When softness builds strength: A three-level meta-analysis of the relationship between self-compassion and resilience

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1683

ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2026, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (9): 1683-1697.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1683

• Column on the Stress, Resilience, and Health • Previous Articles Next Articles

When softness builds strength: A three-level meta-analysis of the relationship between self-compassion and resilience

LI Xinyi, HE Jiaxi, XIAO Han, LIU Xiaodi, ZHOU Guangyu()

School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China; Key Laboratory of Machine Perception (Ministry of Education), Beijing100871, China

Published:2026-09-25 Online:2026-07-29
Contact: ZHOU Guangyu, E-mail: gyzhou@pku.edu.cn

Abstract

LI Xinyi, HE Jiaxi, XIAO Han, LIU Xiaodi, ZHOU Guangyu. (2026). When softness builds strength: A three-level meta-analysis of the relationship between self-compassion and resilience. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(9), 1683-1697.

Moderators		k	Fisher’s z [95% CI]	r [95% CI]	F (include between-group comparisons)	Within-Sample Variance (Level 2)	Between-Sample Variance (Level 3)
Population Characteristics
Age		193	-0.002 [-0.005, 0.001]	-0.002 [-0.005, 0.001]	F (1, 191) = 2.29	0.021^***	0.013^***
Gender		225	0.06 [-0.08, 0.20]	0.06 [-0.08, 0.19]	F (1, 223) = 0.61	0.021^***	0.017^***
Health status		228			F (2, 225) = 0.64	0.021^***	0.016^***
Contextual Factors
Adversity type		177			F (4, 172) = 2.04^?	0.022^***	0.018^***
	Social (S)	37	0.49 [0.41, 0.57]	0.46 [0.39, 0.52]	S > G^*
	Environmental (E)	25	0.40 [0.28, 0.52]	0.38 [0.28, 0.48]	P > G^*
	Professional (P)	52	0.51 [0.44, 0.59]	0.47 [0.41, 0.53]	H > G^*
	Health (H)	48	0.47 [0.39, 0.55]	0.44 [0.37, 0.50]
	General (G)	15	0.32 [0.21, 0.43]	0.31 [0.20, 0.41]
Specific adversity		56			F (4, 51) = 2.97^*	0.011^***	0.019^***
	COVID-19 (C)	38	0.46 [0.37, 0.55]	0.43 [0.35, 0.50]	S > C^*
	Disaster (D)	6	0.33 [0.23, 0.43]	0.32 [0.22, 0.41]	S > F^**
	Stigma (S)	3	0.76 [0.70, 0.81]	0.64 [0.61, 0.67]	S > D^*
	Violence (V)	4	0.64 [0.54, 0.74]	0.57 [0.50, 0.63]	V > F^?
	Failure (F)	5	0.34 [0.19, 0.49]	0.33 [0.19, 0.45]
Culture: Country¹		201			F (14, 186) = 1.56^?	0.021^***	0.014^***
	China (C)	23	0.44 [0.36, 0.51]	0.41 [0.35, 0.47]	U > C^*
	United Kingdom (U)	12	0.61 [0.52, 0.71]	0.55 [0.48, 0.61]	A > C^?
	Australia (A)	11	0.56 [0.48, 0.65]	0.51 [0.45, 0.57]
Culture: Cultural distance from China²		217	0.48 [0.02, 0.94]	0.44 [0.02, 0.73]	F (1, 215) = 4.14^*	0.022^***	0.015^***
Operationalization of Resilience
Orientation		230			F (2,227) = 14.93^***	0.018^***	0.014^***
	Trait-oriented (T)	78	0.56 [0.52, 0.60]	0.51 [0.48, 0.54]	T > O^***
	Outcome-oriented (O)	137	0.42 [0.38, 0.46]	0.40 [0.36, 0.43]	T > P^?
	Process-oriented (P)	15	0.36 [0.16, 0.57]	0.35 [0.16, 0.52]
Resilient outcome measurement		147			F (1, 145) = 11.19^**	0.015^***	0.016^***
	Specific adversity approach (S)	143	0.43 [0.39, 0.47]	0.40 [0.37, 0.44]	S > I^**
	Interaction approach (I)	4	0.12 [0.05, 0.19]	0.12 [0.05, 0.18]
Resilient outcome domain		149			F (3, 145) = 13.02^***	0.010^***	0.018^***
Mental (M)		121	0.44 [0.39, 0.48]	0.41 [0.38, 0.45]	M > S^***
Social (S)		12	0.21 [0.12, 0.30]	0.20 [0.12, 0.29]	M > P^*
Physical (P)		8	0.17 [0.08, 0.27]	0.17 [0.08, 0.26]	O > S^***
Overall (O)		8	0.51 [0.42, 0.60]	0.47 [0.39, 0.53]	O > P^*
Types and Components of Self-Compassion
Self-compassion types		150			F (1, 148) = 9.65^**	0.012^***	0.024^***
	Compassionate self-responding (CS)	84	0.33 [0.25, 0.41]	0.32 [0.25, 0.39]
	Uncompassionate self-responding (UCS)	66	0.41 [0.32, 0.50]	0.39 [0.31, 0.46]
Self-compassion components		141			F (5, 135) = 1.93^?	0.011^***	0.032^***
	Self-kindness (SK)	27	0.38 [0.27, 0.48]	0.36 [0.26, 0.45]	SK > CH^*
	Self-judgment (SJ)	20	0.39 [0.27, 0.51]	0.37 [0.26, 0.47]	M > CH^*
	Common humanity (CH)	26	0.31 [0.21, 0.40]	0.30 [0.21, 0.38]	OI > CH^**
	Isolation (I)	21	0.38 [0.26, 0.50]	0.36 [0.25, 0.46]	SJ > CH^?
	Mindfulness (M)	26	0.35 [0.24, 0.46]	0.34 [0.24, 0.43]	I > CH^?
	Over-identification (OI)	21	0.41 [0.30, 0.53]	0.39 [0.29, 0.49]
Study Design		230			F (2, 227) = 0.23	0.021^***	0.016^***

