Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PsyCh Journal logoLink to PsyCh Journal
. 2024 Jun 6;13(6):1014–1025. doi: 10.1002/pchj.774

Self‐compassion defuses the aggression triggered by social exclusion

Ting Wang 1, Qianguo Xiao 2,✉, Han Wang 3, Yuanyan Hu 1, Jinhui Xiang 1
PMCID: PMC11608801  PMID: 38845340

Abstract

Social exclusion is a pervasive phenomenon that can have profound psychological consequences, including increased aggression. Self‐compassion can promote psychological resilience, which helps individuals cope with challenges and may help mitigate the aggression triggered by social exclusion. This study aims to explore the relationship between self‐compassion and aggression in the context of social exclusion from both state and trait perspectives. First, a cross‐sectional study (Study 1) was conducted; the findings revealed that social exclusion is associated with higher levels of aggression, while self‐compassion is linked to lower levels of social exclusion and aggression. Further division of self‐compassion into its constituent components (self‐kindness, mindfulness, and common humanity) revealed additional insights into the specific roles played by these factors. Self‐kindness and mindfulness were found to moderate the relationship between social exclusion and aggression, while common humanity was observed to mediate this relationship. To determine the causal relationships among variables in further detail, an experimental study (Study 2) was designed. This study utilized a recall writing task to induce feelings of social exclusion and employed self‐compassion writing tasks to elicit self‐compassionate responses from participants. The results of this experiment indicated that self‐compassion can significantly reduce the aggression triggered by social exclusion, thus suggesting that self‐compassion may help alleviate the distress caused by individuals' experiences of social exclusion. The findings of this research have important implications for the development of clinical interventions aimed at reducing the adverse effects of social exclusion.

Keywords: aggression, self‐compassion, self‐regulation, social exclusion

INTRODUCTION

Social exclusion refers to the process whereby an individual is excluded from or rejected by a specific social group or others, such that the individual's needs for belongingness and relationships are thwarted (Baumeister et al., 2005). This social phenomenon is common, including situations where individuals are ostracized by teammates in the context of sports activities or games. Prolonged social exclusion can lead to individuals engaging in aggressive or even antisocial behaviors (Leary et al., 2006). Perceived social exclusion is correlated with a variety of aggressive behaviors, including domestic violence (Breu et al., 2008), homicide (Palermo, 1997), and gang‐related violence (Fishbein, 1997). Empirical research conducted in laboratory settings has consistently demonstrated that social exclusion exacerbates both anger and aggression. Individuals who are subjected to exclusion are more likely to experience anger (Buckley et al., 2004), engage in aggressive behaviors toward others (Riva et al., 2015; Twenge et al., 2001), and exhibit diminished prosocial motivation (Twenge et al., 2001). It is evident that the aggression exhibited by individuals who experience exclusion does not solely target the perpetrators of the exclusion but extends to innocent bystanders (Leary et al., 2006). The aggression generated by social exclusion can lead to the emergence of a pernicious cycle, whereby aggressive individuals are more prone to be socially excluded and thus potentially engage in further aggressive behaviors. Consequently, this study investigates the interrelationships among self‐compassion, social exclusion, and aggression.

Self‐compassion refers to the ability of an individual to express compassion or sympathy for him‐ or herself in response to failure, inadequacy, or suffering (Neff, 2003). Neff (2011) argued that self‐compassion involves three basic components. The first is self‐kindness, which refers to an individual's understanding and tolerance of his or her own deficiencies and limitations and represents the emotional manifestation of self‐compassion. The second is common humanity, which refers to the degree to which an individual accepts the claim that “no one is perfect,” that is, the extent to which he or she recognizes that all people fail and make mistakes, and thereby avoids viewing his or her own experiences in isolation, instead emphasizing his or her own connectedness to others. This factor is thus the cognitive manifestation of self‐compassion. Finally, there is mindfulness, which refers to an individual being aware of the current situation in a clear and balanced way, which prevents the individual from ignoring or holding onto negative aspects of his or her self or life. This represents the attentive manifestation of self‐compassion. Studies have shown that self‐compassion can improve individuals' mental health (Barnard & Curry, 2011), increase their well‐being and life satisfaction (Zessin et al., 2015), and reduce their depression and anxiety (MacBeth & Gumley, 2012; Muris et al., 2016).

The self‐regulatory failure theory of social exclusion (Baumeister et al., 2005) posits that social exclusion, which is an emotionally draining experience, drains an individual's self‐regulation resources, and that self‐regulatory failure leads to an increase in the individual's aggressive behavior (DeWall et al., 2007). Self‐compassion can help individuals address social exclusion in a calm and friendly manner, thereby protecting their self‐regulatory resources and mitigating the aggression triggered by social exclusion (Terry & Leary, 2011). For example, in response to social exclusion, individuals who exhibit high levels of self‐compassion remain calm and are not overwhelmed by negative emotions, which enables them to preserve more self‐regulatory resources. On the other hand, individuals who exhibit low levels of self‐compassion may blame themselves and feel helpless, leading to negative emotions that deplete their self‐regulatory resources and result in increased aggression. Previous research has indicated positive correlations between self‐compassion and all six components of self‐regulation as well as total self‐regulation scores (Terry et al., 2013). Clearly, self‐compassion equips individuals who are experiencing social exclusion with psychological resilience. However, the three components of self‐compassion may enable individuals to cope with social exclusion and other adversities through different mechanisms.

