………………………………………………………86
References……………………………………………………………………………………….94
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………111

vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Study One Baseline Measures………………………………………………………………….16
Table 2. Study One Questions About Scenario…………………………………………………………18
Table 3. Study One Post-Manipulation Measures……………………………………………………..22
Table 4. Study Two Differences in Social Anxiety Across Baseline Measures…………………….36
Table 5. Study Two Manipulation Check Variables…………………………………………………..38
Table 6. Study Two Post-Manipulation Measures on Outcome Variables………………………….40
Table 7. Study Two Social Self-Compassion Scale Correlations…………………………………….45
Table 8. Study Three Baseline Variables across Conditions and Social Anxiety Groups………..64
Table 9. Study Three Condition Comparison Items……………………………………………………66
Table 10. Study Three State Self-Compassion across Conditions and Social Anxiety Groups…..68
Table 11. Study Three Additional Post-Manipulation State Variables…………………………71/72
Table 12. Study Three Correlations Between Mechanism Variables and State Self-
Compassion…………………………………………………………………………………………………76

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study One State Self-Compassion Results by Scenario and Anxiety Level……………..20
Figure 2. Study Two State Self-Kindness Interaction Effect……………………………………….…43
Figure 3. Study Three State Self-Compassion Results…………………………………………………69

viii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Study One Measures……………………………………………………………..111
Appendix B: Study Two Measures…………………………………………………………….127
Appendix C: Study Three Measures……………………………………………………………140

1
Domain-Specific Self-Compassion in Individuals High vs. Low in Social Anxiety

Self-compassion can be described as caring and nurturance for the self in a non-
judgemental way (Gilbert, 2014). When individuals face hardships in their lives, it is natural to
desire human connection to alleviate pain (Gilbert, 2015): however self-compassion can promote
feelings of connectedness and inner peace without empathy from others. Furthermore, self-
compassion can remind individuals that trials and tribulations are part of the human condition
(Neff, 2003a). Linked to many psychological benefits, self-compassion is an important skill for
dealing with self-criticism, shame, guilt and issues of esteem (Gilbert 2017, Neff 2011). Yet
many individuals fear self-compassion (Gilbert et al., 2011), and struggle to show themselves the
gentleness they need in times of stress. This fear of self-compassion is common among
individuals with social anxiety (Gilbert & Irons, 2004): as well, individuals with social anxiety
are less self-compassionate than healthy controls (Werner et al., 2012). The aim of the present
research is to explore the relationship between self-compassion and social anxiety. Specifically,
the three studies that follow seek to show that individuals can vary in their self-compassionate
responding across different domains of stress.

Self-compassion as conceptualized by Kristin Neff (2003a) is a tri-faceted construct
linked to many positive psychological outcomes. For Neff, self-compassion is comprised of three
distinct yet interconnected elements: (1) self-kindness – treating oneself with the warmth and
kindness one would show a loved one rather than being harsh to the self, (2) common humanity –
accepting one’s hardship as part of the human experience rather than feeling isolated and alone
in one’s suffering, and (3) mindfulness – keeping thoughts and feelings in balanced awareness
rather than dwelling on or overexaggerating them. Typically used to understand one’s failings

2
and struggles in times of stress, self-compassion has been argued to be more adaptive than self-
esteem (Neff, 2011) due to its holistic approach rather than the egocentric nature of self-esteem.

Self-compassion has been shown to be associated with an abundance of positive
psychological constructs, such as happiness, optimism, wisdom, positive affect, curiosity,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007). As well, self-
compassion has been linked to lowered negative constructs like neuroticism and anxiety during
ego threat (Neff et al., 2007; Neff, Kirkpatrick & Rude, 2007). Many areas of psychology and
related fields have started to utilize self-compassion as both a therapeutic technique and a
motivational instrument to improve well-being and decrease maladaptive tendencies. An 8-week
intervention program titled Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC) was developed by Germer and Neff
(2013) to improve self-compassion in general clinical practice. The MSC program showed
enhancements in self-compassion, mindfulness, and well-being among adults in two randomized
controlled trials (Neff & Germer, 2013), and improvements on depression and distress in
individuals with Type I and Type II diabetes (Friis et al., 2016). Self-compassion training has
also been shown to be effective for women with body dissatisfaction (Albertson et al., 2015) and
binge eating disorder (Kelly & Carter, 2014). More relevant to the current set of studies, self-
compassion training has been shown to buffer against physiological responses related to social
stressors, and defensiveness in response to social evaluation (Arch, Landy, & Brown, 2016; Arch
et al., 2014).

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by a debilitating fear
of social situations, typically stemming from worry about negative evaluations from others.
Individuals with social anxiety experience psychological and physiological distress in many
different social situations, including but not limited to, presenting in front of an audience,

3
speaking with an authority figure, working with strangers, or even walking through a crowded
space. When in these socially stressful situations, individuals with social anxiety may experience
physical symptoms like excessive perspiration, blushing of the face and neck area, dizziness,
shortness of breath, and many other uncomfortable symptoms that may make the social situation
even more anxiety-inducing (Clark, Salkovskis, & Chalkley, 1985). As well, individuals with
social anxiety take part in many negative psychological behaviours towards the self, including
negative self-talk, rumination, excessive post-event processing, and pre-occupation with how one
is coming across to others. These individuals tend to have poor expectations for how social
situations will play out, are preoccupied with a fear of social judgment, and are highly self-
critical during the event itself.

Clark and Wells’ (1995) cognitive model of social anxiety outlines several factors that
may prevent individuals with SAD from changing their negative beliefs about social events. Self-
focused attention is a factor that occurs once the individual enters an anxiety-provoking social
situation. A shift in attentional focus towards the self makes individuals with SAD overly aware
of their thoughts and behaviours, as well as any physiological changes that occur within their
body. A second factor that occurs during a social situation is an overreliance on safety
behaviours; techniques and behaviours used to cope with anxiety. Both of these factors lead to
anxiety-induced performance deficits, as the individuals now lacks attention towards their
conversational partner or audience, leading to potential missed social cues or inappropriate
processing of others’ behaviour. Finally, anticipatory/post-event processing replays negative
interactions or mishaps in the individual’s head both after the current event, and before future
events. These factors create a cyclical feedback loop in which an individual with SAD holds
negative beliefs about their abilities within a social situation, performs poorly in the situation

4
itself due to the use of excessive coping mechanisms, receives negative and confirmatory
feedback about said abilities, and ruminates heavily on these deficits after the event.
Clark et al. (2006) developed a cognitive therapy (CT) program specifically based on the
cognitive model of social anxiety, to see whether this feedback loop could be broken.
Participants meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) 4th
edition criteria for social phobia (now referred to as SAD) were randomly assigned to either the
new CT program, an exposure and applied relaxation program (EXP + AR), or a waitlist control
group. Significant improvements on measures specific to social phobia were found for the CT
program compared to the EXP + AR program (Clark et al., 2006). Although traditional cognitive
therapies, such as this CT program, have yielded the most empirical support in the treatment of
SAD (e.g., CT: Clark et al., 2006; Cognitive Behavioral Group Therapy: Heimberg & Becker,
2002), other empirically supported therapies have also been used to treat SAD. For example,
mindfulness and acceptance-based interventions have been gaining in popularity (Craske et al.,
2014; Kocovski et al., 2013; Kocovski et al., 2019). The focus of these interventions is to
provide an alternative to cognitive therapies for those who do not respond to CT or fail to
maintain their progress from CT over longer periods of time (Craske et al., 2014). Acceptance-
based therapies use a more flexible framework, focusing on clients’ values and beliefs, and
training them to respond in a mindful, behaviourally consistent manner (Craske et al., 2014;
Kocovski et al., 2015). In this way, mindfulness and acceptance-based therapies relate to self-
compassion: they utilize more personal, values-based techniques of self-acceptance. An
investigation of a mindfulness-based intervention with self-compassion training showed to be
both feasible and acceptable for those with SAD (Koszycki et al., 2016). Individuals in the 12-
week group intervention experienced greater decreases in social anxiety symptoms and

5
depression, and increases in social adjustment compared to waitlist controls, as well as increases
in self-compassion (Koszycki et al., 2016). These findings provide support for the idea that self-
compassion training is a helpful tool for individuals with social anxiety. Similarly, Leary et al.
(2007) demonstrated through a series of studies that self-compassion buffered against negative
self-feelings when imagining distressing social events. Though participants’ social anxiety levels
were not measured or specified in this study, this does provide initial support for self-
compassion’s ability to reduce social stress in nonclinical samples as well.