Moderators		k	Fisher’s z [95% CI]	r [95% CI]	F (include between-group comparisons)	Within-Sample Variance (Level 2)	Between-Sample Variance (Level 3)
Population Characteristics
Age		193	-0.002 [-0.005, 0.001]	-0.002 [-0.005, 0.001]	F (1, 191) = 2.29	0.021^***	0.013^***
Gender		225	0.06 [-0.08, 0.20]	0.06 [-0.08, 0.19]	F (1, 223) = 0.61	0.021^***	0.017^***
Health status		228			F (2, 225) = 0.64	0.021^***	0.016^***
Contextual Factors
Adversity type		177			F (4, 172) = 2.04^?	0.022^***	0.018^***
	Social (S)	37	0.49 [0.41, 0.57]	0.46 [0.39, 0.52]	S > G^*
	Environmental (E)	25	0.40 [0.28, 0.52]	0.38 [0.28, 0.48]	P > G^*
	Professional (P)	52	0.51 [0.44, 0.59]	0.47 [0.41, 0.53]	H > G^*
	Health (H)	48	0.47 [0.39, 0.55]	0.44 [0.37, 0.50]
	General (G)	15	0.32 [0.21, 0.43]	0.31 [0.20, 0.41]
Specific adversity		56			F (4, 51) = 2.97^*	0.011^***	0.019^***
	COVID-19 (C)	38	0.46 [0.37, 0.55]	0.43 [0.35, 0.50]	S > C^*
	Disaster (D)	6	0.33 [0.23, 0.43]	0.32 [0.22, 0.41]	S > F^**
	Stigma (S)	3	0.76 [0.70, 0.81]	0.64 [0.61, 0.67]	S > D^*
	Violence (V)	4	0.64 [0.54, 0.74]	0.57 [0.50, 0.63]	V > F^?
	Failure (F)	5	0.34 [0.19, 0.49]	0.33 [0.19, 0.45]
Culture: Country¹		201			F (14, 186) = 1.56^?	0.021^***	0.014^***
	China (C)	23	0.44 [0.36, 0.51]	0.41 [0.35, 0.47]	U > C^*
	United Kingdom (U)	12	0.61 [0.52, 0.71]	0.55 [0.48, 0.61]	A > C^?
	Australia (A)	11	0.56 [0.48, 0.65]	0.51 [0.45, 0.57]
Culture: Cultural distance from China²		217	0.48 [0.02, 0.94]	0.44 [0.02, 0.73]	F (1, 215) = 4.14^*	0.022^***	0.015^***
Operationalization of Resilience
Orientation		230			F (2,227) = 14.93^***	0.018^***	0.014^***
	Trait-oriented (T)	78	0.56 [0.52, 0.60]	0.51 [0.48, 0.54]	T > O^***
	Outcome-oriented (O)	137	0.42 [0.38, 0.46]	0.40 [0.36, 0.43]	T > P^?
	Process-oriented (P)	15	0.36 [0.16, 0.57]	0.35 [0.16, 0.52]
Resilient outcome measurement		147			F (1, 145) = 11.19^**	0.015^***	0.016^***
	Specific adversity approach (S)	143	0.43 [0.39, 0.47]	0.40 [0.37, 0.44]	S > I^**
	Interaction approach (I)	4	0.12 [0.05, 0.19]	0.12 [0.05, 0.18]
Resilient outcome domain		149			F (3, 145) = 13.02^***	0.010^***	0.018^***
Mental (M)		121	0.44 [0.39, 0.48]	0.41 [0.38, 0.45]	M > S^***
Social (S)		12	0.21 [0.12, 0.30]	0.20 [0.12, 0.29]	M > P^*
Physical (P)		8	0.17 [0.08, 0.27]	0.17 [0.08, 0.26]	O > S^***
Overall (O)		8	0.51 [0.42, 0.60]	0.47 [0.39, 0.53]	O > P^*
Types and Components of Self-Compassion
Self-compassion types		150			F (1, 148) = 9.65^**	0.012^***	0.024^***
	Compassionate self-responding (CS)	84	0.33 [0.25, 0.41]	0.32 [0.25, 0.39]
	Uncompassionate self-responding (UCS)	66	0.41 [0.32, 0.50]	0.39 [0.31, 0.46]
Self-compassion components		141			F (5, 135) = 1.93^?	0.011^***	0.032^***
	Self-kindness (SK)	27	0.38 [0.27, 0.48]	0.36 [0.26, 0.45]	SK > CH^*
	Self-judgment (SJ)	20	0.39 [0.27, 0.51]	0.37 [0.26, 0.47]	M > CH^*
	Common humanity (CH)	26	0.31 [0.21, 0.40]	0.30 [0.21, 0.38]	OI > CH^**
	Isolation (I)	21	0.38 [0.26, 0.50]	0.36 [0.25, 0.46]	SJ > CH^?
	Mindfulness (M)	26	0.35 [0.24, 0.46]	0.34 [0.24, 0.43]	I > CH^?
	Over-identification (OI)	21	0.41 [0.30, 0.53]	0.39 [0.29, 0.49]
Study Design		230			F (2, 227) = 0.23	0.021^***	0.016^***

