Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Appetite. 2023 Aug 22;190:107009. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2023.107009

The Role of Self-Compassion and its Individual Components in Adaptive Responses to Dietary Lapses

Charlotte J Hagerman a, Marny M Ehmann a, Lauren C Taylor a, Evan M Forman a
PMCID: PMC10543633  NIHMSID: NIHMS1929293  PMID: 37619622

Abstract

Dietary lapses (i.e., instances of dietary non-adherence) are common during weight loss attempts, and compromise success in two ways: increasing caloric intake and demoralizing the participant, sometimes leading them to abandon their weight control goals altogether. Efforts to understand and prevent demoralization have received almost no research attention. Self-compassion has high potential to promote adaptive responses to these setbacks because it reframes “failure” and promotes self-improvement. Past research shows that when participants experience a lapse, those practicing higher self-compassion report higher self-efficacy and intentions to continue dieting. The current study extended this literature to examine whether self-compassion in response to a lapse would predict lower likelihood of a subsequent same-day lapse and greater reports of perceived control over weight management behaviors. We also examined whether the individual facets of self-compassion, including self-kindness (treating oneself the way one would a friend); common humanity (the understanding that everyone has struggles); and mindfulness (non-judgmental awareness of thoughts and feelings) are associated with these outcomes. Participants (N=140) enrolled in a behavioral weight loss trial completed 6 ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys a day for seven days. Total self-compassion and each facet of self-compassion individually were all associated with less negative affect after a lapse. None of the self-compassion variables predicted the likelihood of participants reporting a lapse again that day. However, higher total self-compassion and higher self-kindness after a lapse were both associated with greater perceived self-control over weight management behaviors in the hours following. Common humanity and mindfulness, respectively, were not associated with reports of perceived control. Results suggest that self-compassion following dieting setbacks may prevent goal disengagement, and that self-kindness is the facet most strongly associated with adaptive responses to these setbacks.

Keywords: self-compassion, dietary lapses, behavioral weight loss treatment, ecological momentary assessment

1. Introduction

Almost three-fourths of U.S. adults have overweight/obesity (Fryar et al., 2020), which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, Type II Diabetes, and cancers, and lowers quality of life (Djalalinia et al., 2015; The GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators, 2017). Modest weight loss can reduce the risk of obesity-related health conditions (Wing et al., 2011); however, limiting calorie intake to produce weight loss is highly difficult in the current obesogenic environment (Lakerveld et al., 2018). Lapses in low-calorie diets are common, threatening weight loss success (Forman et al., 2017). The proposed study aims to inform effective interventions to promote more adaptive responses to dietary lapses among individuals undergoing behavioral weight loss treatment.

1.1. Dietary Lapses

Dietary lapses are defined as specific instances of nonadherence to a calorie-restricted diet, which can prevent participants from achieving a calorie deficit, and ultimately, weight loss (Forman et al., 2017). Dietary lapses occur because of the many biological (e.g., hunger), environmental (e.g., the presence of palatable foods), and psychological (e.g., stress) factors that drive individuals to consume highly caloric foods despite their desire to lose weight. Lapses are quite common (past studies report a range of approximately 3 to 12 weekly lapses per participant during behavioral weight loss treatment), and lapse frequency predicts poorer weight loss success (Forman et al., 2017).

In addition to contributing to excess calorie intake, dietary lapses often lead people to exert less effort toward their weight control goals or even abandon them entirely. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies reveal that dietary lapses are highly upsetting to individuals attempting weight loss, eliciting feelings of guilt and failure (Carels et al., 2001; Carels et al., 2004). Broader literature on goal pursuit shows that episodes of failure are demoralizing, lowering a person’s expectations of future success and threatening their self-esteem (Eskreis-Winkler & Fishbach, 2019; vanDellen et al., 2011). These responses tend to elicit avoidant coping; failure often leads to less effortful goal pursuit and/or total disengagement with the goal (Badami et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2006; Burkley et al., 2010; Gok et al., 2022). Therefore, promoting more adaptive responses to dietary lapses during weight loss treatment is critical to ensuring participants’ success.

1.2. Self-Compassion and Weight Control

One factor that could promote more adaptive responses to lapses is the practice of self-compassion. Self-compassion encompasses three core components. The first is self-kindness (vs. self-judgment), or treating oneself gently during times of struggle, as one would a close friend. The second is common humanity (vs. isolation), which is the recognition of imperfection as a shared human condition. The final component is mindfulness (vs. overidentification), defined in this context as the awareness and acceptance of present emotions without “overidentifying” with or ruminating on them This definition slightly differs from the more general term “mindfulness,” which refers to a broader construct of present awareness (Neff, 2011). Self-compassion tends to be lower among adults with overweight/obesity (Shaw & Cassidy, 2022), but also fluctuates across time, i.e., the extent to which someone is practicing self-compassion at any point may vary (Neff, 2011). Practicing self-compassion promotes an acceptance of personal shortcomings and the understanding that mistakes are a part of the human experience (Neff, 2011), which helps individuals recover from failures. Research shows that self-compassionate responding to a failure predicts greater self-improvement intentions, enhanced emotion-focused or problem-focused coping (Chwyl et al., 2021), adaptive learning responses (Miyagawa et al., 2020), reduced negative affect (Leary et al., 2007; Yip & Tong M. W, 2021), and less post-failure rumination (Blackie & Kocovski, 2019; Semenchuk et al., 2020). Therefore, self-compassion may be particularly apt for promoting more effortful goal pursuit, i.e., better adherence to dietary prescriptions, following dietary lapses.