As individuals with social anxiety are highly self-critical and have negative expectations
for social interactions, it is not surprising that individuals with social anxiety are less self-
compassionate than healthy controls (Werner et al., 2012). In times of social stress, individuals
with elevated levels of social anxiety are highly self-critical and judgemental of the self rather
than kind and accepting. As well, these individuals tend to feel isolated during social interactions
rather than part of the group, and dwell on or ruminate about failings during and after the social
event instead of being mindful. These tendencies suggest that individuals with social anxiety are
the opposite of self-compassionate and may benefit greatly from instruction on how to be
compassionate to the self. Some preliminary research by Werner and colleagues (2012) found
that self-compassion was strongly correlated with lessened fear of evaluation. Similarly, self-
compassion was found to correlate negatively with post-event processing (Blackie & Kocovski,
2018). Therefore, self-compassion may be an effective buffer against these factors from the
feedback loop of the cognitive model for social anxiety.
Several studies have found positive results for inducing self-compassion in individuals
with elevated levels of social anxiety. A study conducted by Harwood and Kocovski (2017)
compared the self-compassionate responding of university undergraduate students high versus

6
low in social anxiety. Participants were randomly assigned to write either a self-compassion
induction or a control condition. Participants were told that they were going to give a speech, and
anticipatory anxiety levels were measured after the administration of either a self-compassion or
a control induction. Interestingly, the self-compassion induction appeared to be most effective at
reducing anticipatory anxiety for those high in social anxiety in comparison to those lower in
social anxiety. The authors conclude that perhaps individuals who are lower in social anxiety are
already adequately self-compassionate and therefore, the self-compassion induction does not
affect their anticipatory anxiety, however for those high in social anxiety their lack of self-
compassion is positively altered by the induction, thus leading to reductions in anticipatory
anxiety.
Similarly, a study done by Arch and colleagues (2018) used socially evaluative lab tasks
to induce stress on adult participants with and without SAD. A brief written self-compassion
induction was then used in comparison to an active control condition to determine the feasibility
and effectiveness of the self-compassion induction on state anxiety levels and self-compassion.
Participants with SAD showed greater reductions in anxiety and increases in self-compassion
after the written self-compassion induction compared to healthy controls, again indicating that
perhaps the deficit in self-compassion held by those with SAD is what allows these self-
compassion inductions to be most effective for this population.
Finally, a study done by Blackie and Kocovski (2018) explored the effects of a self-
compassion induction on post-event processing in undergraduate students with high levels of
social anxiety. Participants completed an impromptu speech in-lab and were then randomly
assigned to one of three conditions; a self-compassion written induction, a rumination condition,
or a control condition. Post-event processing was assessed the next day, along with willingness

7
to engage in future social situations. As predicted, inducing self-compassion immediately after
the speech task results in lessened post-event processing the next day, as well as greater
willingness to engage in future social situations. This study indicates that not only can self-
compassion training aid individuals with social anxiety broadly, but that it can also buffer against
specific risk factors, such as post-event processing.

The previous research described above has been limited to exploring the self-
compassionate responding of socially anxious individuals in times of social stress. All of the
previous studies used social paradigms, such as a speech task to induce stress. However, no
research to our knowledge has explored whether individuals with elevated levels of social
anxiety show deficits in self-compassion broadly, or whether this deficit found by Werner and
colleagues (2012) is limited to domains of social stress. The domain of social stress itself has
been shown to be particularly detrimental for individuals both physiologically, and
psychologically. Social evaluative stress, in chronic form, can trigger biological responses linked
to disease and aging (Arch et al., 2014). Similarly, self-criticism tends to be most intense in
situations where people feel critiqued and judged by others (Blatt, 1991). These findings indicate
that the type of stress present in the domain of social stress may be inherently different from
other domains of stress: moreover, social stress may be particularly challenging to cope with.
Due to the judgemental nature of social stress, it may also be most challenging for individuals
with social anxiety specifically to be self-compassionate. Whether individuals with social anxiety
respond self-compassionately in other domains of stress is currently unexplored.

Many psychological constructs affected by stress and hardship have been shown to be
domain specific; self-esteem, self-efficacy, risk-taking behaviour, self-theory, life satisfaction,
and more (Gentile et al., 2009; Lent, Brown & Gore, 1997; Nicholson et al., 2005, Zanobini &

8
Usai, 2010; Daig et al., 2009). For example, an individual who scores highly on a measure of
general self-esteem may score very differently in a domain that they are not competent in;
likewise, an individual who is generally low in self-compassion may be extremely self-
compassionate when dealing with the loss of a loved one. Being able to measure psychological
constructs in many different domains is important, as it captures nuances in behaviour or
thoughts rather than creating broad generalizations about an individual’s capability. As such, a
domain specific scale to measure social self-compassion was constructed (Rose & Kocovski, in
press). The Social Self-Compassion Scale was predictive of social anxiety, perceived social self-
efficacy, and mattering beyond levels of general self-compassion. These differences suggest that
self-compassionate responding may depend on context or domain. However, it is first important
to establish whether self-compassion is domain-specific by determining whether individuals are
more (or less) self-compassionate in certain domains of stress than others.