Moderators	k	Hedges’ g [95% CI]	F (including between-group comparisons)	Within-Sample Variance (Level 2)	Between-Sample Variance (Level 3)
Population Characteristics
Age	59	0.004 [-0.01, 0.01]	F (1, 57) = 0.85	0.021^*	0.028^*
Gender	65	0.43 [-0.11, 0.97]	F (1, 63) = 2.57	0.019^*	0.051^**
Health Status	64		F (1, 62) = 3.22^?	0.019^*	0.049^**
Healthy (H)	6	0.22 [0.02, 0.41]	HR > H^?
High-risk (HR)	58	0.58 [0.39, 0.78]
Contextual Factors
Adversity type	53		F (1, 51) = 0.02	0.023^*	0.055
Culture: Country¹	63		F (5, 57) = 3.01^*	0.020^*	0.019
Culture: Cultural distance from China²	62	0.58 [-2.82, 3.99]	F (1, 60) = 0.12	0.019^*	0.055^***
Operationalization of Resilience
Orientation	65		F (1, 63) = 1.02	0.020^*	0.048^**
Resilient outcome domain	149		F (3, 47) = 5.32^**	0.020	0.003
Mental (M)	33	0.60 [0.45, 0.76]	M > S^***
Social (S)	5	0.16 [-0.002, 0.32]	M > P^*
Physical (P)	6	0.43 [0.17, 0.70]	M > O^?
Overall (O)	7	0.46 [0.17, 0.74]	P > S^?
Intervention Characteristics
Control group included	65		F (1, 63) = 0.94	0.019^*	0.061^***
Group-based intervention	65		F (1, 63) = 0.01	0.019^*	0.068^***
Delivery Format	62		F (2, 59) = 3.05^?	0.018^*	0.033^**
Online (On)	26	0.40 [0.17, 0.63]	H > On^*
Offline (Off)	32	0.42 [0.24, 0.60]	H > Off^*
Hybrid (H)	4	1.09 [0.73, 1.45]

Moderators	k	Hedges’ g [95% CI]	F (including between-group comparisons)	Within-Sample Variance (Level 2)	Between-Sample Variance (Level 3)
Population Characteristics
Age	59	0.004 [-0.01, 0.01]	F (1, 57) = 0.85	0.021^*	0.028^*
Gender	65	0.43 [-0.11, 0.97]	F (1, 63) = 2.57	0.019^*	0.051^**
Health Status	64		F (1, 62) = 3.22^?	0.019^*	0.049^**
Healthy (H)	6	0.22 [0.02, 0.41]	HR > H^?
High-risk (HR)	58	0.58 [0.39, 0.78]
Contextual Factors
Adversity type	53		F (1, 51) = 0.02	0.023^*	0.055
Culture: Country¹	63		F (5, 57) = 3.01^*	0.020^*	0.019
Culture: Cultural distance from China²	62	0.58 [-2.82, 3.99]	F (1, 60) = 0.12	0.019^*	0.055^***
Operationalization of Resilience
Orientation	65		F (1, 63) = 1.02	0.020^*	0.048^**
Resilient outcome domain	149		F (3, 47) = 5.32^**	0.020	0.003
Mental (M)	33	0.60 [0.45, 0.76]	M > S^***
Social (S)	5	0.16 [-0.002, 0.32]	M > P^*
Physical (P)	6	0.43 [0.17, 0.70]	M > O^?
Overall (O)	7	0.46 [0.17, 0.74]	P > S^?
Intervention Characteristics
Control group included	65		F (1, 63) = 0.94	0.019^*	0.061^***
Group-based intervention	65		F (1, 63) = 0.01	0.019^*	0.068^***
Delivery Format	62		F (2, 59) = 3.05^?	0.018^*	0.033^**
Online (On)	26	0.40 [0.17, 0.63]	H > On^*
Offline (Off)	32	0.42 [0.24, 0.60]	H > Off^*
Hybrid (H)	4	1.09 [0.73, 1.45]

When softness builds strength: A three-level meta-analysis of the relationship between self-compassion and resilience

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 2

References

Related Articles 0

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments