Self-Compassion: Treating Yourself as You Would a Friend
Responding to your own struggles with kindness, common humanity, and mindful awareness.
Go gently and seek support if the practice becomes distressing.
- Low mood, sadness, or loss of interest that persists most days for more than 2 weeks
- Anxiety, worry, or fear that persists more than 2 weeks or interferes with work, relationships, sleep, or daily functioning
- Any thoughts of self-harm or suicide, stop and contact a crisis line (e.g., 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline in the US) or emergency services immediately
- Distress that worsens or feels unmanageable during or after a practice
- Using these practices to avoid, delay, or replace care for a diagnosed or suspected mental health condition
- Intense, persistent self-criticism, shame, or self-directed hostility
What the evidence says
The sources are meta-analyses and trials of compassion-, mindfulness- and resilience-oriented programs, mostly in healthy adults, older adults and caregivers. Petrovic 2024 (meta-analysis of 23 randomised studies) reports that loving-kindness programs had positive effects on mindfulness, compassion, positive and negative affect and psychological symptoms relative to passive controls, with effects non-significant versus active controls and alternative treatments. Wilkie 2026 (network meta-analysis of 183 randomised trials) reports moderate effects (0.41 to 0.49) for mindfulness, compassion and other programs against inactive controls. Kunzler 2020 (Cochrane meta-analysis) reports very-low certainty evidence that resilience training may increase resilience and lower anxiety and stress, with little or no effect on depression or well-being. Diachenko 2021 (randomised trial) reports improvements in resilience and mental well-being from mindfulness-based stress reduction sustained at 12-month follow-up, and Hendriks 2020 (randomised trial) reports that a multi-component positive psychology program may be promising for resilience and well-being. Wu 2023, Tam 2020, Yüce 2024, Chen 2025 and McHugh 2025 report effects of mind-body, reminiscence and mindfulness programs in older adults and caregivers, and Lupșa 2020 of psychological-capital programs in employees or students; Fava 2009 (narrative review) and Johnson 2015 describe well-being therapy and a mindfulness-based resilience program. Self-compassion is a skill for emotional well-being in healthy adults; this entry is not a treatment for depression, shame disorders or self-criticism as a clinical symptom.
- Misconception: 'Self-compassion is self-pity or letting yourself off the hook.' It pairs kindness with honest accountability.
- Does not diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent depression, anxiety, PTSD, or any mental health disorder
- Not a substitute for psychotherapy, counseling, or psychiatric care
- Cannot claim to 'fix' emotions, eliminate stress, or guarantee happiness
- No claim of clinical, therapeutic, or medication-like effects
- Cannot claim to treat depression, shame disorders, or self-harm
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 14 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- A source states a certainty rating for 3 outcomes.
- How the sources were read
- Some sources are based on abstracts, not full texts.
What each source measured and concluded (14)
- What it measured
- Resilience
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 9 studies (N NR)
- What it measured
- Psychological capital (PsyCap), well-being, and performance
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Pre-registered meta-analysis of controlled interventions
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 41 trials, N=3,911
- What it measured
- Resilience, anxiety, depression, stress, well-being/quality of life
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs (Cochrane)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 30 RCTs (22 studies solely healthcare students, 1315 participants; 8 mixed samples, 1365 participants)
- What it measured
- Psychological well-being outcomes (depression, life satisfaction, self-esteem, happiness)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 31 studies, 1,829 older adults
- What it measured
- Positive and negative mental health outcomes (mindfulness, compassion, positive/negative affect, psychological symptoms)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 23 randomized controlled studies
- What it measured
- Caregiver depression, burden, and quality of life
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Umbrella review (review of systematic reviews)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 40 systematic reviews
- What it measured
- Effectiveness of group-based psychological interventions in reducing emotional distress
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=20 studies (from 4,942 records)
- What it measured
- Resilience (and well-being)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What it measured
- Stress, anxiety, depression, caregiver burden, mindfulness, resilience, quality of life.
- How it measured it
- Validated instruments (not specified).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of 12 studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=748 participants across 12 studies
- What it measured
- Psychological well-being.
- How it measured it
- Perceived Wellness Score, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): Mental Component Subscale, World Health Organization Wellbeing Scale (WHO-5), PANAS-Positive Affect.
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of 183 RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=22,811 participants across 183 studies
- What it measured
- Perceived stress.
- How it measured it
- Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (self-report).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “We argue that MBSR is a cost-effective intervention suited for pre-retirement employees to cultivate resilience to prevent stress, feel more comfortable with themselves, maintain a healthy work-life in the last years before retirement, and, potentially, stay in their work-life a few more years than originally planned.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What it measured
- Caregiver burden (standardised mean differences)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 31 trials with 4687 participants
- What it measured
- Psychological well-being and resilience
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Depression and other psychological/behavioral outcomes
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
Certainty ratings the sources state (3)
- Rating, as the source states it
- High
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- High-quality evidence shows physical/psychological and yoga-related MBA modes enhance resilience in older adults, though long-term verification is needed
- Stated by
- Wu et al. (2023)
- Rating, as the source states it
- Very-low
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- Very-low certainty evidence that resilience training may increase resilience (SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.07-0.78), lower anxiety (SMD -0.45, -0.84 to -0.06) and stress (SMD -0.28, -0.48 to -0.09); little/no effect on depression (SMD -0.20) or well-being (SMD 0.15)
- Stated by
- Kunzler et al. (2020)
- Rating, as the source states it
- Very-low
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- Very-low certainty evidence for effects on resilience, anxiety and stress; conclusions should be drawn cautiously and high-quality replications are needed
- Stated by
- Kunzler et al. (2020)
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.
“Abstract only” means the review read that paper’s abstract, not its full text; “screened only” means it was included at re-screening and not extracted. Both stay in the trail with their DOI, because how a source was read is part of the audit.