Some types of stressful life events may elicit more need for self-compassion than others.
When an individual is sick, for example, they may practice more self-care and treat themselves
with compassion. However, when an individual is stressed about work, or feels burnt out from
taking on too many tasks at once, they may fail to be self-compassionate. Individual differences,
such as social anxiety, may moderate this potential for differing levels of self-compassion across
domains. Previous research within the self-compassion literature has explored self-
compassionate responding within many individual domains of stress, including bereavement,
work burnout, chronic pain, and others (Vara & Thimm, 2019; Dev, Fernando, & Consedine,
2020; Edwards et al., 2019). However, to our knowledge no past research has compared self-
compassionate responding across different domains, within the realm of social anxiety.

9
Therefore, the present set of studies seeks to examine how self-compassion may differ across
multiple domains of stress, when taking into account one’s level of social anxiety.
Study One
The primary focus of the present study was to explore whether self-compassion is domain
specific, and whether social anxiety moderates these potential domain differences. That is, are
individuals more (or less) self-compassionate in certain domains of stress compared to others,
and how does one’s level of social anxiety predict self-compassion within differing domains. For
example, an individual with social anxiety may fail to be self-compassionate in a social
judgement scenario yet be kind and caring to the self outside of domains of social pressure. The
present study explored this by recruiting individuals both high and low in social anxiety, and
randomly assigning them to recall a stressful time from one of three domains: social judgment,
physical illness, and burnout. Consistent with past research, it was expected that those high in
social anxiety would report lower levels of self-compassion compared to those low in social
anxiety. However, it was hypothesized that the deficit in self-compassion for those high in social
anxiety would be especially pronounced for the social judgement domain. A social anxiety by
stress condition interaction was expected such that individuals high in social anxiety would
report lower levels of state self-compassion for the social judgement condition compared to the
physical illness and burnout conditions, and compared to individuals low in social anxiety. The
physical illness and burnout domains were chosen because they appear to contain little to no
elements of social judgement or social pressure to the average individual. As well, these two
conditions are contextually different from one another and represent distinct types of hardship
that an average individual would face in their lifetime. The social judgement domain was
selected to explore our hypothesis that individuals with higher levels of social anxiety would be

10
less self-compassionate in the domain of social stress in comparison to the other domains of
stress, and compared to those low in social anxiety. We had no explicit hypotheses about how
self-compassion would differ across these three selected domains when social anxiety was not
considered. Instead, the hypotheses focused specifically on how the interaction of one’s social
anxiety level and the domain of stress would relate to self-compassion levels.
Method
Participants

The participants were 211 undergraduate students from Wilfrid Laurier University
recruited through the psychology research experience program (PREP). Participants completed
the study for partial course credit and were selected for either high or low levels of social anxiety
based on their scores from the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN, Connor et al. 2000) and the Social
Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS, Mattick & Clarke 1998). Based on previously determined cut-
offs for these scales (SIAS: Cody & Teachman 2010; Mattick & Clarke 1998; SPIN: Connor et
al. 2000; Moser et al. 2008), participants were classified as high social anxiety if they scored 30
or greater on the SPIN and scored 34 or greater on the SIAS. Participants were classified as low
social anxiety if their score on the SPIN was less than or equal to 10, or less than or equal to 19
on the SIAS. Though participants were pre-selected for high or low levels of social anxiety based
on scores from a pre-selection questionnaire they completed at the time of testing, 51 participants
no longer met criteria for high or low social anxiety and were excluded from analyses. Of the
remaining 160 participants, 93 were classified as high social anxiety and 67 were classified as
low social anxiety. The remaining sample was 76.8% female, with 2 individuals identifying their
gender as Other. The sample was predominantly White/Caucasian (73.8%), with 11.9%

11
participants identifying as Asian, 4.8% Middle Eastern/West Asian, 1.8% First Nations, 1.2%
Black/African Canadian, and 6.5% identifying as Other.
Measures