A study by Thøgersen-Ntoumani and colleagues (2021) provides preliminary evidence that self-compassionate responding to a dietary lapse can promote more effortful weight loss in a sample of 56 adults attempting to lose weight. When participants reported higher state self-compassion in response to a lapse, they had lower negative affect, higher intentions to diet, and higher self-efficacy for dieting (Thøgersen-Ntoumani et al., 2021). To better understand the utility of self-compassion as a treatment strategy during behavioral weight loss programs, more work must examine the role of post-lapse self-compassion in a larger sample of adults actively enrolled in these programs. More work must also examine whether self-compassionate responding influences subsequent weight loss behavior, beyond immediate cognitions.

1.3. Delineating the Effects of Self-Compassion Components

Relatively few studies have considered the possibility that the distinct components of self-compassion differentially predict behavior. There is strong evidence for the validity of a combined self-compassion score (Neff et al. 2017; Dreisoerner et al., 2021); however, there is also evidence that the different components of self-compassion have discrete effects of eating behavior (James et al., 2016; Gedik, 2019). To develop more effective interventions, it is necessary to understand the unique contributions of each component of self-compassion following dietary lapses.

According to self-compassion theory, self-kindness should reduce negative affect following a lapse, allowing the individual to recover more quickly. Practicing true self-kindness, as intended, should not promote complacency in goal achievement (Neff, 2015), but rather allow one to acknowledge their role in mistakes and learn from them. Still, research suggests that individuals may have difficulty distinguishing self-kindness from self-indulgence (Chwyl et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2016). Further, Schumacher and colleagues (2018) found that, among participants enrolled in a behavioral weight loss trial, higher momentary self-criticism—which is theoretically at odds with self-kindness—predicted lower likelihood of having another lapse that day. Therefore, it is possible that self-criticism establishes rigid personal standards necessary to prevent future mistakes. By contrast, self-kindness following a lapse could promote an unconcerned stance toward future weight control efforts, preventing the individual from recognizing the gravity of dietary lapses and the importance of a quick recovery.

Mindfulness may be adaptive following dietary lapse because it decreases rumination on failure, allowing people to overcome the setback more quickly and view the failure from a balanced perspective. For example, people higher in dispositional mindfulness have higher self-efficacy after an academic failure (Hanley et al., 2015). Also, mindfulness benefits eating outside the context of failure. People with higher trait mindfulness report less eating to cope with negative emotions (Wisener & Khoury, 2022), and mindfulness exercises also have been shown to predict better portion control in the moment (Allirot et al., 2018; Seguias & Tapper, 2022).

Less research has examined the influence of common humanity in isolation on eating behaviors or recovery from failure. However, studies have found that self-kindness and mindfulness, but not common humanity, predict healthier eating (i.e., lower disinhibited eating; James et al., 2016) and other health promoting behavior (Gedik, 2019). Common humanity should improve coping following dietary lapses by helping people recognize that failure and the feelings it elicits, such as inadequacy or disappointment, are universal. However, no studies have directly tested the influence of common humanity on post-lapse cognitions or behavior.

1.4. Current Study

The current study was part of a larger clinical trial for behavioral weight loss. Participants enrolled in the parent trial completed a week-long ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to examine their cognitive and behavioral responses to dietary lapses during behavioral weight loss treatment. We examined how total self-compassion, as well as its individual components, are associated with responses to dietary lapses during a behavioral weight loss program, including negative affect, likelihood of same-day subsequent lapse, and perceived control over weight management behaviors in the hours after the lapse. The study was preregistered at [https://osf.io/cghs6?view_only=57261bc7c36d4a258b9a72a417c2f343].1

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants (N=140) were adults with overweight or obesity completing a behavioral weight loss program as part of the parent clinical trial. The parent trial recruited participants from the community through radio ads, social media, flyers, and word of mouth. Inclusion criteria for the clinical trial included: having a BMI of 27-50 kg/m2; being between the ages of 18-70; completion of a 3-day food diary and baseline assessment tasks; willingness to lose weight, be physically active, and participate in-group sessions; and provision of consent from their primary care physician if deemed necessary for them to safely participate. Exclusion criteria were: inability to engage in physical activity (defined as walking a city block without stopping); having a medical or psychiatric condition that may pose a risk to the participant during intervention, cause a change in weight, or limit ability to comply with the program; recent onset or change in the dose of a medication that can cause significant weight change; history of bariatric surgery; weight loss of >5% is the previous 6 months; current pregnancy or breastfeeding or plans to become pregnant; plans to participate or active participation in another weight loss treatment in the next 3 years; more than five incidents of compensatory behaviors in the past 3 months (i.e., driven and compelled exercise, self-induced vomiting, diuretic use, laxative use, diet pill use, fasting), and having had 9 or more binge eating episodes in the previous 3 months.

For the current study, participants also needed to report at least one dietary lapse during their EMA. Of the 186 participants from whom EMA data was collected, 148 participants reported at least one lapse. Five of these participants had missing self-compassion data, and an additional three participants were excluded for low survey compliance (<0.4), leaving a final sample of 140 participants.

2.2. Procedures

Study procedures were approved by the Drexel University Institutional Review Board and all participants provided written informed consent. All participants enrolled in the parent clinical trial completed gold-standard, group-based behavioral weight loss intervention for 12 months. Gold standard behavioral treatments for obesity teach an energy deficit model of weight loss while cautioning against overly restrictive eating behavior and encouraging participants to incorporate a wide variety of foods to promote sustainable healthy habits. This evidence-based treatment is one of the safest and most effective ways for people with overweight or obesity to lose weight (Butryn et al., 2011; Jebeile et al., 2023). Study clinicians were trained and supervised on a weekly basis to ensure that coaching was evidence-based and non-stigmatizing, given the harmful mental and physical effects of weight stigma (Emmer et al., 2020; Puhl & Suh, 2015).

