Extending compassion towards the self versus fearing self-compassion: Which is advantageous for young women athletes' psychological flourishing in sport?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging findings suggest that relating to oneself compassionately (i.e., self-compassion; Neff, 2003) is associated with young women athletes’ psychological flourishing (Ferguson et al., 2011). However, athletes have expressed reservations about fully embracing self-compassion and are hesitant to give up self-criticism (Ferguson et al., 2013; Mosewich et al., 2013). We explored relations among self-compassion, fear of self-compassion, self-criticism, and psychological flourishing in sport among young women athletes (N = 137; Mage = 19.04 years). Self-compassion was negatively related (all p < .05) to self-critical reactions in challenging sport situations (r = -.53) and positively related to indices of psychological flourishing in sport, such as autonomy, body appreciation, and vitality (rs = .20 – .48). In contrast, fear of self-compassion was positively associated with self-critical reactions in sport (r = .42) and negatively associated with flourishing in sport (rs = -.20 – -.41). Data were consistent with models of mediation whereby (1) self-compassion linked to greater flourishing through decreased self-criticism (Rs = .06 – .07), and (2) fear of self-compassion negatively linked with flourishing through greater self-criticism (Rs = .07 – .09). Findings support claims that self-critical people have a fear of being kind and affiliative to themselves (Gilbert et al., 2011), which is important given that extending compassion toward the self may facilitate psychological flourishing in sport. Future research is needed to explore how athletes can overcome fears of self-compassion, and identify mechanisms that explain how self-compassion might contribute to flourishing in sport.Acknowledgments: Supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".