factors discussed above. This was a key finding of the current research, as it suggested that compassion is a dynamic and context-dependent experience, not simply an inherent individual characteristic. Moments where there was the potential for compassion appeared to be influenced heavily by both the state of mind of the individual and of the object of compassion. Compassion appeared to be most likely when the individual was in a positive state of mind and the other was upset (but not angry). This finding related to the reciprocal interaction between self and other, during which an ongoing process of appraising and responding occurred, including appraising contextual factors such as state of mind, and therefore can be understood in the context of social mentality theory (Gilbert, 2000a), which, as discussed earlier, notes the ongoing process of
detecting and decoding social signals in social encounters, and facilitates access to various social roles dependent on state of mind.
Specific beliefs and attitudes about compassion, such as compassion being weak or rendering the self vulnerable, or self-compassion being boastful, were framed as barriers to compassion. This finding fits with the existing literature on fears of compassion (Gilbert, McEwan, Matos, & Rivis, 2011), which suggests that there exist social and cultural scripts that may serve to inhibit compassion in order to promote a positive social image (i.e., not appear self- indulgent or selfish and subsequently invite social criticism or rejection). From this perspective, a belief about compassion being weak may have resulted from an accumulation of past negative interpersonal experiences, which now serves to protect the individual by inhibiting social connection, which could render them vulnerable to further social attacks. Promoting self- protection was a fundamental aspect of the current model and several contextual factors influencing compassion could also be said to relate to protecting-the-self. Knowing the other was important in terms of knowing how to help – and therefore minimising the threat to the self through misjudging a compassionate act – but also in terms of being able to trust the other. Again, trust promoted self-protection by minimising the risk of betrayal or humiliation. The importance of trust extended to relationships with professionals and the importance of perceived genuineness of compassion, which in turn links to the perception that the other has exerted agency in deciding to help. Each of these findings suggest that participants were sensitive to signals that the other had their best interests at heart, or that an act of compassion involving them would not present a major social threat to the self. Again, this provides support for Gilbert’s (2010a) work on the compassionate mind, whereby a threat response (including safety seeking) will always be prioritised in the first instance, and is likely to be over-developed and therefore over-stimulated for individuals who have been exposed to multiple adverse interpersonal
encounters, such as those common in a population of young people who go on to engage in HSB (Ward, McCormack & Hudson, 2002).
4.3.3.2.1 The role of anger, shame, and self-criticism. The findings highlighted a potential discrepancy regarding the link between anger, shame, self-criticism, and self-
compassion. In some cases, participants spoke of seeking distance from others when angry or shamed, whereas one participant described how self-compassion could be helpful following incidents of criticism or shame. The fact that in some cases participants did not use the language ‘shame’ and ‘criticism’ and it was instead inferred by the researcher, may mean that subjective misinterpretations were made. This may, however, also point to the complex nature of the self- conscious and affiliative emotions, in which case this would provide support for the need to further investigate these through research. Nevertheless, these findings can be understood within the existing literature. Shame has been associated with impulses to hide and self-isolate
(Gilligan, 2003) in order to ‘save face’ and avoid further social rejection/condemnation (Gilbert & Miles, 2002). It is also thought that shame can lead to anger and violence, as intolerable internal judgements about self-worthlessness are defended against through externalisation (Gilligan, 2003). The example of employing self-compassion in the face of shame or self- criticism to get through a difficult experience is supported by the existing literature that
underpins CFT, of which this is the central tenet. It is of note that this particular young person framed her ability to use self-compassion at these times as a result of internalising the
compassion she had received from others, again highlighting the significance of previous interpersonal relationships, including attachment relationships, and experiences of having felt ‘safe’ and ‘soothed’ by a trusted other (Bowlby, 1969; Gilbert, 2010a), as well as the link between inter- and intra-personal experiences of compassion – as suggested by social mentality theory (Gilbert, 2000a).
Feeling critical of the self or other inhibited compassion through its association with judging the worthiness of the object of compassion. This can be understood in terms of the close fusion between criticism and shame, whereby criticism of others may serve to degrade their social status and in turn boost the status or rank of the self as in social rank theory (Gilbert, 2000b), or where self-criticism acts as a mechanism through which internalised shaming occurs (Gilbert & Irons, 2009), both of which may be underpinned by appraisals of the object of compassion as undeserving (Goetz, Keltner and Simon-Thomas, 2010).
4.3.3.3 Self-compassion. Participants framed self-compassion as an internalisation of