Baseline measures. The baseline measures of self-esteem, depression, and level of
distress were operationalized using reliable single-item measures. The Single Item Self-Esteem
Scale (SISE) was designed as an alternative to using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. This one-
item measure of global self-esteem has strong convergent validity with the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale, as well as predictive validity similar to the Rosenberg (Robins et al., 2001).
Participants answer the single item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not very true of
me) to 5 (very true of me). For assessing depression, the Single Item Depression measure
developed by Lefevre and colleagues (2012) was used. Participants rated their agreement with
the statement “During the past week, I felt depressed” on a scale from (0) rarely to (3) most of
the time. Finally, on two separate occasions throughout the survey, the Subjective Units of
Distress Scale (SUDS) was used to measure participants’ levels of distress both at baseline and
after the manipulation of scenario. The SUDS was created in 1969 by Joseph Wolpe and has
been used to assess global self-reports of emotional and physical distress (Tanner, 2012). The
scale asks participants to indicate their current level of distress on a sliding scale from 0 to 100,
with markers placed every 25 points for referencing. Due to an error in programing, participants
were only able to indicate their current distress as either 0 (not at all), 1 (corresponding to 25%
distressed), 2 (50% distress), 3 (75% distress) or 4 (the highest level of distress, 100%).
Trait self-compassion was also assessed at baseline using the Self-Compassion Scale
(Neff 2003b). The scale consists of 26 items assessing the three areas of self-compassion; self-
kindness (i.e., “I try to be loving towards myself when I’m feeling emotional pain”), common

12
humanity (i.e., “When things are going badly for me, I see the difficulties as part of life that
everyone goes through”), and mindfulness (i.e., “When something upsets me I try to keep my
emotions in balance”). As well, each area of self-compassion is represented by an equal number
of reverse-coded items to assess the inverse of each area; self-judgement rather than self-
kindness, isolation rather than common humanity, and over-identified rather than mindfulness.
The Self-Compassion Scale has displayed strong convergent validity, discriminant/divergent
validity, and test-retest reliability (Neff, 2003b).

Social anxiety measures. Two previously validated measures of social anxiety were used
at baseline; the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN; Connor et al. 2000) and the Social Interaction
Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick & Clarke 1998). The SPIN is a 17-item measure that assesses
social anxiety in three areas: fear (i.e., “I am afraid of people in authority”), avoidance (i.e.”I
avoid talking to people I don’t know”), and physiological arousal (i.e, ”I am bothered by
blushing in front of people”). The SPIN has been shown to have good test-retest reliability and
validity (Connor et al. 2000). The SIAS is a 20-item measure assessing how individuals respond
in certain social situations (i.e. “When mixing socially, I am uncomfortable”).The SIAS has been
shown to be particularly reliable for undergraduate students (α = .99) as well as people with SAD
(α = .93) (Mattick & Clarke 1998).

Manipulation writing task. The writing task for the scenario manipulation was
generated in lab and has been used in previous studies to assess self-compassion in socially
stressful situations (Blackie & Kocovski, 2018). We decided to prompt participants to recall
personal situations for the scenario they were randomly assigned to generate authentic feelings
about the situation and genuine responses to subsequent questions about the scenario. All three
scenarios required participants to answer six open-ended questions about a scenario they brought

13
to mind. Each scenario asked participants to describe the event, state when it occurred, where it
occurred, and what they were worried about in the situation. In the social judgement scenario,
participants were also asked who they were with, and what their relationship was to the person or
people who were judging them. In the physical illness condition, participants were also asked
why they thought they got sick and how they felt, both physically and emotionally. Finally, in
the burnout situation, participants were asked who they were with and why they experienced this
burnout. Follow-up questions after the manipulation of scenario included; “How well were you
able to remember the situation?”, “How well were you able to remember the thoughts you had
following the situation?”, “How anxious were you during the situation?”, “Did you feel like you
had control over the situation?”, and “How important was the situation to you?”.
State Self-compassion measure. The Self-Compassion Scale developed by Neff (2003b)
was adapted to assess state levels of self-compassion as our primary dependent variable. All 26
items were altered slightly to reflect a past-tense phrasing about the scenario they recalled as part
of the manipulation. The adapted state version of the Self-Compassion Scale had strong internal
consistency in the present study (α=.93). Each subscale also had good internal consistency; self-
kindness (=88), common humanity (=.78), and mindfulness (=.80).
Post-manipulation measures. Additional measures included the Spielberger State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory – State Version (STAI-S), the Post-Event Processing Inventory – State Version
(PEPI-S), and the Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS). The Spielberger State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) is one of the most frequently used measures of anxiety in applied
psychology research. It is a reliable and sensitive measure of anxiety and contains two forms –
trait and state. The state version of the STAI contains 20 items rated on a Likert scale from 1(not
at all) to 4(very much so) and has been shown to have reliable psychometric properties in many

14
populations and languages (Spielberger et al., 1983 and Kaplan and Smith, 1995). The PEPI is a
12-item scale created in 2017 as an alternative to previous post-event processing scales that were
situation-specific. The PEPI contains both a trait and state version, and preliminary evidence for
the convergent, concurrent, discriminant/divergent, incremental, and predictive validity for each
version of the scale has been found. As well, both forms of the scale demonstrate excellent
internal consistency (Blackie & Kocovski, 2017). The PEPI-S state version was used for this
study. Finally, the PANAS contains 20 characterizing affects, of which participants rate their
current feelings of this characteristic on a scale from 1(very slightly/not at all) to 5(extremely).
The PANAS was found to be high in internal consistency and to be stable at appropriate levels
over a two-month time period (Watson & Clark, 1988).
Procedure

Participants completed the study entirely online and gave informed consent before
continuing through the study measures. First, participants responded to some basic demographic
questions, as well as baseline measures for social anxiety, trait self-compassion, self-esteem,
depression, and current level of distress. Next, participants engaged in the manipulation, which
was a writing task about one of three possible scenarios. Participants were randomly assigned to
write about their own experience in only one of the possible scenarios. The scenarios were to
recall (1) a time when the participant felt socially judged, (2) a time when they were physically
ill, (3) or a time when they were stressed or burnt out. Participants were then asked some basic
follow-up questions about the scenario they just recounted, to gauge how invested they were in
their scenario, and level of distress was assessed again. Then participants answered questions
from the state self-compassion scale, reflecting how they felt in regard to the scenario they just

15
brought to mind for the manipulation. Finally, state anxiety, state post-event processing, and
mood were assessed before a brief mood-boosting activity and the debriefing statement.
Data Analysis

Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were first conducted on all baseline
measures, using both social anxiety level and condition as the independent variables. Where
significant main effects of condition (three conditions) or an interaction effect emerged, Tukey’s
Honestly Significant Difference test was used to examine which conditions differed significantly
from one another, or what the simple main effects of the interaction were. Next, univariate
ANOVAs were conducted on all post-manipulation measures, once again using social anxiety
level and condition as independent variables.
Results
Baseline Measures
Participants’ social anxiety, self-esteem, depression, levels of subjective distress, and trait
self-compassion were compared across conditions to examine whether there were baseline
differences (see Table 1). No significant differences were found across conditions for any of
these baseline variables. As expected, there were significant differences between the high social
anxiety group and low social anxiety group on all baseline variables. On both the SPIN and
SIAS, individuals high in social anxiety reported significantly higher levels of social anxiety than
those low in social anxiety, F(1, 155)=738.03, p<.001 and F(1,151)=658.63, p<.001. As well, individuals high in social anxiety indicated significantly lower self-esteem, F(1, 155)=100.91, p<.001, higher depression, F(1, 156)=45.05, p<.001 and greater subjective distress, F(1, 156)=21.04, p<.001, compared to participants low in social anxiety. Individuals high in social 16 Table 1 Study One Baseline Measures High Social Anxiety Low Social Anxiety Social Judgement Physical Illness Burnout Social Judgement Physical Illness Burnout Item M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD SPIN 41.39 8.36 42.48 8.45 40.17 8.20 9.50 5.67 8.62 4.85 10.14 5.37 SIAS 45.51 9.90 46.24 9.73 45.78 9.27 11.55 4.67 12.70 5.30 11.74 3.97 SCS-T 64.27 16.48 59.29 16.96 65.47 13.08 81.94 15.82 79.99 18.52 81.20 17.88 SUDS 3.29 1.04 2.72 1.03 3.06 .86 2.21 1.02 2.12 .95 2.56 1.04 SISE 3.10 1.38 2.97 1.40 3.11 1.37 5.13 1.54 5.21 1.06 5.33 1.09 Depression 2.68 0.95 2.69 1.00 2.72 0.97 1.58 0.72 1.67 0.92 1.89 0.76 Note. SPIN = Social Phobia Inventory, SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale, SCS = Self-Compassion Scale, SUDS = Subjective Units of Distress, SISE = Single-Item Self-Esteem scale. Note.  = significant main effect of social anxiety level,  = significant main effect of condition, = significant interaction effect. Subscripts listed for significant interaction effects only.