ارتباطات خوددلسوزی و جهانی عزت نفس با عاطفه مثبت و منفی و واکنش استرس در زندگی روزانه: یافته هایی از مطالعه تلفن های هوشمند
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38928||2015||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4765 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 87, December 2015, Pages 288–292
Abstract The present study examined trait self-compassion and trait self-esteem in relation to positive (PA) and negative affect (NA), as well as their associations with stress reactivity in daily life. One hundred and one subjects completed questionnaires on perceived stress and affect twice a day for 14 consecutive days on smart phones. Results indicated that self-compassion and global self-esteem were positively related to PA and negatively to NA. After controlling for self-esteem, self-compassion remained significantly associated with PA and NA, whereas self-esteem was no longer associated with PA and NA after controlling for self-compassion. Furthermore, results indicated that self-compassion buffered the effect of stress on NA, whereas this was not the case for global self-esteem. Neither self-compassion nor self-esteem moderated the relation of stress on PA in separate models. The results of the present study add to the growing literature regarding beneficial relations of self-compassion and psychological well-being and further emphasize the distinction of self-compassion and global self-esteem.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results 2.1. Descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses Regarding level 2 variables, there were no outliers in SC (M = 3.23, SD = 0.56, skew = − 0.12, kurtosis = − 0.28) and GSE (M = 2.40, SD = 0.47, skew = − 0.84, kurtosis = 0.39) as defined by a deviation greater than three SDs from the mean. A total of 2408 valid data points were collected from the 101 participants. Although there are no common rules to rate compliance with a diary protocol ( Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008), protocol compliance in the present study can be judged as ‘satisfactory’ (completion rate = 85%). The mean amount of data points per person was 23.8 (SD = 3.7, range = 7–28). Of all entries, 1729 (71.8%) were entered on a weekday (vs. weekend) and 1212 (50.3%) were entered at midday (vs. evening). Regarding level 1 variables, mean PA was 2.98 (SD = 0.75, skew = − 0.02, kurtosis = − 0.15), mean NA was 1.55 (SD = 0.62, skew = 1.49, kurtosis = 2.21), and mean stress level was 1.32 (SD = 1.07, skew = 1.11, kurtosis = 1.31). Participants experienced significantly more PA on weekend days than on weekdays (weekend: M = 3.05 (0.77); weekdays: M = 2.95 (0.74); p = .007), whereas there was no significant difference between NA experienced on weekdays and weekend-days (weekend: M = 1.55 (0.64); weekdays: M = 1.56 (0.62); p = .691). Participants reported significantly more PA in the evening than at midday (midday: M = 2.95 (0.75); evening: M = 3.01 (0.76); p = .039), whereas there was no significant difference for NA (midday: M = 1.57 (0.63); evening: M = 1.54 (0.62); p = .371). The percentage of variability in the repeated variables attributable to between-person influences was 41% in NA, 37% in PA, and 57% in stress. These ICCs suggested that level 2 variance has to be considered for the analysis of the present data. 2.2. Associations between self-compassion, self-esteem and affect and stress As in previous studies, SC and GSE were significantly positively correlated (r = .69, p < .001). Table 1 gives an overview of the associations of SC and GSE with NA, PA, and Stress. Separate multilevel analyses revealed that both SC and GSE were significantly negatively associated with NA and perceived stress. Furthermore, SC and GSE were significantly positively associated with PA. We reran the above analyses including both constructs in the same model in order to partition out the shared variance of SC and GSE. Results indicated that SC remained significantly associated with NA and PA, but not with perceived stress. In contrast, GSE was no longer associated with any of the variables. Table 1. Associations of self-compassion and global self-esteem with affect, and perceived stress. NA B (SE) PA B (SE) Stress B (SE) SC − 0.343 (0.059)⁎⁎⁎ 0.274 (0.100)⁎⁎ − 0.367 (0.144)⁎ GSE − 0.391 (0.101)⁎⁎⁎ 0.233 (0.118)⁎ − 0.487 (0.222)⁎ SC (Controlled for each other) − 0.214 (0.091)⁎ 0.261 (0.126)⁎ − 0.153 (0.183) GSE − 0.218 (0.148) 0.022 (0.144) − 0.363 (0.294) Note. SC = self-compassion. GSE = global self-esteem. NA = negative affect. PA = positive affect. B = unstandardized betas in models with SC/GSE as independent variables and NA, PA and stress as dependent variables. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. Table options 2.3. Stress reactivity In a model predicting NA by stress and another model predicting PA by stress, there was significant variability in slopes between participants (random slope coefficient for NA by stress: 0.028, SE = 0.009, p = .001; random slope coefficient for PA by stress: 0.029, SE = 0.011, p = .006). These findings were corroborated by comparing fit indices of models without and with a random slope (NANoRandomSlope: BIC = 3257.9; NARandomSlope: BIC = 3180.9; PANoRandomSlope: BIC = 4638.5; PARandomSlope: BIC = 4614.3) and indicated that there is significant variance in the slope between stress and affect that can be explained by level 2 variables. With regard to NA, Table 2 gives an overview for the analyses of stress reactivity. Results indicated that the cross-level interaction effect of SC × stress is significant, whereas this was not the case for the GSE × stress interaction 4. Separate models with only one level 2 variable corroborated the results of the combined model (SC × stress: B = − 0.123, SE = 0.049, p = .013; GSE × stress: B = − 0.068, SE = 0.047, p = .145). Table 2. Estimates of fixed effects of multilevel models predicting negative affect (NA). B SE 95%-CI ES Level 1 Intercept 1.203⁎⁎⁎ 0.030 1.143 to 1.262 Stress 0.275⁎⁎⁎ 0.022 0.232 to 0.318 Level 2 GSE − 0.169 0.087 − 0.339 to 0.001 SC − 0.013 0.071 − 0.153 to 0.127 Cross-level interactions GSE × stress 0.068 0.069 − 0.067 to 0.203 4.2% SC × stress − 0.161⁎⁎ 0.069 − 0.296 to − 0.026 11.5% Note. NA = negative affect. GSE = self-esteem. SC = self-compassion. 95%-CI = lower and upper bounds within a 95% confidence interval. ES = effect size. Effect sizes represent the percentage reduction of random slope variance and were calculated relative to a model without the respective interaction. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. Table options A simple slope test for the significant interaction between SC and perceived stress revealed that among participants with low levels of SC (− 1 SD), stress was significantly positively related to NA (slope = .344, t(97) = 8.06, p < .001). Among participants with high levels of SC (+ 1 SD), there was also a significant, but weaker positive relation between stress and NA (slope = .208, t(97) = 8.28, p < .001) (see Fig. 1). Relation between perceived stress and negative affect as a function of ... Fig. 1. Relation between perceived stress and negative affect as a function of self-compassion. Figure options With regard to PA, in a combined model, there was a significant cross-level interaction effect for SC × stress (B = 0.127, SE = 0.062, p = .042) and not for GSE × stress (B = − 0.118, SE = 0.073, p = .103) on PA. However, testing separate models revealed that neither SC (B = 0.054, SE = 0.039, p = .163) nor GSE (B = − 0.013, SE = 0.049, p = .782) moderated the relation of stress on PA. Therefore, the results of the combined model are probably driven by a suppression effect.