Self‐kindness and mindfulness, which are two components of self‐compassion, may moderate the relationship between social exclusion and aggression. According to the self‐regulatory resource hypothesis (Baumeister et al., 2005), individuals who exhibit high levels of mindfulness and self‐kindness are more likely to employ a balanced and peaceful coping style in response to social exclusion. This coping style helps individuals preserve their self‐regulatory resources and reduces the likelihood of subsequent aggression. Therefore, we speculate that self‐kindness and mindfulness act as moderators in the process by which social exclusion leads to aggression. Another component, common humanity, may mediate the relationship between social exclusion and aggression. Social exclusion can decrease an individual's sense of common humanity, causing the individual to disregard others' feelings and leading to an increase in aggressive behaviors. Individuals who frequently experience exclusion may struggle to feel socially connected with and empathetic toward others, thereby affecting their understanding of common humanity. Conversely, recognizing such common humanity can foster social connectedness and empathy (Barnard & Curry, 2011; Lindsay & Creswell, 2014), thereby discouraging individuals from engaging in aggressive or violent behaviors toward others. Therefore, common humanity is believed to mediate the process by which social exclusion leads to aggression, as illustrated in the hypothesized model shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Relationships among the variables.

However, cross‐sectional studies are unable to support inferences regarding causal relationships. To apply the findings of relevant studies in clinical practice, it is essential to investigate the causal relationships among variables. Leary et al. (2007) successfully induced state self‐compassion in participants using a laboratory writing task and found that these participants were better able to acknowledge their responsibilities in the context of negative events without becoming overwhelmed by negative emotions. Therefore, in Study 2, we experimentally induced a state of self‐compassion in participants with the goal of exploring the causal relationship between self‐compassion and aggression in response to social exclusion. Participants were initially asked to complete a social exclusion writing exercise, in which they recalled past experiences of being excluded. Subsequently, participants in the self‐compassion group were guided to approach the event while exhibiting a self‐compassionate mindset. During the process of inducing self‐compassion, three questions were posed to participants, based on previous research. The first question prompted participants to reflect on the event without judgment, thereby emphasizing the mindfulness dimension. The second question encouraged participants to comfort themselves in the same manner as they would comfort a friend, thus highlighting the self‐kindness dimension. Finally, the third question encouraged participants to consider whether others might have faced similar situations, thereby emphasizing the common humanity dimension. Our hypothesis proposed that mindfulness and self‐kindness can help participants avoid becoming trapped in negative emotions, thereby enabling them to conserve more self‐regulatory resources, which they can use to manage aggression. Moreover, an appreciation of common humanity can help participants recognize that others may encounter similar setbacks, thereby fostering a sense of connection with others and a heightened awareness of others' suffering, which can in turn improve their efforts to control aggression. Therefore, regarding the aggressive behavior triggred by social exclusion, we expect that exhibit participants in the exclusion group will exhibit. Furthermore, we predict that self‐compassion can mitigate postexclusion aggression, such that participants in the self‐compassion priming group are anticipated to exhibit lower levels of aggression than are participants in the nonpriming group.

Based on the preceding analysis, it appears that self‐compassion can help individuals cope with social exclusion more effectively, thereby reducing their postexclusion aggression and interrupting the cycle of aggression–exclusion–aggression. However, research on the benefits of self‐compassion with respect to coping with social exclusion remains scarce. Consequently, we conducted two studies to investigate the relationships among social exclusion, self‐compassion, and aggression. In Study 1, we explored the connections among trait self‐compassion, social exclusion, and trait aggression using a questionnaire. Additionally, we examined the moderating influence of self‐kindness and mindfulness, as well as the mediating role of common humanity in this context. Study 2 sought to determine whether self‐compassion can reduce the aggression caused by social exclusion.

STUDY 1

Methods

Participants

A total of 567 college students were surveyed via the Wenjuanxing platform and in university classrooms. Based on the screening criteria employed in previous studies (Dunn et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2012), we excluded questionnaires that featured excessively short response times and those that exhibited six consecutive identical answers, resulting in a total of 463 valid questionnaires. The mean age of the participants was 19.54 years (SD = 1.19, range = 17–24), and 67.6% were female, while 32.4% were male.

Measure

Social Exclusion Questionnaire

The Social Exclusion Questionnaire (Wu et al., 2013) was used to measure undergraduates' sense of social exclusion. This scale contains a total of 19 items and features two dimensions, namely direct exclusion and indirect exclusion. The scale includes 10 items pertaining to the direct exclusion dimension (e.g., “People speak ill of me behind my back, which influences how other people view me”) and nine items pertaining to the indirect exclusion dimension (e.g., “Even though I have tried to improve the relationship, I am still unable to elicit a positive response” and “No matter what topic I pick while chatting, other people do not really interact with me”). The questionnaire was scored on a five‐point Likert scale, where 1 represents never, 2 represents occasionally, 3 represents sometimes, 4 represents often, and 5 represents always. The higher the score, the more severe the exclusion. The structural validity of the scale was verified using AMOS 26 software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY), and the unweighted least squares method was used in accordance with the recommendations of Morata‐Ramirez et al. (2015). The results concerning each indicator indicated an acceptable model fit: χ2(151) = 125.90, p < .001, standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) = 0.038, goodness of fit index（GFI) = 0.993, goodncss‐of‐fit index (AGFI) = 0.993, and normed fit index (NFI) = 0.991. These indicators suggest that the scale exhibits good structural validity. The total score on the scale could thus be used reliably to represent undergraduates' sense of social exclusion. The scale has also been used to investigate Chinese samples, where it has also been shown to exhibit good reliability and validity (Jia et al., 2019).

Self‐Compassion Scale

A short version of the Self‐Compassion Scale (Chen et al., 2011) was used to measure the levels of self‐compassion exhibited by individuals. The questionnaire consists of 12 items and includes three dimensions, namely self‐kindness (including three items, such as “I can accept my own limitations and weaknesses”), common humanity (including four items, such as “When I struggle with a difficult situation, I believe that it is easier for others to get through it,” which was reverse‐scored), and mindfulness (including five items, such as “When something painful happens, I try to consider the problem objectively”). The items were scored on a five‐point Likert scale, where 1 represents never, 2 represents occasionally, 3 represents sometimes, 4 represents often, and 5 represents always.” The higher the score, the higher the level of self‐compassion. The structure of the scale was verified using AMOS 26, the unweighted least squares method was used as recommended, and the results concerning all indicators indicated an acceptable model fit: χ2(51) = 450.783, p < .001, SRMR = 0.112, GFI = 0.947, AGFI = 0.918, and NFI = 0.895. These indicators suggest that the scale exhibits good structural validity. The total score and the scores for each dimension of the questionnaire could thus be used effectively to measure the corresponding structure. The scale has also been used to investigate Chinese samples, where it has also been shown to exhibit good reliability and validity (Chen et al., 2011).

The Chinese version of the Buss & Perry Aggression Questionnaire

The Chinese version of the Buss and Perry (1992) aggression questionnaire (Li et al., 2011) was used to measure individuals' levels of aggression. The questionnaire includes a total of 30 items and is scored on a five‐point Likert scale, where 1 represents complete nonconformity, 2 represents comparative nonconformity, 3 represents uncertainty, 4 represents comparative conformity, and 5 represents complete conformity. The higher the score, the higher the level of aggression. The questionnaire features five dimensions: physical aggression (including seven items, such as “If someone intentionally picks on me, I will beat him or her up”); verbal aggression (including five items, such as “When people mess with me, I will yell at them without hesitation”); anger (including six items, such as “My anger comes out when things go wrong”); hostility (including seven items, such as “I feel I have been unfairly treated many times”); and self‐aggression (including five items, such as “I think about hurting myself when I am very upset”). The structure of the scale was verified using AMOS 26, and the unweighted least squares method was used. The results concerning all indicators indicate an acceptable model fit: χ2(395) = 897.005, p < .001, SRMR = 0.065, GFI = 0.975, AGFI = 0.97, and NFI = 0.967. These indicators suggest that the scale exhibits good structural validity. The total score on the scale can be used reliably to represent an individual's level of aggression. The scale has also been used to investigate Chinese samples, where it has also been shown to exhibit good reliability and validity (Jiang et al., 2022).

Data analyses

According to Hair et al. (2011), any factors that describe a behavioral construct should be examined using covariance‐based structural equation modeling (CBSEM, a confirmatory method), while the design construct should be tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS‐SEM, an exploratory method), which is preferable when the research objective focuses on theory development and prediction (i.e., explaining/predicting the target constructs using the structural model; Leguina, 2015). Therefore, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of each variable were generated using SPSS 21 software (IBM, Armonk, NY), while AMOS 26 was used to confirm the measurements of the constructs. Smart‐PLS 3 software (GmbH, Bönningstedt, Germany) (Ringle et al., 2015) was employed to test the hypothesized model.

RESULTS

Common method bias test

Our data collection method involved a self‐completed questionnaire, and this approach may have entailed common methodological biases. These biases pertain to artificial covariation between predictor and dependent variables, which can be caused by reliance on the same data source or scorer, dependence on the same measurement environment, the context of the project, and the characteristics of the project. Therefore, a Harman one‐way test (Podsakoff et al., 2012) was performed to determine the significance of the effect of such common method bias. The results revealed 11 factors that exhibited eigenvalues greater than 1; in this context, the primary factor explained 30.09% of the total variation, which is below the critical value of 40%. Consequently, the risk of common method bias in this study was not found to be substantial, allowing further data analysis to be conducted.

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

Based on the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis of social exclusion, self‐compassion, and aggression, significant positive correlations were found between social exclusion and aggression; furthermore, significant negative correlations were observed between self‐compassion and aggression as well as between self‐compassion and social exclusion (see Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Correlation matrix for social exclusion, self‐compassion, and aggression (n = 463).

Variable M ± SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Direct exclusion 18.80 ± 6.52 —
Indirect exclusion 18.19 ± 6.43 0.91** —
Mindfulness 17.14 ± 4.01 −0.23** −0.22** —
Common humanity 13.11 ± 3.39 −0.43** −0.47** 0.11* —
Self‐kindness 10.65 ± 2.53 −0.36** −0.39** 0.46** 0.41** —
Physical aggression 13.69 ± 4.94 0.33** 0.30** −0.07 −0.23** −0.21** —
Verbal aggression 10.53 ± 3.35 0.40** 0.37** −0.1* −0.30** −0.22** 0.60** —
Anger 12.89 ± 4.89 0.43** 0.43** −0.24** −0.39** −0.28** 0.60** 0.68** —
Hostility 14.94 ± 5.03 0.61** 0.58** −0.21** −0.48** −0.31** 0.52** 0.57** 0.68** —
Self‐aggression 8.86 ± 3.79 0.58** 0.53** −0.24** −0.46** −0.36** 0.55** 0.52** 0.66** 0.66** —
Open in a new tab

Note: **p < .01; *p < .05; 1 = Direct exclusion; 2 = Indirect exclusion; 3 = Mindfulness; 4 = Common humanity; 5 = Self‐kindness; 6 = Physical aggression; 7 = Verbal aggression; 8 = Anger; 9 = Hostility; 10 = Self‐aggression.

Measurement model and structural model evaluation

The structural equation model depicted in Figure 2 aims to evaluate the hypotheses empirically. This model is used to examine the relationships among social exclusion as the independent variable, common humanity as the mediating variable, self‐kindness and mindfulness as the moderating variable, and aggression as the dependent variable. Notably, in light of the distinction between reflective and formative measurement models, in which context latent variables are either combinations of indicators (observed variables) or determinants of indicators in formative measurement models (Jarvis et al., 2003; Leguina, 2015), we developed a formative measurement model to specify the moderating variable, which was represented by the indicators of self‐kindness and mindfulness in the context of self‐compassion. The other latent variables were associated with reflective measurement models. The indicators used to assess the reflective measures included the average variance extracted (AVE) value, the composite reliability value, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. As shown in Table 2, the empirically established constructs—namely social exclusion, aggression, and common humanity—exhibited good reliability and validity. The evaluation of formative measures focused on the outer weights and the collinearity of the indicators (Leguina, 2015). The results presented in Table 2 indicate that the indicators of the formative measures, namely self‐kindness and mindfulness, were significant, and the collinearity, as assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF), was below the critical threshold of five. Consequently, all the indicators were determined to be valid and reliable.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Diagram of the latent structural equation.

TABLE 2.

Measurement model results.

Construct
Reflective measures Cronbach's alpha CRI AVE
Aggression 0.884 0.915 0.683
Common humanity 0.722 0.825 0.546
Social exclusion 0.956 0.960 0.561
Formative measures Outer weight VIF
Kindness 0.734* 1.389
Mindfulness 0.384* 1.389
Open in a new tab

Note: **p < .01; CRI = composite reliability index. Values 0–1. AVE = average variance extracted index. A value >0.5 suggests that the construct accounts for more than 50% of the item variance (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); the VIF represents the degree of collinearity among independent variables. A VIF value <5 indicates no collinearity.

Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CRI, composite reliability index; VIF, variance inflation factor.

All estimations regarding the relationships included in the structural model were significant (Table 3), validating the hypotheses. Social exclusion exhibited the strongest relationship with aggression. Common humanity, self‐kindness, and mindfulness were also shown to have significant negative effects on aggression. All three constructs explained nearly 40% of the variance in aggression (adjusted R 2 = 0.395). In addition, the evaluation of the structural model results included the effect sizes (f 2) and the SRMR (Leguina, 2015). f 2 reflects the influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables (latent variables) and was used as an evaluation index for model structural validity. According to Cohen's criteria for effect size (Cohen, 1992), the f 2 values indicate that social exclusion had moderate predictive effects on common humanity (f 2 = 0.282) and aggression (f 2 = 0.175); in addition, self‐kindness and mindfulness had a small moderating effect on aggression (f 2 = 0.022). The SRMR was used as a basis to determine model fit (Hair et al., 2011). An SRMR value of zero indicates perfect model fit, while a value of less than 0.1 reflects good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1998). The SRMR of .094 indicates that the model exhibited a good fit.

TABLE 3.

Structural model results.

Relationship Path coefficient Bias‐corrected 95% confidence interval f 2 p‐values
SE >AGG (c) 0.389 [0.421, 0.574] 0.175 < .001
SE >COM (a) −0.469 [−0.537, −0.384] 0.282 < .001
COM >AGG (b 1) −0.237 [−0.318, −0.163] 0.067 < .001
K&M >AGG (b 2) −0.119 [−0.119, −0.021] 0.018 .012
Moderating effect >AGG (w) −0.099 [−0.166, −0.004] 0.022 .020
Mediating effect (a*b 1) 0.111 [0.071, 0.158] — < .001
Open in a new tab

Note: COM = common humanity; AGG = aggression; SE = social exclusion; K&M = self‐kindness and mindfulness. Bootstrapping based on 1000 samples. a, b 1, b 2, and c represent the path coefficients included in the model, w represents the moderated effect, and a*b 1 represents the mediating effect.

Mediation and moderation analysis

The mediating effect of common humanity was tested using the nonparametric percentile bootstrap method with bias correction (Klarner et al., 2013). In the absence of the mediating effect of common humanity, the direct effect between social exclusion and aggression was strong and significant (β = 0.5, p < .001). Subsequently, when common humanity was included, the indirect effect of social exclusion on aggression through common humanity was significant (β = 0.111, p < .001), while its direct effect on aggression remained significant (β = 0.389, p < .001). Therefore, common humanity partially mediates the relationship between social exclusion and aggression.

In addition, the results of the moderation analysis (Table 3) revealed that the interaction term was significant, indicating that the impact of social exclusion on aggression was moderated by self‐kindness and mindfulness (conditional effect w = −0.099). A simple slope analysis based on the latent model showed that social exclusion had a stronger positive predictive effect on aggression among individuals who exhibited lower (−1 SD) levels of self‐kindness and mindfulness (effect = 0.817, SE = 0.02, p < .001, and 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.245, 0.509]). Social exclusion was a stronger predictor of aggression among individuals who exhibited higher (+1 SD) levels of self‐kindness and mindfulness (effect = −0.056, SE = 0.03, p > .05, 95% CI [−0.520, 0.513]) (see also Figure 3).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

The ability of the interaction between social exclusion and self‐kindness and mindfulness to predict variance in aggression.

STUDY 2

Methods

Participants

Under the assumptions of a medium effect size and power = 0.8, the sample size was calculated to be 119 using G*POWER software (Faul et al., 2007). We recruited 188 undergraduates and randomly divided them into four groups (i.e., an exclusion group with self‐compassion, an exclusion group without self‐compassion, a control group with self‐compassion, and a control group without self‐compassion). One participant was omitted from the analysis because she did not complete the 50‐word recall writing task. Ultimately, 186 individuals (77 males and 109 females) were included in the study: 47 in the exclusion group with self‐compassion, 47 in the exclusion group without self‐compassion, 45 in the control group with self‐compassion, and 47 in the control group without self‐compassion. All participants were 17 to 23 years old (M ± SD: 20.02 ± 1.21) and had normal or corrected visual acuity; furthermore, no participants had previously participated in similar experiments.

Procedure

Study 2 was conducted in a behavioral laboratory, with psychology teachers serving as the experimenters. The participants included students who were enrolled at a university in China, and they were randomly assigned to the different groups after recruitment. Under the guidance of the experimenter, each participant completed the experiment independently in a small room within the operational laboratory. The entire experimental procedure (see Figure 4) required approximately 15 min to complete: more specifically, 6 min were allocated to the recall writing task, 5 min were allocated to the self‐compassion writing task, and 3 min were allocated to the competitive reaction‐time task.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Experimental flowchart: the entire experiment consisted of four steps, from top to bottom: the recall writing task and self‐compassion writing task involved experimental manipulation, while the social exclusion manipulation test and competitive reaction‐time task involved measurements.

The participants initially engaged in the recall writing task to induce feelings of social exclusion in them: participants in the exclusion group recalled experiences of being excluded, while those in the control group reflected on the events of the previous day. Subsequently, all participants completed a social exclusion self‐assessment questionnaire. Thereafter, participants in the self‐compassion group completed the self‐compassion writing task, while those in the group without self‐compassion completed a control writing task. All participants then completed the competitive reaction‐time task, which was used to assess their levels of aggression. After the participants completed all the tasks, the participants were informed of the objectives and principles of the experiment. Additionally, participants in the exclusion group without self‐compassion were briefed regarding the concept of self‐compassion and encouraged to employ a self‐compassionate approach in response to social exclusion.

Recall writing task

The recall paradigm (Maner et al., 2007), which has frequently been utilized in social exclusion research, was employed to manipulate the participants' sense of exclusion. To prompt participants to recall their experiences with social exclusion, those in the exclusion group were initially presented with cartoons that depicted typical scenarios involving social exclusion (such as unanswered greetings, ignored conversations, unattended illnesses, and solo travel without communication from others). They were then instructed to reflect on exclusion events that they had personally experienced and to document these experiences in detail. In contrast, participants in the control group viewed four similar cartoons that contained no themes pertaining to exclusion and were asked to recall and elaborate on their activities the previous day; they were also asked to provide detailed descriptions.

Self‐compassion writing task

The self‐compassion writing task described by Leary et al. (2007) was used to prime participants' state self‐compassion. The participants in the self‐compassion group were asked to answer the following three items sequentially, which guided them to think about events they had experienced in a self‐compassionate way: (1) “How do you feel after the event recalled above? Please write your feelings down truthfully and objectively”; (2) “Imagine that a close friend were to experience a similar event. Please express your concern to your friend in writing”; and (3) “Have other people in your life had similar experiences? Please write about these experiences.” These three items focus on the three basic components of self‐compassion (mindfulness, self‐kindness, and common humanity). To eliminate the additional effects of the writing task itself and the expression of personal feelings, participants in the group without self‐compassion completed a control writing task that included the following three items: “How do you feel after participating in the above experiment? Please write about those feelings”; “What was the external environment (e.g., time, location, and weather) when you participated in this experiment? Please write about it”; and “What were you doing before this experiment? Please write about it.” The material used for the self‐compassion writing task was first translated into Chinese by a psychology professor. Subsequently, this material was back‐translated into English by a master's student who was proficient in English and by another psychology professor who had international experience. Following multiple discussions, the accuracy of the final Chinese version of the material was confirmed.

Measures

Social exclusion manipulation test

To measure the social exclusion that participants experienced during the recall writing task, a social exclusion self‐assessment questionnaire (Zadro et al., 2004) was used. The participants were asked to score the items “I felt excluded by the other party in the situation recalled above” and “I felt unaccepted by the other party in the situation recalled above” on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The higher the scores for these two items, the more strongly the participant experienced exclusion; conversely, the lower these scores, the less strongly the participant experienced exclusion.

Competitive reaction‐time task

This task (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Twenge et al., 2001) was used to measure participants' levels of aggression. Before starting the experiment, the participants were informed that they were required to complete an experiment that aimed to compare their reaction speed with that of another randomly assigned opponent. In the actual experiment, the participants completed the competitive reaction‐time task alone. The experimental procedure was as follows. First, a “+” symbol was displayed on a computer screen for 500 ms. Then, two images were displayed on the left and right sides of the screen simultaneously for 500 ms. Next, a dot appeared randomly on the left or right side of the screen; the participants were asked to press the “A” key if the dot was shown on the left side or to press the “L” key if the dot was shown on the right side. If the participant reacted more quickly than the opponent, the participant was then asked to punish the opponent by forcing the opponent to listen to noise; the participant could adjust the intensity of the noise by pressing the keys “0–4” and adjust the duration of the noise by pressing “0–5.” If the participant reacted more slowly than the opponent, the participant would then be punished by the opponent. If one party reacted incorrectly, he or she was required to accept punishment from the other party; if both parties pressed the incorrect key, no such punishment occurred. The intensity of the noise was divided into levels 0 to 4 (0, 70, 80, 90, and 100 dB), and the duration of the noise was divided into levels 0 to 5 (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 s). In the experiment, if the participant's reaction time was longer than 500 ms or if the participant made a mistake, the participant was determined to have lost and was thus punished by the other party; in all other cases, the participant was determined to have won. The intensity and duration of the noise punishment experienced by the participant were generated randomly by a computer program.

Based on previous studies (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Twenge et al., 2001), the participants' reaction during the first trial can represent the participants' unprovoked aggression most effectively because the participants have not yet received noise feedback from their “opponents.” After the first trial, the participants' choices all reflect continuous aggressive communication, which represents an aggressive reaction to their “opponents.” Therefore, the duration and intensity of the noise selected by the participants during the first trial were converted into z scores and averaged to serve as indicators of aggression. In this experiment, a positive score indicated that the participant's level of aggression was above average, while a negative score indicated that the participant's level of aggression was below average. A higher score indicated greater aggressiveness on the part of the participant.

RESULTS

Social exclusion manipulation test

The results of an independent sample t test indicated that participants in the exclusion group exhibited a significantly stronger sense of exclusion than did participants in the control group (t exclusion‐control (184) =12.55, p < .001, d = 1.84); participants in the exclusion group also exhibited a significantly stronger sense of neglect than did participants in the control group (t exclusion‐control (184) = 12.92, p < .001, d = 1.89), indicating that the manipulation of social exclusion was effective.

The impacts of self‐compassion and social exclusion on aggression

A 2 (exclusion group vs. control group) × 2 (group with self‐compassion vs. group without self‐compassion) between‐participants analysis of variance (ANOVA) regarding aggression revealed a significant main effect of social exclusion (F (1,186) = 8.28, p < .01, and partial η 2 = 0.043), a significant main effect of self‐compassion (F (1,186) = 10.76, p < .01, and partial η 2 = 0.056), and a significant interaction effect of self‐compassion and social exclusion (F (1,186) = 7.10, p < .01, partial η 2 = 0.038). A further simple effect test revealed that in the social exclusion condition, participants in the group with self‐compassion exhibited significantly lower levels of aggression than did participants in the group without self‐compassion (p < .001, partial η 2 = 0.089); furthermore, among participants in the control group, the levels of aggression exhibited by participants in the group with self‐compassion did not differ significantly from those exhibited by participants in the group without self‐compassion (p > .05). Crucially, the levels of aggression exhibited by participants in the exclusion group with self‐compassion did not differ significantly from those exhibited by participants in the control group (p > .05), indicating that the induction of self‐compassion reduced the level of aggression exhibited by participants in the former group to the level exhibited by participants in the control group (see Figure 5).

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Aggression scores obtained by each group of participants.

DISCUSSION

This study showed that self‐compassion is associated with a reduction in the aggression triggered by social exclusion from both trait and state perspectives. Consistent with our hypotheses, Study 1 revealed that the various components of self‐compassion have distinct effects on the relationship between social exclusion and aggression. Specifically, self‐kindness and mindfulness act as moderators, while common humanity serves as a significant mediator in this context. In Study 2, a self‐compassion writing task was employed to elicit state self‐compassion from participants. The findings of this study indicated that social exclusion increases individuals' aggression; however, self‐compassion also mitigates the aggression triggered by social exclusion, in line with our hypotheses. Importantly, the induction of state self‐compassion was shown to reduce participants' level of aggression to a degree comparable to that exhibited by participants in the control group. This experimental evidence highlights the role of self‐compassion in mitigating aggression and thus has potential clinical and practical implications.

Theoretical and practical implications

This research makes two unique theoretical contributions. First, our study expands the scope of application of self‐compassion, indicating that self‐compassion can also be used to assist socially excluded populations. Self‐kindness and mindfulness play a moderating role in this context, while common humanity has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between social exclusion and aggression. In response to social exclusion events, individuals who exhibit high levels of self‐kindness and mindfulness can exhibit a peaceful and friendly attitude toward themselves and avoid criticizing themselves, thus mitigating their negative emotions and ensuring that they have sufficient resources to regulate their behavior; accordingly, they do not engage in more aggressive behaviors (Barry et al., 2015; Fresnics & Borders, 2017; Neff & Beretvas, 2013). Common humanity involves becoming aware of the similarities between oneself and others, which may implicitly prime nonegocentric cognitive perspectives, thus enhancing individuals' ability to view events in terms of self–other similarity and embrace a broader perspective, which may enhance their societal connectedness and concern for others (Barnard & Curry, 2011; Lindsay & Creswell, 2014). This process can “soften” the intensity of an individual's aggression or violence toward others (Oveis et al., 2010). In conclusion, self‐compassion can help excluded individuals cope with social exclusion more effectively.

Our work highlights the importance of conducting careful research into the unique roles played by the various components of self‐compassion. Researchers have usually studied the three components of self‐compassion simultaneously owing to the belief that they interact with each other as a system (Neff et al., 2018; Neff et al., 2019). However, the results of this study suggest that these three components play different roles in the aggression triggered by social exclusion. Specifically, self‐kindness and mindfulness act as moderators in this context, while common humanity acts as a mediator. Therefore, when designing interventions, these differences should be taken into account to ensure that individual students can be served more effectively. In the field of mental health, self‐compassion interventions have been shown to reduce anxiety and depression (Bakker et al., 2019) and to increase well‐being (Jia et al., 2019). By studying the different roles played by these various components, more targeted intervention strategies targeting different populations can be developed.

Our study also has potential clinical and practical implications. Previous studies have shown that interventions based on self‐compassion can relieve depression and anxiety (Bakker et al., 2019). Our findings suggest that self‐compassion interventions should focus on specific at‐risk populations, for example by providing coping strategies to students who are subject to bullying or who may be excluded. In light of the mediating effect of common humanity in this context, we should remind newly ostracized students of the notion of common humanity, that is, of the fact that others will or may be ostracized; this approach can restore their willingness to engage in self‐regulation. This reminder should be followed by self‐kindness and mindfulness interventions aimed at enhancing their self‐regulatory resources. Self‐compassion can mitigate the negative effects of social exclusion. Thus, encouraging people to adopt compassionate attitudes toward themselves or promoting self‐compassion through intervention programs can cause socially excluded people to be less likely to engage in aggressive behavior.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations. First, all participants in this study were recruited from China. The question of whether the results reported herein also apply in situations featuring different cultural backgrounds requires further investigation. For example, in the context of China's collectivist culture, it is easy for people to become aware of the connections among people. Therefore, when self‐compassion interventions are applied to participants, these participants can easily experience sympathy, which can discourage them from attacking others. Thus, future research should investigate the effectiveness of self‐compassion interventions with regard to mitigating the negative effects of social exclusion across different populations.

Second, Study 1 quantified the unique roles of the various components of self‐compassion. However, in the induction experiment (Study 2), although the three questions included in the self‐compassion writing task corresponded to the three dimensions of self‐compassion, we did not quantitatively assess the induction of the three dimensions and therefore we failed to analyze their unique effects on the reduction in participants' level of aggression. Therefore, in the future, experimental designs could be refined and improved to facilitate quantitative examination of the particular roles of the three components of self‐compassion, thereby providing theoretical support for more precise clinical interventions.

Third, the self‐compassion intervention used in this study was based on the self‐compassion writing task, which is a one‐time experimental method. While this approach was effective with regard to alleviating the negative effects (aggression) of social exclusion to some degree, its duration was limited. In the future, self‐compassion interventions and their subsequent effects should be investigated in more detail. This approach would provide a better understanding of the potential of self‐compassion to improve mental health.

Fourth, the sample investigated in this study consisted of college students aged 17–24 years; thus, the conclusions of this research should not be extended to other groups until further research on this topic is performed. In addition, college students are in early adulthood, which is a particularly interesting developmental stage. On the one hand, these students appear to face more challenges and to be more likely to suffer from social exclusion, for example because of the difficulties associated with leaving home to pursue college studies and adjusting to the complex interpersonal relationships established at college (Moreira et al., 2018). On the other hand, as young people at this stage of life have well‐developed capabilities in terms of self‐reflection and insight (Sauter et al., 2010; Stefan & Cheie, 2022), they are able to regulate themselves and cope with social exclusion events more effectively. Therefore, interventions targeting college students may be more effective, than for other age groups, and more research on self‐compassion interventions is needed to determine the effectiveness of this approach with respect to different samples.

Finally, this study is the first to introduce self‐compassion into the research on social exclusion, thereby demonstrating its ability to mitigate the aggression triggered by social exclusion. Social exclusion can also impair individuals' cognitive functioning (Bahrami & Borhani, 2023), leading to decreased logical reasoning abilities (Baumeister et al., 2005). Additionally, such exclusion can undermine individuals' self‐regulation skills, resulting in increased risk‐taking behaviors (Baumeister et al., 2005). It can also impact individuals' emotions, causing them to experience more negative emotions such as anxiety and depression (Timeo et al., 2019). However, these aspects were not addressed in the current study. Future research could investigate the effects of self‐compassion interventions on the various negative impacts of social exclusion in further detail.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that self‐compassion is linked to a reduction in the aggression triggered by social exclusion from both trait and state perspectives. The various components of self‐compassion were shown to play distinct roles in the relationship between social exclusion and aggression, with self‐kindness and mindfulness serving as moderators and common humanity serving as a significant mediator.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no competing interests.

ETHICAL APPROVAL STATEMENT

All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was sponsored by the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing Municipality, China (CSTB2023NSCQ‐MSX0626). The authors wish to thank all participants in this research for their valuable contributions to this study.

Wang, T. , Xiao, Q. , Wang, H. , Hu, Y. , & Xiang, J. (2024). Self‐compassion defuses the aggression triggered by social exclusion. PsyCh Journal, 13(6), 1014–1025. 10.1002/pchj.774