The trial used a factorial design to examine the isolated and combined effects of adding mindful and acceptance-based strategies to standard behavioral weight loss treatment. Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with content on mindful awareness (on vs. off), acceptance (on vs. off), and values clarity (on vs. off). For all participants, there were a total of 20 group sessions; groups met weekly for the first three months, then biweekly for two months, and finally every six weeks for the last seven months of the study.

The current data was collected through EMA using Ethica sampling platform (Ethica, 2022). Participants in waves 2 and 3 of the trial completed the EMA as part of their end-of-treatment assessment (12 months), and those in waves 4 and 5 completed it as part of their mid-treatment assessment (6 months). Participants received six signal-contingent surveys (i.e., surveys that are semi-randomly timed and completed following a smartphone notification) per day during a seven-day assessment period. Surveys asked participants to self-report several variables, including whether they had experienced a dietary lapse since their previous survey, their negative affect, and their perceived control over weight management behaviors in the past few hours. If participants reported a dietary lapse, they were asked to report their state self-compassion in response to the lapse. Participants were paid $50 for their participation in the EMA surveys, and they lost $3 for every survey they did not complete.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Dietary Lapses

Each EMA survey began with participants indicating if they had experienced a dietary lapse since their last survey (0 = no, 1 =yes). Dietary lapses were defined as a participant eating or drinking in a way that was not consistent with their weight loss or maintenance goals, either because they, 1) ate or drank a high-calorie food that they had intended to avoid, 2) ate/drank more (a larger portion) than they had planned on consuming, 3) ate/drank at a time they hadn’t intended to. Participants reported which of these three descriptors characterized their lapse. To examine the likelihood of a subsequent same-day lapse occurring, at each instance of dietary lapse, we created a same-day lapse variable that was coded as 1, if the participant reported any lapses on the rest of the surveys they completed that day, or 0, if there were no other lapses reported for the rest of the day.

2.3.2. State Self-Compassion

State self-compassion was assessed if a participant endorsed having a dietary lapse since their last survey. Items were adapted from the state self-compassion scale (Neff et al., 2021) and from Thøgersen-Ntoumani et al. (2021). Participants rated their self-kindness (“After my lapse, I deserve self-kindness”), their common humanity (“It’s frustrating to me that I struggle with my weight, whereas most others in my life do not”; reverse coded), and their mindfulness (“I’ve been fixating and obsessing over my lapse”; reverse coded) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Common humanity and mindfulness items were framed negatively and reverse coded to avoid inadvertently providing a micro-intervention could encourage participants to practice these self-compassion strategies in response to the lapse (e.g., seeing and responding to an item “I am keeping my lapse in a balanced perspective” could in itself prompt a more mindful mindset in response to the lapse). The total self-compassion score was calculated as the mean of participants’ responses to all three items.

2.3.3. Negative Affect

To measure global negative affect while minimizing participant burden, we chose to measure the most common and prototypical forms of negative affect that would have significant variability throughout the day and would be reasonable to expect in response to a dietary lapse. Items included “Right now, how anxious or stressed do you feel?” and “Right now, how down or lonely do you feel?” These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

2.3.4. Perceived Control over Weight Management Behaviors

Participants reported their perceived control over weight management behaviors by indicating their agreement with the following statement: “Over the past few hours, I felt I could make healthy eating and activity decisions regardless of my thoughts, feelings, urges” on a scale from 1 (disagree) to 3 (agree).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4. Descriptive statistics and correlations were run on all study variables. Multilevel analyses were used to examine this EMA data, in which repeated daily measurements (level 1) were nested within individual participants (level 2). PROC MIXED was used for continuous outcome variables (i.e., negative affect, control over weight management behaviors) and PROC GLIMMIX was used for the dichotomous outcome variable (i.e., dietary lapse; SAS Institute Inc., 2015). Unconditional models examined the within and between person variability for each continuous study variable, and the interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlation Table: Between and Within-Person Associations

Total Self-
Compassion		 Self-
Kindness		 Common
Humanity		 Mindfulness Negative
Affect		 Control over
Weight
Management
Behaviors		 Sum of
Dietary
Lapses		 Means Standard
Deviation		 Intraclass
Correlations
Total Self-Compassion - .63 ** .77 ** .71 ** −.33 ** −.11 −.10 .17 .75 .70
Self-Kindness .64 ** - −.16 −.24 ** −.09 −.06 −.11 3.79 1.07 .59
Common Humanity .73 ** .13 * - .35 ** .15 .08 .05 3.12 1.21 .77
Mindfulness .71 ** .24 ** .30 ** - .50 ** .09 .04 4.01 1.00 .55
Negative Affect −.37 ** −.13 ** .14** .49 ** - .04 .08 1.95 .95 .66
Control over Weight Management Behaviors † .19 ** .19 ** .04 .15 ** −.06 ** - .11 2.71 .56 .23
Subsequent Same-Day Lapse †† −.02 .02 −.05 −.01 .02 .00 - .33 .47
Open in a new tab

Note. Correlations for within-person associations are in the lower triangle, and correlations for between-person associations are in the upper triangle.

*

p<.05

**

p<.01

†

Variable measured at Time x + 1

††

0=No additional lapses from the time of measurement to the end of the day, 1=one or more lapses occurred from the time of measurement to the end of the day

To test hypotheses, we examined whether self-compassion and its individual components would predict concurrent negative affect, perceived control over weight management behaviors at Time x + 1, and self-reports of same-day dietary lapse (yes/no, based on all subsequent surveys that day). All models controlled for the time during treatment that the assessment was conducted (0=mid-treatment, 1=end-of-treatment), a between person, level 2 variable. All models also controlled for time of day of the survey, a within-person, level 1 variable. Iterative model building procedures identified the best-fitting model (random intercept or random slope) using Chi-Square likelihood ratio tests. Models were then rerun with each individual component of self-compassion (i.e., self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness) substituted for the total self-compassion variable.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

The final sample of 140 participants had a mean age of 51.64 (SD=10.60), a mean baseline BMI of 35.65, and a mean BMI of 32.44 during the EMA (M=32.15 for waves 2 and 3 at posttreatment and M=32.78 for waves 4 and 5 at mid-treatment). The majority were women (88.6%). Most participants 77.1% were white, 13.6% were Black, 3.6% were Asian, 3.6% were White Hispanic, 1.4% were multiracial, and .7% were Black Hispanic.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Mean compliance in responding to the EMA surveys was .92. Participants reported 752 lapses total, for an average of 5.37 (SD=3.52) lapses per participant during the seven-day period. Of the 752 dietary lapses, 47.1% were attributed to eating a forbidden food, 29.9% were attributed to having a larger portion than intended, and 12.1% were attributed to eating at an unintended time. For the remaining 10.9% of lapses, participants endorsed two or more of these descriptors.

See Table 1 for the within and between-person correlations and the intraclass correlation coefficients for all study variables. At the between-person level, higher average state self-compassion was associated with higher average negative affect, but not with average control over weight management behaviors or number of lapses. Average state mindfulness was associated with lower average negative mood, but no other correlations were significant at the between-person level. Notably, common humanity was the variable with the highest intraclass correlation coefficient, indicating that a large percent of the variation in this variable (77%) was explained by individual differences rather than momentary factors. Control over weight management behaviors had the lowest ICC; only 23% of this variable was explained by individual differences, suggesting that behavioral control is highly dependent on momentary factors.

3.3. Negative Affect

The best-fitting models included the random slope. Analyses showed that when participants reported higher self-compassion after a dietary lapse, they also reported less negative affect. Self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness in isolation after the lapse were also all strong predictors of less negative affect. See Table 2 for models predicting negative affect.

Table 2.

Multilevel Regressions: Associations of Self-Compassion in Response to a Lapse and Concurrent Negative Affect.

Models Predicting Concurrent Negative Affect
Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p
Random Effects Random Effects Random Effects Random Effects
Intercept 1.87 .72 2.61 .00 Intercept 1.23 .35 3.51 <.001 Intercept .92 .33 2.78 .00 Intercept 1.30 .45 2.90 .002
Intercept x Self-Compassion Slope −.30 .16 −1.87 .06 Intercept x Self-Kindness Slope −.15 .08 −2.02 .04 Intercept x Common Humanity Slope −.09 .08 −1.22 .22 Intercept x Mindfulness Slope −.17 .09 −1.94 .05
Self-Compassion Slope .06 .04 1.68 .05 Self-Kindness Slope .04 .02 1.92 .03 Common Humanity Slope .02 .02 1.43 .08 Mindfulness Slope .03 .02 1.79 .04
Residual .33 .02 16.27 <.001 Residual .32 .02 15.89 <.001 Residual .33 .02 16.12 <.001 Residual .32 .02 15.97 <.001
Predictor β SE T p Predictors β SE T p Predictors β SE T p Predictors β SE T p
Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Fixed Effects
Intercept 3.24 .26 12.53 <.001 Intercept 2.32 .19 11.72 <.001 Intercept 2.39 .18 13.44 <.001 Intercept 2.96 .21 14.00 <.001
Treatment Stage −.02 .13 −.18 .86 Treatment Stage −.02 .14 −.13 .90 Treatment Stage −.05 .14 −.33 .75 Treatment Stage −.04 .13 −.28 .78
Time of Day .00 .01 .26 .80 Time of Day .01 .01 .37 .71 Time of Day .01 .01 .58 .56 Time of Day .00 .01 .29 .77
Total Self-Compassion −.33 .06 −5.64 <.001 Self-Kindness −.08 .04 −2.16 .03 Common Humanity −.12 .04 −3.06 .003 Mindfulness −.23 .04 −5.64 <.001
Open in a new tab

3.4. Control over Weight Management Behaviors

Chi-square likelihood tests found that the inclusion of the random slope improved fit for models involving total self-compassion, self-kindness, and mindfulness. For common humanity, the random slope model was not positive definite; the random intercept model was retained. When participants reported higher self-compassion after a dietary lapse, they reported greater control over weight management behaviors in the subsequent hours (i.e., at the following survey). In examining the self-compassion facets individually, common humanity and mindfulness in isolation were not significant predictors of self-reported control over weight management behaviors. However, higher self-kindness in response to a lapse was associated with greater control over weight management behaviors in the following hours. See Table 3 for models predicting perceived control over weight management behavior.

Table 3.

Multilevel Regressions: Associations of Self-Compassion in Response to a Lapse and Subsequent Perceived Control over Weight Management Behavior

Models Predicting Self-Control
Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p Covariance
Parameter
Estimates		 β SE Z p
Random Effects Random Effects Random Effects Random Effects
Intercept .36 .33 1.08 .14 Intercept .46 .24 1.92 .03 Intercept .08 .02 3.56 <.001 Intercept .42 .22 1.91 .03
Intercept x Lag Self-Compassion Slope −.05 .08 −.64 .52 Intercept x Lag Self-Kindness Slope −.09 .06 −1.56 .12 Intercept x Lag Mindfulness Slope −.06 .09 −.70 .48
Lag Self-Compassion Slope .01 .02 .29 .39 Lag Self-Kindness Slope .02 .01 1.33 .09 Lag Mindfulness Slope .04 .04 1.00 .16
Residual .35 .02 14.12 <.001 Residual .34 .02 14.22 <.001 Residual .82 .05 15.17 <.001
Predictors β SE T p Predictors β SE T p Predictors β SE T p Predictors β SE T p
Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Fixed Effects
Intercept 2.34 .18 13.06 <.001 Intercept 2.40 .15 16.19 <.001 Intercept 2.80 .11 24.72 <.001 Intercept 1.24 .16 7.56 <.001
Treatment Stage −.13 .07 −2.01 .05 Treatment Stage −.11 .07 −1.62 .11 Treatment Stage −.10 .07 −1.28 .20 Treatment Stage .21 .13 1.62 .11
Time of Day −.07 .01 −5.15 <.001 Time of Day −.07 .01 −5.15 <.001 Time of Day −.07 .01 −5.10 <.001 Time of Day .07 .02 1.62 .11
Lag Total Self-Compassion .15 .04 3.57 .001 Lag Self-Kindness .13 .03 3.85 <.001 Lag Common Humanity .02 .03 .80 .42 Lag Mindfulness .11 .06 1.74 .09
Open in a new tab

3.5. Same-Day Lapse

For models examining dietary lapse, the random intercept models were retained, as the random slope models did not converge. Models showed that total self-compassion (b=−.08, t=−.49, p=.63), self-kindness (b=−.12, t=−1.33, p=.19), common humanity (b=.06, t=.63, p=.53), and mindfulness (b=−.08, t=.69, p=.49) were not significantly associated with the likelihood of lapsing again that day.

4. Discussion

The current EMA study examined whether state self-compassion was associated with more adaptive responses to dietary lapses among 140 adults participating in group-based behavioral weight loss treatment. Specifically, we examined whether self-compassion would predict less negative affect, greater control over weight management behaviors in the hours after a lapse, and lower likelihood of subsequent lapse. To further self-compassion theory and to inform more targeted and effective interventions, the current study also examined the predictive ability of each facet of self-compassion (i.e., self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness) individually.

As expected, following a dietary lapse, self-compassion and each of its individual components were associated with lower negative affect. These results are consistent with past research showing that individuals are less distressed by failure when they are feeling more self-compassionate. For example, research has found that self-compassion was associated with less negative affect while imagining an exercise lapse (Signore et al., 2021) or a sports failure (Ceccarelli et al., 2019).

Further, the results suggest that self-compassion following a lapse may be beneficial not only for mood, but also for goal achievement. Participants with higher state self-compassion reported greater perceived control over weight management behaviors in the hours following the lapse. These findings echo Thøgersen-Ntoumani and colleagues’ (2021) finding that, among adults attempting to lose weight, those with higher state self-compassion following a dietary lapse had greater intentions to continue dieting and greater self-efficacy for healthy eating. The current findings extend this research by suggesting that self-compassion affects future behavior in addition to momentary cognitions. Thus, teaching participants to respond compassionately to lapses during behavioral weight loss programs may facilitate better self-regulation of weight management behavior following setbacks. Importantly, these results reiterate that self-compassion in response to failure does not encourage complacency, but instead promotes goal achievement (Neff, 2015).

The current study is novel in examining the role of each individual component of self-compassion following a dietary lapse. Our findings showed that self-kindness, but not common humanity or mindfulness, predicted higher control over weight management behaviors in the hours following the lapse. Results suggest that the different facets of self-compassion may play distinct roles following failure, and that self-kindness may be the most important practice to encourage.

At first glance, the positive influence of self-kindness in the current study seems to conflict with the past finding that post-lapse self-criticism was beneficial for preventing subsequent lapses (Schumacher et al., 2018). Self-compassion and self-criticism are typically viewed as opposites. For example, a recent meta-analysis found that self-compassion-related interventions reduce self-criticism, defined as a hatred toward the self and perceptions of inadequacy (Wakelin et al., 2022). Although this conceptualization of self-criticism is unequivocally negative, it is possible that reports of self-criticism after a dietary lapse may reflect a different psychological construct—a healthy self-awareness and self-scrutiny. Indeed, ample research shows that individuals practicing self-kindness display more of this healthy self-awareness, as they are more willing to acknowledge and take responsibility for their role in mistakes (Leary et al., 2007; Petersen, 2014). More work is necessary to appropriately measure healthy versus problematic self-criticism, understand its relation to self-kindness, and to determine the best strategies to inspire a sense of personal accountability for dietary lapses without becoming debilitated by the failure.

The null findings with common humanity are consistent with past research showing that only self-kindness and mindfulness predict eating behavior (James et al., 2016). Further, 77% of the variance in common humanity was explained by person-level factors, suggesting that there was fairly limited within-person variation to influence momentary outcomes. It is more surprising that state mindfulness did not predict better control over weight management behaviors following a lapse. Ample research has shown that state mindfulness can promote better self-regulation over eating outside the context of failure (Allirot et al., 2018; Seguias & Tapper, 2022). Further, keeping emotions balanced should promote an ability to recover more quickly from the failure. Nevertheless, it is possible that the measure of mindfulness in the current study (“I’ve been obsessing over and fixating on my lapse,” reverse coded) could have captured both maladaptive rumination as well as more adaptive scrutiny of the lapse.

Although the self-report measures of self-compassion were adapted from the state self-compassion short form (Neff et al., 2021), the exact items have not been previously validated. In the current study, the items used to assess common humanity and mindfulness were operationalized as reverse-coded measures of isolation and overidentification, respectively. This choice was intentional, because phrasing these constructs positively (e.g., “I am recognizing that others have struggles right now” to assess common humanity; “I am keeping a balanced perspective” to assess mindfulness) could unintentionally provide a brief intervention after the lapse, encouraging participants to adopt these self-compassionate mindsets. Neff (2022) asserts that the uncompassionate types of responding (i.e., overidentification and isolation, respectively) are true opposites of the compassionate types of responding (i.e., mindfulness and common humanity, respectfully; Neff, 2022), justifying the use of the reverse-coded items. Nevertheless, Neff also argues that two sides of a bipolar scale do not necessarily predict behavioral outcomes in the same way, offering the example that cold predicts frostbite more strongly than warmth does (Neff, 2022). Therefore, even if overidentification and isolation are not problematic for behavioral outcomes after a dietary lapse, it is possible that increasing mindfulness and common humanity, respectively, may improve behavioral outcomes.

The findings did not support a relationship between greater self-compassion in response to a lapse and likelihood of lapsing again that day. There are several possible reasons for the association of self-compassion with control over weight management behaviors, but not same-day lapses. First, our sample was undergoing intensive behavioral weight loss treatment and were taught many skills and strategies to avoid and overcome lapses. For example, participants were taught strategies to budget their calories throughout the day and to retrospectively budget if they overate (i.e., consume less at the next meal or snack to stay closer to their daily calorie goal). Therefore, this sample may have had the behavioral skills to prevent another lapse that day, regardless of their state self-compassion. Second, our measure of perceived control over weight management behaviors also captured perceived control over physical activity, not just eating. It is possible that self-compassionate responding to lapses may have a strong influence on subsequent physical activity. This is consistent with past research showing that shame elicits less physical activity (Castonguay et al., 2017; Lucibello et al., 2020).

Another possible reason for the null findings with same-day lapses is biased responding to the self-report measure. Although lapses were clearly defined for participants, the threshold to consider overeating to be a lapse may have been high for them. For example, if participants had “grazed” throughout the day, rather than consumed their excess calories in one sitting, they may not have labeled their behavior as a lapse. Responses may also be due to a social desirability bias to not report multiple lapses in a single day. Finally, including “eating at an unintended time” in the definition of a dietary lapse may have led participants to endorse a lapse when they had met their calorie goals, yet had eaten earlier or later than planned. Notably, only 12.1% of lapses were categorized this way.

Several other study limitations have implications for the interpretation of the findings. Because perceptions of eating behavior are often inaccurate, it is also possible that when participants felt more self-compassionate, they had the optimistic bias of perceiving greater control over weight management behaviors. However, if the findings were due to a self-report bias to respond positively to items that day, we would expect a relationship between mindfulness and common humanity and perceived control over weight management behaviors. If responses were due to a tendency of the person to respond positively, we would expect a significant correlation between the self-compassion variables and perceived control over weight management behaviors at the between-person level. None of these associations were present. To mitigate survey biases, future studies should consider examining how self-compassion predicts activity tracker data and participants’ food logs in the hours after the lapse.

Self-reports of self-compassion may be generally flawed, especially through the single item measures. Self-compassion, and self-kindness in particular, is often misconstrued with self-indulgence (Neff, 2015). Nevertheless, the fact that self-kindness predicted greater control over eating in the hours following a lapse is consistent with self-compassion theory, suggesting that this measure captured self-kindness as intended.

The parent trial excluded participants with significant binge eating; however, this approach may be unnecessary, as recent studies suggest that individuals with binge eating disorder often achieve successful weight loss and may experience a decline in disordered eating during standard behavioral weight loss treatment (Grilo et al. 2011; 2020; Jebeile et al., 2023). Because binge eating predicts more frequent dietary lapses during behavioral weight loss treatment (Mannasse et al., 2018), this population should be included in future research on this topic. Finally, this sample was predominantly women (89%), and results may not generalize to men. Some research shows that women tend to have lower trait self-compassion than men (Yarnell et al., 2015), suggesting that men might respond to dietary lapses more adaptively. As behavioral weight loss programs increase their efforts to recruit men (Rounds & Harvey, 2019), more work is necessary to understand how self-compassion plays a role in men’s weight-related behavior and recovery from dieting setbacks.

4.1. Conclusions and Future Directions

The current findings support recent recommendations to incorporate self-compassion into behavioral weight loss programs (Brenton-Peters et al., 2021). Encouraging behavioral weight loss participants to respond to dietary lapses with self-compassion, and self-kindness in particular, may help them recover more quickly from the setback. Exercises to promote self-kindness can easily be incorporated into treatment. For example, coaches could ask participants to speak to themselves gently, the way they would a friend, in response to a lapse. Future studies should test the effectiveness of administering self-compassion exercises through just-in-time adaptive interventions administered immediately after a lapse, to promote more adaptive responding at this critical moment. Future research should also examine the interaction between trait and state self-compassion on responses to dietary lapses, to determine whether interventions should focus on momentary interventions, or whether it is necessary to develop interventions that create more lasting improvements in trait self-compassion. Finally, more work should be done to establish the validity of single-item measures of self-compassion that require low participant burden and can be used in EMA research. Research should compare these items to the validated state self-compassion scale and should continue to establish their ability to predict cognitions and behaviors consistent with self-compassion theory, such as adaptive responses to failure.

Funding:

This work is supported by a grant from the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01DK119658] to EFM.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

1

To shift the focus of the manuscript to examining weight control behaviors rather than immediate cognitions, we chose not to examine concurrent body dissatisfaction (as we had specified in the pre-registration) and added perceived control over weight management behavior as an outcome.

Declaration of competing interest: None.

Ethics statement: This project was approved by the Drexel University Institutional Review Board. All participants provided written informed consent for their participation in the study. The procedures used in the study adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Data availability:

The first author has full access to the data reported in the manuscript which is available from the first author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Allirot X, Miragall M, Perdices I, Baños RM, Urdaneta E, & Cebolla A (2018). Effects of a brief mindful eating induction on food choices and energy intake: External eating and mindfulness state as moderators. Mindfulness, 9, 750–760. 10.1007/s12671-017-0812-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Badami R, VaezMousavi M, Wulf G, & Namazizadeh M (2011). Feedback after good versus poor trials affects intrinsic motivation. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 82(2), 360–364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blackie R, & Kocovski N (2019). Trait self-compassion as a buffer against post-event processing following performance feedback. Mindfulness, 10. 10.1007/s12671-018-1052-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brenton-Peters J, Consedine NS, Boggiss A, Wallace-Boyd K, Roy R, & Serlachius A (2021). Self-compassion in weight management: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 150, 110617. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burkley M, Parker J, Stermer SP, & Burkley E (2010). Trait beliefs that make women vulnerable to math disengagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(2), 234–238. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Butryn ML, Webb V, & Wadden TA (2011). Behavioral treatment of obesity. Psychiatric Clinics, 34(4), 841–859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carels RA, Hoffman J, Collins A, Raber AC, Cacciapaglia H, & O'Brien WH (2001). Ecological momentary assessment of temptation and lapse in dieting. Eating behaviors, 2(4), 307–321. 10.1016/s1471-0153(01)00037-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carels RA, Douglass OM, Cacciapaglia HM, & O'Brien WH (2004). An ecological momentary assessment of relapse crises in dieting. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 72(2), 341–348. 10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ceccarelli LA, Giuliano RJ, Glazebrook CM, & Strachan SM (2019). Self-compassion and psycho-physiological recovery from recalled sport failure. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1564. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crochiere RJ, Zhang F, Juarascio AS, Goldstein SP, Thomas JG, & Forman EM (2021). Comparing ecological momentary assessment to sensor-based approaches in predicting dietary lapse. Translational behavioral medicine, 11(12), 2099–2109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chwyl C, Chen P, & Zaki J (2021). Beliefs About Self-Compassion: Implications for Coping and Self-Improvement. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 47(9), 1327–1342. 10.1177/0146167220965303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dreisoerner A, Junker NM, & Van Dick R (2021). The relationship among the components of self-compassion: A pilot study using a compassionate writing intervention to enhance self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(1), 21–47. 10.1007/s10902-019-00217-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eskreis-Winkler L, & Fishbach A (2019). Not Learning From Failure—the Greatest Failure of All. Psychological Science, 30(12), 1733–1744. 10.1177/0956797619881133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ethica (2022). Patient-Centric Clinical Trial and Health Research Software Platform. https://ethicadata.com [Google Scholar]
  15. Emmer C, Bosnjak M, & Mata J (2020). The association between weight stigma and mental health: A meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 21(1). 10.1111/obr.12935 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Forman EM, Schumacher LM, Crosby R, Manasse SM, Goldstein SP, Butryn ML, Wyckoff EP, & Graham Thomas J (2017). Ecological Momentary Assessment of Dietary Lapses Across Behavioral Weight Loss Treatment: Characteristics, Predictors, and Relationships with Weight Change. Ann Behav Med, 51(5), 741–753. 10.1007/s12160-017-9897-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fryar CD, Carroll MD, & Afful J (2020). Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among adults aged 20 and over: Cinited States, 1960–1962 through 2017–2018. NCHS health e-stats, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gedik Z (2019). Self-compassion and health-promoting lifestyle behaviors in college students. Psychology, health & medicine, 24(1), 108–114. 10.1080/13548506.2018.1503692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gok S, & Fyfe ER (2022). Learning from Failure with Self vs Task Focused Feedback. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 44. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/68j7q1t4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grilo CM, Masheb RM, Wilson GT, Gueorguieva R, & White MA (2011). Cognitive-behavioral therapy, behavioral weight loss, and sequential treatment for obese patients with binge-eating disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(5), 675–685. 10.1037/a0025049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Grilo CM, White MA, Masheb RM, Ivezaj V, Morgan PT, & Gueorguieva R (2020). Randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of adaptive “SMART” stepped-care treatment for adults with binge-eating disorder comorbid with obesity. The American Psychologist, 75(2), 204–218. 10.1037/amp0000534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hanley AW, Palejwala MH, Hanley RT, Canto AI, & Garland EL (2015). A failure in mind: Dispositional mindfulness and positive reappraisal as predictors of academic self-efficacy following failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 332–337. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. James D, Sebren A, DerAnanian C, Bruening M, Rooney L, Araas T, & Swan PD (2016). Associations among self-compassion, eating behaviors, and stress in college freshmen. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 12, 92–97. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jebeile H, Libesman S, Melville H, Low-wah T, Dammery G, Seidler AL, Jones RA, McMaster CM, Paxton SJ, Hill AJ, Ahern AL, Garnett SP, Braet C, Wilfley DE, Baur LA, & Lister NB (2023). Eating disorder risk during behavioral weight management in adults with overweight or obesity: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, e13561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakerveld J, Mackenbach JD, Rutter H, & Brug J (2018). Obesogenic environment and obesogenic behaviors. In: Hankey C, Whelan K, eds. Advanced Environment and Obesogenic Behaviours. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 132–136. [Google Scholar]
  26. Leary MR, Tate EB, Adams CE, Allen AB, & Hancock J (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: the implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(5), 887–904. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Manasse SM, Schumacher LM, Goldstein SP, Martin GJ, Crosby RD, Juarascio AS, Butryn ML, & Forman EM (2018). Are individuals with loss-of-control eating more prone to dietary lapse in behavioural weight loss treatment? An ecological momentary assessment study. European Eating Disorders Review, 26(3), 259–264. 10.1002/erv.2583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Miyagawa Y, Niiya Y, & Taniguchi J (2020). When Life Gives You Lemons, Make Lemonade: Self-Compassion Increases Adaptive Beliefs About Failure. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21. 10.1007/s10902-019-00172-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Neff KD (2015). The five myths of self-compassion. Psychotherapy Networker, 39(5), 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  30. Neff KD (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1–12. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Neff KD, Whittaker TA, & Karl A (2017). Examining the Factor Structure of the Self-Compassion Scale in Four Distinct Populations: Is the Use of a Total Scale Score Justified? Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(6), 596–607. 10.1080/00223891.2016.1269334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Neff KD, Tóth-Király I, Knox MC, Kuchar A, & Davidson O (2021). The development and validation of the State Self-Compassion Scale (long- and short form). Mindfulness, 12(1), 121–140. 10.1007/s12671-020-01505-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Petersen LE (2014). Self-compassion and self-protection strategies: The impact of self-compassion on the use of self-handicapping and sandbagging. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  34. Puhl R, & Suh Y (2015). Health Consequences of Weight Stigma: Implications for Obesity Prevention and Treatment. In Current Obesity Reports (Vol. 4, Issue 2, pp. 182–190). 10.1007/s13679-015-0153-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Robinson KJ, Mayer S, Allen AB, Terry M, Chilton A, & Leary MR (2016). Resisting self-compassion: Why are some people opposed to being kind to themselves? Self and Identity, 15, 505–524. 10.1080/15298868.2016.1160952 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rounds T, & Harvey J (2019). Enrollment challenges: Recruiting men to weight loss interventions. American Journal of Men's Health, 13(1), 1557988319832120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schumacher LM, Martin GJ, Goldstein SP, Manasse SM, Crosby RD, Butryn ML, Lillis J, & Forman EM (2018). Ecological momentary assessment of self-attitudes in response to dietary lapses. Health Psychol, 37(2), 148–152. 10.1037/hea0000565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Seguias L, & Tapper K (2022). A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Effects of Mindful Eating and Eating without Distractions on Food Intake over a Three-Day Period. Nutrients, 14, 1043. 10.3390/nu14051043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Semenchuk B, Boreskie K, Hay J, Miller C, Duhamel T, & Strachan S (2020). Self-compassion and responses to health information in middle-aged and older women: An observational cohort study. Journal of Health Psychology, 26, 135910532090986. 10.1177/1359105320909860 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Shaw R, & Cassidy T (2022). Self-Compassion, Mindful Eating, Eating Attitudes and Wellbeing Among Emerging Adults. J Psychol, 156(1), 33–47. 10.1080/00223980.2021.1992334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Signore A, Semenchuk BN, & Strachan SM (2021). Self-Compassion and Reactions to a Recalled Exercise Lapse: The Moderating Role of Gender-Role Schemas. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 43(6), 477–487. 10.1123/jsep.2020-0300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith SA, Kass SJ, Rotunda RJ, & Schneider SK (2006). If at first you don't succeed: Effects of failure on general and task-specific self-efficacy and performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 171–182. [Google Scholar]
  43. Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Dodos LA, Stenling A, & Ntoumanis N (2021). Does self-compassion help to deal with dietary lapses among overweight and obese adults who pursue weight-loss goals? British Journal of Health Psychology, 26(3), 767–788. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/bjhp.12499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. vanDellen MR, Campbell WK, Hoyle RH, & Bradfield EK (2011). Compensating, resisting, and breaking: a meta-analytic examination of reactions to self-esteem threat. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 15(1), 51–74. 10.1177/1088868310372950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wing RR, Lang W, Wadden TA, Safford M, Knowler WC, Bertoni AG, Hill JO, Brancati FL, Peters A, Wagenknecht L, & Look AHEAD Research Group (2011). Benefits of modest weight loss in improving cardiovascular risk factors in overweight and obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes care, 34(7), 1481–1486. 10.2337/dc10-2415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wisener M, & Khoury B (2022). Which emotion-regulation strategies explain the relationship between dispositional mindfulness, self-compassion, and eating to cope? Appetite, 172, 105912. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.appet.2022.105912 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Yip VT, & Tong M. W E, (2021). Self-compassion and attention: self-compassion facilitates disengagement from negative stimuli. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(5), 593–609. 10.1080/17439760.2020.1778060 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The first author has full access to the data reported in the manuscript which is available from the first author on reasonable request.

RESOURCES