Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 13.
Published in final edited form as: J Soc Clin Psychol. 2020 Feb 1;39(1):25–58. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2020.39.01.001

Family Strain Predicts Subsequent Depressive Symptoms in Middle-aged Adults: Hope Mediates and Self-compassion Moderates the Relation

Erin G Mistretta 1, Mary C Davis 1, Ellen Yeung 2
PMCID: PMC8276938  NIHMSID: NIHMS1057461  PMID: 34262237

Abstract

Introduction

Interpersonal strain is linked with depressive symptoms in middle-aged adults. One possible mechanism accounting for this relation is a reduction in hope, defined as the belief in one’s capacity both to reach and to generate a variety of ways to obtain goals. The strength of the strain-depressive symptoms relation is not uniform across individuals, however, pointing to the likelihood that individual differences in the ability to successfully navigate relationship strain play a role in mitigating its negative effects. One potential moderator of the strain – depressive symptoms relation is self-compassion, which encompasses the capacity to respond to one’s own negative thoughts and experiences in a kind and nonjudgmental way. Although theory and empirical evidence suggest that self-compassion is protective against the impact of stress on mental health outcomes, little research has investigated how self-compassion operates in the context of relationship strain. In addition, few studies have examined psychological mechanisms by which self-compassion protects against mental health outcomes, depression in particular. Thus, this study examined 1) the extent to which hope mediates the relation between family strain and depressive symptoms, and 2) whether these indirect effects are conditional on self-compassion in a community sample of middle-aged adults.

Methods

Self-reported family strain, self-compassion, hope, and depressive symptoms were assessed in a community sample of 762 middle-aged adults aged 40–65. Follow-up measures of depressive symptoms were assessed approximately 20 months later.

Results

Results from structural equation models indicated that hope mediated the relation between family strain and depressive symptoms and the indirect effect was conditional on levels of self-compassion. For individuals high versus low in self-compassion, strain-related declines in hope predicted smaller increases in depressive symptoms.

Discussion

Taken together, the findings suggest that family strain may lead individuals to experience less hope and subsequent increases in depressive symptoms. However, a self-compassionate attitude may serve as a resilience resource, weakening the hope – depressive symptoms relation, a finding that holds promise for future research on the development and refinement of self-compassion interventions.

Keywords: self-compassion, hope, relationship strain, middle-age, depressive symptoms

Depression is the leading cause of disability for adults in the U.S. (World Health Organization, 2008), affecting roughly 6.7% of individuals each year (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2017). Among the factors that can elevate the risk of developing depressive symptoms are life events and other circumstances that are stressful (McEwen 2004), particularly ongoing interpersonal conflicts (Avison & Turner, 1988; Finch, Okun, Barrera, Zautra, & Reich, 1989; Whisman, 2007). In fact, relationship conflict is the most common form of chronic stress/strain, and perhaps the most enduring and impactful one because of the significance individuals place on their social roles (Pearlin, 1989).

To develop a fuller understanding of the relation between interpersonal stress and depression, effort has been directed toward identifying mediators and moderators of that relation. With regard to mediators, some evidence suggests that the relation between interpersonal stress and depression is mediated through the interference of goal pursuits (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989; Gilbert, 2014; Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002). Human behavior is goal-directed, driven by a belief that one has the capacity and resolve to reach future goals as well as an ability to generate steps to meet those goals (Snyder, 1994). Theorists have defined these beliefs as aspects of hopeful thinking (Snyder et al., 1996).

Of course, the stress – depression relation varies considerably between individuals. The available research has largely focused on risk factors as moderators of the stress- depressive symptoms relation, such as gender, low socioeconomic status, and physical illness (Dobson & Dozoi,s 2008). Much less attention has been directed toward understanding how individual differences in resilience factors may attenuate the detrimental effects of interpersonal stress on depressive symptoms (Zautra, Hall, & Murray, 2008). In particular, those with strong social-emotional regulation skills may be most capable of navigating interpersonal strain, and one resilience concept that is associated with these skills is self-compassion (Neff, 2009). Self-compassion involves treating oneself kindly amidst the presence of challenges and suffering (Neff, 2003a), and thus is relevant for alleviating the suffering associated with fraught social relations. Elaborating the role of self-compassion as a protective factor against relational strain may inform the growing number of self-compassion interventions (Gilbert & Proctor, 2006; Neff & Germer, 2013; Raes, 2010) developed for issues ranging from low back pain (Carson et al., 2005) to depression (Gilbert & Irons, 2004). This study examined 1) the extent to which hope mediates the relation between family strain and subsequent depressive symptoms, and 2) whether these indirect effects are conditional on self-compassion in a sample of middle-aged, community-dwelling adults.

Interpersonal Strain and Depressive Symptoms

Social processes and interpersonal experiences play a major role in the incidence and maintenance of depressive symptoms (Allen & Knight, 2005), with stressful interpersonal relations being among the most reliable predictors of depression (Kendler, Hettema, Butera, Gardner, & Prescott, 2003). Sustained interpersonal stress, termed interpersonal strain, represents a chronic stressor that can impair psychological functioning (Krause & Rook, 2003; Schuster, Kessler, & Aseltine, 1990; Umberson & Montez, 2010). Cross-sectional, population-based studies of healthy adults consistently find that conflicts with social group members predict depression (Fiori, Antonucci, & Cortina, 2006; Li & Liang, 2007; Santini, Koyanagi, Tyrovolas, Mason, & Haro, 2015; Schuster et al. 1990). Likewise, research suggests that relationship strain has a stable and cumulative effect on mental health symptoms in cross-sectional (Umberson & Montez, 2010) and longitudinal studies (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997; Krause & Rook, 2003).

Evidence is mixed as to whether strain stemming from particular kinds of social relationships, such as those with family, friends, spouses, or work colleagues differentially predict depression (Dean, Kolody, & Wood, 1990; Thomas, Liu, & Umberson, 2017; Walen & Lachman, 2000). Family strain (not including spouses) may be especially prevalent, however, given that the majority of individuals identify with a family group in some capacity (Yang et al. 2014). Researchers have presumed that family strain might be uniquely challenging because family members are not chosen, whereas friends and spouses are independently selected, thus characterizing family strain as more enduring and difficult to eliminate (Krause & Rook, 2003; Yang, Schorpp, & Mullan Harris, 2014).

Hope as a Potential Mediator

Depression stemming from social threats, including family strain, may be mediated by cognitive styles that fail to protect the individual. According to the social risk model of depression (Allen & Badcock, 2003), individuals experiencing social threats, such as being perceived poorly by social networks or having limited social resources, tend to restrict exposure to positive stimuli and seek out reassurance from others in an effort to conserve integrity and avoid similar social difficulties in the future. For those at risk for depression, seeking reassurance from others does not always alleviate distress because they experience ruminative self-critical thoughts (Joiner & Metalsky, 2001), a pattern that may be especially true in situations involving strain with loved ones (Dunn, Whelton, & Sharpe, 2012). The perpetuation of self-criticism and associated shame results in individuals engaging in fewer social behaviors, limiting opportunities for positive affect reinforcement, and consequently, perpetuating depressive symptoms (Allen & Badcock, 2003). In contrast, individuals who are able to regulate emotions and cognitions and maintain motivation during and following interpersonal strain, may be less likely to experience increases in depressive symptoms. From both conceptual and empirical standpoints, hope emerges as a potential mediating factor in the relation between interpersonal strain and depression (Snyder, 2004).

Hope refers to perceiving that one has the capacity to reach goals through sustained motivation and plans (Snyder, 1994). According to Snyder (1994), goals drive human behavior, and believing one has the ability to generate and achieve goals is essential to hopeful thinking. Hope is comprised of two related dimensions: agency and pathways. Agency represents a belief in one’s ability to develop and achieve goals (Arnau, Rosen, Finch, Rhudy, & Fortunato, 2007). The pathways dimension reflects a belief in one’s ability to remain flexible and develop a variety of ways to meet goals, even in the face of obstacles. Hope is related to the cognitive processes involved in risk for depression, namely the regulation of emotional, cognitive, and motivational states. Individuals who are able to develop alternatives to stressful situations and sustain motivation to engage with a variety of solutions experience greater well-being (Snyder, Feldman, Taylor, Schroeder, & Adams, 2000), and more positive self-views (Umphrey & Sherblom, 2014) compared to those with low hope.

Hope theory proposes that a lack of agency and pathways thinking can contribute to depressive symptoms in different ways. For individuals undergoing significant stress, pathways thinking may be more relevant, given that it involves cognitions related to adapting goals in response to an obstacle. Pathways thinking was found to be a stronger predictor of depressive symptoms in individuals with traumatic brain injury than agency thinking (Peleg, Barak, Harel, Rochberg, & Hoofien, 2009). Similarly, pathways, but not agency thinking, was negatively related to depressive symptoms among individuals with spinal cord injuries (Elliott, Witty, Herrick, & Hoffman, 1991). Researchers suggest that one explanation for this difference is that in the context of mild depression, there is a greater concern for finding ways of coping with a stressor (pathways), rather than for feeling that one has a sense of efficacy. Thus, pathways thinking may be the most relevant dimension of hope for ameliorating risk of depressive symptoms among individuals undergoing stressful situations.

Self-compassion as Potential Moderator

Unsurprisingly, conflict is an inevitable part of interpersonal relationships, especially as interdependence increases (Braiker & Kelly, 1979), but only some individuals experience hopelessness and depressive symptoms as a result of relationship strain. A question that arises is whether there are individual differences that moderate the effect of interpersonal strain on hope, as well as the effect of hope on depressive symptoms. Self-compassion is one potential moderator, given that positive inferences about oneself are purported to both determine and modulate the experience of hopelessness (Abramson et al., 1989).

Self-compassion represents an attitude whereby the individual relates to herself in a kind, connected, and nonjudgmental way in the presence of suffering. Self-compassion involves three related components: self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness. Through self-kindness, people respond with gentleness, rather than criticism, guilt, or judgment when faced with difficult situations and mental states (Neff, 2003a). Common humanity refers to viewing all experiences, whether positive or negative, as part of the larger human experience, helping to remove feelings of isolation and fostering connection with others. Mindfulness involves viewing thoughts and feelings as they are without over-identifying with them. Individuals who are self-compassionate are able to judge themselves less harshly and have more accurate self-evaluations compared to individuals who do not have a self-compassionate disposition (Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 2007). In addition, more versus less self-compassionate individuals are less inclined to evaluate their efforts based on the outcomes of those efforts, in theory because they are able to maintain positive self-views regardless of poor results (Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005).

The theory of hopelessness depression provides some basis for hypotheses regarding the buffering effect of self-compassion in the face of stress. The original theory posited that inferences about the self (i.e., self-worth, personality, abilities) are likely to determine the development of hopelessness in response to a stressor (Abramson et al., 1989). Thus, self-compassion may buffer the relation between strain and hope. More recent adaptations of the hopelessness depression theory suggest that hopelessness also can be a stress generator, such that hopelessness may lead to a downward spiral towards depression through increased perceived stress (Joiner, Wingate, Gencoz, & Gencoz, 2005a; Joiner, Wingate, & Otamendi, 2005b). Therefore, self-compassionate people, who are able to respond to stressors with positive, nonjudgmental inferences about themselves, may be protected from the detrimental effects of hopelessness following a stressor or protected from hopelessness spiraling into depression. In the current study, we explore both possibilities.

Self-compassionate individuals may approach family strain with less self-criticism and judgment, sustaining hope that the relationship may be repaired in the future, or that despite the poor relationship, the individual can still treat themselves with kindness and develop steps towards valued goals (Snyder, 2002). Self-compassion has been consistently associated with use of adaptive coping techniques (Barnard & Curry, 2011; Neff, Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007), but few studies have explored the protective effects of self-compassion on the relation between psychosocial stress and maladaptive cognitions (i.e., low pathways thinking). One cross-sectional study found that self-compassion buffered the indirect effect of hopelessness on the relation between cyberbullying and depression in adolescents (Chu, Fan, Liu, & Zhou, 2018). Specifically, having low self-compassion was associated with hopelessness following cyberbullying victimization, which was associated with greater depressive symptoms. To date, research has not tested the relation between self-compassion and hope in the face of chronic stressors, like relationship strain, in adult populations.

Self-compassion may also provide protection from the deleterious effects of low pathways thinking on depressive symptoms. Buddhist teachings identify self-compassion as a resilience resource that assists in holding negative thoughts arising from a stressor with equanimity and grace (Brach, 2004; Goldstein & Kornfield, 1987; Neff, 2003a). These teachings point to self-compassion as most relevant to containing the cognitive and psychological aftermath of the stressor, rather than preventing negative responses to begin with. To date, however, there has been no research examining self-compassion as a buffer against the negative effects of maladaptive cognitions on depressive symptoms following a psychosocial stressor.

The present study tested two moderated mediation models to examine whether 1) hope, specifically the pathways dimension, served as a mediator of the relation between family strain and depressive symptoms, and 2) self-compassion moderated the strain – pathways relation, the pathways – depressive symptoms relation, or both (See Figure 1 and 2). It was hypothesized that pathways thinking would partially mediate the family strain – depressive symptoms relation. Further, it was hypothesized that self-compassion would moderate the family strain – pathways relation through enhancements in pathways thinking, which would result in fewer increases in depressive symptoms over time. It was further was hypothesized that self-compassion would moderate the pathways – depressive symptoms relation through reductions in depressive symptoms. We also tested related constructs to determine specificity of the hypothesized mediator and moderator. We tested optimism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) in place of pathways thinking, and self-mastery (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) in place of self-compassion. We hypothesized that hope, but not optimism, would have an indirect effect on the family strain – depressive symptoms, and that self-compassion, but not self-mastery, would moderate the hope – depressive symptoms relation.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Model 1: Conceptual SEM model of the first order conditional indirect effect of family strain on depressive symptoms through pathways for those high, average, and low in self-compassion.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Model 2: Conceptual SEM model of the second order conditional indirect effect of family strain on depressive symptoms through pathways for those high, average, and low in self-compassion.

Methods

Participants

Participants for the current study comprised individuals enrolled in the ASULive study, a study of risk and resilience factors in a community sample of middle-aged adults living in the Phoenix metropolitan area (Davis et al., 2018). Eligibility criteria for participation in ASULive included: 1) being fluent in English and/or Spanish, 2) aged 40–65 years, and 3) residing within one of 20 Census tracts within the Phoenix metropolitan area. The communities were selected to reflect the racial, age, and economic diversity of the region. Exclusion criteria included presence of physical, cognitive, or psychiatric impairment that would prevent participation in the project. Nine hundred and fifteen participants were initially recruited and enrolled through mailings and informational flyers and enrolled in the study, but 110 participants declined to participate prior to beginning study activities. Of the 805 participants who began study activities, 762 provided initial information regarding family strain and depressive symptoms, and 538 provided follow-up information regarding depressive symptoms. The current study included the 762 individuals with data regarding their level of family strain and depressive symptoms at the initial assessment.

Procedure

Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Arizona State University. Potential participants were initially informed of the study by mail, and then visited at their homes by study personnel, screened for eligibility, consented, and enrolled. Once enrolled into the study, participants completed a series of initial self-report questionnaires containing questions on demographic characteristics (including age, gender, and ethnicity), social relationship quality (including family strain), and personal characteristics (including self-compassion and hope). Next, they were interviewed by phone and during a home visit regarding their medical and psychological health (including depressive symptoms) and underwent an assessment of indicators of allostatic load and metabolic risk. Finally, a follow-up assessment was conducted with participants who were able to be contacted via phone and agreed to provide information about their physical and emotional health (including depressive symptoms) over the prior 4 weeks. On average, participants completed follow-up measures 20 months after completing initial assessments (SD = 11.15, Range = 5.95 – 52.90).

Measures

Family Strain

Family strain was assessed via items drawn from Family Strain subscale from the MIDUS-1 Study (MIDUS; Schuster et al., 1990) and the Negative Social Ties Scale (NST; Finch et al., 1989). Participants rated two family strain items from the MIDUS (e.g., “How often do members of your family make too many demands on you?” and “How often do they make you feel tense?”). Likewise, participants rated four items from the NST asking them to indicate the extent to which statements apply to current family members (e.g., “How often are they critical of your behavior?” and “How often do they provoke feelings of conflict and anger?”). All items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (A lot). A mean score across items was computed for descriptive analyses, with higher scores indicating greater family strain. The six items representing family strain had good reliability in the current sample, Cronbach’s α = .87. A latent factor was modeled to test main study hypotheses (described below).

Self-Compassion

Self-compassion was assessed via nine items drawn from the Self-kindness (five items) and Mindfulness (four items) subscales of the 26-item Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003b). Participants are asked how often they behave in self-compassionate ways (e.g., “I try to be loving to myself when I’m feeling emotional pain” and “When something painful happens I try to take a balanced view of the situation”). Items are rated on a Likert scale from 1 (Almost Never) to 5 (Almost Always). The nine items of the SCS had high internal consistency in this sample (α = .90). A mean score across items was computed for descriptive analyses, with higher scores indicating greater self-compassion. A latent factor was modeled to test main study hypotheses (described below).

Pathways

Pathways thinking was assessed via six items from the Pathways subscale of the 18-item Revised Trait Hope Scale (THS-R; Shorey & Snyder, 2004). Questions ask participants to indicate whether statements apply to them on a Likert scale from 1 (False) to 8 (True). Items include questions such as, “I can create alternate plans when blocked” and “I’m good at coming up with solutions.” The pathways subscale had good internal consistency in this sample (α = .83). A mean score across items was computed for descriptive analyses, with higher scores indicating a greater capacity to develop a variety of ways to reach goals. A latent factor was modeled to test main study hypotheses (described below).

Depressive Symptoms

Depressive symptoms were assessed via the seven items of the Mental Health Inventory (MHI-D; Veit & Ware, 1983), which measures psychological distress and well-being in general populations. The questions ask participants to indicate how often they experienced a range of emotions and behaviors on a scale from 1 (All of the time) to 6 (None of the time) during the past four weeks. Items included four questions from the depression subscale (e.g., “Have you been moody and brooded about things?”, and “How you been in low or very low spirits?”) as well as three items from the behavioral/emotional control subscale (i.e., “Did you feel you had nothing to look forward to?”, “Have you felt like crying?”, and “Did you feel that nothing turned out for you the way you wanted it to?”). Scores ranged between 1 and 6, with higher scores indicating greater well-being. The MHI items had good internal consistency in this sample (α = .90). A mean score across items was computed for descriptive analyses, with higher scores indicating higher levels of depressive symptoms. A latent factor for follow-up depressive symptoms was modeled to test main study hypotheses (described below).

Control Variables

Control variables included age, gender (coded 0 = female, 1 = male), anti-depressant medication use (coded 1 = yes, 2 = no), and depressive symptoms at initial study assessment because they were related to one or more study variables. Income and time interval from initial to follow-up assessment were both unrelated to other study measures but were tested as covariates and dropped from the models because including them did not alter the results.

Data Analytic Plan

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations, using observed scores for measures, were computed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24. T-tests and chi-squares were employed to examine whether those who did versus did not complete the follow-up assessment differed in terms of demographic factors, medication use, and scores on initial measures of key study variables (with Bonferroni-corrected p-value of .05/10 = .005). Factor scores were created and structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using Mplus Version 7.1. Mplus uses full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012), which estimates parameters and standard errors using all available data. These parameter estimates and standard errors are robust to data assumed to be missing at random (Enders, 2010).

Factor scores then were calculated for family strain, self-compassion, pathways, and depressive symptoms. Using factor scores over mean scores has the advantage of eliminating both error variance and the unique variance of each indicator. Eliminating unique variance allows researchers to explore the aspects of indicator variables that share common variance with the larger factor. Creating a latent factor thus allows the models to evaluate only the shared variance of constructs of interest (e.g., self-compassion construct common to mindfulness and self-kindness subscales). Because family strain items were compiled from two different measures, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to establish a latent factor (see Supplementary Material). Family strain items were considered ordinal and subjected to EFA. Next, self-compassion, pathways, and depressive symptoms were all subjected to CFA. Self-compassion, and depressive symptom items were considered ordinal and pathways items were considered continuous. The CFA for family strain, family support, self-compassion, and depressive symptoms employed weighted least square parameter estimation, which is most appropriate for ordinal variables (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). The CFA for pathways items were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation, given these items were considered continuous. All factor scores for the latent factors, which included family strain, self-compassion, pathways, and depressive symptoms were extracted and entered into a structural model.

Structural regression models were tested sequentially to determine the relations among the latent variables. Modeling first included the first order conditional indirect effect (Model 1), and then the second order conditional indirect effect of family strain on depressive symptoms through pathways as a function of self-compassion (Model 2). All models controlled for initial depressive symptom score, as well as age, gender, and anti-depressant medication use, when the covariates were found to be non-significant, they were pruned from the model specification to retain a more parsimonious model. Models covaried exogenous and endogenous variables with covariates, endogenous variables with one other, covariates with one another, and the moderator with the meditator. Model fit was tested according to recommendations set out by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008) and Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, and King (2006). Specifically, χ2, root mean square of the association (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; for EFA, CFA with continuous variables, and structural regression models), and weighted root mean residual (WRMR; for CFA with categorical variables) were used, applying the following criteria to indicate good model fit: χ2 = χ2/df between 5 and 2; RMSEA < .08; CFI ≥ 0.95; SRMR < .05; WRMR < .90. Significance level for all analyses was set at p < .05. Unstandardized solutions were reported.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of the sample. The sample was comprised of roughly equivalent proportions of men and women, with an average age of 53 years old, a median household income of $50,000-$65,000 per year, and an average of some college education. Two-thirds of the sample were married or in a committed relationship, 25% were divorced, and the remainder were either single or widowed. Sixty-two percent of the sample was employed. In line with the population of Maricopa County, AZ (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), the sample was comprised primarily of individuals who endorsed being Non-Hispanic White (68.4%) or Hispanic (23.6%).

Table 1.

Participant demographics

Variable %* M(SD)
Gender
 Male 45.4
 Female 54.6
Race
 Non-Hispanic White 68.4
 Hispanic 23.6
 Black/African American 2.4
 Asian 1.4
 American Indian/Alaska Native 0.8
Age 53.51 (7.25)
Income $50K-65K**
Education
 No high school degree 6.9
 High school degree 8.8
 Trade/vocational degree 7.8
 Some college 27.7
 College degree 24.6
 Some graduate school 6.4
 Graduate degree 17.8
Employment Status
 Employed 61.8
 Full time 47.4
 Part time 16.1
 Not Employed 36.4
Marital/Partner Status
 Married 49.7
 Unmarried, living with partner 9.5
 Committed relationship, not living together 2.8
 Widowed 5
 Single, never married 7.7
 Divorced or separated 23.5
Initial Depressive Symptoms 1.79 (0.88)
Medication
 Taking antidepressants 19.6
 Not taking antidepressants 80.4
Time to Follow-up 19.94 (11.15)
Open in a new tab
*

Percentages may not equal 100% due to missing data

**

Median

Table 2 depicts the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among study variables using observed scores. Average family strain scores indicated that participants in the sample as a whole experienced relatively low levels of family strain. Average engagement in self-compassionate responding was slightly greater than “some of the time”. On average, participants endorsed the validity of pathways items as, “somewhat true”. The mean depressive symptom score at the initial assessment and at follow-up indicated relatively low levels of depressive symptoms at both time points. There were no significant differences between participants who completed follow-up depressive symptoms versus those who did not.in family strain [t(760) = 1.59, ns], age [t(759)= −2.93, ns], hope [t(758) = −2.73, ns],self-compassion [t(760) = −1.79, ns], initial depressive symptoms [t(760) = 1.50, ns], gender [χ2(1) = .006, ns], anti-depressant medication use [χ2(1) = .001, ns], income [χ2(13) = 16.53, ns], marital status [χ2(5) = .44, ns], education [χ2(8) = 8.63, ns] or employment status [χ2(2) = .479, ns].

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of study variables (N = 762)

Variable Range M(SD) 2 3 4 5
1. Family Strain 1–4 2.20 (.67) −.25** −.26** .33** .25*
2. Self-Compassion 1–5 3.61 (.76) - .47** −.30** −.25**
3. Pathways 1–8 6.05 (1.2) - −.37** −.37**
4. Initial Depressive Symptoms 1–6 1.78 (.88) - .55**
5. Follow-Up Depressive Symptoms† 1–6 1.75 (.88) -
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01 (two-tailed)

Note.

†

Depressive Symptoms (N = 524)

Preliminary Analyses

The initial analyses evaluated 1) whether the family strain items reflected a single underlying construct through exploratory and then confirmatory factor analysis; and 2) the relations of each of the latent variables and their observed variable indicator. (A detailed description of these analyses and findings is included in Supplementary Material.)

With regard to the family strain analyses, EFA and CFA fit indices indicated that the six items represented a single underlying factor, (CFA: RMSEA = .121 [90% CI = .094 - .151] p < .01, CFI = .982, WRMR = 1.001). The standardized parameter results for the final one-factor model are presented in Table 3. All factor loadings were greater than .65. The separate CFAs for each of the latent variables and their observed indicators are displayed in Table 4 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

Table 3.

Factor loadings for the Family Strain one-factor CFA solution

Family Strain Items Factor 1
How often do they provoke feelings of conflict or anger?a .870
How often do they make you feel tense?b .852
How often do they use you or take advantage of you?a .812
How often do they break a promise of help, let you down, or neglect you?a .755
How often are they critical of your behavior?a .736
How often do members of your family make too many demands on you?b .658
Open in a new tab

Note.

a

Negative Social Ties

b

Family Strain Subscale from MIDUS

Table 4.

CFA fit indices for each latent factor

Factor RMSEA CFI WRMR
Family Strain† .121 .982 1.00
Self-compassion .226 .902 2.92
Pathways-Hope .157 .974 1.13
Depressive Symptoms .093 .991 .732
Open in a new tab

Note.

†

Values reflect data from 383 participants

The Family Strain – Depressive Symptom Relation: Tests of Moderated Mediation

To test the hypothesized paths among the latent variables, a series of structural equation models were specified. First, we analyzed a moderated mediation model (referred to as Model 1 in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 1) in which we evaluated whether the family strain-pathways relation varied on level of self-compassion (i.e., a2b1 path). Contrary to prediction, the effect of family strain on pathways thinking was not different as a function of self-compassion (a2b1), b = .015, SE = .01 p = .29. However, pathways thinking did mediate the family strain – depressive symptoms relation as expected, such that family strain was negatively associated with pathways thinking (a1 path), and pathways thinking was negatively associated with changes in depressive symptoms (b1 path), b = .074, SE = .02, p < .01. Model 1 fit indices were as follows: χ2(11) = 14.098, RMSEA = .019 [90% CI = .000 – .045] p > .05, CFI = .994, SRMR = .025. These indices suggest that this model has good fit with the data. Together, the predictors in Model 1 accounted for 37.6% of the variance in depressive symptoms. Because missing data for depressive symptoms may not be missing at random, we ran the model twice, first including all 762 participants, and then including only those 524 participants who had both initial and follow-up data, to determine whether the mediated effects observed in the larger sample were apparent in the subsample with data from both assessments. The findings remained robust across both sets of analyses.

Table 5.

Regression models predicting Depressive Symptoms, controlling for Initial Depressive Symptoms, Gender, Age, Antidepressant Medication (N = 762)

Model b (SE) 95% CI
Model 1
 Direct Effect (c’) .104 .06 −.027, .231
 Indirect Effect .074** .02 .036, .137
   Indirect Effect (ab) – High Self-Compassion .085** .03 .040, .155
   Indirect Effect (ab) – Average Self-Compassion .074** .02 .036, .137
  Indirect Effect (ab) – Low Self-compassion .063* .02 .025, .126
 Index of Moderated Mediation (a2b1) .015 .01 −.007, .050
Model 2
 Direct Effect (c’) .035 .06 −.091, .159
 Indirect Effect (c’) .044* .02 .017, .089
  Indirect Effect (ab) – High Self-Compassion .022 .02 −.005, .066
  Indirect Effect (ab) – Average Self-Compassion .044* .02 .017, .089
  Indirect Effect (ab) – Low Self-compassion .067** .02 .029, .122
 Index of Moderated Mediation (a1b2) −.030* .01 −.068, −.008
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

**

p < .01 (two-tailed); High Self-Compassion (1 SD above mean); Low Self-Compassion (1 SD below mean).

Model 1: Testing indirect paths from Family Strain X Self-Compassion to Pathways to Depressive Symptoms

Model 2: Testing indirect paths from Family Strain to Pathways X Self-Compassion to Depressive Symptoms

The second moderated mediation model tested whether self-compassion moderated the pathways – depressive symptom relation (i.e., a1b2 path in Model 2 illustrated in Figure 2). Findings are depicted in Table 5 and in Figure 3 (generated using MD2C Excel Template; Dragt, 2017). The indirect effect of family strain on depressive symptoms through hope as a function of self-compassion was significant (a1b2), b = −.030, SE = .01, p < .05. Specifically, the magnitude of the negative relation between hope and depressive symptoms was strongest at low levels (−1 SD) of self-compassion and became weaker as self-compassion increased (see Figure 3). In fact, at high levels (+1 SD) of self-compassion, hope and depressive symptoms were unrelated. Across all levels of self-compassion, hope mediated the family strain – depressive symptoms relation, such that family strain was negatively related to hope (a1 path), and hope was negatively associated with changes in depressive symptoms (b1 path), b = .044, SE = .02, p < .05. Model 2 fit indices were as follows, χ2(7) = 6.688 p > .05, RMSEA = .000 [90% CI = .000 - .043] p > .05, CFI = 1.000, SRMR = .014, and indicate excellent model fit. Together, the predictors in Model 2 accounted for 38.9% of the variance in depressive symptoms. When analyses were run including only participants with complete data at the initial assessment and follow-up (n = 524), the direction of the findings remained, with the interaction of pathways thinking and self-compassion becoming marginally significant (p = .06), likely due to the reduction in sample size that lowered the statistical power.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Graph displays the second order (b1 path) conditional indirect effect of pathways on the family strain-depressive symptoms relation across values of self-compassion controlling for gender, age, initial depressive symptoms, and anti-depressant medication. The slope of the line is the weight in the function linking the indirect effect to self-compassion. Lower values of the indirect effect reflect weaker mediation effects.

When these models were tested using optimism as a mediator, a construct related to hope, results indicated that the indirect effect of family strain on depressive symptoms through optimism as a function of self-compassion was not significant, b = .007, SE = .01, p = .34, consistent with hypotheses. The fit indices were as follows, χ2(2) = 157.79 p > .05, RMSEA = .320 [90% CI = .279 - .363] p < .05, CFI = .648, SRMR = .054, suggesting poor model fit. We then tested self-mastery as a moderator. First, we analyzed a moderated mediation model evaluating whether the family strain-pathways relation varied on level of self-mastery (i.e., a2b1 path). Consistent with prediction, the effect of family strain on pathways thinking was not different as a function of self-mastery, b = .005, SE = .02 p = .81. Fit indices were as follows, χ2(2) = 1.486, p > .05, RMSEA = .000 [90% CI = .000 - .066] p > .05, CFI = 1.000, SRMR = .005, indicating good model fit. Next, we analyzed a moderated mediation model evaluating whether the pathways-depressive symptoms relation varied on level of self-mastery (i.e., a1b2 path). Consistent with prediction, the effect of pathways thinking on depressive symptoms was not different as a function of self-mastery, b = −.007, SE = .01 p = .54. Fit indices were as follows, χ2(2) = 246.684, p < .05, RMSEA = .401 [90% CI = .359 - .444] p < .05, CFI = .583, SRMR = .061, indicating poor model fit. These results indicate that hope is a suitable mediator and self-compassion a suitable moderator, compared to other related constructs.

Discussion

Relational strain has been linked to increased risk of depression, although the mechanisms that account for this association have not been fully elaborated. This study examined whether pathways thinking mediates the family strain – depressive symptom relation, and whether self-compassion moderates the mediated effect in a community sample of middle-aged adults. As predicted, pathways served as a partial mediator, such that higher strain predicted lower levels of pathways thinking, which in turn, predicted increases in depressive symptoms. Moreover, self-compassion moderated the pathways – depressive symptoms relation in the mediational chain, such that individuals with lower versus higher levels of self-compassion showed a stronger inverse relation between the two. Taken together, these findings suggest that hope-related cognitions account for some of the relation between family strain and depressive symptoms, but that self-compassion can attenuate the effect of having less hopeful cognitions on psychological distress.

Understanding processes by which stress influences depressive symptoms is an important step in identifying potential targets for intervention. To date, this is the first study to look at the indirect effect of pathways thinking on the family strain – depressive symptoms relation. The findings highlight the importance of cognitive-emotional flexibility to preserve the psychological health of individuals managing relational strain. Indeed, the pathways dimension of hope assesses the extent to which individuals report the capacity to remain flexible in developing a variety of ways to meet goals in the face of obstacles (Snyder, 2002). Stress, including interpersonal strain, presents adults with opportunities to actively pursue, reevaluate, or create new goals (Brandtstädter, 1999). Setting unrealistic goals or being inflexible in altering one’s goal pursuits is a risk factor for depression (Coyne & Gotlib, 1980; Karoly, 1999; Lecci, Okun, & Karoly, 1994). Family strain may force individuals to confront initial unmet goals and ideas regarding family, which can fuel feelings of hopelessness, making it difficult to reevaluate goals, and lead to later depression. In fact, many empirically supported treatments for depression, including behavioral activation, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy, identify goals as an essential component of treatment (Beck, 2011; Hopko, Lejuez, Ruggiero, & Eifert, 2003; Markanday et al., 2012; Snyder et al., 2000). Thus, one direction for future research would be to test whether the negative relation between family strain and hope can be explained by changes in goal pursuits related to family interactions (Ahrens, 1987; Rothbaum, Morling, & Rusk, 2009).

The mediating role of pathways thinking in the strain – depressive symptom relation is also broadly consistent with two theories linking stress and depression. The social risk model posits that the link between social strain and depression is driven by ruminative thinking styles and reduced social interactions (Allen & Badcock, 2003), whereas the hopelessness theory suggests that one common subtype of depression is due to an experience of hopelessness following a negative event or stressor (Abramson et al., 1989). Similar to ruminative thinking and hopelessness, low levels of pathways thinking may interfere with the regulation of emotions and motivational states during interpersonal strain, and thus contribute to subsequent depressive symptoms. From the perspective of the social risk model and hopelessness depression theories, the stress of family strain may limit possible solutions for coping by provoking feelings of self-criticism and reducing motivation to engage in social behaviors, driving increases in depressive symptoms over time.

The current study also examined whether the indirect effect of pathways thinking is conditional on levels of self-compassion and found that self-compassion did not provide a buffer for individuals experiencing greater family strain against thoughts of being unable to derive solutions. However, self-compassion did buffer the relation between these inflexible thoughts and subsequent depression. What can account for this buffering effect? One possibility may that more versus less self-compassionate individuals are able to withhold judgments when they are not sure how to proceed with a problem, limiting rumination and eventually finding alternative solutions in the future. In fact, recent work has found that the link between self-compassion and depression was explained by reduced ruminative tendencies over and above avoidance and acceptance strategies (Bakker, Cox, Hubley, & Owens, 2019). Results reflect recent adaptations of the hopelessness depression theory, positioning hopelessness as a stress generator that contributes to depression (Joiner et al., 2005a; Joiner et al., 2005b). This current study found that self-compassionate people were protected from the detrimental effects of hopelessness on depressive symptoms. The buffering effect of self-compassion on the relation between decreases in pathways thinking and increases in depression is also consistent with Buddhist theories suggesting that self-compassionate individuals relate to negative cognitions through offering kindness to themselves and recognizing their connection to humanity (Neff, 2003a).

Although we hypothesized that self-compassion would buffer the strain – pathways relation, the findings were not consistent with the hypothesis. The lack of this proposed buffering effect is inconsistent with theories of self-compassion, which state that self-compassion should help individuals relate to negative events (family strain) with nonjudgment and kindness. This also contrasts with a recent study that found an indirect effect of cyberbullying victimization on depressive symptoms through hopelessness in adolescents (Chu et al., 2018). Specifically, researchers found that self-compassion buffered the relation between cyberbullying victimization and hopelessness. Finally, these results contrast with initial conceptualizations of the hopelessness theory of depression, which states that individuals who refrain from attributing negative events to personal, global, and stable causes are less likely to experience hopelessness and subsequent depressive symptoms (Abramson et al., 1989). One explanation for the disparate findings may be due to variations in the severity of the stressor in question. Self-compassion is proposed to enact self-soothing mechanisms in the presence of significant threat (Gilbert, 2005), and previous research has found that self-compassion buffers the relation between severe stressors and psychological distress (Vettese, Dyer, Li, & Wekerle, 2011). In the current study, family strain may not have been potent or threatening enough to evoke a need for self-compassion. Rather, the inability to alter one’s goals following the negative event may have been more threatening and thus, evoke a need for self-compassion.

Limitations and Strengths

This study has some key methodological limitations and strengths that deserve comment. With regard to limitations, first, the measures are based on self-report, so that relations among constructs may be due in part to common-method variance. Second, the mediator was measured at the same time point as the predictor, leaving open the possibility that aspects of hope reflecting sustained engagement despite difficulty co-occur with or precede rather than follow the experience of family strain. Third, self-compassion was assessed via a restricted number of items from the Self-kindness and Mindfulness subscales rather than the full Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003a). Fourth, the results of the CFAs for the latent factors reflect inadequate RMSEA values. These findings are likely due to large residuals within the models, which contain both measurement error and unique variance. Fifth, the effects of the moderated mediation were small, possibly due to the focus on a sample that was relatively healthy in terms of psychological functioning. This may have constrained our ability to see stronger effects. However, small effects across time and across large populations can have a large impact on well-being. Sixth, this study found that family strain and hope explained just over a third of the variance in depressive symptoms, meaning there are other factors involved in depressive symptoms that were not addressed. Hopelessness represents one subtype of depression, but there are others, such as endogenomorphic (Klein, 1974) and general depression without hopelessness. Thus, these findings should be framed within a single subtype of depression (hopelessness). Finally, this study focused on a resilience factor, self-compassion, and did not address how vulnerability factors influence the relation between family strain and depressive symptoms. There is extensive research showing that risk factors, such as lack of perceived social support and financial stress moderate the social strain-depressive symptoms relation (Billings, Cronkite, & Moos, 1983; Teo, Choi, & Valenstein, 2013). Future work evaluating a more comprehensive model should include both risk and protective factors.

This study also had a number of notable strengths. Most important, the models tested in the study were theory driven. These constructs had not been empirically evaluated together in the context of interpersonal strain and thus, the results represent an important initial step in the evaluation of how self-compassion may buffer the effects of interpersonal strain on psychological health via hope. The study was longitudinal, allowing us to track depressive symptoms over time in a non-clinical, community sample. With regard to the sample, our purposive sampling strategy resulted in the recruitment of a large sample of middle-aged participants from communities in the Phoenix metropolitan region that was diverse in terms of ethnicity and income. Moreover, the sample included a wide range of ages within middle-adulthood. A focus on understanding middle-age is important as individuals during this phase of life face many stressors through their roles as caretakers, experiencing deaths in the family and other disturbances in their own lives, as well as the lives of their parents and children. Middle-adulthood represents a significant developmental period that has not been a focus of study in the self-compassion literature (Bratt & Fagerström, 2019). Researchers have assumed that self-compassion operates similarly across age, but recent factor analytic studies suggest that aging adults may interpret self-compassion differently than younger adults (Bratt & Fagerström, 2019; Costa, Marôco, Pinto-Gouveia, Ferreira, & Castillo, 2016; López et al., 2015). This study adds to the growing body of literature examining self-compassion in middle-adulthood. Measures included widely-used, validated self-report instruments to quantify key variables, linking the current work with the extant literature. Finally, we also employed an analytic approach that allowed for use of all available data and controlled for both initial depressive symptom levels and potential confounders in the mediation models. Moreover, when the analyses were repeated, including only the participants who completed the follow-up assessment, the mediation findings held.

Future Directions

The findings of the current study point to several potential avenues for future work that can help shed light on when and how self-compassion may promote resilience to stress. First, evaluation of self-compassion-related processes in the context of more severe stressors that more directly provoke self-blame and criticism may prove fruitful based on theory suggesting that self-compassion is evident in the presence of suffering. Second, this study did not examine age differences within middle adulthood, but there are likely to be differences between adults in their early forties (young middle-adulthood) and mid-sixties (older middle-adulthood; Martin, Grünendahl, & Martin, 2011). Adults in the early stages of middle-adulthood are likely to be balancing stressors associated with work, childcare, and family. Those in the later stages of middle-adulthood are likely dealing with issues of retirement, the launching of their children, and aging parents (Schafer & Shippee, 2010). These stressors may evoke different emotional responses and level of utility for self-compassionate responding (Diehl & Hay, 2011).

We chose to test a model that was based on two theories, the social risk model and hopelessness theories of depression. Hope, the key mediator in this study, aligns with both theories. The social risk model of depression states that both a reduction in motivation towards goals and a dysregulation of emotions and cognitions are key mediators linking social stress to depressive symptoms. Hope represents an important cognitive and emotion regulation strategy reflecting one’s ability to generate and maintain motivation to meet goals. It is possible that other mediators may be relevant in the relation between interpersonal strain and depression. Optimism, a construct that overlaps with hope, is one such possibility. However, this study found that optimism was not a significant mediator in the relation between family strain and depressive symptoms. It is also possible that there may be serial mediation involved in the relation between stress and depressive symptoms. The social risk and hopelessness theories suggest that attributions about oneself, others, and the future are precursors to behavioral disengagement and hopeless attitudes (Abramson et al., 1989). Therefore, hope may represent the final mediator in a serial mediation linking strain to depressive symptoms. We did not test for serial mediation in this study, but future research might incorporate attributional style as a second mediator, creating a more nuanced picture of the relation between strain and depressive symptoms.

An additional focus for further inquiry is evaluating whether specific aspects of hope may be especially important in the strain – depressive symptoms relation. The measure of hope used in this study may be targeting the motivational component of the social risk model of depression, given that the questions are framed in terms of goals. Future studies should incorporate other measures that assess the cognitive/emotional aspects of hope. Such measures may help explain more variance in the relation between interpersonal strain and depressive symptoms.

Finally, we chose to test self-compassion as a moderator both for its relevance in the face of suffering, and also for its theoretical potential as a socioemotional regulation factor. Among the facets of self-compassion that appeared most compelling, kindness was considered a key component in dampening hopelessness following a stressor and preventing hopelessness from descending to depression. Studies find that self-kindness alters negative attributional styles about oneself (Johnson & O’Brien, 2013) and that offering kindness to oneself can serve as a self-soothing mechanism in the face of threat and negative affect (Gilbert, 2006; Leary et al., 2007). There may be other moderators that buffer the relation between social strain and depression. For instance, mastery, the feeling that one is capable of making effective change, has been shown to impact the duration of depressive symptoms (Hobfoll & Walfisch, 1986) and the relation between pain and depressive symptoms (Bierman, 2011). The results of the present study found that mastery did not have a conditional indirect effect on the relation between family strain and depressive symptoms. One reason for this may be that self-mastery has been shown to be more predictive depressive symptoms via its influence on positive affect versus negative affect (Burns, Anstey, & Windsor, 2010). In contrast, self-compassion is most apparent in the midst of suffering and thus, important to examine when considering factors involved in depression. Self-esteem, another construct relevant to self-compassion, has been found to change attributions following a negative event, but such attributions are hypothesized to bolster one’s ego, which may reflect a poor emotion regulation strategy in the long term (Gilbert & Irons, 2004; Leary et al., 2007). Nevertheless, future studies might test to see whether self-esteem has similar buffering effects of hopelessness on depression.

This study found that self-compassion moderated the relation between pathways thinking and depressive symptoms, suggesting that instilling self-compassion may protect individuals who experience hopelessness in the face of strain from developing depressive symptoms. There is emerging evidence for the efficacy of implementing self-compassion interventions to decrease psychological distress (Gilbert & Proctor, 2006; Neff & Germer, 2013), and the present findings provide initial evidence for the ways in which a self-compassionate attitude may deter suffering in non-clinical populations. However, additional work testing mechanisms by which self-compassion buffers against stress-related maladaptive cognitions, emotions, and physiological processes are needed to further establish the effectiveness of self-compassion interventions. Additional experimental and observational work can shed light on key issues. Included among the most pressing questions are whether self-compassion can buffer the association between physiological markers of stress and physical and mental health outcomes, whether self-compassionate responding changes as a result of aging, and whether the moderating role of self-compassion varies depending on the nature and/or potency of the stressor.

Conclusion

In summary, the current results expand theories of hopelessness depression to a non-clinical sample of middle-aged adults and point to the possibility that hope may be an important process by which family strain impacts depressive symptoms. Further, they highlight the potential role of self-compassion in the strain – pathways – depressive symptoms mediational chain and suggest that self-compassion may be most effective at limiting the negative consequences of hopeless cognitions associated with family strain.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Kevin Grimm, Ph.D. who provided assistance and guidance with the statistical analyses on this project.

Funding: This research was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (R01AG26005).

References

  1. Abramson LY, Metalsky GI, & Alloy LB (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358–372. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens AH (1987). Theories of depression: The role of goals and the self-evaluation process. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11(6), 665–680. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alarcon GM, Bowling NA, & Khazon S (2013). Great expectations: A meta-analytic examination of optimism and hope. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7), 821–827. [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen AB, & Leary MR (2010). Self-compassion, stress, and coping. Social Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 107–118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Allen NB, & Badcock PBT (2003). The social risk hypothesis of depressed mood: Evolutionary, psychosocial, and neurobiological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 887–913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Allen NB, & Knight WEJ (2005). Mindfulness, compassion for self, and compassion for others: Implications for understanding the psychopathology and treatment of depression. In Gilbert P. (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualisations, research and use in psychotherapy (pp. 239–262). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson JC, & Gerbing DW (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arch JJ, Brown KW, Dean DJ, Landy LN, Brown KD, & Laudenslager ML (2014). Self-compassion training modulates alpha-amylase, heart rate variability, and subjective responses to social evaluative threat in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 42, 49–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Arnau RC, Rosen DH, Finch JF, Rhudy JL, & Fortunato VJ (2007). Longitudinal effects of hope on depression and anxiety: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Personality, 75, 43–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Avison WR, & Turner RJ (1988). Stressful life events and depressive symptoms: Disaggregating the effects of acute stressors and chronic strains. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 253–264. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bakker AM, Cox DW, Hubley AM, & Owens RL (2018). Emotion regulation as a mediator of self-compassion and depressive symptoms in recurrent depression. Mindfulness, 10(6), 1169–1180. [Google Scholar]
  12. Barnard LK, & Curry JF (2011). Self-compassion: Conceptualizations, correlates, & interventions. Review of General Psychology, 15, 289–303. [Google Scholar]
  13. Beck JS (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bierman A (2011). Pain and depression in late life: Mastery as mediator and moderator. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66(5), 595–604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Billings AG, Cronkite RC, & Moos RH (1983). Social-environmental factors in unipolar depression: Comparisons of depressed patients and nondepressed controls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92(2), 119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Brach T (2004). Radical acceptance: Embracing your life with the heart of a Buddha. New York, NY: Bantam Books. [Google Scholar]
  17. Braiker H, & Kelly H (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In Burgess R, & Huston TL (Eds.) Social Exchange and Developing Relationship (pp. 135–168). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  18. Brandtstädter J (1999). The self in action and development. Action and Self-Development, 37–65. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bratt A, & Fagerström C (2019). Self-compassion in old age: Confirmatory factor analysis of the 6-factor model and the internal consistency of the Self-compassion scale-short form. Aging & Mental Health, 1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Breines JG, Thomas MV, Gianferante D, Hanlin L, Chen X, & Rohleder N (2014). Self-compassion as a predictor of Interleukin-6 response to acute psychosocial stress. Brain Behavior Immunology, 37, 109–114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Burns RA, Anstey KJ, & Windsor TD (2011). Subjective well-being mediates the effects of resilience and mastery on depression and anxiety in a large community sample of young and middle-aged adults. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45(3), 240–248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Carson JW, Keefe FJ, Lynch TR, Carson KM, Goli V, Fras AM, & Thorp SR (2005). Loving-kindness meditation for chronic low back pain: Results from a pilot trial. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 23(3), 287–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Chu XW, Fan CY, Liu QQ, & Zhou ZK (2018). Cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and anxiety among Chinese adolescents: Examining hopelessness as a mediator and self-compassion as a moderator. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 377–386. [Google Scholar]
  24. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2017). 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Methodological Summary and Definitions. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. [Google Scholar]
  25. Costa J, Marôco J, Pinto-Gouveia J, Ferreira C, & Castillo P (2016). Validation of the psychometric properties of the Self-Compassion Scale. Testing the factorial validity and factorial invariance of the measure among borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorder, eating disorder, and general populations. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 23(5), 460–468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Coyne JC, & Gotlib IH (1983). The role of cognition in depression: A critical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 472. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Cramer KM, & Dyrkacz L (1998). Differential prediction of maladjustment scores with the Snyder hope subscales. Psychological Reports, 83(3), 1035–1042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Davis MC, Lemery-Chalfant K, Yeung EW, Luecken L, Zaurtra AJ, & Irwin MR, (2018). Interleukin-6 and depressive mood symptoms: Mediators of the association between childhood abuse and cognitive performance in middle-aged adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53, 29–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Dean A, Kolody B, & Wood P (1990). Effects of social support from various sources on depression in elderly persons. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31(2), 148–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Diehl M, & Hay EL (2010). Risk and resilience factors in coping with daily stress in adulthood: The role of age, self-concept incoherence, and personal control. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1132–1146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Dobson KS, & Dozois DJA (2008). Risk Factors in Depression. San Diego, CA: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dragt M (2017). PRODUCT V3 Model 14 MAC Graphing Moderated Mediation. Retrieved from http://www.md2c.nl/graphing-conditional-indirect-effects/
  33. Dunn JC, Whelton WJ, & Sharpe D (2012). Retreating to safety: Testing the social risk hypothesis model of depression. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 746–758. [Google Scholar]
  34. Elliott TR, Witty TE, Herrick SM, & Hoffman JT (1991). Negotiating reality after physical loss: Hope, depression, and disability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 608–613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Enders C Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  36. Finch JF, Okun MA, Barrera MJ, Zautra AJ, & Reich JW (1989). Positive and negative social ties among older adults: Measurement models and the prediction of psychological distress and well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 585–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Fiori KL, Antonucci TC, & Cortina KS (2006). Social network typologies and mental health among older adults. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61, P25–P32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Frone MR, Russell M, & Cooper ML (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–335. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gilbert P (2005). Compassion and cruelty: A biopsychosocial approach. In Compassion: Conceptualizations, research and use in psychotherapy (pp. 21–86). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilbert P (2014). The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 6–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gilbert P, & Irons C (2004). A pilot exploration of the use of compassionate images in a group of self-critical people. Memory, 12, 507–516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Gilbert P, & Proctor S (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379. [Google Scholar]
  43. Goldstein J, & Kornfield J (1987). Seeking the heart of wisdom. Boston, MA: Shambala. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hickey T, Nelson B, & Meadows G (2017). Application of a mindfulness and compassion-based approach to the at-risk mental state. Clinical Psychologist, 21(2), 104–115. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hobfoll SE, & Walfisch S (1986). Stressful events, mastery, and depression: An evaluation of crisis theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(2), 183–195. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hopko DR, Lejuez CW, Ruggiero KJ, & Eifert GH (2003). Contemporary behavioral activation treatments for depression: Procedures, principles, and progress. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(5), 699–717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Joiner TE, & Metalsky GI (2001). Excessive reassurance seeking: Delineating a risk factor involved in the development of depressive symptoms. Psychological Science, 12, 371–378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Joiner TE, Wingate LR, Gencoz T, & Gencoz F (2005a). Stress generation in depression: Three studies on its resilience, possible mechanism, and symptom specificity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 236–253. [Google Scholar]
  50. Joiner TE, Wingate LR, & Otamendi A (2005b). An interpersonal addendum to the hopelessness theory of depression: Hopelessness as a stress and depression generator. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 649–664. [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnson EA, & O’Brien KA (2013). Self-compassion soothes the savage ego-threat system: Effects on negative affect, shame, rumination, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(4), 939–963. [Google Scholar]
  52. Karoly P (1999). A goals systems – self-regulatory perspective on personality, psychopathology, and change. Review of General Psychology, 3, 264–291. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kendler K, Hettema J, Butera F, Gardner C, & Prescott C (2003). Life event dimensions of loss, humiliation, entrapment, and danger, in the prediction of onsets of major depression and generalized anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 789–796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Klein DF (1974). Endogenomorphic depression: Conceptual and terminological revision. Archives of General Psychiatry, 31, 447–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Krause N, & Rook KS (2003). Negative interaction in late life: Issues in the stability and generalizability of conflict across relationships. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 53, P88–P99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Krieger T, Altenstein D, Baettig I, Doerig N, & Holtforth MG (2013). Self-compassion in depression: Associations with depressive symptoms, rumination, and avoidance in depressed outpatients. Behavior Therapy, 44(3), 501–513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. 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, 887–904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lecci L, Okun MA, & Karoly P (1994). Life regrets and current goals as predictors of psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 731–741. [Google Scholar]
  59. Li LW, & Liang J (2007). Social exchanges and subjective well-being among older Chinese: Does age make a difference? Psychological Aging, 22, 386–391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. López A, Sanderman R, Smink A, Zhang Y, van Sonderen E, Ranchor A, & Schroevers MJ (2015). A reconsideration of the Self-Compassion Scale’s total score: Self-compassion versus self-criticism. PloS One, 10(7), e0132940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. MacBeth A, & Gumley A (2012). Exploring compassion: A meta-analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopathology, Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 545–552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Markanday S, Data-Franco J, Dyson L, Murrant S, Arbuckle C, McGilvray J, & Berk M (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy for treatment-resistant depression. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 46(2), 1198–1199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Martin M, Grünendahl M, & Martin P (2001). Age differences in stress, social resources, and well-being in middle and older age. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(4), 214–222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. McEwen BS (2004). Protection and damage from acute and chronic stress: Allostasis and allostatic overload and relevance to the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1032, 1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Muris P, & Petrocchi N (2017). Protection or vulnerability? A meta-analysis of the relations between the positive and negative components of self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 24, 373–383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012. [Google Scholar]
  67. Neff KD (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  68. Neff KD (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. [Google Scholar]
  69. Neff KD (2009). Self-compassion. In: Leary MR, & Hoyle RH (Eds.) Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 561–573). New York, NY: Guildford Publications [Google Scholar]
  70. Neff KD, & Germer CK (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 28–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Neff KD, Hsieh YP, & Dejitterat K (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263–287. [Google Scholar]
  72. Neff KD, Kirkpatrick KL, & Rude SS (2007). Self-compassion and adaptive psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 139–154. [Google Scholar]
  73. Neff KD, & Pommier E (2013). The relationship between self-compassion and other-focused concern among college undergraduates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self and Identity, 12(2), 160–176. [Google Scholar]
  74. Okun MA, & Keith VM (1998). Effects of positive and negative social exchanges with various sources on depressive symptoms in younger and older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 53, P4–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Pearlin LI (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337–356. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Pearlin LI, & Schooler C (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Peleg G, Barak O, Harel Y, Rochberg J, & Hoofien D (2009). Hope, dispositional optimism and severity of depression following traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 23(10), 800–808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Raes F (2010). Rumination and worry as mediators of the relationship between self-compassion and depression and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 757–761. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rothbaum F, Morling B, & Rusk N (2009). How goals and beliefs lead people into and out of depression. Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 302–314. [Google Scholar]
  80. Santini ZI, Koyanagi A, Tyrovolas S, Mason C, & Haro JM (2015). The association between social relationships and depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175, 53–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Schafer MH, & Shippee TP (2010). Age identity in context: Stress and the subjective side of aging. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 245–264. [Google Scholar]
  82. Scheier MF, Carver CS, & Bridges MW (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, & King J (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Education Research, 99(6), 323–338. [Google Scholar]
  84. Schuster TL, Kessler RC, & Aseltine RH (1990). Supportive interactions, negative interactions, and depressed mood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 423–438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Shorey HS, & Snyder CR (2004). The revised Domain Specific Hope Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Lawrence: Department of Psychology, University of Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  86. Sirois FM, Molnar DS, & Hirsch JK (2015). Self-compassion, stress, and coping in the context of chronic illness. Self and Identity, 14(3), 334–347. [Google Scholar]
  87. Snyder CR (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York, NY: The Third Press. [Google Scholar]
  88. Snyder CR (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows of the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275. [Google Scholar]
  89. Snyder CR (2004). Hope and depression: A light in the darkness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 347–351. [Google Scholar]
  90. Snyder CR, Feldman DB, Taylor JD, Schroeder LL, & Adams VH III (2000). The roles of hopeful thinking in preventing problems and enhancing strengths. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 9(4), 249–269. [Google Scholar]
  91. Snyder CR, Rand KL, & Sigmon DR (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In Snyder CR, & Lopez SJ(Eds.). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–276). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  92. Snyder CR, Sympson SC, Ybasco FC, Borders. TF, Babyak MA, & Higgins RL (1996). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 321–335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Teo AR, Choi H, & Valenstein M (2013). Social relationships and depression: Ten-year follow-up from a nationally representative study. PloS One, 8(4), e62396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Thomas PA, Liu H, & Umberson D (2017). Family relationships and well-being. Innovation in Aging, igx025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Umberson D, & Montez JK (2010). Social relationships for health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, S54–S66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Umphrey LR, & Sherblom JC (2014). The relationship of hope to self-compassion, relational social skill, communication apprehension, and life satisfaction. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  97. U.S. Census Bureau. (2018, July 1). Quick Facts: Maricopa County, Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/maricopacountyarizona,US/PST045218
  98. Veit CT, & Ware JE Jr. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 730–742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Vettese LC, Dyer CE, Li WL, & Wekerle C (2011). Does self-compassion mitigate the association between childhood maltreatment and later emotion regulation difficulties? A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9(5), 480–491. [Google Scholar]
  100. Walen HR, & Lachman ME (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 5–30. [Google Scholar]
  101. Whisman MA (2007). Marital distress and DSM-IV psychiatric disorders in a population-based national survey. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 638–643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Williams MJ, Dalgleish T, Karl A, & Kruyken W (2014). Examining the factor structure of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire and the self-compassion scale. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 407–446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. The World Health Organization. (2008). The global burden of disease: 2004 update. In Table A2: Annual Estimates of the Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (pp. 62). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_AnnexA.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  104. Yang YC, Schorpp K, & Mullan Harris K (2014). Social support, social strain and inflammation: Evidence from a national longitudinal study of U.S. adults. Social Science & Medicine, 107, 124–135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Zautra AJ, Hall JS, & Murray KE (2008). Resilience: A new integrative approach to health and mental health research. Health Psychology Review, 2, 41–64. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material
NIHMS1057461-supplement-Supplemental_Material.docx (16KB, docx)

RESOURCES