REFERENCES

  1. Bahrami, R. , & Borhani, K. (2023). Excluded and myopic: Social exclusion increases temporal discounting. PLoS One, 18(8), e0290175. 10.1371/journal.pone.0290175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker, A. M. , Cox, D. W. , Hubley, A. M. , & Owens, R. L. (2019). Emotion regulation as a mediator of self‐compassion and depressive symptoms in recurrent depression. Mindfulness, 10(6), 1169–1180. 10.1007/s12671-018-1072-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnard, L. K. , & Curry, J. F. (2011). Self‐compassion: Conceptualizations, correlates, & interventions. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 289–303. 10.1037/a0025754 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barry, C. T. , Loflin, D. C. , & Doucette, H. (2015). Adolescent self‐compassion: Associations with narcissism, self‐esteem, aggression, and internalizing symptoms in at‐risk males. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 118–123. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumeister, R. F. , Nathan Dewall, C. , Ciarocco, N. J. , & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self‐regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589–604. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Breu, F. , Guggenbichler, S. , & Wollmann, J. (2008). Woman killing: Intimate femicide in Ontario, 1974‐1994. Resources for Feminist Research, 26, 151–174. http://medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243N.pdf [Google Scholar]
  7. Buckley, K. E. , Winkel, R. E. , & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 14–28. 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bushman, B. J. , & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self‐esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self‐love or self‐hate Lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 219–229. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buss, A. H. , & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, J. , Yan, L.‐S. , & Zhou, L.‐H. (2011). Reliability and validity of Chinese version of self‐compassion scale. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(6), 734–736. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. DeWall, C. N. , Baumeister, R. F. , Stillman, T. F. , & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self‐regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 62–76. 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dunn, A. M. , Heggestad, E. D. , Shanock, L. R. , & Theilgard, N. (2018). Intra‐individual response variability as an indicator of insufficient effort responding: Comparison to other indicators and relationships with individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 105–121. 10.1007/s10869-016-9479-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Faul, F. , Erdfelder, E. , Lang, A. G. , & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. 10.3758/BF03193146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fishbein, H. D. (1997). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time (book). Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(3), 218–222. 10.1207/s15327884mca0403_12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fresnics, A. , & Borders, A. (2017). Angry rumination mediates the unique associations between self‐compassion and anger and aggression. Mindfulness, 8(3), 554–564. 10.1007/s12671-016-0629-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hair, J. F. , Ringle, C. M. , & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS‐SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hu, L. , & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, J. L. , Curran, P. G. , Keeney, J. , Poposki, E. M. , & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 99–114. 10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jarvis, C. B. , Mackenzie, S. B. , Podsakoff, P. M. , Giliatt, N. , & Mee, J. F. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. 10.1086/376806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jia, Y. , Zhang, S. , Jin, T. , Zhang, L. , Zhao, S. , & Li, Q. (2019). The effect of social exclusion on social anxiety of college students in China: The roles of fear of negative evaluation and interpersonal trust. Journal of Psychological Science, 42(3), 653–659. http://www.psysci.org/EN/Y2019/V/I3/653 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jiang, Z. , Qi, K. , Zhao, Y. , Liu, J. , & Lv, C. (2022). Other‐dehumanization rather than self‐dehumanization mediates the relationship between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(1), 37–42. 10.1089/cyber.2021.0108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Klarner, P. , Sarstedt, M. , Hoeck, M. , & Ringle, C. M. (2013). Disentangling the effects of team competences, team adaptability, and client communication on the performance of management consulting teams. Long Range Planning, 46(3), 258–286. 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Leary, M. R. , Tate, E. B. , Adams, C. E. , Allen, A. B. , & 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]
  25. Leary, M. R. , Twenge, J. M. , & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 111–132. 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Leguina, A. (2015). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS‐SEM). International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(2), 220–221. 10.1080/1743727X.2015.1005806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, X. , Phillips, M. R. , Zhang, Y. , Niu, Y. , Tong, Y. , & Yang, S. (2011). Development, Reliability and Validity of the Chinese version of Buss & Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Chinese Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 37(10), 607–613. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindsay, E. K. , & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Helping the self help others: self‐affirmation increases self‐compassion and pro‐social behaviors. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 421. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. MacBeth, A. , & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: A meta‐analysis of the association between self‐compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 545–552. 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Maner, J. K. , DeWall, C. N. , Baumeister, R. F. , & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42–55. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Morata‐Ramirez, M. A. , Tello, F. P. H. , Barbero‐García, M. I. , & Mendez, G. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis. Recommendations for unweighted least squares method related to Chi‐Square and RMSEA. Acción Psicológica, 12(1), 79–90. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210375682 [Google Scholar]
  32. Moreira, H. , Gouveia, M. J. , & Canavarro, M. C. (2018). Is mindful parenting associated with adolescents’ well‐being in early and middle/late adolescence? The mediating role of adolescents’ attachment representations, self‐compassion and mindfulness. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(8), 1771–1788. 10.1007/s10964-018-0808-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Muris, P. , Meesters, C. , Pierik, A. , & de Kock, B. (2016). Good for the self: Self‐compassion and other self‐related constructs in relation to symptoms of anxiety and depression in non‐clinical youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(2), 607–617. 10.1007/s10826-015-0235-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Neff, K. D. (2003). Self‐compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101. 10.1080/15298860309032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Neff, K. D. (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]
  36. Neff, K. D. , & Beretvas, S. N. (2013). The role of self‐compassion in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 12(1), 78–98. 10.1080/15298868.2011.639548 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Neff, K. D. , Tóth‐Király, I. , & Colosimo, K. (2018). Self‐compassion is best measured as a global construct and is overlapping with but distinct from neuroticism: A response to Pfattheicher, Geiger, Hartung, Weiss, and Schindler (2017). European Journal of Personality, 32(4), 371–392. 10.1002/per.2148 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Neff, K. D. , Tóth‐Király, I. , Yarnell, L. M. , Arimitsu, K. , Castilho, P. , Ghorbani, N. , Guo, H. X. , Hirsch, J. K. , Hupfeld, J. , Hutz, C. S. , Kotsou, I. , Lee, W. K. , Montero‐Marin, J. , Sirois, F. M. , de Souza, L. K. , Svendsen, J. L. , Wilkinson, R. B. , & Mantzios, M. (2019). Examining the factor structure of the self‐compassion scale in 20 diverse samples: Support for use of a total score and six subscale scores. Psychological Assessment, 31(1), 27–45. 10.1037/pas0000629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Oveis, C. , Horberg, E. J. , & Keltner, D. (2010). Compassion, pride, and social intuitions of self‐other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 618–630. 10.1037/a0017628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Palermo, G. B. (1997). The berserk syndrome: A review of mass murder. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(1), 1–8. 10.1016/S1359-1789(96)00018-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Podsakoff, P. M. , MacKenzie, S. B. , & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Riva, P. , Lauro, L. J. R. , Nathan DeWall, C. , Chester, D. S. , & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Reducing aggressive responses to social exclusion using transcranial direct current stimulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(3), 352–356. 10.1093/scan/nsu053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ringle, C. M. , Wende, S. , & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sauter, F. M. , Heyne, D. , Blöte, A. W. , van Widenfelt, B. M. , & Westenberg, P. M. (2010). Assessing therapy‐relevant cognitive capacities in young people: Development and psychometric evaluation of the self‐reflection and insight scale for youth. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 38(3), 303–317. 10.1017/S1352465810000020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Stefan, C. A. , & Cheie, L. (2022). Self‐compassion and social anxiety in late adolescence: Contributions of self‐reflection and insight. Self and Identity, 21(2), 210–222. 10.1080/15298868.2020.1861082 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Terry, M. L. , & Leary, M. R. (2011). Self‐compassion, self‐regulation, and health. Self and Identity, 10(3), 352–362. 10.1080/15298868.2011.558404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Terry, M. L. , Leary, M. R. , Mehta, S. , & Henderson, K. (2013). Self‐compassionate reactions to health threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 911–926. 10.1177/0146167213488213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Timeo, S. , Riva, P. , & Paladino, M. P. (2019). Learning to cope with everyday instances of social exclusion: A review of emotional and cognitive strategies for children and adolescents. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 24(4), 1–17. 10.1111/jabr.12173 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Twenge, J. M. , Baumeister, R. F. , Tice, D. M. , & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu, H. , Zhang, S. , & Yuqian, Z. (2013). Development and validation of the social exclusion questionnaire for undergraduate. China Journal of Health Psychology, 21(12), 1829–1831. 10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2013.12.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Zadro, L. , Williams, K. D. , & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self‐reported levels of belonging, control, self‐esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zessin, U. , Dickhäuser, O. , & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship between self‐compassion and well‐being: A meta‐analysis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 7(3), 340–364. 10.1111/aphw.12051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from PsyCh Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES