Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from PsyCh Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
PsyCh Journal, 2024; 0:1–13
https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.817
1 of 13
PsyCh Journal
ORIGINAL ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS
The Effects of Mindfulness on Shame: Exploring Mediation
by Cognitive Flexibility and Self- Compassion in a Chinese
Adult Population
XiaoshuoZhang1,2 | JinghongWang1,2 | YuzhengWang1,2 | JinyanWang1,2 | FeiLuo1,2
1CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Beijing, People's Republic of China | 2Department of Ps ychology, University of Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China
Correspondence: Yuzheng Wang (wangyz@psych.ac.cn)
Received: 30 June 2024 | Revised: 23 October 2024 | Accepted: 24 October 2024
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Keywords: cognitive flexibility| mindfulness| self- compassion| shame
ABSTRACT
To examine the effects of mindfulness on shame and the mechanisms mediated by cognitive flexibility and self- compassion in
a Chinese adult population in daily life, we conducted two studies. Study 1 was a cross- sectional study using the Five- Factor
Mindfulness Questionnaire, the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory, the Self- Compassion Scale, and the Self- Conscious Affect- 3, which
were administered to 481 adults in Beijing and Chengdu. For Study 2, an 8- month follow- up study was conducted on 128 of the
adults. The results of Study 1 showed that (1) the awareness of action and nonjudgment dimensions, and the total score of mind-
fulness were significantly correlated with shame; (2) cognitive flexibility and self- compassion could fully mediate the prediction of
mindfulness on shame. The Study 2 showed that (1) mindfulness and shame were significantly negatively correlated in both phases
of measurement; (2) controlling for T1 shame, T1 mindfulness was able to negatively predict T2 shame; controlling for T1 mindful-
ness, T1 shame was not able to predict T2 mindfulness. There is a longitudinal association between mindfulness and shame, and
only mindfulness scores are predictive of the shame and not vice- versa; both cognitive f lexibility and self- compassion can prov ide ex-
planations for the prediction of shame by mindfulness. Enhancing levels of mindfulness can help alleviate individuals' shame levels.
1 | Introduction
1.1 | Shame and Mindfulness
With the increasing development of digitalization and the
Internet, various social media and short video platforms have
become indispensable social tools in people's lives, and have
made the interaction between individuals and society closer
(China Internet Network Information Center 2024). Some
scholars have suggested that shame is related to excessive
use of social media (Fioravanti et al. 2023; Gioia, Griffiths,
and Boursier 2020). In modern society, where the criteria for
evaluating individuals have become increasingly diverse, in-
dividuals may experience shame when they feel they have
not met these standards (Lewis1971). Social media platforms
provide a stage for self- presentation and evaluation of others,
and this interactive model increases the opportunities for in-
dividuals to be judged, thereby raising the risk of not meeting
these evaluative criteria and potentially exacerbating the ex-
perience of shame. For example, since esthetic standards are
often not unified, an individual may experience body shame if
they internalize these unattainable standards as measures of
their own worth (Kim, Seo, and Baek2014). Therefore, while
social media provides immediate and abundant information
This is a n open access ar ticle under the terms of t he Creative Commons Attr ibution License, which p ermits use, dis tribution and repro duction in any medium, p rovided the orig inal work is
properly cited.
© 2024 T he Author(s). PsyCh Journal publish ed by Institute of Ps ychology, Chinese A cademy of Sciences an d John Wiley & Sons Aust ralia, Ltd.
Xiaoshuo Z hang and Jinghon g Wang contributed equ ally to this work a nd share first aut horship.
2 of 13 PsyCh Journal, 2024
resources, it also exposes people to the possibility of shame at
any time.
Shame is a self- conscious emotion (SCE), which arises when
an individual develops an awareness of the self and is gen-
erated through self- awareness, self- evaluation, and self-
reflection (Lewis 1995). According to the attribution theory
of emotions, SCE occurs when individuals attribute the cause
of a triggering event to something within themselves (Lewis,
Haviland- Jones, and Barrett2008; Tangney and Dearing2002;
Weiner 1985). Shame occurs when the event is inconsistent
with the individual's goals and the focus of the internal at-
tribution is a negative evaluation of the “self,” and guilt oc-
curs when the focus of the internal attribution is a negative
evaluation of the behavior the self has done (Lewis 1971).
Although both shame and guilt are emotional states that in-
dividuals do not want to experience or even loathe, they dif-
fer in both emotional experience and behavioral tendencies
(Tangney and Dearing 2002). Shame is more likely to lead
to distress and a range of psychological problems. In recent
years, a number of systematic reviews and meta- analyses
have confirmed that compared to guilt, shame is associated
with anxiety (Candea and Szentagotai- Tata2018), depression
(Kim, Thibodeau, and Jorgensen 2011), self- mutilation/self-
harm (Sheehy etal.2019), social anxiety (Swee, Hudson, and
Heimberg 2021), etc. Some data also suggest that shame is
positively associated with alcohol and drug abusing problems
(Dearing, Stuewig, and Tangney 2005), and eating disorders
(Kelly and Carter2013). Managing and intervening in shame
is evidently crucial for everyone in modern society. Therefore,
this study focuses on and explores shame and its interventions.
Mindfulness is the purposeful, nonjudgmental awareness of
the here and now experience (Kabat- Zinn 2003), which em-
phasizes awareness of the current experience and promotes
a nonjudgmental attitude that allows all experiences to exist
naturally. Mindfulness has been repeatedly validated for its
benefits in improving emotion regulation (González- Martín
et al. 2023; Hofmann et al. 2010) and improving physical
and mental health (Keng, Smoski, and Robins 2011; Liu
etal.2022). Mindfulness can also reduce negative emotions.
A meta- analysis indicates that compared to control groups,
mindfulness interventions can better improve anxiety and
depression emotions (Shi etal. 2023). A systematic review of
shame interventions describes the major approaches avail-
able to intervene with shame, which include mindfulness,
cognitive behavioral therapy, and self- compassion therapy
(Goffnett, Liechty, and Kidder 2020). The utility of mindful-
ness for reducing shame has been demonstrated in various
groups: 8 weeks of mindfulness cognitive therapy reduced
shame tendencies in anxious and depressed patients (Proeve,
Anton, and Kenny 2018); infertility patients who underwent
10 weeks of mindfulness training also had reduced shame
(Galhardo, Cunha, and Pinto- Gouveia2013); and mindfulness
stress- reduction therapy was effective at reducing shame in
posttraumatic stress disorder patients (Goldsmith etal.2 014).
A 9- week mindfulness- based trauma recovery for refugees
reduced shame in trauma recovery among African asylum-
seekers (Oren- Schwartz etal. 2022). All of these studies ex-
emplify the effectiveness of mindfulness as an intervention
for shame. However, these studies were mostly conducted
in Western countries and were targeted at heterogeneous
populations.
Although the mitigating effects of different interventions based
on mindfulness on shame have been supported by the results of
many studies, the mechanisms involved in the onset of the effects
are currently inconclusive. Lindsay and Creswell(2017) proposed
that mindfulness training would help individuals engage in the
direct experience of internal and external feelings in the present
moment without getting caught up in overthinking by focusing
attention on the awareness of moment- to- moment experiences in
a nonjudgmental manner (Teasdale, Segal, and Williams 1995).
This approach is diametrically opposed to the shame- driven
avoidance of current experience and a comprehensive and nega-
tive evaluation of the self (Tangney, Wagner, and Gramzow1992).
Therefore, it is hypothesized that such a process can reduce the
rejection of current experiences and the denial of the self in
shame- prone individuals, thereby alleviating shame levels.
Hypothesis 1. Mindfulness negatively predicts shame.
1.2 | The Mediating Role of Cognitive Flexibility
and Self- Compassion
Cognitive flexibility is an individual's ability to respond flex-
ibly and adaptively in the face of different stimuli or changes
in the environment (Dennis and Vander Wal 2010). A study
with a group of college students showed that higher cognitive
flexibility was associated with lower shame after experiencing
a potentially morally harmful event (Cenkner, Usman, and
Zalt a 2023). Moreover, lower levels of cognitive f lexibility sig-
nificantly increased the likelihood of belonging to the shame
prominent profile (Cenkner, Held, and Zalta2024). Mindfulness
has been found to be significantly and positively correlated with
cognitive flexibility (Moore and Malinowski2009). A neurosci-
entific systematic review of mindfulness interventions has pre-
liminarily confirmed that mindfulness training could enhance
cognitive flexibility (Lao, Kissane, and Meadows2016). Bishop
etal.(2004) suggested that mindfulness is operationally defined
as the self- regulation of attention and orientation to the experi-
ence. Being cognitive flexible is considered an important compo -
nent of self- regulation of attention (Zou etal.2020). Some studies
have further suggested that the improvement of cognitive flex-
ibility is an important mechanism through which mindfulness
alleviates negative emotions. For example, Shapero etal.(2018)
found that mindfulness training can alleviate depression by en-
hancing cognitive flexibility in patients with depression. Yousefi
Afrashteh and Hasani (2022) found that cognitive f lexibility
played a mediating role in the effect of mindfulness on the men-
tal health in adolescents. Wen etal.(2021) indicated that cogni-
tive flexibility mediated the effect of mindfulness on stress and
anxiety in elementary school students. Therefore, mindfulness
could enable individuals to shift cognitive sets more flexibly in
response to the changing external and internal stimuli, resulting
in less negative emotional reactivity or more adaptive emotion
regulation (Moore and Malinowski2009; Wen etal.2021). Thus,
we predict that the level of cognitive flexibility plays a key role
in the predictive effect of mindfulness on shame. That is, indi-
viduals with high levels of mindfulness possess higher cognitive
flexibility and have lower levels of shame.
3 of 13
Hypothesis 2. Cognitive flexibility mediates the relationship
between mindfulness and shame.
According to Bishop et al. (2004), mindfulness is the process
of attending to the present moment and the self with open-
ness and acceptance, and this process is an adaptive behavior.
Self- compassion is the ability to hold adaptive attention to the
self in difficult situations (Neff 2003a). Mindfulness and self-
compassion both emphasize the awareness of present experi-
ences and approach both oneself and these experiences with
a nonjudgmental attitude. However, their core focuses are dif-
ferent. The core focus of mindfulness is on the awareness and
acceptance of present experiences, which may be good, bad, or
neutral. Self- compassion, on the other hand, is more about being
aware of one's own needs when facing suffering and provid-
ing oneself with warmth and support (Neff and Germer2013).
Regardless of the situation, the prerequisite for self- compassion
is that an individual can recognize they are in pain (Neff2023).
In other words, mindfulness is the foundation that allows an in-
dividual to alleviate shame through self- compassion. Some re-
search has confirmed that Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction
Therapy can enhance an individual's level of self- compassion
(Barnard and Curry 2011). According to Neff's (2003b) defi-
nition, self- compassion consists of three components: self-
kindness, the sense of common humanity, and mindfulness.
Mosewich et al. (2011) argued that these three dimensions
contrasted with the trait of shame: (1) shame- prone individuals
often focus on their own flaws and mistakes (Lewis 1995) and
rarely express kindness to the self; (2) they are overly focused on
the self that experiences failures (Lewis 1995), while the sense
of common humanity emphasizes the fact that everybody will
fail or make mistakes; (3) they will overly deny themselves be-
cause of their failures (Tangney and Dearing2002), and mind-
fulness in self- compassion emphasizes not overidentifying with
the experience of the present moment. Therefore, in addition
to mindfulness intervention, self- compassion is also an im-
portant way to regulate shame (Gilbert2009; Goffnett, Liechty,
and Kidder 2020; Westerman, McCann, and Sparkes 2020).
Kelly and Waring (2018) reported a reduction in shame levels
in anorexia nervosa patients after 2 weeks of self- compassionate
letter- writing. Highly shamed college students also experi-
enced a significant reduction in shame after 16 days of self-
compassionate letter- writing (Swee etal. 2023). In the general
nonclinical patient population, Fink- Lamotte et al. (2023) also
confirmed that self- compassion exercises are an important in-
tervention for reducing shame. Previous studies have found
that self- compassion mediates the effect of mindfulness on
shame (Sedighimornani2019; Woods and Proeve 2014). That
is, mindfulness decreases shame by enhancing individuals' self-
compassion. Therefore, we hypothesize that self- compassion
plays a key role in the effects of mindfulness on shame.
Hypothesis 3. Self- compassion mediates the relationship be-
tween mindfulness and shame.
In addition to this, some studies have also found a relationship
between cognitive flexibility and self- compassion (Martin,
Staggers, and Anderson2011; Okan Er and Den Z2022; Zeidan
et al. 2015). Neff and McGehee (2010) had a research on col-
lege students, and it has found that family and cognitive fac-
tors were identified as predictors of individual differences in
self- compassion. That is, college students who can recall warm
and supportive caregivers tend to have higher levels of self-
compassion. We believe that individuals with high cognitive
flexibility have more cognitive resources and are more likely to
retrieve these support ive memories when facing di fficulties, thus
they are more likely to have higher levels of self- compassion. If
an individual has low cognitive f lexibility, even if they have such
supportive memories, they may not be able to access them in
times of distress to help themselves, making it difficult for them
to have a good capacity for self- compassion. We suggest that
direct experience and thorough observation of experiences can
help individuals develop higher cognitive flexibility. This allows
individuals to have more solutions in difficult situations, includ-
ing self- compassion, an adaptive way of being kind to oneself,
instead of harsh self- criticism (Marshall and Brockman2016).
Cognitive flexibility also helps individuals realize that everyone
encounters difficulties, rather than believing that they are the
only ones suffering misfortune, which means that their capacity
for self- compassion is enhanced. Based on this:
Hypothesis 4. Cognitive flexibility and self- compassion play
a chain- mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness
and shame.
1.3 | The Predictive Effect of Mindfulness
on Shame
As mentioned earlier, there have been several cross- sectional
studies validating the negative correlation between mindfulness
and shame (Sedighimornani2019; Brem etal.2017; Woods and
Proeve 2 014). There have also been experimental studies vali-
dating the impact of mindfulness on shame in clinical interven-
tions (Galhardo, Cunha, and Pinto- Gouveia 2013; Goldsmith
et al. 2014; Proeve, Anton, and Kenny 2018; Westerman,
McCann, and Sparkes2020; Oren- Schwartz et al. 2022). All of
these studies reflect that mindfulness is one of the factors that
influence the level of shame. However, these studies mainly
focused on Western countries where English is the native lan-
guage, limiting their applicability in the Chinese region. Qian,
Liu, and Zhu (2001) found that Chinese college students ex-
perienced shame without a strong sense of insignificance, but
still accompanied by painful emotional and physical reactions.
Otherwise, most of the subjects were special clinical patients,
limiting their applicability to the general population in everyday
situations. Some researchers have begun to focus on the influ-
ence of mindfulness on shame in Chinese adolescent popula-
tions (Zhang etal.2023). Considering the characteristics of the
subject group and the definition of shame in different cultures,
we will test the longitudinal relations in the Chinese general
adult population in daily life.
Hypothesis 5. Mindfulness remains an influential cause of
shame in the Chinese general adult population.
We conduct two studies to investigate the effects of mindfulness
on shame and to elucidate the mechanisms through which cogni-
tive flexibility and self- compassion contribute to this relationship.
Study 1 tests the relationship between mindfulness and shame
through a cross- sectional study, and the chain- mediated role of
cognitive flexibility and self- compassion in it. Study 2 examines
4 of 13 PsyCh Journal, 2024
the longitudinal relations between mindfulness and shame
through a longitudinal study lasting 8 months. This research
aims to explore the predictive effect of mindfulness on shame to
provide more representative, stable, and generalizable findings,
and offer ideas for finding more targeted means to effectively in-
tervene with shame.
2 | Study 1
Study 1 tests the relationship between mindfulness and shame
through a cross- sectional study and the mediating role of cogni-
tive f lexibility and self- compassion.
2.1 | Method
2.1.1 | Participants and Procedure
This study adopts convenient sampling method to conduct on-
line questionnaire survey among adults in Beijing, Chengdu,
and other places. After eliminating invalid questionnaires such
as incorrect answers and regular answers, the valid sample
was 481 people. The age of the subjects ranged from 18 to 45
(26.14 ± 6.46) years. There were 229 males (47.6%) and 252 fe-
males (52.4%). Among all the participants, 27 (5.6%) had high
school or lower education, 337 people (70.1%) obtained a degree
from a college or undergraduate, 117 people (24.3%) obtained
master degree or above.
The data were collected through a data collection website
(Wenjuanxing, www. wjx. cn). After completing and passing the
audit, the participants were given red envelopes to express their
gratitude. Based on Monte Carlo power analysis simulation for
estimating the sample size required for a mediation effect model
(Schoeman n, Boulton, and Short2017). The target power w as set to
0.8, and the tot al sample size needed for a chained mediation model
was 351. To ensure the validity of the collected data, a total of 534
questionnaires were gathered. After excluding invalid responses
such as those with incorrect answers to detection questions and
patterned responses, a final valid sample of 481 questionnaires
was obtained. All participants voluntarily took part in the study
and, in accordance with the requirements of the Ethics Committee
of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences; all
participants signed an informed consent form.
2.2 | Measures
2.2.1 | Short- Form Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire (FFMQ- SF)
The FFMQ- SF developed by Baer et al. (2006) and revised by
Zhong etal.(2016) was used in this study. The scale consists of
five dimensions, which are observing, describing, acting with
awareness, not judging, and not reacting. There are a total of
20 question items, of which eight are reverse scored. A 5- point
Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5
“strongly agree”. The total score of each dimension was used as
the mindfulness score in this study, with higher scores repre-
senting higher levels of mindfulness among the subjects. An
example is “I am good at describing my emotions verbally.” The
Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale in this study was 0.73;
McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.70. The Cronbach's alpha coeffi-
cients for the observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-
judging and non- involving were 0.75, 0.78, 0.83, 0.59, 0.43; the
McDonald's ω coefficients were 0.75, 0.78, 0.83, 0.60, 0.48.
2.2.2 | Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI)
The CFI developed by Dennis and Vander Wal(2010) and re-
vised by Wang et al. (2016) was used. This section contains 20
items and is scored on a 5- point Likert scale, with higher scores
indicating higher levels of cognitive flexibility. The Cronbach's
alpha coefficient for this scale in this study was 0.90; the
McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.90.
2.2.3 | Self- Compassion Scale (SCS)
The Chinese version of the SCS developed by Neff(2003b) and
revised by Chen, Yan, and Zhou(2011) was used. The section
contains 26 items and is scored on a 5- point Likert scale, with
higher scores indicating higher levels of cognitive flexibility.
The Cronbach's α coefficient for this scale in this study was 0.87;
the McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.87.
2.2.4 | Test of Self- Conscious Affect–3 (TOSCA- 3)
The TOSCA- 3, developed by Tangney and Dearing (2002) was
used to assess shame tendency (Ma etal.2019). The scale con-
tains a total of 16 scenarios in which participants imagined
various situations they might encounter in their daily lives and
responded to the likelihood of responding in the manner de-
scribed. A 5- point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 “not at
all likely” to 5 “very likely”Only Shame scores were tested in this
study, with higher scores representing higher levels of shame in
the subjects. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the Shame
subscale in this study were 0.84; the McDonald's ω coefficient
was 0.85, respectively.
2.3 | Statistical Analysis
SPSS 26.0 (Pallant2020) was used in this study for descriptive,
reliability and validity analyses of the data. The Harman one-
way test was used to test for common method bias for the data;
Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the correla-
tion between mindfulness and shame in the two surveys; and
Mplus8.3 was used to conduct the mediating effect analysis.
2.4 | Results
2.4.1 | Common Method Bias Test
In the investigation of this study, the use of multiple self-
assessment questionnaires to measure the same group of people
easily leads to the problem of common method bias. Therefore,
the influence of the self- assessment method on the research
5 of 13
results was minimized through the mixed distribution of pos-
itive and negative questions, and the promise made to the sub-
jects during the data collection process that the data obtained
would be used only for scientific research. Meanwhile, Harman
one- way test for common method bias (n = 481) of Experiment 1
was used. The results showed that there were 18 factors with ei-
genvalues greater than 1, and the amount of variance explained
by the first factor was 17.61%, which was less than the critical
criterion of 40%, so the common method bias in this study was
not significant (Zhou and Long2004).
2.4.2 | Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
The mean, standard deviation and correlation analyses of the
variables are shown in Table1, which shows that mindfulness
was significantly and positively correlated with cognitive flex-
ibility (r = 0.62, p < 0.001), self- compassion (r = 0.59, p < 0. 0 01) ,
and significantly and negatively correlated with shame
(r = −0.24, p < 0.001). Cognitive flexibility was significantly
positively correlated with self- compassion (r = 0.63, p < 0 .0 0 1).
Shame was significantly negatively correlated with cognitive
flexibility (r = −0.33, p < 0.001), and self- compassion (r = −0.40,
p < 0.001). In addition, the dimensions of mindfulness of action
of awareness (r = −0.33, p < 0.001) and nonjudgment (r = −0.30,
p < 0.001) were significantly negatively correlated with shame,
and all dimensions of mindfulness were significantly positively
correlated with cognitive flexibility and self- compassion.
2.4.3 | Chained Mediation Effect Test
Mplus8.3 was used to analyze the mediating effect of cogni-
tive flexibility and self- compassion between mindfulness and
shame. The significance of the mediation effect was measured
using Bootstrap with 5000 repeated samples for estimation of
95% confidence intervals.
Using mindfulness as the independent variable, shame as the
dependent variable, and gender, age and education as the control
variables. The results found that mindfulness significantly neg-
atively predicted shame (β = −0.28, p < 0.001), that is, there was
an unmediated direct effect of mindfulness on shame. With gen-
der, age, and education controlled, cognitive f lexibility and self-
compassion were used as mediators between mindfulness and
shame, where cognitive f lexibility points to self- compassion.
The results showed t hat the model fit was acceptable: χ2 = 257.09,
df = 120, χ2/df = 2.14, RMSE A = 0.05, CF I = 0.97, TLI = 0.96,
SRMR = 0.04. The specific relationships are shown in Table2.
The mediation result is shown in Table3.
The mediating effect was generated through 3 mediating
paths, with mediating path 1 being mindfulness → cogn itive
flexibility → shame, with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.26,
−0.01] not containing 0, indicating a significant mediating ef-
fect of cognitive f lexibility, with a mediating effect value of
−0.14 and a relative mediating effect of 35.90%. Specifically,
mindfulness positively predicted cognitive flexibility (β = 0.71,
p < 0.001), and cognitive flexibility negatively predicted shame
(β = −0.19, p < 0.05). Mediating path 2 was mindfulness → sel f-
compassion → shame, with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.25,
−0.09] not including 0, indicating a significant mediating effect
of self- compassion, with a mediation effect value of −0.15 and
a relative mediation effect of 38.46%. Specifically, mindful-
ness positively predicted self- compassion (β = 0.42 , p < 0 .0 0 1),
and self- compassion negatively predicted shame (β = −0.36,
p < 0.001). Mediation path 3 was a chain mediation of mindful-
ness → cognit ive f lex ibil ity → self- compassion → shame, with a
95% confidence interval of [−0.19, −0.06] not including 0, indi-
cating a significant chain mediation of cognitive f lexibility and
TABLE | Intercorrelations among variables and descriptive st atistics.
Var iables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. FFMQ 1
2. Observe 0.59*** 1
3. Describe 0.68*** 0.42*** 1
4. Act aware 0.64*** 0.04 0.22*** 1
5. Nonjudge 0.34*** −0.18*** −0.08 0.32*** 1
6. Nonreact 0.49*** 0.38*** 0.30*** 0.02 −0.16*** 1
7. CF 0.62*** 0.32*** 0.44*** 0.50*** 0.10*0.31*** 1
8. SC 0.59*** 0.17*** 0.28*** 0.56*** 0.26*** 0.34*** 0.63*** 1
9. SK 0.47*** 0.08 0.20*** 0.49*** 0.29*** 0.21*** 0.47*** 0.88*** 1
10. CH 0.49*** 0.17*** 0.23*** 0.45*** 0.19*** 0.29*** 0.58*** 0.85*** 0.62*** 1
11. MF 0.58*** 0.20*** 0.31*** 0.51*** 0.19*** 0.38*** 0.60*** 0.87*** 0.64*** 0.64*** 1
12. Shame −0.24*** 0.09 −0.06 −0.33*** −0.30*** −0.03 −0.33*** −0.40*** 0.39*** 0.38*** 0.26*** 1
M65.00 14.38 13.75 12.4 10.62 13.7 8 70.96 83.84 32.27 26.06 25.51 47.6 6
SD 8.32 3.11 3.01 3.58 2.8 2.41 10.4 12.44 5.32 4.27 4.71 10.53
Abbreviations: CF, cogn itive flexibilit y; SC, self−compassion; SK, self−kindness; CH, the sense of common humanity; M F, mindful ness.
*p < 0.05.
***p < 0.001.
6 of 13 PsyCh Journal, 2024
self- compassion, with a mediation effect value of −0.10 and a
relative mediation effect of 25.64%. All three indirect effect
paths reached the significant level, and the specific path coeffi-
cient results are shown in Figure1.
2.5 | Discussion
The present study found that mindfulness could negatively
predict shame, and it could also predict shame completely in-
directly through cognitive flexibility and self- compassion and
their chained effects.
First, the results of the present study indicated a significant neg-
ative correlation between mindfulness and shame, that is, mind-
fulness i s a significant negative pred ictor of shame, a find ing that
is consistent with previous research (Woods and Proeve 2014;
Brem etal.2 017; Sedighimornani 2019), Hypothesis1 was tes-
tified. In the present study, the two dimensions of mindfulness
of acting with awareness and nonjudgment were negatively
related to shame. As explained by Shapiro et al.(2006), mind-
fulness helps individuals allow all experiences to exist in the
present moment, and even if these experiential events are not
in line with the individual's expectations, an open and friendly
attitude can still be maintained in response. This nonjudgmen-
tal attitude allows the individual to better focus on what needs
to be done in the present moment and encourages the individual
to find ways to resolve the dilemma. This process avoids inter-
individual cognitive resources from focusing on concerns and
resistances that do not match expectations, and thus prevents
the individual from immersing him/herself in denial of his or
her own abilities. As a result, individuals do not automate their
denial of self because things do not go as expected, and shame
levels are alleviated as a result.
Second, this study found that cognitive f lexibility mediates the
relationship between m indfulness and shame. T hat is, the higher
the level of mindfulness, the higher the cognitive flexibility and
the less shame that resulted. This finding confirms the results of
previous research on the relationship between cognitive flexibil-
ity and shame (Cenkner, Usman, and Zalta2023; Cenkner, Held,
and Zalta 2024), and Hypothesis2 was supported. Individuals
who direct their attention to facing the dilemma they are experi-
encing in a nonjudgmental manner, rather than focusing exclu-
sively on negative concerns about the self, have the opportunity
to develop greater cognitive f lexibility. This can help individuals
reintegrate cognitive resources and find more adaptive ways to
face difficulties. On the one hand, individuals may find more
solutions to difficulties to achieve their goals; on the other hand,
individuals have the opportunity to explain why the current
situation arose from other perspectives, replacing the total re-
jection of their own abilities, and thus have the potential to re-
duce shame.
In addition, this study found that self- compassion mediates
the relationship between mindfulness and shame. That is, the
higher the level of mindfulness, the higher the level of self-
compassion, and the less shame that resulted. This result is
consistent with prev ious findings on the role of self- c ompassion
between mindfulness and shame (Sedighimornani 2019;
Woods and Proeve 2014), and Hypothesis 3 was testified.
Additionally, the three dimensions of self- compassion are all
significantly negatively correlated with the tendency toward
shame. This means that in addition to the level of mindfulness
being related to the reduction of shame, both the sense of com-
mon humanity and self- kindness are closely associated with
the decrease in shame, which is in line with the experimen-
tal findings of Ceclan and Nechita (2021). Mindfulness and
self- compassion are closely related and different in that while
both emphasize a nonjudgmental attitude toward present-
moment experiences, mindfulness places more emphasis on
allowing all experiences to exist, whereas self- compassion is
more directed toward painful experiences (Sun etal. 2021).
Individuals may experience suffering when their expectations
are not aligned with the present situation. Self- compassion
TABLE | Regression ana lysis of the Mindfulness model.
Outcome variable Predictor variable βSE tp
Cognitive f lexibility Mindfulness 0.71 0.04 20.40 < 0 .001
Self- compassion Mindfulness 0.42 0.07 6 .17 < 0.0 01
Cognitive f lexibility 0.39 0.07 5.77 < 0.0 01
Shame Mindfulness 0.11 0.09 1.28 0.200
Cognitive f lexibility −0.19 0.09 −2.23 0.026
Self- compassion −0.36 0.07 −4.95 < 0.001
Note: The direct predictive effect of mindf ulness on shame emotions was not significant (β = 0.11, p > 0.05), and the mediating effects of cognitive f lexibility and self−
compassion were significant, suggesting full mediation, w ith a mediation effect value of −0.39. Th is is shown in Table4.
TABLE | Cross−lagged model path coefficients.
Inf luence path
Standardized
coefficients SE p
Mindfulness T1 →
mindfulness T2
0.71 0.05 < 0.001
Shame T1 → shame T2 0.65 0.05 < 0.0 01
Mindfulness T1 →
shame T2
−0.18 0.06 0.002
Shame T1→
mindfulness T2
−0.04 0.07 0.513
7 of 13
assists individuals in becoming more aware of their needs in
the present moment and in providing themselves with the nec-
essary warmth and support. This support encompasses being
kind to oneself and connecting with others. As Neff (2003a)
pointed out, mindfulness serves as the foundation of self-
compassion. Mindfulness guides the individual to experience
the present moment in an open, nonjudgmental manner and
allows such situations to exist. Such allowing does not mean
doing nothing, but helps individuals become further aware
of their current needs and express kindness to themselves by
meeting those needs. On the one hand, the self- compassionate
part of self- compassion helps the individuals understand and
care about themselves instead of being self- critical; on the
other hand, the aspect of common humanity helps individuals
shift their focus from beliefs like “Why is it always me who
fails” and instead seek connection with others, thereby reduc-
ing feelings of loneliness. This can aid individuals in avoiding
harsh self- criticism and blame, and counteract potential feel-
ings of shame that arise from a sense of disconnection and the
feeling of being ostracized for making mistakes. The mind-
fulness component of self- compassion guides individuals to
clearly perceive the current situation without overly identify-
ing with these painful experiences of failure. As a result, they
do not engage in comprehensive and uncontrollable negative
self- evaluations, thus reducing shame.
Finally, this study found that mindfulness influences shame
through the chain mediation of cognitive flexibility and self-
compassion, and Hypothesis 4 was tested. The ability to have
high cognitive flexibility helps individuals realize that there are
multiple explanations for what creates difficulties in the moment
(Dennis and Vander Wal2010). On the one hand, this allows in-
dividuals to have more perspectives on suffering and to more
readily realize that they and others may experience such diffi-
culties, and therefore stop focusing on the parts of themselves
that they are not doing well; on the other hand, cognitive flex-
ibility also allows individuals to have the ability to apply more
ways of coping with difficulties, including treating themselves
in a friendly manner, replacing harshness on the self in lieu of
criticizing the self. In addition to reducing self- criticism, indi-
viduals with high cognitive flexibility can also alleviate shame
by increasing their sense of common humanity. Since individ-
uals who feel ashamed often cope with the current situation
through avoidance, withdrawal, and other means, this implies a
greater likelihood of experiencing loneliness (Vliet2008). When
individuals wish to treat themselves kindly through connecting
with others, they first need cognitive resources to realize that
there are people they can connect with, or to recognize that the
difficulties they are experiencing are sufferings that everyone
might encounter, and not something they are facing alone.
Overall, the th mediating paths in this study hold true. This sug-
gests that whether it is by changing cognition to cope with diffi-
culties or by changing attitudes toward the self, it can be a good
way to help individuals avoid focusing on negative evaluations
of the self to produce shame.
3 | Study 2
Study 2 suggested a longitudinal association between mindful-
ness and shame at two time- periods over an 8- month period.
FIGUR E | Chain- mediated model of cognitive flexibility and self- compassion. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.0 01.
TABLE | Mediating effect analysis of the mindfulness model.
Inf luence path Indirect effect BootSE
95% confidence
inter val
Relative mediating
effect
Total −0.39 0.07 [−0.52, −0.26] —
Mindfulness → CF → shame −0.14 0.06 [−0.26, −0. 01] 35.90%
Mindfulness → SC → shame −0.15 0.04 [−0.25, −0.09] 38.46%
Mindfulness → CF → SC → shame −0.10 0.03 [−0.19, −0.06] 25.64%
Abbreviations: CF, cogn itive flexibilit y; SC, self−compassion.
8 of 13 PsyCh Journal, 2024
3.1 | Method
3.1.1 | Participants and Procedure
This study used convenience sampling to conduct a longitudinal
follow- up surve y of adults in Beijing and Chengdu over an 8- month
period. A total of 2 questionnaire tests were conducted, with an in-
terval of 8 months, with subjects completing the questionnaire at
the first time point (T1) and completing the same questionnaire at
the second time point (T2). After excluding incorrect answers to
probe questions, regular responses, or mismatched data, the final
valid follow- up sample was 128. The age range of the subjects
was 19~44 (29.98 ± 6.84) years old, with 48 (37.5%) males and 80
(62.5%) females; education level: 4 (3.2%) in high school and below,
93 (72.6%) in college and bachelor's degree, and 31 (24.2%) in mas-
ter's degree and above. All participants voluntarily took part in
the study and, in accordance with the requirements of the Ethics
Committee of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, all participants signed an informed consent form.
In a recent cross- lagged study on shame, the effective sample
size was 96 after a 6- month interval, and it decreased to 85 after
a 12- month interval (Nechita and David2023). Based on these
data, the target sample size for this study was set at 120. The
first survey time (T1) was March 2023, a total of 157 question-
naires were collected, excluding the probing questions answered
incorrectly and the regular answering questionnaires, 152 valid
questionnaires were retained, and the validity rate was 96.81%;
the second survey time (T2) was November 2023, a total of 136
questionnaires were collected, excluding the probing questions
answered incorrectly and the regular answering questionnaires,
132 valid questionnaires were retained, and the validity rate was
97.06%. The final valid sample was the 128 data that all com-
pleted the two tests.
3.2 | Measures
3.2.1 | Short- Form Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire (FFMQ- SF)
As in Study 1, the Chinese version of FFMQ- SF was used to
measure participants' level of mindfulness. The Cronbach's α
coefficient for this scale in study 2 was 0.79 at T1 and 0.80 at T2,
and the McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.79 at T1 and 0.73 at T2.
3.2.2 | Test of Self- Conscious Affect–3 (TOSCA- 3)
As in Study 1, the TOSCA- 3 was used to assess shame ten-
dency (Ma etal.2019). In study 2, the Cronbach's α coefficient
for the shame subscale was 0.81 at T1 and 0.81 at T2, and the
McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.81 at T1 and 0.81 at T2.
3.3 | Statistical Analysis
SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.3 software were used to analyze the data
in this study. The Harman one- way test was used for the com-
mon method bias test for the data. Pearson correlation analysis
was used to explore the correlation between mindfulness and
shame in the two measures. Mplus8.3 was used to fit a cross-
lagged model of mindfulness and shame.
3.4 | Results
3.4.1 | Common Method Bias Test
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the Harman
one- way test for all question items in Study 2 to test for common
method bias (n = 128) in the two surveys. The results showed
that at the first measurement, there were 27 factors with eigen-
values greater than 1, with the first factor explaining 18.25% of
the variance. At the second measurement, there were 26 factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1, of which the first factor ex-
plained 19.26% of the variance, which is less than the critical
criterion of 40%. Therefore, there is no common method bias in
this study (Zhou and Long2004).
3.4.2 | Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis
Descriptive statistics for the two time points are shown in Table4,
which includes means and standard deviations. The results
showed that T1 mindfulness showed a significant positive cor-
relation with T2 mindfulness (r = 0.73, p < 0.001), and T1 shame
with T2 shame (r = 0.7 2, p < 0.001), that is, a stable correlation
between the variables; T1 mindfulness showed a significant neg-
ative correlation with T1 shame (r = −0.21, p < 0.05), and T 2 mind-
fulness with T2 shame showed a significant negative correlation
(r = −0.34, p < 0.001), that is, synchronicity correlation between
variables. The basic assumptions of the cross- lagged design were
satisfied because the stability and synchronicity correlation be-
tween the variables were satisfied at the same time.
3.4.3 | Cross- Lag Analysis of Mindfulness and Shame
On the basis of correlation analysis, the cross- lagged analysis
was used to explore the interactive predictive relationship be-
tween mindfulness and shame. The cross- lagged structural
equation model with fixed effects was constructed using Mplus,
and the age and gender of the subjects in the T1 period were
introduced into the model as control variables, as shown in
Figure2.
After controlling for T1 shame, T1 mindfulness negatively
predicted T2 shame (β = −0.18, p < 0.01); after controlling for
T1 mindfulness, T1 shame did not predict T2 mindfulness
(β = −0.04, p > 0.05). This result can be taken as preliminary
evidence that there is a longitudinal association between mind-
fulness and shame, that is, mindfulness predicts shame, but
shame does not predict mindfulness. The specific coefficients
are shown in Table5.
3.5 | Discussion
In this study, it was found that adults' mindfulness level pre-
dicted their shame level 8 months later, and Hypothesis 5 was
verified. This result supports a potential strategy to reduce
9 of 13
shame by enhancing mindfulness. While shame- prone indi-
viduals often attribute failures to their own inability, mindful-
ness implies allocating more attention to the awareness of the
here and now experience and emphasizes that such awareness
is manifested in a nonjudgmental attitude. Adopting this kind
of awareness allows individuals to have a clearer perception of
their inner emotional thoughts (Xu, Wang, and Liu2015) and a
clearer understanding of their inner workings. It can help indi-
viduals treat negative evaluations of the self as merely thoughts
brought about by inner work, rather than facts (Liu etal.2015).
Thus, individuals with high levels of mindfulness can more eas-
ily shift attention from negative evaluations of the self to the ex-
perience of the present moment, see thoughts as only thoughts,
and reduce over criticism of the self, thereby reducing shame
levels. On the other hand, shame- prone individuals are more
susceptible to external evaluations and pay too much attention
to what others say about them (Gilbert1998). Mindfulness also
helps individuals clearly appreciate their concern about others'
evaluations and prevent getting involved in the whirlwind of in-
formation tied to others.
Second, an individual's level of shame did not predict the level
of mindfulness 8 months later. This suggests that mindfulness
is not only an awareness that encompasses self- awareness
(Kabat- Zinn2003), but also a series of mental processes related
to self- regulation and metacognition (Bishop etal.2004), which
are relatively stable to some extent (Xu, Wang, and Liu2015).
Moreover, mindfulness emphasizes not recalling the past nor
thinking about the future, but simply experiencing the present
moment as it is, and taking these experiences to a new examina-
tion of one's perceptions in a nonjudgmental manner (Shapiro
etal.2006). Thus, shame experiences do not significantly pre-
dict future levels of mindfulness in individuals. If mindfulness
is compared to an ocean, shame that focuses on one's own neg-
ative evaluations is like a wave in the ocean and does not have
any effect on the ocean.
In this study, a longitudinal survey was conducted in a Chinese
adult population, and the results of cross- lagged analyses pro-
vided evident support for the negative predictive effect of indi-
vidual mindfulness levels on shame. That is, higher levels of
mindfulness predicted lower levels of shame. Therefore, indi-
viduals can try to enhance their mindfulness level to alleviate
shame by means of mindfulness training. This has theoretical
and practical implications for individuals to maintain mental
health and improve quality of life.
4 | General Conclusion
The present study explored the mechanism of mindfulness in
alleviating shame through a cross- sectional approach and es-
tablished the predictive role of mindfulness on shame via a
longitudinal research design. The findings of the present study
extend our understanding of the intricate relationships between
mindfulness, cognitive flexibility, self- compassion, and shame,
offering both theoretical and practical implications.
From a theoretical perspective, this research supports the grow-
ing body of evidence that mindfulness not only plays a direct role
in mitigating shame but also does so indirectly through enhanc-
ing cognitive f lexibility and self- compassion. This reflects the
broader theoretical framework suggesting that mindfulness can
promote adaptive emotional regulation by enabling individuals
to reinterpret and detach from negative emotional experiences,
such as shame. The findings also support existing theories sug-
gesting that mindfulness facilitates adaptive thinking patterns,
allowing individuals to reframe negative experiences more ef-
fectively (Keng, Smoski, and Robins2011). By improving cogni-
tive flexibility, individuals become better equipped to shift their
perspectives and reduce rigid thinking associated with shame
(Cenkner, Usman, and Zalta 2023; Martin and Rubin 1995).
Additionally, the mediating role of self- compassion aligns with
Neff 's (2003a) framework, which posits that self- compassion
FIGUR E | The cross- lagged model of mindfulness and shame. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.0 01.
TABLE | Results of descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
for each variable.
MSD 1 2 3
1. Mindfulness
T1
64.80 8.97 —
2. Shame T1 44.64 9.64 −0.21*—
3. Mind fulness
T2
65.53 8.50 0.73*** −0.23** —
4. Shame T2 46.86 8.89 −0.33*** 0.72*** −0.34***
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0 .01.
***p < 0.001.
10 of 13 PsyCh Journal, 2024
mitigates self- critical emotions by promoting kindness and un-
derstanding toward oneself.
Practically, these insights suggest that mindfulness- based inter-
ventions (MBIs) can be strategically designed to target shame
by incorporating components that enhance cognitive flexi-
bility and self- compassion. First, the findings emphasize the
potential of MBIs to specifically target and reduce shame in
non- clinical populations. Given the negative consequences of
shame on mental health, including its association with anxiety,
depression, and other psychological conditions, these interven-
tions can be valuable tools for both therapeutic and preventive
purposes. Additionally, by highlighting the mediating roles of
cognitive flexibility and self- compassion, this research suggests
that enhancing these qualities could be integral components
of mindfulness- based therapeutic approaches. For example,
MBIs could be tailored to explicitly focus on building cognitive
flexibility—helping individuals to shift away from rigid pat-
terns of thinking that reinforce shame (Beshai, Prentice, and
Huang2018)—a nd fostering s elf- compass ion, encouragi ng more
kind and supportive internal dialogues (Mohajeri, Alfooneh,
and Imani2023; Daneshvar, Basharpoor, and Shafiei2022).
Moreover, the longitudinal aspect of the study underscores
the sustained benefits of mindfulness in reducing shame over
time, which is crucial for developing long- lasting interventions.
Practitioners can be confident that incorporating mindfulness
into therapeutic settings not only addresses immediate emo-
tional concerns but also fosters long- term resilience against
shame. By implementing mindfulness- based strategies, individ-
uals can develop tools to better manage shame in their everyday
lives, ultimately promoting better emotional and mental health
in the long run.
There are some shortcomings in this research. First of all, this
study used convenience sampling to select subjects and had a
limited number of subjects, which may affect the effect size.
Second, this study used the TOSCA- 3 with a Chinese revision
to test shame. In the future, more types of scales can be ad-
ministered to validate the results of different types of shame.
Third, this study only demonstrated the predictive effect of
mindfulness on shame in the longitudinal dimension. The ef-
fects of mindfulness dimensions, cognitive flexibility, and self-
compassion in the longitudinal relationship have not yet been
investigated, and their longitudinal mechanisms of shame can
be further analyzed in the future studies.
In summar y, the present study not only demonstrated the re-
lationship between mindfulness and shame in Chinese adults,
but also elucidated the underlying mechanism, that is, chain-
mediated inf luence through cognitive flexibility and self-
compassion. Future research on the role of cognitive f lexibility,
self- compassion, and mindfulness inter ventions in reducing
shame warrants further exploration in order to develop more re-
liable and targeted interventions to alleviate shame.
Ethics Statement
The studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of
Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics
Committee) of The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences.
Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
the st udy.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Baer, R. A., G. T. Smith, J. Hopkins, J. Krietemeyer, and L. Toney.
2006. “Using Self- Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of
Mindfulness.” Assessment 13, no. 1: 27–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
10731 91105 283504.
Barnard, L. K., and J. F. Curry. 2011. “Self- Compassion:
Conceptualizations, Correlates, & Interventions.” Review of General
Psychology 15, no. 4: 289–303. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0025754.
Beshai, S., J. L. Prentice, and V. Huang. 2018. “Building Blocks of
Emotional Flexibility: Trait Mindfulness and Self- Compassion Are
Associated With Positive and Negative Mood Shifts.” Mindfulness 9:
939–948. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1267 1- 017- 0833- 8.
Bishop, S. R., M. Lau, S. Shapiro, etal. 2004. “Mindfulness: A Proposed
Operational Definition.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 11,
no. 3: 230–241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ clipsy. bph077.
Brem, M. J., R. C . Shorey, S. Anderson , and G. L. St uart. 2 017. “Dispositional
Mindfulness, Shame, and Compulsive Sexual Behaviors Among Men in
Residential Treatment for Substance Use Disorders.” Mindfulness 8, no.
6: 1552–1558. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1267 1- 017- 0723- 0.
Candea, D.- M., and A. Szentagotai- Tata. 2018. “Shame- Proneness,
Guilt- Proneness and Anxiety Symptoms: A Meta- Analysis.” Journal
of Anxiety Disorders 58: 78–106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. janxd is. 2018.
07. 005 .
Ceclan, A .- A ., and D.- M. Nechita. 2 021. “The Effe cts of Self- Compa ssion
Components on Shame- Proneness in Indiv iduals With Depression:
An Exploratory Study.” Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 28, no. 5:
1103–1110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cpp. 2560.
Cenkner, D. P., P. Held, and A. K. Zalta. 2024. “A Latent Profile
Analysis of Moral Emotions Following Moral Transgressions.”
Journal of Clinical Psychology 80 : 175 4–1766. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/
jclp. 23691 .
Cenkner, D. P., H. Usman, and A. K. Zalta. 2023. “Differential
Associations of Rumination and Cognitive Flexibility With Guilt and
Shame Following Potentially Morally Injurious Events.” Journal of
Affective Disorders 325: 135–140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jad. 2022.
12. 165.
Chen, J., L. Yan, and L. Zhou. 2011. “Reliability and Validity of
Chinese Version of Self- Compassion Scale.” Chinese Journal of Clinical
Psychology 19, no. 6: 734–736. https:// doi. org/ 10. 16128/ j. cnki. 1005-
3611. 2011. 06. 006.
China Inter net Network Information Center. 202 4. “The 53rd Statist ical
Report on China's Internet Development.” https:// www. cnnic. net. cn/
n4/ 2024/ 0321/ c208- 10962. html.
Daneshvar, S., S. Basharpoor, and M. Shafiei. 2022. “Self- Compassion
and Cognitive Flexibility in Trauma- Exposed Individuals With and
11 of 13
Without PTSD.” Current Psychology 41: 2045–2052. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s1214 4- 020- 00732 - 1.
Dearing, R. L., J. Stuewig, and J. P. Tangney. 2005. “On the Importance
of Distinguishing Shame From Guilt: Relations to Problematic Alcohol
and Drug Use.” Addictive Behaviors 30, no. 7: 1392–1404. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. addbeh. 2005. 02. 002.
Dennis, J. P., and J. S. Vander Wal. 2010. “The Cognitive Flexibility
Inventory: Instrument Development and Estimates of Reliability and
Validity.” Cognitive Therapy and Research 34, no. 3: 241–253. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 10 07/ s1060 8- 009- 9276- 4.
Fink- Lamotte, J., J. Hoyer, P. Platter, C. Stierle, and C. Exner. 2023.
“Shame on Me? Love Me Tender! Inducing and Reducing Shame and
Fear in Social Anxiety in an Analogous Sample.” Clinical Psychology in
Europe 5, no. 3: e7895. https:// doi. org/ 10. 32872/ cpe. 7895.
Fioravanti, G., S. B. Benucci, V. Vinciarelli, and S. Casale. 2023. “Body
Shame and Problematic Social Networking Sites Use: The Mediating
Effect of Perfectionistic Self- Presentation Style and Body Image Control
in Photos.” Current Psycholog y 43: 4073–4084. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s1214 4- 023- 04644 - 8.
Galhardo, A., M. Cunha, and J. Pinto- Gouveia. 2013. “Mindfulness-
Based P rogram for Inferti lity: Efficacy Study.” Fertility and Sterilit y 100,
no. 4: 1059–1067. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fertn stert. 2013. 05. 036.
Gilbert, P. 1998. “W hat Is Shame? Some Core Issues and Controversies.”
In Series in Affective Science. Shame: Interpersonal Behavior,
Psychopathology, and Culture, 3–38. New York, US: Oxford University
Press.
Gilbert, P. 200 9. “Introducing Compassion- Focused Therapy.” Advances
in Psychiatric Treatment 15, no. 3: 199 –208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1192/ apt.
bp. 10 7. 0 0 52 6 4.
Gioia, F., M. D. Griffiths, and V. Boursier. 2020. “Adolescents' Body
Shame and Social Networking Sites: The Mediating Effect of Body
Image Control in Photos.” Sex Roles 83, no. 11–12: 773–785. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s1119 9- 020- 01142 - 0.
Goffnett, J., J. M. Liechty, and E. Kidder. 2020. “Interventions to
Reduce Shame: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Behavioral and
Cognitive Therapy 30, no. 2: 141–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbct.
2020. 03. 001.
Goldsmith, R. E., J. I. Gerhart, S. A. Chesney, J. W. Burns, B. K leinman,
and M. M. Hood. 2014. “Mindfulness- Based Stress Reduction for
Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms: Building Acceptance and Decreasing
Shame .” Journal of Evidence- Based Complementary & Alternative
Medicine 19, no. 4: 227–234. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21565 87214 533703.
González- Martín, A. M., A. Aibar- Almazán, Y. Rivas- Campo, and Y.
Castellote- Cabal lero. 2023. “Mindfu lness to Improve the Mental Health
of University Students. A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis.”
Frontiers in Public Health 11: 1284632. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpubh.
2023. 1284632.
Hofmann, S. G., A. T. Sawyer, A. A. Witt, and D. Oh. 2010. “The Effect
of Mindfulness- Based Therapy on Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-
Analytic Review.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholog y 78, no.
2: 169–183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0018555.
Kabat- Zinn, J. 2003. “Mindfulness- Based Interventions in Context:
Past, Present, and Future.” Clinical Ps ycholog y: Science and Practice 10,
no. 2: 144–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ clipsy. bpg016.
Kelly, A. C., and J. C. Carter. 2013. “Why Self- Critical Patients Present
With More Severe Eating Disorder Pathology: The Mediating Role of
Shame .” Brit ish Journal of Clinic al Psycholog y 52, no. 2: 148–161. htt ps://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjc. 120 06 .
Kelly, A. C., and S. V. Waring. 2018. “A Feasibility Study of a 2- Week
Self- Compassionate Letter- Writing Intervention for Nontreatment
Seeking Individuals With Typical and Atypical Anorexia Nervosa.”
International Journal of Eating Disorders 51, no. 8: 1005–1009. htt ps://
doi. org/ 10. 1002/ eat. 22930 .
Keng, S.- L ., M. J. Smoski, and C. J. Robin s. 2011. “Effects of M indfulness
on Psychological Health: A Review of Empirical Studies.” Clinical
Psychology Review 31, no. 6: 1041–1056. https:// doi. org / 10. 1016/j. cpr.
2011. 04. 006.
Kim, S., R. Thibodeau, and R. S. Jorgensen. 2011. “Shame, Guilt, and
Depressive Symptoms: A Meta- Analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin
137, no. 1: 68–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0021466.
Kim, S. Y., Y. S. Seo, and K. Y. Baek. 2014. “Face Consciousness Among
South Korean Women: A Culture- Specific Extension of Objectification
Theory.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 61, no. 1: 24–36. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ a0034 433.
Lao, S.- A., D. Kissane, and G. Meadows. 2016. “Cognitive Effects of
MBSR/MBCT: A Systematic Review of Neuropsychological Outcomes.”
Consciousness and Cognition 45: 109–123. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. con-
cog. 2016. 08. 017.
Lewis, H. B. 1971. “Shame and Guilt in Neurosis.” Psychoanalytic
Review 58, no. 3: 419–438.
Lewis, M. 1995. “Self- Conscious Emotions.” American Scientist 83, no.
1: 68 –78.
Lewis, M., J. M. Haviland- Jones, and L. F. Barrett, eds. 2008. Handbook
of Emotions. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Lindsay, E. K., and J. D. Creswell. 2017. “Mechanisms of Mindfulness
Training: Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT).” Clinical Psychology
Review 51: 48–59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2016. 10. 011.
Liu, X., W. Xu, Y. Wang, et al. 2015. “Can Inner Peace Be Improved
by Mindfulness Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Stress and
Health 31, no. 3: 245–254. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smi. 2551.
Liu, Z., Y. Jia, M. Li, etal. 2022. “Effectiveness of Online Mindfulness-
Based Interventions for Improving Mental Health in Patients With
Physical Health Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis.”
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 37: 52–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
apnu. 2021. 10. 001.
Ma, H., H. Liu, Y. Zhai, and G. Li. 2019. “Revision and Verification of
the Test of Self- Conscious Affect for Adolescents.” Studies of Psychology
and Behavior 17, no. 2: 240 –245.
Marshall, E.- J., and R. N. Brockman. 2016. “The Relationships Between
Psychologic al Flexibility, Self- Compa ssion, and Emotional Well- Being.”
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 30, no. 1: 60 –72. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1891/ 0889- 8391. 30.1. 60.
Martin, M. M., and R. B. Rubin. 1995. “A New Measure of Cognitive
Flex ibil it y.” Psychological Reports 76, no. 2: 623–626. https:// doi. org/ 10.
2466/ pr0. 1995. 76.2. 623.
Martin, M. M., S. M. Staggers, and C. M. Anderson. 2011. “The
Relationships Between Cognitive Flexibility With Dogmatism,
Intellectual Flexibility, Preference for Consistency, and Self-
Compassion.” Communication Research Reports 28, no. 3: 275–280.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08824 096. 2011. 587555.
Mohajeri, M., A. A lfooneh, and M. Imani. 2023. “Studying the
Mediating Role of Psychological Flexibility and Self- Compassion in
the Relationship Between Traumatic Memories of Shame and Severity
of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms.” International Journal of Body,
Mind & Culture (2345- 5802) 10, no. 1: 41–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22122/
ijbmc . v10 i1. 467.
Moore, A., and P. Malinowski. 20 09. “Meditation, Mindfulness and
Cognitive Flexibility.” Consciousness and Cognition 18, no. 1: 176–186.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. concog. 2008. 12. 008.
Mosewich, A. D., K. C. Kowalski, C. M. Sabiston, W. A. Sedgwick, and
J. L. Tracy. 2011. “Self- Compassion: A Potential Resource for Young
12 of 13 PsyCh Journal, 2024
Women Athletes.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 33, no. 1:
103–123. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1123/ jsep. 33.1. 103.
Nechita, D.- M., and D. David. 2023. “T he Longitudinal Links Between
Shame, Eating Disorders and Social Anxiety Symptoms: A Cross-
Lagged Panel Analysis.” Current Psycholog y 42, no. 28: 24260 –24274.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1214 4- 022- 03513 - 0.
Neff, K. D. 2003a. “Self- Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization
of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself.” Self and Identity 2, no. 2: 85–101.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15298 86030 9032.
Neff, K. D. 2003b. “T he Development and Validation of a Scale to
Measure Self- Compassion.” Self and Identity 2, no. 3: 223–250. htt ps: //
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15298 86030 9027.
Neff, K. D. 2023. “Self- Compassion: Theory, Method, Research, and
Intervention.” Annual Revie w of Psychology 74, no. 1: 193–218. ht tps ://
doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev- psych - 03242 0- 031047.
Neff, K. D., and C. K. Germer. 2013. “A Pilot Study and Randomized
Controlled Trial of the Mindful Self- Compassion Program.” Journal
of Clinical Psychology 69, no. 1: 28–4 4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jclp.
21923 .
Neff, K. D., and P. McGehee. 2010. “Self- Compassion and Psychological
Resilience Among Adolescents and Young Adults.” Self and Identit y 9,
no. 3: 225–240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15298 8609 0 2979307.
Okan Er, Y., and M. E. Den Z. 2022. “The Mediating Role of Self-
Compassion and Cognitive Flexibility in the Relationship Bet ween
Differentiation of Self and Subjective Well- Being.” Cukurova University
Faculty of Education Journal 51, no. 3: 1642–1680. https:// doi. org/ 10.
14812/ cufej. 10 74927.
Oren- Schwartz, R., A. Aizik- Reebs, K. Yuval, Y. Hadash, and A.
Bernstein. 2022. “Effect of Mindfulness- Based Trauma Recovery for
Refugees on Shame and Guilt in Trauma Recovery Among African
Asylum- Seekers.” Emotion 23: 622–632. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ emo00
01126 .
Pallant, J. 2020. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data
Analysis Using IBM SPSS. 6th ed. London: Routledge. https:// doi. org/
10. 4324/ 97810 03117407.
Proeve, M., R. Anton, and M. Kenny. 2018. “Effects of Mindfulness-
Based Co gnitive Therapy on Shame, S elf- Compassion and P sychological
Distress in Anxious and Depressed Patients: A Pilot Study.” Psychology
and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 91, no. 4: 434–449.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ papt. 12170 .
Qian, M., X. Liu, and R. Zhu. 2001. “Phenomenological Research of
Shame Among College Students.” Chinese Mental Health Journal 2:
73–75.
Schoemann, A. M., A. J. Boulton, and S. D. Short. 2017. “Determining
Power and Sample Size for Simple and Complex Mediation Models.”
Social Psychological and Personality Science 8, no. 4: 379–386. http s://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 19485 50617 715068.
Sedighimornani, N. 2019. “Is Shame Managed Through Mind-
Wandering?” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 15, no. 4: 717–
732. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5964/ ejop. v15i4. 1787.
Shapero, B. G., J. Greenberg, D. Mischoulon, P. Pedrelli, K. Meade, and
S. W. Lazar. 2018. “Mindfulness- Based Cognitive Therapy Improves
Cognitive Functioning and Flexibility Among Individuals With
Elevated Depressive Symptoms.” Mindfulness 9, no. 5: 1457–1469.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1267 1- 018- 0889- 0.
Shapiro, S. L., L. E. Carlson, J. A. Astin, and B. Freedman. 2006.
“Mechanisms of Mindfulness.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 62, no. 3:
373–386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jclp. 20237 .
Sheehy, K., A. Noureen, A. Khaliq, et al. 2019. “An Examination of
the Relationship Between Shame, Guilt and Self- Harm: A Systematic
Review and Meta- Analysis.” Clinical Psychology Review 73: 101779.
http s:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2019. 101779.
Shi, K., G. Feng, Q. Huang, M. Ye, and H. Cui. 2023. “Mindfulness and
Negative Emotions Among Chinese College Students: Chain Mediation
Effect of Rumination and Resilience.” Frontiers in Psycholog y 14:
1280663. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2023. 1280663.
Sun, T., Y. Yan, Y. Jin, and J. An. 2021. “Effects of Mindfulness- Based
Interventions on Self- Compassion: A Meta- Analysis.” Advances in
Psychological Science 29, no. 10: 1808–1828. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3724/ sp.j.
1042 . 2 021. 018 08 .
Swee, M. B., C. C. Hudson, and R. G. Heimberg. 2021. “Examining
the Relationship Between Shame and Social A nxiety Disorder: A
Systematic Rev iew.” Clinical Psychology Review 90: 102088. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2021. 102088.
Swee, M. B., K. Klein, S. Murray, and R. G. G. Heimberg. 2023. “A Brief
Self- Compassionate Letter- Writing Intervention for Individuals With
High Shame.” Mindfulness 14, no. 4: 854 –867. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s1267 1- 023- 02097 - 5.
Tangney, J. P., and R. L. Dearing. 2002. Shame and Guilt. New York:
Guilford Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4135/ 97814 12950 664. n388.
Tangney, J. P., P. Wagner, and R. Gramzow. 1992. “Proneness to Shame,
Proneness to Guilt, and Psychopathology.” Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 101, no. 3: 469–478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 843X.
101.3. 469.
Teasdale, J. D., Z. Segal, and J. M. G. Williams. 1995. “How Does
Cognitive Therapy Prevent Depressive Relapse and Why Should
Attentional Control (Mindfulness) Training Help?” Behaviour Research
and Therapy 33, no. 1: 25–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0005- 7967(94)
E0011 - 7.
Vliet, K. J. V. 2008. “Shame and Resilience in Adulthood: A Grounded
Theory Study.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 55, no. 2: 233–245.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0167. 55.2. 233.
Wang, Y., Y. Yang, W. Xiao, and Q. Su. 2016. “Validity and Reliability
of the Chinese Version of the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory in College
Students.” Chinese Mental Health Journal 30, no. 1: 58–63.
Weiner, B. 1985. “An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation
and Emotion.” Psychological Review 4, no. 92: 548–573. https:// doi. org/
10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 92.4. 54 8.
Wen, X., Q. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Du, and W. Xu. 2021. “Momentary and
Longitudinal Relationships of Mindfulness to Stress and Anxiety
Among Chinese Elementary School Students: Mediations of Cognitive
Flexibility, Self- Awareness, and Social Environment.” Journal of
Affective Disorders 293: 197–204. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jad. 2021.
06. 038.
Westerman, G., E. McCann, and E. Sparkes. 2020. “Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Mindfulness and Compassion- Based Programs on
Shame and Associated Psychological Distress With Potential Issues of
Salience for Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Systematic
Review.” Mindfulness 11, no. 8: 1827–1847. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s1267 1- 020- 01340 - 7.
Woods, H., and M. Proeve. 2014. “Relationships of Mindfulness, Self-
Compassion, and Meditation Experience With Shame- Proneness.”
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 28, no. 1: 20 –33. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1891/ 0889- 8391. 28.1. 20.
Xu, W., Y. Wa ng, and X. Liu. 2015. “E ffectiveness of 8- Week Mi ndfulness
Training Improving Negative Emotions.” Chinese Mental Health
Journal 29, no. 7: 497–502.
Yousefi Afrashteh, M., and F. Hasani. 2022. “Mindfulness and
Psychological Well- Being in Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Self-
Compassion, Emotional Dysregulation and Cognitive Flexibility.”
Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation 9, no. 1: 22.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s4047 9- 022- 00192 - y.
Zeidan, F., N. M. Emerson, S. R. Farris, et al. 2015. “Mindfulness
Meditation- Based Pain Relief Employs Different Neural Mechanisms
13 of 13
Than Placebo and Sham Mindfulness Meditation- Induced Analgesia.”
Journal of Neuroscience 35, no. 46: 15307–15325. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1523/ JNEUR OSCI. 2542- 15. 2015.
Zhang, J., Z. Hu, S. Zheng, and Y. Liu. 2023. “A Chain Mediation Model
Reveals the Association Between Mindfulness and Depression of
College Students.” Scientific Reports 13, no. 1: 16830. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1038/ s4159 8- 023- 43984 - 0.
Zhong, B., C. Zhang, G. Si, and J. Liu. 2016. “Structural Validity Test of
the Simplified Chinese Five- Dimensional Mindfulness Questionnaire
in College Students and Athletes.” Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine
35, no. 1: 53–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 16038/ j. 1000- 6710. 2016. 01. 011.
Zhou, H., and L . Long. 2004 . “Statistical Remed ies for Common Method
Biases.” Advances in Psychological Science 12, no. 6: 942.
Zou, Y., P. Li, S. G. Hofmann, and X. Liu. 2020. “The Mediating Role
of Non- reactivity to Mindfulness Training and Cognitive Flexibility: A
Randomized Controlled Trial.” Frontiers in Psycholog y 11: 1053. ht tps: //
doi. org/ 10. 3389/ f psyg. 2020. 01053 .
