Education, Faculty of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Lawlor, Molly Stewart
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Research examining mindfulness and self-compassion in relation to well-being has grown over the past decade, with the majority of studies focused on these constructs in adults. As such, there is limited research that examines these constructs in children. To address the gap, the purpose of the study was to investigate trait mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescents at three times over one school year. Aims of the study were: (1) to examine grade and gender difference for mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescents, (2) to examine stability and change of early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion over one school year, determine whether there are grade and gender differences in these trajectories, and to examine associations between the two constructs over time, and (3) to examine the degree to which early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year is associated with dimensions of their social, emotional, and cognitive competence at the end of the school year. Results indicated that there was limited variability in the trajectories of both mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one school year. Investigation of grade and gender differences revealed a significant difference in self-compassion across grades, with grades 5 students reporting significantly higher self-compassion scores than grade 7 students. The relationship between the constructs was observed to be stable, with significant positive correlations reported at each of the three time points. Correlational analyses revealed a significant and positive relation between Time 1 mindfulness and Time 3 peer ratings of prosocial behaviour. Mindfulness at Time 1 was found to be negatively and significantly associated with negative affect at Time 3. Self-compassion at Time 1 was significantly and positively associated with positive affect and life satisfaction at Time 3. Given the current discussion regarding the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 1993), self-compassion was examined as two separate constructs (self-compassion and self-coldness) and findings revealed significant associations between the two dimensions of self-compassion and well-being. Findings are discussed in relation to extant theoretical and empirical research in this area and directions for future research are put forth.
Mindfulness and Self-Compassion: Exploring Stability and Relations to Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Indicators Across One School Year in a Group of Early Adolescents by Molly Stewart Lawlor B.A., The University of Victoria, 1998 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2007 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Human, Development, Learning, and Culture) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2018 © Molly Stewart Lawlor, 2018 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Mindfulness and self-compassion: Exploring stability and relations to cognitive, social, and emotional indicators across one school year in a group of early adolescents submitted by Molly Stewart Lawlor in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Human, Development, Learning, and Culture Examining Committee: Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education Supervisor Dr. Bruno Zumbo, Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Richard Young, Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Amori Mikami, Psychology University Examiner Dr. Joeseph Michael Lucyshyn, Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education University Examiner iii Abstract Research examining mindfulness and self-compassion in relation to well-being has grown over the past decade, with the majority of studies focused on these constructs in adults. As such, there is limited research that examines these constructs in children. To address the gap, the purpose of the study was to investigate trait mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescents at three times over one school year. Aims of the study were: (1) to examine grade and gender difference for mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescents, (2) to examine stability and change of early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion over one school year, determine whether there are grade and gender differences in these trajectories, and to examine associations between the two constructs over time, and (3) to examine the degree to which early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year is associated with dimensions of their social, emotional, and cognitive competence at the end of the school year. Results indicated that there was limited variability in the trajectories of both mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one school year. Investigation of grade and gender differences revealed a significant difference in self-compassion across grades, with grades 5 students reporting significantly higher self-compassion scores than grade 7 students. The relationship between the constructs was observed to be stable, with significant positive correlations reported at each of the three time points. Correlational analyses revealed a significant and positive relation between Time 1 mindfulness and Time 3 peer ratings of prosocial behaviour. Mindfulness at Time 1 was found to be negatively and significantly associated with negative affect at Time 3. Self-compassion at Time 1 was significantly and positively associated with positive affect and life satisfaction at Time 3. Given the current discussion regarding the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 1993), self- iv compassion was examined as two separate constructs (self-compassion and self-coldness) and findings revealed significant associations between the two dimensions of self-compassion and well-being. Findings are discussed in relation to extant theoretical and empirical research in this area and directions for future research are put forth. v Lay Summary Mindfulness is defined as the practice of being aware of one’s thoughts and actions in the present moment without judgment. Self-compassion is understood to be a way of thinking about and relating with compassion to oneself during times of suffering. Early adolescence is a period of development that is marked by significant changes in cognitive, social, and physical domains of development. This research project focused on understanding mindfulness and self-compassion in a group of early adolescents by examining grade and gender differences and investigating relations of these constructs to cognitive, social, and emotional well-being. Younger early adolescents were found to be higher in self-compassion than their older peers. Over one school year, self-compassion was found to associated with well-being, whereas, higher mindfulness was found to be associated with lower negative emotions. Results are discussed in light of the role of mindfulness and self-compassion in well-being during early adolescence. vi Preface This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University of British Columbia’s Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Education. It contains work done from September 2007 to September 2018. My supervisor on the project has been Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, who is the Director of the Human Early Learning Partnership and principal investigator in the Schonert-Reichl Social and Emotional Learning Laboratory. The identification and design of the research study as well as the writing of this dissertation has been made solely by the author. The data used in the analysis for this study was collected as part of a larger program evaluation study which was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (approval certificate number: H12-03150). vii Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................. v Preface ....................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xi Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................xii Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 5 The Paradox of Adolescence: Emotional Storm and Stress ...................................................... 6 Traits ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Mindfulness .......................................................................................................................... 12 Trait mindfulness: Review of research with adults ............................................................. 13 Self-compassion .................................................................................................................... 16 Mindfulness and self-compassion: Intersection and distinctions......................................... 17 The relationship between mindfulness and self-compassion............................................... 20 Self-Compassion: Review of research with adults ............................................................. 21 Self-compassion construct structure debate........................................................................ 22 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion in Early Adolescence ...................................................... 23 Relations of mindfulness and self-compassion to well-being in adolescence ...................... 24 Mindfulness, self-compassion, and prosociality ................................................................. 29 Relations among mindfulness, self-compassion, and executive functions. .......................... 34 Age and gender differences in mindfulness and self-compassion ....................................... 39 The Present Research ............................................................................................................ 40 Overview of Research Aims and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 41 Hypothesis 1: Grade and gender differences. ..................................................................... 42 Hypothesis 2: Association between mindfulness and self-compassion. .............................. 42 Hypothesis 3: Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of well-being, prosociality and EFs ............................................................................................................................. 42 Working hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 42 Method ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Participants ........................................................................................................................... 44 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 45 Measures ............................................................................................................................... 46 Demographic information.................................................................................................. 46 Mindfulness ...................................................................................................................... 46 viii Self-compassion ................................................................................................................ 47 Executive function ............................................................................................................ 48 Well-being ........................................................................................................................ 50 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 52 Overview of Research Aims .................................................................................................. 52 Data Analytic Plan ................................................................................................................ 52 Preliminary Analyses ............................................................................................................ 54 Missing Data ......................................................................................................................... 55 Main Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 55 Aim 1: Gender and grade differences of mindfulness and self-compassion across three time points. The following section describes the results from analyses used to investigate the first aim of the study, which was to investigate gender and grade differences in mindfulness and self-compassion across one school year. ............................................................................ 55 Aim 2: Stability of mindfulness and self-compassion across three time points ................... 57 Aim 3: Predicting Time 3 social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes from Time 1 mindfulness and self-compassion: Hierarchical regression findings ................................... 61 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 73 Rationale and Study Aims ..................................................................................................... 73 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion in Early Adolescence ...................................................... 74 Analyses Using a Two-Factor Structure of the SCS-C: Self-compassion and Self-coldness ... 84 Directions for Future Research .............................................................................................. 90 Educational Implications ....................................................................................................... 92 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 95 Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................... 98 References .............................................................................................................................. 130 Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire ............................................................................... 155 Appendix B: Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Children................................................ 156 Appendix C:The Self-Compassion Scale for Children ............................................................. 157 Appendix D: Satisfaction with Life Scale for Children ............................................................ 158 Appendix E: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children ........................................... 159 Appendix F: Teachers’ Ratings of Social Emotional Competence ........................................... 160 ix List of Tables Table 1 Sample Descriptives ..................................................................................................... 98 Table 2 Sample size, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Sample for MAAS-C ................... 99 Table 3 Sample size, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Sample for SCS-C ..................... 100 Table 4 Mindfulness: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 ......................................................................................................... 101 Table 5 Self-Compassion: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 ......................................................................................................... 102 Table 6 Mindfulness: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs Examining Time Differences Scores .......................................................................................................... 103 Table 7 Self-Compassion: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs Examining Time Differences Scores ................................................................................................. 104 Table 8 Three Class Solution for Mindfulness Across Three Time Points ................................ 105 Table 9 Means and Variances for the Mindfulness Latent Profile Analysis Three Classes Solution ........................................................................................................................... 106 Table 10 Description of Membership by Grade and Gender of the 3-class Solution for Mindfulness .................................................................................................................... 107 Table 11 One Class Solution for Self-Compassion Over Time ................................................ 108 Table 12 Intercorrelations Among Mindfulness and Self-Compassion at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 ............................................................................................................................. 109 Table 13 Sample size of each student group for Hierarchical Regression Analyses .................. 110 Table 14 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness and Self-compassion) with Indicators of Well-being .......................................................................................... 111 Table 15 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness and Self-compassion) with Time 3 Dimensions of Prosociality .......................................................................... 112 Table 16 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness and Self-compassion) with Time 3 Executive Function ...................................................................................... 113 Table 17 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs for Dependent Variables, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, and Satisfaction with Life ..................................................................... 114 Table 18 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs For Dependent Variables Teacher Ratings of Social Emotional Competence, And, Peer Ratings of Prosocial Behaviour ...................... 115 x Table 19 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs For Hearts and Flowers Incongruent Trial Response Time and Accuracy .......................................................................................... 116 Table 20 Regression Analyses with Time 1 Mindfulness and Self-compassion as Predictors of Well-being at Time 3 ....................................................................................................... 117 Table 21 Time 1Mindfulness and Self-compassion as Predictors of Prosociality at Time 3: Results from Regression Analyses ................................................................................... 118 Table 22 Time 1 Mindfulness and Self-compassion as Predictors of Executive Function at Time 3: Results from Regression Analyses ............................................................................... 119 Table 23 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness) with Time 3 Well-being Variables ........................................................... 120 Table 24 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness) with Time 3 Prosociality Variables .......................................................... 121 Table 25 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness)) with Time 3 Executive Function Variables ............................................. 122 Table 26 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) MANOVA for Independent Variables Self-Compassion (Positive Items) And Self-Coldness (Negative Items) at Time 1 .................. 123 Table 27 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) MANOVA for Independent Variables Self-Compassion (Positive Items) And Self-Coldness (Negative Items) at Time 2 .................. 124 Table 28 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) MANOVA for Independent Variables Self-Compassion (Positive Items) And Self-Coldness (Negative Items) at Time 3 .................. 125 Table 29 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness as Predictors of Well-being: Results from Regression Analyses ............................................................................................... 126 Table 30 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness as Predictors of Prosociality: Results from Regression Analyses ............................................................................................... 127 Table 31 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness as Predictors of Executive Function at Time 3: Results from Regression Analyses .................................................................. 128 xi List of Figures Figure 1. Two Trials of Hearts and Flowers Congruent and Incongruent ................................. 129 xii Acknowledgments I would like to express my eternal gratitude to my research supervisor and mentor, Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, who has offered unwavering support, caring, and endless inspiration to me throughout my graduate work. I offer my appreciation and gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Bruno Zumbo, and, Dr. Richard Young, who offered support, guidance, and insight that strengthened my work. Finally, I want to express my gratitude to my husband, Jon, for his constant support and love throughout my academic journey. And, to my daughters, Rowan and Ivy, who inspire me every day and remind me of what is important, I am so thankful to be your mom. 1 Introduction "There is in every child at every stage a new miracle of vigorous unfolding." Erik Erikson (1902-1994, p. 255) - Childhood and Society In recent years, a burgeoning literature has emerged on the study of conditions that promote psychological well-being and societal development. Indeed, rather than over-focusing on the study of psychological ill-being or psychopathology, a growing number of authors have called for psychologists to pay greater attention to the study of human potential and well-being (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This field has been characterized as the field of positive psychology. In their introduction to this new area of psychology, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) affirmed “a science of positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions promises to improve quality of life and prevent the pathologies that arise when life is barren and meaningless” (p. 5). In addition to research within the adult population, the science of positive psychology has been expanding to include younger populations (Gilman, Huebner, & Furlong, 2014), which compliment investigations of well-being among children and adolescents (Gilman & Huebner, 2003; Huebner, 2004), and Positive Youth Development (Damon, 2004). Along with the surge in interest in positive psychology, the field of contemplative science has emerged as a means to understand the development and promotion of well-being and positive human qualities, such as altruism, gratitude, and compassion. Contemplative science has been described as a “transdisciplinary project aimed at understanding the effects of various kinds of mental and physical training (such as mindfulness meditation and tai chi) on the body, brain, and mind at different stages of the lifespan” (Roeser & Zelazo, 2012, p. 143). Mindfulness, that is the practice of being aware of one’s thoughts and actions in the present moment without judgment 2 (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), has emerged as one focus of study within the area of contemplative science. Literature examining the benefits of mindfulness as both a positive individual trait and as an intervention has grown over the past 30 years (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Carsley, Khoury, & Heath, 2018; Lawlor, Schonert-Reichl, Gadermann, & Zumbo, 2014). A related construct, self-compassion, is also gaining more attention, both in cross-sectional correlational research and experimental intervention research (Barnard & Curry, 2011; Neff, 2003a, 2003b). Self-compassion can be understood as a way of thinking about and relating to oneself during times of suffering. More specifically, self-compassion involves being “touched by and open to one’s own suffering, not avoiding or disconnecting from it, generating the desire to alleviate one’s suffering and to heal oneself in kindness” (Neff, 2003a, p. 87). Although there has been rapid growth in research examining the implementation of contemplative practices, including mindfulness and self-compassion, Roeser and Zelazo (2012) commented that “relatively few studies have adopted a developmental perspective” (p. 143). Indeed, to date, the vast majority of studies on mindfulness and self-compassion have been conducted with adults, with limited research available that examines these constructs with younger populations (Greenberg & Harris, 2012; Lawlor, et al., 2014; Roeser & Eccles, 2015; Sutton, Schonert-Reichl, Wu, & Lawlor, 2018). In recent years, researchers have begun to turn their attention towards the developmental aspects of contemplative-based approaches, however, there remains a primary focus on intervention research rather than efforts to understand the natural emergence and trajectories of these states of consciousness across development. That is, studies examining mindfulness-based interventions have found them to be beneficial for adolescents’ self-reported calm, relaxation, and self-acceptance (Broderick & Metz, 2009), early adolescents’ optimism (Schonert-Reichl & 3 Lawlor, 2010; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015), attention (Baijal, Jha, Kiyonaga, Singh, & Srinivasan, 2011; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015), and anxiety (Semple, Lee, Rosa, & Miller, 2010). Several reviews on the topic of mindfulness interventions with children and youth are presently available (Burke, 2010; Carsley, et al., 2018; Greenberg & Harris, 2012; Harnett & Dawe, 2012; Klingbeil et al., 2017; Zoogman, Goldberg, Hoyt, & Miller, 2014). Research examining self-compassion interventions is in a nascent stage with a limited number of studies offering support for efficacy, including findings that self-compassion driven interventions can improve adolescents’ reports of life satisfaction and reduce depression (Bluth, Gaylord, Campo, Mullarkey, & Hobbs, 2015). Although these findings are promising, there remains a gap in the literature pertaining to how mindfulness and self-compassion present at various stages of development (Lawlor, 2014). Examining these constructs with a developmental lens may help to inform best practice in the design and implementation of contemplative-based interventions for children and adolescents. Aim of the Present Research With the accumulation of research examining the potential benefits of mindfulness-based interventions with children and youth, there remains a paucity of studies examining mindfulness as a trait in child development. Traits have been described as enduring tendencies in how individuals think, feel, and behave (Soto & Tackett, 2015). Trait mindfulness refers to the tendency to be mindful in everyday life, varying among individuals and within individuals over time (Brown & Ryan, 2003), and is considered to include emotion regulation abilities (Teper, Segal, & Inzlicht, 2014). Indeed, current understanding of dispositional, or trait, self-compassion in children and youth remains limited (Lawlor, 2014; Peter & Gazelle, 2017; Sutton et al., 2018). The questions around when mindfulness and self-compassion first emerge, how these constructs 4 develop in relation to other developmental competencies (e.g., cognitive changes) have not yet been fully investigated and understood. Thus, the purpose of the study is to examine mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence over the course of one school year. The present study will use both variable-centered and person-centered approaches to address the research aims. Person-centered approaches, including latent profile analysis (LPA), are able to identify groups of individuals that share particular attributes based upon their unique response profiles. Person-centered approaches are useful when addressing questions concerning group differences in patterns of development. Variable-centered approaches, such as multiple regression analyses are well suited to describe associations among variables and are useful when addressing questions about the relative influence predictor variables make on an outcome variable (Laursen & Hoff, 2006). In the case of the present study, one aim is to examine grade and gender differences in mindfulness and self-compassion over time, hence, a person-centered approach (i.e., LPA) is an appropriate means to answer questions about group differences over time. In addition, hierarchical regression analyses, a variable-centered approach, were used to investigate mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of well-being, prosociality, and executive functions (EFs). The majority of literature examining trait mindfulness and self-compassion has used a variable-centered approach (Bravo, Pearson, & Kelley, 2018). There are a limited number of studies that have utilized LPA to investigate mindfulness, as assessed by the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2008) in adult populations (e.g., Bravo, Boothe, & Pearson, 2016; Bravo et al., 2018; Kimmes, Durtschi & Fincham, 2017). To date, no studies have used LPA to examine self-compassion in either adult or younger populations. In addition, neither mindfulness or self-compassion have been investigated using an LPA person-centered 5 approach with early adolescent populations. The present study sought to contribute to current understanding of how mindfulness and self-compassion present in early adolescence by taking a person-centered approach to understand grade and gender differences over time, along with a variable-centered approach, to examine relations amongst indicators of emotional, social and cognitive well-being. The current research seeks to understand the stability of these two constructs and their relation to each other and to indicators of cognitive, emotional, and social adjustment across one school year. This study includes three primary objectives with regards to furthering the understanding of mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence. First, differences in age and gender will be examined with regards to mindfulness and self-compassion across one school year in an early adolescent sample. Second, the present study will investigate the stability of mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one school year, and their relationship with one another. Third, this investigation will explore the relation of mindfulness and self-compassion to indicators of cognitive (executive functions), emotional (affect and satisfaction with life), and social (prosociality) indicators of adjustment across one school year with a sample of early adolescents in Grades 5, 6, and 7. Literature Review The following literature review will explore current understanding of trait mindfulness and self-compassion. The chapter begins by situating the reader within the developmental period of early adolescence. Following this, a brief review of theories of trait development is provided. Finally, the constructs mindfulness and self-compassion will be explored from a developmental lens in relation to EF, well-being, and, prosociality. 6 The Paradox of Adolescence: Emotional Storm and Stress Early adolescence, a developmental period that spans between the ages of nine and 14, is marked as a time in which individuals undergo myriad of changes across multiple domains, due to cognitive development, pubertal development, and social role redefinitions (Del Giudice, 2014). Three areas have been identified as important contributors to development in early adolescence are (a) cognitive changes that increase early adolescents’ ability to reflect on their personal achievements and failures, (b) a widening of early adolescents’ social worlds that include peers, adults and activities outside the family; and (c) an introduction to competition and social comparison within peer groups and classrooms. During early adolescence cognitive thinking and conceptual skills are refined and consolidated. This period entails advances in understanding, meta-cognition and self-regulation. In addition, early adolescents develop skills of self-awareness and gain the ability to take the perspectives of others (for a review, see Del Giudice, 2014). Adolescence has historically been considered a time of incredible emotionality, development, and growth across social, cognitive, and physical domains. It has been over 100 years since G. Stanley Hall (1904) described adolescence as a time of extreme emotional lability, or “storm and stress.” This view has since been examined and subsequently rejected by researchers (e.g., Blakemore, 2018; Eccles, Midgley, & Wigfield, 1993; Offer & Schonert-Reichl, 1992), suggesting that the experience of extreme emotional turmoil is not inevitable and universal among adolescents. In his paper reconsidering the storm and stress paradigm, Arnett (1999) argued for a modified view of the storm and stress depiction of adolescence that considers cultural variations and individual differences across three key areas: conflict with parents, mood disruptions, and risk behaviour. Arnett noted that not all adolescents experience storm and stress, 7 but emotional lability is more probable during the adolescent developmental stage than other life stages. Arnett went on to describe the paradox of adolescence as a time of increased risk yet also a time for incredible growth and positive experience. Arnett concluded that “to view adolescence as a time of storm and stress is not to say that adolescence is characterized only by storm and stress. Even amidst the storm and stress of adolescence, most adolescents take pleasure in many aspects of their lives, are satisfied with most of their relationships most of the time, and, are hopeful about the future” (p. 324). Although the majority of individuals pass through adolescence without experiencing “storm and stress,” it is during this developmental period that behavioural and psychological problems may begin to emerge (Dahl & Gunnar, 2009; Steinberg et al., 2008). Adolescence is the peak time in development for the clinical onset of mental illness, and research suggests that 20% to 25% of adolescents are at risk for serious mental health, emotional, and behavioural problems (Lee et al., 2014; Romano, Tremblay, Vitaro, Zoccolillo, & Pagani, 2001). Challenges such as test anxiety, learned helplessness, and self-consciousness that make it difficult to concentrate on learning tasks can interfere with early adolescents’ school and social success (Eccles, 1999; Eccles & Roeser, 2009). Additional challenges for early adolescents may be introduced by the context. Stage-Environment-Fit Theory (Roeser & Eccles, 2014) seeks to explain the negative motivational, psychological, and behavioural changes that occur as individuals make the transition from childhood to adolescence. The theory suggests that a mismatch between the needs of developing adolescents and the opportunities to meet those needs provided by their social environments are responsible for some of the negative psychological changes that are noted during the period of adolescence (Eccles et al., 1993; Roeser & Eccles, 2014). 8 Although research has rejected the idea that early adolescence is associated with increased emotional variability, the early adolescent age-period does herald the onset of changes in average mood. Of primary concern is the evidence that adolescence is associated with an increase in negative affect (Larson & Asmussen, 1991; Larson & Lampman-Petraitis, 1989; Larson, Moneta, Richards, & Wilson, 2002). A body of literature has been established that examines the increase in negative affect in adolescence in relation to life changes. A culmination or “pile-up” of life changes, such as school changes, pubertal development, cognitive development and social role development, has been a proposed occurrence in early adolescence, which is hypothesized to cause significant distress and disorder in adolescence (e.g., Compas, Howell, Larson, & Ham 1993; Eccles, 1999; Phares, Williams, & Giunta, 1989). Early adolescence is marked as a time when there is rapid brain development, in particular within the social brain, which includes the network of brain regions involved in understanding others (Blakemore, 2008; Mills, Lalonde, Clasen, Giedd, & Blakemore, 2014). Research from a neurological perspective reveals that adolescence is a time marked by increased emotional reactivity, stress, and prevalence of internalizing disorders (Casey, Duhoux, & Malter Cohen, 2010; Lee et al., 2014). On the one hand, due to this increased vulnerability, it has been hypothesized the period of adolescence may leave individuals to be more susceptible to emotional dysregulation (Ahmed, Bittencourt-Hewitt, & Sebastian, 2015). On the other hand, adolescence has been identified as a period of increased opportunity for the development of adaptive emotion regulation, due to the increased ability for learning and flexibility that accompanies the increased development of high-level executive and social processes, including working memory, inhibitory control, decision making and perspective taking – the processes required for effective emotion regulation (e.g., Ahmed et al., 2015). 9 With regards to the potential protective ability of mindfulness and self-compassion for emotional balance, research has indicated that mindfulness is associated with higher reports of positive affect and lower reports of negative affect, in both adults and children (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Lawlor et al., 2014). Similarly, self-compassion has been found to be positively related to positive affect and negatively related to negative affect in adults (Sirois, Kitner, & Hirsch, 2015). Mindfulness and self-compassion may indeed act as protective factors against the rise of the experience of negative affect as individuals move through the developmental period of early adolescence. Indeed, investigating mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence is especially important due to the pronounced biological, social, emotional, cognitive, and environmental changes that occur during this developmental period (Eccles, 1999; Kilford, Garrett, & Blakemore, 2016; Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Thomson, 2010). Traits Personality traits are considered to be relatively enduring tendencies in how individuals think, feel, and, behave (Soto & Tackett, 2015). Traits can be distinguished from states by the certain degree of stability traits display that make them conceptually different (Denissen, van Aken, & Roberts, 2011). In the past, personality traits have been thought of as stable characteristics throughout human development. It was thought that children were born with a certain temperament that would mature in a predetermined manner into personality that encompassed behaviour styles and patterns of thought (Costa & McCrae, 1998; McCrae & Costa, 1994). However, despite the relative stability of traits, more recent research has shown that personality traits are susceptible to change across the entire life span. Questions surrounding the influence of “nature versus nurture” on personality has driven research in the area. Indeed, research primarily focused on the Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, 10 agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism) indicates there are both stable and dynamic aspects to personality and evidence suggests that both genetic and environmental factors impact trait stability (Hopwood & Bleidorn, 2018). Furthermore, with regards to development, traits appear to be especially susceptible to change during childhood and adolescence (e.g., Borghuis et al., 2017; Luan, Hutteman, Denissen, Sendorpf, & van Aken, 2017). Despite this identified variability during child and adolescent development, the majority of research on trait stability has been focused on early adult populations (Bleidorn, 2015; Borghuis et al., 2017). Within the study of personality development, two theoretical frameworks have emerged. The first, pertains to the ‘‘maturity principle,” which describes findings showing that as individuals age, the tendency is for them to become more conscientious, more agreeable, and less neurotic (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). The research base underpinning the maturity principle, however, includes research conducted primarily with adults, not children or adolescents. In contrast with the maturity principle, recent studies have shown that the development of personality during adolescence follows the “disruption hypothesis” (Soto & Tackett, 2015). The disruption hypothesis suggests that the biological, social, and psychological transitions from childhood to adolescence are associated with temporary dips in aspects of personality maturity, suggesting there is a temporary departure from the maturity principle during the adolescent developmental period (Denissen et al., 2013; Luan et al., 2017). Soto and Tackett (2015) discuss key conclusions following their review of the research pertaining to personality traits during childhood and adolescence. First, the authors report that youth and adult traits share certain qualities such as a hierarchical organization. These commonalities do allow for certain concepts from adult literature to be extended to younger demographics. However, the authors emphasize that traits also differ between youth and adults in 11 significant ways, including their mean-level age trends and rank-order stability. Mean-level trends refers to the average amount of change in the population as a whole, independent of individual differences, whereas, rank-order stability reflects whether groups of people maintain their relative placement to each other on personality traits over time. Furthermore, in their review Soto and Tackett refer to the evidence that suggests traits in childhood and adolescence predict a variety of important social, biological, and health outcomes. The authors articulate that “these differences show that youth traits are not merely child-sized versions of adult traits; in addition to the aspects that they share with adult traits, youth traits also have distinctive aspects that should be studied from a developmental perspective” (p. 361). The majority of investigations into personality trait stability has been with adult populations, as is the case with investigations of trait mindfulness and self-compassion. Given the unique aspects of child and adolescent traits, a developmental perspective is an important lens to employ when investigating the nature of trait mindfulness and self-compassion across development. While drawing from research with adult populations is useful in developing hypotheses about how mindfulness and self-compassion might present in childhood and adolescence, it is not a sufficient replacement for research with child and adolescent samples that takes a developmental perspective. The research examining trait mindfulness and self-compassion is extremely limited. There is some evidence that supports the disruption hypothesis regarding how these two constructs develop throughout adolescence. Recent cross-sectional research examining age and gender differences with child and adolescent populations has reported a grade differences, or, a decline in trajectories of mindfulness and self-compassion from fifth to seventh grades (Bluth et al., 2016; Lawlor, 2014; Peter & Gazelle, 2017). One of the aims of the present study, therefore, 12 was to better understand these two constructs within the early adolescent developmental period by examining stability and change over time. Mindfulness The construct of mindfulness has been defined in more than one way within the literature, however, all definitions are in accord with the notion suggesting that mindfulness is a way of directing attention (Bishop et al., 2004). Mindfulness is considered to be a state of consciousness that incorporates self-awareness and attention with a core characteristic of being open, receptive, and non-judgmental (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). One of the most recognized definitions comes from Jon Kabat-Zinn, who defines mindfulness as “the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145). In his review of the definitions of mindfulness, Black (2011) notes mindfulness consists of a “general receptivity and full engagement with the present moment” (p. 1). Although attention and awareness are consistent features of normal functioning, Brown and Ryan (2003) describe mindfulness as “a quality of consciousness that is characterized by clarity and vividness of current experience and functioning and thus stands in contrast to the mindless, less ‘awake’ states of habitual or automatic functioning that may be chronic for many individuals” (p. 823). For example, when an individual is in the shower, he or she can be attuned to the moment-to-moment sensory experience of the warm water, while also being peripherally aware of the differing scents of shampoos and soaps. In contrast, Brown and Ryan (2003) describe “mindlessness” as the relative absence of mindfulness. That is, consciousness that is constrained in some way (e.g., rumination on events in the past, anxieties about the future) pulls awareness away from the present experience. Mindfulness can also be compromised by dividing 13 attention with multiple tasks (e.g., talking on the phone while watching television), preoccupation with concerns that limit focus on the present moment, or by refusing to acknowledge a thought, emotion, motivation or perceived object. Being mindful requires awareness and focus on current experience, versus “automatic pilot,” which involves engaging in behaviour that is out of awareness and attention, that is compulsive or automatic (Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). Trait mindfulness: Review of research with adults. In his 2003 commentary on mindfulness-based intervention, Kabat-Zinn posited that all individuals are likely capable of mindfulness but may differ with regard to their propensity to be mindful. The following section offers a review of the research that has been conducted on trait mindfulness with adult populations. Note that a review of the research on both mindfulness and self-compassion with children and adolescents is presented following a review of the construct, self-compassion. Brown and Ryan (2003) investigated mindfulness as a naturally occurring characteristic, varying among individuals, and within individuals over time in their paper describing the development and psychometric properties of the trait Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). The authors conducted a series of studies (correlational, quasi-experimental, and laboratory) with adult samples that demonstrated the MAAS measured a unique quality of consciousness. These investigations found mindfulness to be positively associated with a variety of well-being constructs, (e.g., optimism, positive affect, and self-actualization) while being negatively related to indicators of psychological and emotional disturbance (e.g. negative affect, depression, anxiety, and rumination). Overall, high scores on the MAAS were found to be related to enhanced self-awareness and were predictive of self-regulation and positive emotional states. Brown and Ryan (2003) hypothesized that trait mindfulness is predictive of autonomous 14 activity in daily life, whereas state mindfulness is linked to momentary positive experience and affect. To test this hypothesis, Brown and Ryan (2003), conducted an experience-sampling study in which the researchers studied daily fluctuations in reports of mindfulness from samples of adult recruited from the Rochester, N.Y. area (n = 77; Mage = 37.6) and undergraduate students (n = 92; Mage = 19.5). The results supported their hypothesis, with results indicating trait mindfulness predicted more autonomous activity in day-to-day life and lower levels of unpleasant affect. With regards to pleasant affect, state mindfulness was associated with positive experiences including more intense and frequent pleasant affect, and less intense and less frequent unpleasant affect, whereas trait MAAS did not predict experience sampled pleasant affect. Further, trait and state mindfulness were shown to be independent, that is, a mindful disposition had beneficial effects on emotional well-being and self-regulation as did state experiences of mindfulness, independent of disposition. Finally, a relationship was found between state and trait mindfulness. Specifically, those who exhibited trait mindfulness were more likely to report experiences of state mindfulness. Given that findings from their initial correlational study (described above) and the experience-sample study, the authors concluded that the findings suggest that mindfulness is more strongly associated with reduced negative affect, rather than increased positive affect. Further, the authors suggest that individuals with a more mindful disposition “could be expected to show a generally mild emotional demeanor” (p. 839), rather than be characterized as “happy” marked by the experience of an abundance of positive affect and limited negative affect. Recent research on trait mindfulness with adults across the fields of mental health, social science, and neuroscience has revealed further beneficial associations. A neuroimaging study suggested that individual differences in trait mindfulness may modulate activity in neural 15 systems involved in the effective cognitive control of negative emotions (Modinos, Ormel, & Aleman, 2010). The authors found that higher levels of mindfulness predicted activity in neural regions underlying reappraisal, with dorsomedial prefrontal cortex activation increasing with higher trait mindfulness. In addition, the prefrontal activation was negatively correlated with the amygdala response to negative scenes; this finding supports the role of mindfulness in down-regulating emotion-generation regions of the brain. Tomlinson, Yousaf, Vittersø, and Jones (2018) conducted a recent systematic review of dispositional mindfulness and psychological health. The authors were primarily interested in dispositional mindfulness and psychological health in non-clinical samples from the general healthy population. Upon examination of the data, three main themes emerged that described the association between dispositional mindfulness and psychological health: psychological symptoms, cognitive processes, and emotional factors. Following their review, Jones and colleagues (2018) then created a taxonomy of the associations between dispositional mindfulness and psychological health with these three domains. First, dispositional mindfulness has been found to be inversely related to psychopathological symptoms such as symptoms of depression. Second, dispositional mindfulness appears to be positively related to adaptive cognitive processes including less pain catastrophizing and rumination. Third, dispositional mindfulness is related to emotional factors, specifically, superior emotional processing and regulation. Trait mindfulness also has been linked to positive relational experience in adults. Research has found trait mindfulness to be related to, or predictive of, openness and interpersonal closeness, relationship satisfaction, and constructive responses to relationship stress (Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, & Rogge, 2007: Brown & Ryan, 2003). Dekeyser and his colleagues (2008) examined the relation of mindfulness to interpersonal behaviour and found 16 mindfulness to be related to expressing oneself in a variety of social situations, and engagement in empathy. Further, mindfulness has been shown to moderate the effects of a mindfulness-based treatment program, where relative to controls, program participants with higher trait levels of mindfulness at pre-test exhibited a larger increase in mindfulness, subjective well-being, empathy, and hope, and superior declines in perceived stress up to one year after treatment (Shapiro, Brown, Thoresen, & Plante 2011). Taken together, findings from research with adults examining trait mindfulness suggest that it plays an important role in regulating emotions, behaviour, and interpersonal relations. These findings highlight the need to investigate whether mindfulness plays a similar role in the promotion of well-being during early adolescence. Self-compassion Self-compassion, a construct related to mindfulness, has emerged in recent years as a construct of interest in Western psychology (Barnard & Curry, 2011). As with mindfulness, the adoption of self-compassion, or compassion practices more broadly, in contemporary Western psychology is rooted within Buddhist traditions (Hayes et al., 2011; Hofmann, Grossman, & Hinton, 2011; Zeller, Yuval, Nitzan-Assayag, & Bernstein, 2015). Self-compassion and compassion are described within Tibetan Buddhist tradition as the wish to prevent or alleviate one’s suffering and the suffering of others (Davidson & Harrington, 2001). Self-compassion, specifically, has been defined as the “ability to hold one’s feelings of suffering with a sense of warmth, connection, and concern” (Neff & McGehee, 2010, p. 226). The benefits of secular applications of compassion practices, including self-compassion, have increasingly been explored within experimental research studies (for reviews see Barnard & Curry, 2011; Kirby, 2017). Although interest in self-compassion has grown, the majority of studies have included 17 adult samples and there is a dearth of studies examining the presentation of self-compassion in children and adolescents (Peter & Gazelle, 2017; Shin, Black, Shonkoff, Riggs, & Pentz, 2016; Sutton et al., 2018). Neff (2003a, 2003b) put forth a contemporary conceptual framework of self-compassion which can be understood simply as compassion turned inwards. Neff’s framework includes three main components: (a) self-kindness, referring to the ability to be understanding and kind to oneself, as opposed to harsh self-criticism, (b) common humanity, referring to the recognition that imperfection is a shared aspect of human experience, as opposed to feeling isolated with one’s failures, and (c) mindfulness, referring to the ability to hold one’s painful thoughts with a balanced perspective, as opposed to over-identifying with them. Neff (2003a) describes the three components as interdependent, even though they are conceptually distinct. Specifically, for an individual to experience self-compassion, mindfulness is a necessary component so that he/she does not repress negative emotions. Bringing awareness to negative emotions, and not over-identifying with them, allows space for one to extend self-kindness and recognize the connection of their suffering to that of common human experience (Neff, 2003a, 2003b). Mindfulness and self-compassion: Intersection and distinctions. Mindfulness and self-compassion are both rooted in Buddhist psychology and share many commonalities including evidence of their distinct relationship to well-being in both adults and early adolescents (Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011; Lawlor et al., 2014; Neff & Costigan, 2014; Sutton et al., 2018). The most obvious connection between the two constructs is the inclusion of mindfulness as one of the three components of self-compassion. Despite this appearance of overlap, the two 18 constructs are considered to have three broad distinctions: (a) scope, (b) target, and, (c) physiological origins (Neff & Dahm, 2015). First, the scope of mindfulness within Neff’s articulation of self-compassion is narrower than mindfulness in general (Neff, 2003a). Mindfulness involves an awareness that approaches experience with equanimity, whether the experience is positive, negative, or neutral. The mindfulness component of self-compassion pertains only to bringing awareness to negative experiences – pain and suffering. Self-compassion involves bringing mindful awareness to one’s own suffering “with balanced awareness of negative thoughts and feelings” (Neff & Dahn, 2015 p. 20). Mindfulness involves bringing an attitude of gentle curiosity and non-judgement to experience, whereas self-compassion expands this quality of awareness to include the attitudinal components self-kindness and common humanity. Self-compassion is an active process whereby an individual engages in comforting or soothing oneself by offering kindness and recognizing that their circumstances are part of the common human condition. These additional qualities, self-kindness and common humanity, are not traditionally included in the definition of mindfulness (Bishop et al., 2004; Neff & Dahn, 2015). Thus, when compared to mindfulness in general, self-compassion involves a narrower scope of mindfulness and a broader total scope of the construct with the inclusion of self-kindness and common humanity. Self-compassion also differs from mindfulness in regards to how one relates to his/her experience. An individual who is mindful, brings intentional awareness to their internal experience, whereas self-compassion provides an individual with a way of relating to themselves as an “experiencer” of suffering (Germer, 2009; Neff & Dahm, 2015). Mindfulness and self-compassion may both arise at the presentation of a painful experience or they may not. It is possible to be mindfully aware of a back ache, but mindfulness alone does not guarantee the 19 suffering individual will self-soothe with self-kindness and reflection that their circumstance is represented within common human experience. Hence, self-compassion includes an aspect of intention. Mindfulness is intentional attention, whereas, self-compassion may be thought of as intentional attitude. Mindfulness can facilitate an awareness that pain is present, and enable an individual to sit with what is, rather than attempt to push it away or avoid recognizing it in the first place. Self-compassion facilitates the awareness of the pain via mindfulness, and then enables an individual to approach the pain with compassion, with a desire to alleviate their own suffering. Neff and Dahm (2015) acknowledge that self-compassion brings forth somewhat of a paradox, in that “at the same time that one’s present moment experience is mindfully accepted without resistance, the wish for the experiencer to be free of suffering in future moments - the motivation that lies at the heart of compassion - is also present” (p. 21). It has been suggested that mindfulness and self-compassion have a bi-directional relationship and enhance one another. Specifically, mindfulness enables an individual to bring non-judgemental awareness to their experience in general, while self-compassion enables individuals to continue to become aware of their experiences in an open and non-judgmental way (Neff, 2003a; Neff & Germer, 2012). The third area Neff and Dham (2015) discuss, that differentiates self-compassion from mindfulness, pertains to physiological origins. It is thought that mindfulness and self-compassion are activated differentially depending on whether one is bringing awareness to their moment-to-moment experience or responding to an experience with compassion towards the self (Neff & Dahm, 2015). Compassion, in general, has been found to reside in the ancient mammalian caregiving system and recruits the brain's bioregulatory structures as in the case of primary emotions (Immordino-Yang, McColla, Damasioa, & Damasio, 2009). Researchers have discovered that, in adults, trait mindfulness is related to greater activation in prefrontal cortex 20 and greater deactivation of amygdala and has a role in emotion regulation (Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007; Wheeler et al., 2017). The relationship between mindfulness and self-compassion. Recent years have seen growth in the examination of the relationship between mindfulness and self-compassion. This relationship has been explored cross-sectionally with adolescents and adults using the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003b) and a variety of measures of mindfulness, including the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003), the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2008), and the Children and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM; Greco et al., 2011). Researchers have found significant correlations between self-compassion, as measured by the SCS, and mindfulness as measured by the MAAS (Van Dam, Sheppard, Forsyth, & Earlywine, 2011), the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer, Lynkins, & Peters, 2012), and the Children and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (Bluth & Blanton, 2014). In addition, Sutton and her colleagues (2018) found the two constructs to be significantly related in a study with pre- and early adolescents using the Self-Compassion Scale for Children (SCS-C; Sutton et al., 2018) and the Mindful Awareness Scale for Children (MAAS-C; Lawlor et al, 2014). Finally, experimental studies have also found changes in self-compassion following mindfulness-based interventions in adult samples (Bergen-Cico & Cheon, 2013; Birnie, Speca, & Carlson, 2010). For example, in a quasi-experimental designed study with undergraduate students, Bergen-Cico and Cheon (2013) found that individuals who participated in a weekly mindfulness-based program over five weeks increased in their self-reported mindfulness and self-compassion across the course of the intervention and that changes in mindfulness were associated with changes in self-compassion. Similarly, in an investigation of a short-term 21 meditation training session for adolescents, Galla (2016) found a significant relationship between self-reports of mindfulness and self-compassion, along with improvements in both constructs following the intervention. Self-Compassion: Review of research with adults. Research examining self-compassion in adult populations has found the construct to be strongly related to indicators of mental health, including well-being, optimism, feelings of happiness, connectedness and curiosity, as well as to decreased anxiety, fear of failure, rumination, and depression (Neff, 2009). Further, self-compassion in adult samples has been shown to positively correlate with individuals’ concerns for the well-being of others, including higher levels of perspective-taking and empathy (Neff & Pommier, 2012). A meta-analysis conducted by Zessin, Dickhauser, and Garbade (2015) examined the relationship between self-compassion and well-being. The researchers looked at 79 samples of adults with an overall sample size of N = 16,416; two thirds of the participants were female with an overall mean age of just under 30 years. Results indicated the magnitude of the relationship between self-compassion and well-being was r = .47. To examine implications for mental health, MacBeth and Gumley (2012) conducted a meta-analysis exploring the relations between self-compassion and psychopathology. The authors identified 20 adult samples from 14 studies that examined associations between self-compassion and various indicators of psychopathology, such as depression, anxiety, and stress. The results revealed that, overall, there was a large effect size for the relationship between self-compassion and psychopathology, r = -0.54, 95% CI [−0.57, −0.51]; Z= −34.02, p<.0001. Specifically, the authors reported correlations for symptoms of depression (r = -.52), anxiety (r = -.51), and stress (r = -.54). 22 Self-compassion construct structure debate. In recent years, there has been some debate about the factor structure of Self-Compassion Scale with some researchers arguing it is not representative of a single construct, but rather, is comprised of two distinct constructs, self-compassion and self-coldness (e.g., Brenner et al., 2018; Lopez et al., 2015; Muris & Petrocchi, 2017). Brenner and colleagues (2018) describe self-compassion as “a caring, nonjudgmental lens in the face of personal suffering”, while self-coldness refers to “self-judgment, isolation, and overidentifying with distress” (p. 347). Indeed, recent investigations of the factor structure of the original long version of the SCS, and the SCS Short Form (SCS-SF), have demonstrated that these two constructs are represented by the positive and negatively worded items that form two separate factors; self-compassion is comprised by the positively worded scale items and self-coldness is comprised by the negatively worded items (Brenner, Heath, Vogel, & Credé, 2017; Castilho et al., 2015; López et al., 2015; Muris, Broek, Otgaar, Oudenhoven, & Lennartz, 2018). In addition, the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale Short Form – Child (SCS-C), which is used in the present study, was examined in a validation study by Sutton and colleagues (2018). Results from that study indicated that for children ages 8 to 12 the negative and positive components of self-compassion reflect two distinct constructs, as was found for the long and short adult versions of the scale. In light of these findings regarding the factor structure of the SCS, researchers have questioned the practice of combining the reverse-scored, negatively worded self-coldness items with the positively worded self-compassion items, to create one overall self- compassion score. Researchers have argued that the use of a single composite score of self-compassion creates a lack of clarity in interpreting results due to the inability to decipher whether findings can be attributed to self-compassion or self-coldness (Brenner et al., 2018). 23 Neff (2016a, 2016b) has responded to these critiques by emphasizing that the negatively worded items and subscales are inherent components of the self-compassion construct as she originally defined in her papers that introduced the construct and Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003a, 2003b). Neff (2016a) put forth a bi-factor model to capture the overall or general self-compassion factor while at the same time modeling the separate subscales. In the validation study of the SCS-C, Sutton and colleagues (2018) tested Neff’s bi-factor model and found that it had non-significant factor loadings and weak internal consistency. These findings supported the position that the negative and positive components of self-compassion reflect two distinct constructs. Considering the current debate in the literature regarding the self-compassion measure, the present study investigates self-compassion in two ways. First, self-compassion was explored as a unidimensional construct as originally defined by Neff (2016a), in that it “represents the relative balance of compassionate and uncompassionate responses to suffering, and the lack of self-compassion is as important to the definition of the trait as the presence of it” (p. 265). Second, in light of the findings revealing a divergence between the negative and positive worded items on the scale, the two categories of items were investigated as separate constructs in regard to their associations among cognitive, emotional, and social variables of interest in a population of early adolescence. Mindfulness and Self-Compassion in Early Adolescence As in the case of mindfulness research, the majority of studies examining self-compassion have been with adult samples (Peter & Gazelle, 2017; Shin et al., 2016; Sutton et al., 2018). The first study on self-compassion with adolescents occurred less than a decade ago (Neff & McGehee, 2010). The following section reviews the limited literature on mindfulness and self- 24 compassion with children and adolescents in relation to cognitive (EF), emotional (well-being), and social (prosociality) domains of adjustment. Relations of mindfulness and self-compassion to well-being in adolescence. Subjective well-being (SWB) has been described as an individual’s evaluation of their personal quality of life, in general (Diener, 1994). A commonly accepted model of SWB has been conceptualized as having two parts, (a) an emotional component (frequency of positive and negative affect over time) and (b) a cognitive component (life satisfaction) (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Specifically, emotional well-being refers to the presence of pleasant or positive affect and the absence of unpleasant or negative or affect, while, cognitive well-being refers to an individual’s cognitive evaluation of life, which is often referred to as life satisfaction. Research has found these components to be distinct in both adults and children (Huebner, 1991). Scholars have posited that these two facets are distinctive components of subjective well-being and should be examined separately (Pavot, Fujita, & Diener, 1997). Cross-sectional correlational research has found dispositional mindfulness to be associated with optimism, life satisfaction, emotional well-being, and lower reports of anxiety and depression in early adolescence (Brown, West, Loverich, & Biegel, 2011; Ciarrochi, Kashdan, Leeson, Heaven, & Jordan, 2011; Lawlor et al., 2014). Further, research examining the impact of mindfulness on quality of life and health (specifically asthma control) among adolescents with asthma found that dispositional mindfulness was positively and significantly related to quality of life and negatively and significantly related to asthma related stress (Cillessen, van de Ven, & Karremans, 2017). In the area of health and risky behaviours during adolescence, mindfulness has emerged as a potential protective factor (Black, Sussman, Johnson, & Milam, 2012a). Mindfulness may 25 protect against adolescent maladaptive behaviour by reducing negative affect and stress and through affect regulation competencies (Hede, 2010; Herwig, Kaffenberger, Jancke, & Bruhl, 2010). A study with a group of Chinese adolescents (Mage =16.2 years) examined the moderating effect of trait mindfulness on associations between intentions to smoke, smoking refusal self-efficacy, and smoking. The results from cross-sectional analyses revealed that high “intention to smoke” predicted higher smoking frequency among those participants who reported low mindfulness, as compared to those who reported high mindfulness. In addition, low “smoking refusal self-efficacy” predicted higher smoking frequency among participants who reported low trait mindfulness, as compared to those who reported high trait mindfulness. These findings suggest that mindfulness may shield individuals with either high pro-smoking intentions or low smoking refusal self-efficacy from engaging in higher risk smoking behaviour (Black et al., 2012a). Similarly, Black and his colleagues (2012b) examined the impact that trait mindfulness might have on cigarette smoking frequency, through its impact on depressive affect, anger affect, and perceived stress mediators, with a group of Chinese adolescents (Mage =16.2 years) over time. Cross-sectional findings revealed that mindfulness was negatively associated with adolescent smoking behaviour through its influence on negative affect and perceived stress mediators. The results from 13-month longitudinal research showed that the indirect effects remained significant for depressive affect and perceived stress but not for anger affect. Two studies have examined the role mindfulness might play in adolescent mental health, specifically in regards to rumination. Marks, Sobanski, and Hine (2010) examined the moderating effects of dispositional rumination and mindfulness on the relationship between recent life hassles and adolescent mental health. The researchers collected data from 317 high school students who completed inventories of recent life hassles, a measure of trait mindfulness, 26 and assessments of depression, anxiety, and stress. Results indicated that mindfulness weakened the relationship among life hassles and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. In a similar study, Ciesla, Reilly, Dickson, Emanuel, and Updegraff (2012) examined mindfulness in relation to daily stress, dysphoric affect, and rumination with 78 adolescents. Results revealed that mindfulness was related to lower levels of dysphoric affect. An interaction of mindfulness and stress predicted later dysphoria with less mindful individuals (classified as one standard deviation below the mean for mindfulness) who exhibited more vulnerability to the negative effects of stress. In addition, results indicated that an interactive effect of mindfulness and stress was mediated by changes in rumination; less mindful adolescents reported higher levels of state rumination in reaction to increases in life stress, while more mindful adolescents did not report such an increase following an incidence of life stress. Taken together, these findings support the notion that mindfulness may act as a protective factor in adolescence and buffer against negative cognitive thought patterns (i.e., rumination). In accordance with research findings from studies with adults, research examining self-compassion in adolescents has found self-compassion to be significantly and positively associated with well-being (Neff & McGehee, 2010). Specifically, Sutton and her colleagues conducted a validation study of the Self-Compassion Scale for Children, in a sample of 406 (51% female) fourth to seventh graders (Mage = 10.70). Part of the research aims included examining the relations of self-compassion to indicators of well-being and results indicated significant, positive relationships of self-compassion to optimism, gratitude, empathy, life satisfaction, and concern for others, as well as significant, negative correlations of self-compassion to anxiety and depression. 27 Bluth and Blanton (2014) conducted an exploratory investigation with a group of adolescents in Grades 9 to 12 (N = 67) to examine mindfulness and self-compassion in relation to dimensions of emotional well-being, including positive and negative affect, satisfaction with life, and perceived stress. The authors posited that mindfulness, mediated by self-compassion, would be related to dimensions of emotional being. To test their hypothesis, the authors examined a path model with mindfulness as the predictor and self-compassion as the mediator, and an alternative path model with self-compassion as the predictor and mindfulness as the mediator. The results revealed evidence that both mindfulness and self-compassion acted as mediators in the path to well-being, as measured by life satisfaction and perceived stress. Neff and McGehee (2010) posited that self-compassion may lead to resilience by buffering adolescents from the increased self-consciousness, negative self-evaluation, rumination, and social comparison that are common during this developmental period (Harter, 2011). This may be partially explained by Neff and Vonk’s (2009) research that found self-compassion to be associated with noncontingent and stable feelings of self-worth over time. Note that the notion of non-contingent self-worth draws from the work of Deci and Ryan (1995), who have proposed that some individuals possess a ‘‘true self-esteem,’’ which is a self-determined and autonomous way of evaluating oneself that is not dependent on the social approval of others or particular outcomes. In addition, self-compassion was found to have a significant negative relationship to social comparison, public self-consciousness, self-rumination, anger, and closed-mindedness. Conceptually, self-compassion has been proposed as a healthier alternative to the promotion of self-esteem, due to its emphasis on self-kindness, as opposed to self-judgment and social comparison (Neff, 2003a, 2011). Marshall and colleagues (2015) tested this notion 28 empirically with a longitudinal study with a sample of adolescents (N = 2448; Mage = 14.65 years). The study investigated how self-esteem might interact with self-compassion to predict changes in mental health over one year, specifically a one-year time lag, from Grade 9 to 10. Findings indicated that self-compassion moderated the influence of self-esteem on mental health. For those participants who reported high levels of self-compassion, low self-esteem had little effect on mental health. Marshall and her colleagues concluded that the findings suggest self-compassion potentially buffers negative effects of low self-esteem on mental health. Self-compassion has also been explored as a potential protective factor against stress in adolescence. Bluth and her colleagues (2016) found that adolescents who were higher in self-compassion, compared to those who were lower, had a lower physiologic stress response when exposed to the social stress test within a lab setting. Complementary research on self-compassion has found the construct to be positively related to emotional intelligence and well-being in adolescence (Castilho, Carvalho, Marques, & Pinto-Gouveia, 2017) and negatively related to emotional distress including depression (Ferrari, Yap, Scott, Einstein, & Ciarrochi, 2018). In a longitudinal study, Peter and Gazelle (2017) examined the trajectories of self-compassion, self-criticism, and anxious solitude with attachment security as a moderator in a group of 213 early adolescents in Grades 5 to 7. Results indicated that self-compassion trajectories declined from fifth to seventh grades. Findings also indicated that youth higher in anxious solitude had substantial heterogeneity in self-compassion trajectories across early adolescence. The patterns were found to be moderated by the security of their attachment with their mothers and fathers, whereas, secure attachment maintained self-compassion and protected against self-criticism. The authors stated they did not find any gender differences. 29 There is a limited, yet, growing body of research examining the associations among mindfulness, self-compassion, and well-being in early adolescence that mirrors findings from the larger body of work involving adult samples. Research suggests that these two constructs are beneficial in early adolescence, yet there is some evidence that the trajectories of mindfulness and self-compassion may not be stable and indeed dip during this period of development (e.g., Lawlor, 2014; Peter & Gazelle, 2017). Research is needed to better understand how these potential changes in mindfulness and self-compassion affect well-being during early adolescence. To help fill the gap in the literature, the present study aims to examine how these two constructs predict various indicators of well-being over time. Mindfulness, self-compassion, and prosociality. Prosociality has been described as including such characteristics as cooperativeness, helpfulness, sharing, and being empathic (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000). Prosocial behaviours are described as voluntary, individual behaviours aimed at benefiting others, such as donating, caring, comforting, and helping (Caprara & Steca, 2007). Further, prosocial behaviours have been found to be positively related to social emotional adjustment in children and adolescents (Caprara & Steca, 2007; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Prosocial development is complex, with some longitudinal examinations finding prosociality to be a relatively, stable characteristic with childhood prosociality indexes correlating with prosociality indexes in adulthood (Eisenberg, 2002). However, others have found decreases in prosociality from the beginning to near the end of high school (Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch 2007). To better understand prosociality in early adolescence, Nantel-Vivier and her colleagues (2009) looked specifically at the trajectories of prosociality using multi-informants (mothers and teachers) in cross-cultural samples of Canadian and Italian early adolescents across four years 30 (ages 10 -14). The researchers modeled the developmental trajectories in order to identify subgroups of children exhibiting distinct longitudinal patterns of prosocial behaviour frequencies. Prosocial behaviour was assessed via yearly ratings collected from the children and their teachers using the Prosocial Behaviour Scale (Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993). Following five years of data collection, prosocial development trajectories were modelled. Results revealed that three trajectories could be modelled from self-ratings and four trajectories could be modelled from teacher ratings. All but one trajectory of prosociality was stable or declining. The only increasing prosocial trajectory was a subgroup of children with increasing levels of prosocial behaviours identified by teacher reports. Additionally, the associations between ratings by different informants were found to be low to moderate. These findings were in contrast to previous understanding in the literature that proposes prosocial behaviours increase as children develop (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Knafo-Noam, 2015). Future research would benefit from the examination of factors, such as mindfulness and self-compassion, that may promote prosocial behaviour during this developmental period. Research examining the relation between trait mindfulness and prosociality is limited, especially with early adolescents. One study with a sample of adolescents in Grade 10 (N =776) found an association between mindfulness and two prosocial traits, conscientiousness and low psychoticsm (Ciarrochi et al., 2011). While discussing the link between mindfulness and prosocial behaviour, Condon (2017) identified three mechanisms of mindfulness that may facilitate prosocial behaviour. First, mindfulness involves the ability to sustain attention (Tang et al., 2007). Condon proposed that in social contexts, “enhanced attention capacities may increase the ability to attend to the needs of others, thereby increasing the likelihood that one would recognize an opportunity or need to engage in action to help others.” (p. 13). Second, 31 mindfulness is associated with elevated body awareness, which can improve awareness of emotional states via the ability to notice fluctuations in body sensations (Hölzel et al., 2011). Condon proposed that heightened awareness of the body may facilitate empathetic processing and prosocial responding due to common neural correlates (i.e., insula) which are involved in both interoceptive awareness (including body awareness) and the processing of others’ emotional states (Singer, Critchley, & Preuschoff, 2009). The third mechanism of mindfulness Condon identified that may help to promote prosociality is dereification. Dereification involves the separation of thoughts and feelings from reality. Specifically, dereification involves observing thoughts as simply mental events, rather than viewing them as representative of reality. In contrast, reification involves the view that thoughts represent reality. High reification can be problematic. For example, in the occurrence of rumination, one may engage in negative thinking patterns such as, “I am not worthy.” These negative thoughts encourage negative affect and depressed mood due to the belief that the thought is representative of the self (Lutz, Jha, Dunne, & Saron, 2015). In contrast, derification promotes greater cognitive flexibility, including the ability to be flexible with thoughts, engage in creative problem solving, and consider multiple explanations for experience, as opposed to viewing a thought as the only possible explanation or reality. Cognitive flexibility, which develops in later childhood, can also facilitate perspective-taking, an important component for empathy and prosocial responding (Diamond, 2013). Early research suggests that this understanding of the mechanisms of mindfulness, outlined above, may be correct. In a series of research studies with a group of undergraduate students, Berry and colleagues (2018) examined whether mindfulness and its training promoted prosociality toward ostracized strangers. The series of studies tested three hypotheses: (a) more mindful individuals and those who receive a very brief mindfulness training would offer more 32 help to an ostracism victim, (b) these individuals would report greater empathic concern for them, and (c) empathic concern would mediate the observed mindfulness – helping relationship. Results offered support for all three hypotheses. First, the authors found that trait mindfulness was associated with empathic concern and prosocial responding towards an ostracized stranger. Following this, the authors conducted experiments to investigate these relationships further by exposing participants to a brief mindfulness training. Results indicated that, compared to students in the control group, those students who received brief mindfulness instruction exhibited greater prosocial responsiveness to an ostracized stranger. Results from both the study looking at trait mindfulness and prosocial response and the additional study examining helping behaviours following exposure to mindfulness instruction revealed that empathic concern mediated the relationship between mindfulness and helping behaviours. Although there is a paucity of empirical study examining the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and prosociality in adults, and even fewer studies with children and adolescents, there is evidence of an association within the body of mindfulness-based intervention research. Empathy and perspective-taking are constructs that have been identified as outcome variables for emerging mindfulness-based intervention programming for children and youth (Mind and Life Research Network, 2012). Empathy is an important component of prosociality and has been defined as “an affective response that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of another’s emotional state or condition, and that is similar to what the other person is feeling or would be expected to feel” (Eisenberg, 2002, p. 135). Recent mindfulness-based interventions with adult samples have revealed improvements in socioemotional functioning, including empathy (Sahdra et al., 2011), and prosocial responding (Condon, 2017; Kemeny et al., 2012) suggesting a connection between mindfulness, empathy, and prosocial 33 behaviour. Similarly, mindfulness-based intervention research with early adolescents has found improvements in prosocial behaviours as rated by peers and self-reported improvements in empathy (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Research examining the association between self-compassion and prosociality is limited. Theoretically, Neff has posited that because there is little differentiation between self-compassion and compassion in general, individuals that are more compassionate towards themselves would be more concerned for and compassionate towards others (Neff, 2003a, 2003b). Neff and Pommier (2013) investigated the relation between self-compassion and concern for others among three different samples that included 384 college undergraduates, 400 community adults, and 172 practicing meditators. Concern for others was assessed using variables that included compassion for humanity, altruism, forgiveness, empathetic concern, perspective taking, and personal distress. Note that, in this study, personal distress was operationalized and assessed by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980), which, along with personal distress, assesses empathic concern and perspective taking. In the IRI personal distress refers to "self-oriented" feelings of personal anxiety and unease when in difficult interpersonal situations. Results revealed that higher reports of self-compassion were positively and significantly associated with perspective-taking, forgiveness, and negatively associated with personal distress among all groups. With the exception of the sample of undergraduate students, individuals with higher reports of self-compassion had higher reports of altruism, empathetic concern, and compassion for humanity. There were additional differences among groups, with the meditators having the strongest associations among constructs, and women reporting weaker associations compared to men. 34 Further support for the association between self-compassion and prosociality can be found in a study by Lindsay and Creswell (2014) examining the associations amongst self-affirmation, self-compassion, and prosocial behaviour with a group of 58 undergraduate students. The authors reported testing and finding support for a mediation model in which self-compassion mediates the relationship between self-affirmation and prosocial behaviour. The authors reported that greater feelings of self-compassion predicted greater helping behavior, whereas in the absence of self-compassion, the path between self-affirmation and helping behavior was no longer significant. The research examining mindfulness, self-compassion, and prosociality is in a nascent stage. Research with adults indicates that there is a theoretical basis of understanding and initial evidence of an association between mindfulness and prosociality (e.g., Condon, 2017). There are also initial indications of a positive association between self-compassion and prosociality (e.g., Neff & Pommier, 2013). Despite these initial gains in understanding, there is a dearth of research with children and adolescents that investigates how these two constructs relate to prosociality. The research examining self-compassion and prosociality in early adolescence is lacking, however, one study with a sample of pre- and early adolescents, Sutton et al. (2018) found that those who reported higher self-compassion scored higher on concern for others. The present study aims to extend this initial research on the topic in order to contribute to a more complete understanding of the relations among these constructs with early adolescents, a population that is currently understudied in this area. Relations among mindfulness, self-compassion, and executive functions. When considering mindfulness and the developmental advancements that unfold during early adolescence, the skills associated with dimensions of self-awareness (e.g., meta-cognition, 35 attention, self-regulation) are of particular interest due to the research that has found associations between mindfulness and attention regulation skills during this developmental period (Riggs, Black, & Ritt-Olsen, 2015). Mindfulness encompasses an active process of attending to the present moment that requires the ability to control attention and exercise effective EFs (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012). Neuroscience provides an additional lens that helps illuminate the role of mindfulness in the promotion and development of self-regulatory skills. EFs are high-level functions that are central to planning behaviour, and achieving goals, including inhibiting impulses and responses that may derail goal-directed behaviour. Core EFs include working memory, inhibition (self-control, self-regulation), and cognitive flexibility; complex EFs include reasoning, planning, and problem-solving (Diamond, 2013 Diamond & Lee, 2011). Why are EFs important? EFs have been found to be related to a myriad of positive outcomes for children and adolescents, including school readiness (Blair & Razza, 2007), academic competence (Gathercole, Pickering, Knight, & Stegmann 2004), and mental and physical health (Moffitt et al., 2011). Research in adult populations in the field of neuroscience has shown that mindfulness training can improve EFs (Jha, Krompinger, & Baime, 2007; Tang & Posner, 2009; Tang et al., 2007). Teper, Segal, and Inzlicht (2014) proposed a model, grounded in mindfulness research with adult samples, that describes the relation of mindfulness to EF and emotion regulation. In their model, the authors contend that mindfulness improves EFs because it fosters present-moment awareness, which enables an individual to be attuned to subtle changes in affective states. In addition, mindfulness imparts an openness and acceptance towards these varied affective states that lends itself to effective emotion regulation. The authors posit that these functions of present awareness and acceptance, work iteratively, in that, “awareness facilitates 36 acceptance by effectively detecting the affective cues that are then “accepted,” which facilitates awareness by fostering an open mindset that allows for cue detection. Thus, mindfulness promotes executive control by enhancing experience of and attention to transient affects—the control alarms—that arise from competing goal tendencies” (p. 4). The enhanced awareness to emotional state, promotes executive control, which in turn is demonstrated with effective emotion regulation. Early adolescence is a time when these EF processes undergo significant development (Diamond, 2013), hence, the possibility that mindfulness contributes to EF and emotional regulation development during this developmental period is worth noting and investigating. EF’s and self-regulation skills originate from the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that resides just behind the forehead (Friedel et al., 2015). According to developmental theory and research, early adolescence is a time where the processes necessary for the active components of mindfulness, such as affect modulation and cognitive control, are actively developing (Yurgelun-Todd, 2007). During this developmental period, brain activity in the prefrontal region increases, (Rubia et al., 2000; Rubia et al., 2006), while activity in other brain regions decreases (Brown et al., 2005; Durston et al., 2006; Monk et al., 2003). This maturation of the prefrontal cortex suggests that there is an improvement in cognitive control and emotional regulation from childhood through early adulthood (Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008). Research with a small sample of adults (n = 16) who were randomized to receive a mindfulness-based intervention found using FMRI imaging that, compared to the comparison group, (n = 17), those who participated in mindfulness practices saw increased development in the prefrontal region of the brain (Hölzel et al., 2011). Specifically, Hölzel and colleagues noted 37 changes in gray matter concentration in the pre-frontal cortex – the area of the brain involved in EFs, emotion regulation, learning and memory processes, and perspective taking. There are limited studies utilizing neuroimaging to understand how mindfulness is revealed physiologically in children and adolescents. However, some researchers have discovered that during late adolescence, trait mindfulness can be predicted by the structural development of the insula, which resides in the pre-frontal area of the brain (Friedel et al., 2015). A research study by Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, Lawlor, & Thomson (2012) in which they utilized a performance measure of EF with a sample of early adolescents, found that mindfulness was related to EF, specifically that mindfulness is related to executive control processes including inhibitory control and working memory. Similarly, Riggs, Black, and Ritt-Olsen (2015) have found a relationship between trait mindfulness and EF, specifically inhibitory control and working memory, as measured by Behavioural Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Self-Report (BRIEF-SR) (Guy, Isquith, & Gioia, 2004). The BRIEF includes a series of rating scale instruments that were developed to assess behavioral demonstrations of executive dysfunction across human development (ages 2–90 years). The general domains assessed via the BRIEF tests include inhibitory control, cognitive and behavioral flexibility, emotional regulation, self-monitoring social contexts, ability to initiate activity, working memory, planning and problem-solving, organization of materials and environment, and monitoring task performance for accuracy (Roth, Isquith, & Gioia, 2014). Research is quite limited with regards to the examination of the associations between EF and self-compassion. One study conducted by Shin et al. (2016) examined the relations among mindfulness, self-compassion, and EF with a group of early adolescents using the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003), the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; 38 Neff, 2003b) (self- judgment and self-kindness domains only), and the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Self- Report (BRIEF-SR; Guy et al., 2004)). For this study, four of the eight subscales of the BRIEF were used; emotional control (9 of 10 items), inhibitory control (11 of 13 items), working memory (all 12 items), and organization of materials (all 7 items). As with the full BRIEF measure, the four subscales were combined to calculate a global EF score. Results indicated that mindfulness was significantly and positively related to global EF, along with the total score of the SCS, and the self-judgment subscale (reverse scored). The self-kindness subscale was not significantly related to EF. The authors then conducted a sequential linear regression. Variables were entered in a stepwise approach with the independent variables entered as separate models in the following order: self-kindness, self-judgment, and mindfulness. Each model controlled for participant age and gender. Results of the regression analysis revealed that self-kindness was not associated with EF proficiency. Conversely, SCS self-judgment (reverse-scored) positively contributed to the variance in EF (β = 0.40, p < .001). However, when adding MAAS to the model, MAAS scores were significantly positively associated with EF (β = 0.64, p < .001) and accounted for the initial variance explained by SCS. These results suggest that trait mindfulness is a more significant predictor of EF than self-compassion in early adolescence. Current understanding of the role of mindfulness and self-compassion in relation to different cognitive processes, in particular, EF, is limited. Moreover, there are no longitudinal studies examining the developmental trajectories of these constructs in relation to one another during early adolescence. Indeed, it is of interest to the field to further the understanding of the development and growth of cognitive processes and the factors that may contribute to them. The 39 present study seeks to better understand whether mindfulness and self-compassion, as assessed at the beginning of a school year, significantly predict EF at the end of the same school year. Age and gender differences in mindfulness and self-compassion. Currently, there is minimal research that investigates gender differences in mindfulness. In one study with a sample of Bosnian adults from the general population, Alispahic and Hasanbegovic-Anic (2017) examined age and gender differences in mindfulness as measured on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2012). Results indicated that older participants’ scores were higher than for younger participants, for all aspects of mindfulness. There were gender differences reported on two subscales of the FFMQ. Women scored higher than men on the Observing subscale, whereas men displayed higher scores on the Acting with Awareness subscale. In another study, Lawlor et al. (2014) examined age and gender differences in mindfulness, as measured by the MAAS-C, with a group of early adolescents in Grades 4 – 7 (N = 286; Mage = 11.43) from a large, diverse Western Canadian city. There were no gender differences found, however, age differences were found with fifth grade respondents scoring higher than seventh grade respondents. Examination of gender differences in mindfulness intervention research with adults has shown some evidence that women may be more likely to engage with mindfulness-based programming and may benefit more from an intervention (Katz & Toner, 2012; Luders, Toga, Lepore, & Gaser, 2009). With regards to intervention research with adolescents, Bluth, Robertson, and Girdler (2017) have argued that little is known about the gender differences in response to mindfulness interventions in adolescents. To begin to address this gap in the literature, the authors investigated these differences in a small mindfulness-based intervention study with 15 adolescents. Results indicated that female adolescents were more engaged than 40 their male peers during a mindfulness-based program and reported less stress following the intervention. A recent meta-analysis examined gender differences in self-compassion in adults with results revealing that self-compassion levels are lower for women than men (Yarnell et al., 2015). Following this investigation, Bluth and her colleagues (2017) investigated gender and age differences in the associations of self-compassion and emotional well-being in a large sample of adolescents in Grades 7 – 12. Consistent with previous findings, self-compassion was significantly related to well-being. The authors reported and interaction effect in that older girls reported the lowest self-compassion levels compared to younger girls or boys at all ages. Among older adolescents, self-compassion was found to have a larger protective effect on anxiety for boys than for girls. Finally, older adolescents with low and average self-compassion were found to have greater levels of depressive symptoms than those with high self-compassion. These findings mirror those with younger early adolescents in that self-compassion appears to decline with age (Peter & Gazelle, 2017). Current understanding of age and gender differences in mindfulness and self-compassion is extremely limited. Obtaining a better understanding of these differences in these constructs over time may help to inform intervention efforts that are tailored to specific developmental periods with consideration given to gender differences. The Present Research Currently, there is a lack of research examining trait mindfulness and self-compassion in children and/or adolescents. Findings from studies with adults and limited research with children and adolescents highlight the link between mindfulness, self-compassion and well-being (Lawlor et al., 2014; Sutton et al., 2018). There is also evidence that mindfulness and self-compassion are 41 associated with EFs (Oberle et al., 2012; Riggs et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2016). Finally, evidence from studies using adult samples suggest significant relations amongst mindfulness, self-compassion, and prosocial behaviour (Berry et al., 2018; Kemeny et al., 2012; Neff & Pommier, 2013). Despite the recent accumulation of research in this area of contemplative science, the majority of studies have been cross-sectional with a sole reliance on self-report measures. The present study will address this gap in the literature by incorporating multi-informant, multi-method assessments with a longitudinal design across one school year. As was known at the time of writing, this is the first study to examine the stability of these constructs in a short-term longitudinal study with early adolescent participants. The present design enabled the examination of the stability of mindfulness and self-compassion and how these two constructs relate to EF, well-being, and prosociality across one school year. The present study utilized both a variable-centered and person-centered approach to answer questions pertaining to the presentation of mindfulness and self-compassion in this sample of early adolescents. The inclusion of person-centered approaches in the analyses of the present study allows for examination of subpopulations via LPA that emerge based upon participants’ unique response profiles. In addition, the present study utilizes difference scores for examining change in mindfulness and self-compassion over time. The use of differences scores is a person-centered approach because change can be examined based upon how much an individual changes (up or down in mindfulness and self-compassion) based upon age and gender. Overview of Research Aims and Hypotheses The aims of the present study were threefold: (a) to examine grade and gender difference for mindfulness and self-compassion in a sample of early adolescents, (b) to use a person-centered approach to examine stability and change of early adolescents’ mindfulness and self- 42 compassion over the course of one school year, determine whether there are grade and gender differences in these trajectories, and to examine associations between the two constructs over time, and (c) to examine the degree to which early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year predicts various dimensions of their social, emotional, and cognitive competence at the end of the school year. Hypothesis 1: Grade differences. It is hypothesized that results from the present study will replicate previous cross-sectional research (e.g. Lawlor et al., 2014; Peter & Gazelle, 2017) showing grade differences in both mindfulness and self-compassion, with younger students reporting higher levels of mindfulness and self-compassion than older students. Hypothesis 2: Association between mindfulness and self-compassion. It is hypothesized that mindfulness and self-compassion will be positively and significantly associated with one another across each of three time points across one school year, given previous research that has found significant positive associations between the two constructs (Sutton et al., 2018; Van Dam et al., 2011). Hypothesis 3: Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of well-being, prosociality and EFs. Cross-sectional studies have indicated positive associations of mindfulness and self-compassion to well-being (Lawlor et al., 2014; Sutton et al., 2018), prosociality (Berry et al., 2018; Kemeny et al., 2012; Neff & Pommier, 2013), and EFs (Oberle et al., 2012; Riggs et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2016). Hence, it is hypothesized that early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year will be significantly and positively associated with indicators of well-being, prosociality, and EFs at the end of the school year. Working hypotheses. As this is the first study to track change in trait mindfulness and 43 self-compassion across multiple time points across one school year in a sample of early adolescents, this study takes an exploratory approach to predicting how stable these two constructs are over one school year period. The design of the present study allows for the examination of the stability of the relationship between mindfulness and self-compassion over time. As was known at the time of writing, this is the first study to track the relationship between mindfulness and self-compassion over time with early adolescents. Although it is anticipated that the relationship with be positive and significant at each time point, the investigation of stability and change over time, with regards to the strength of the relationship, is exploratory. Moreover, while previous research has not found gender differences in mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence in cross-sectional research (Lawlor et al., 2014; Sutton et al., 2018), the present study explored gender differences in a short-term longitudinal design. 44 Method Participants Participants were recruited from six public elementary schools in a large urban school district in a Western Canadian city and included early adolescents from six classrooms of Grades 5, 6, and 7. These participants served as the control group in a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an evaluation of a social and emotional learning (SEL) program. The sample was drawn from schools that were representative of a range of socioeconomic status; the median income range across the six schools was 64,859 - 96,648. Of 170 eligible students, 154 (46% girls) returned parental consent forms and gave assent to participate in the study. List-wise deletion was used to reduce the sample to include only those early adolescents with complete data on the target measures across each of the three time points in the school year (fall, mid-year, end of school year); 8 students were deleted from the sample because they had been absent for one of the data collection periods. The final sample was comprised of 146 early adolescents (Mage = 11.25; SD = .81). Because of the small sample size, no statistical comparisons were made between completers (n = 146) and non-completers (n = 8). Of the children recruited for participation, 91% received parent or guardian consent and gave assent themselves to participate in the study. Participants’ gender and grade levels are reported in Table 1. With regard to first language learned, the majority of participants reported English as their first language (79.5%). The next most common response was Chinese (6.2%), and the remaining responses included Filipino (3.4%), Hindi (1.4%), Japanese (0.7%), Korean, 0.7%), Mandarin (2.1%), Punjabi (2.1%), Vietnamese (0.7%), and “other “(2.7%), which included German, Polish, Arabic, Portuguese, and Tamil. 45 Procedure After university ethics board and school district approval was obtained to conduct the study, teachers across six elementary schools were recruited. At the onset of the research study, the purpose and the procedures of the study were explained to classroom teachers in order to solicit their participation. Subsequently, classroom visits were scheduled whereby the study was explained to the students and parental/guardian permission forms and student assent forms were given out to students. In order the ensure participants would be proficient enough in English to complete the questionnaire, participating teachers were asked to identify any of their students who did not have sufficient skills in reading English to complete the questionnaire; no students were identified. As described earlier, data were collected at three time points: beginning of the school year (October), mid-year (February) and end of the school year (June). On the day of data collection, students were given a student assent form wherein they were told that their participation was voluntary and that there would be no consequences if they chose not to participate. For each of the three data collection points, trained research assistants administered the questionnaires during one 45-minute class period. All items on the questionnaire were read aloud to students to control for differences in reading ability (note that there is no existing research examining difference between reading the survey aloud versus students completing the survey on their own). Students were encouraged to answer honestly and to ask any questions if they did not understand any of the questions or items on the instruments. To complete the EF tasks, individual students were taken out of the classroom for a 15-minute period with one trained research assistant to complete the computer-based tasks. Administration of EF computer tasks took place the same week that the questionnaires were administered. Children were told that they were participating in a research study that was aimed at understanding (1) “children’s 46 experiences in school” and (2) “their attitudes and beliefs about their classmates and themselves.” Students were also informed that their responses would be kept confidential, and only the researchers, not teachers, parents, or their principal, would see their completed questionnaires. Measures Demographic information. A demographic questionnaire (Appendix A) was administered to each student to gather information about their gender, age, grade, and, first language learned at home. Mindfulness. The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Children (MAAS-C; Lawlor et al., 2014) (Appendix B) is a modified version of the original Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), developed by Brown and Ryan (2003), and assesses individual differences in the “frequency of mindful states over time.” In developing their measure, Brown and Ryan found “statements reflecting less mindlessness are likely more accessible to most individuals, given that mindless states are much more common than mindful states” (p. 826). Therefore, items on the MAAS reflect mindless states (e.g., “I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious until sometime later,” “I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I am doing,” “I snack without being aware of what I am eating”). The MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003) is a 15-item scale with a response format that ranges from 1 (almost always) to 6 (almost never), with higher scores indicating higher levels of mindfulness. Items are distributed across cognitive, emotional, physical, interpersonal, and general domains. Benn (2004) modified the MAAS to use with younger populations by (a) altering the language to be age appropriate and (b) changing the 6-point Likert-type scale to a more child friendly format, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 6 (almost always). A total score for this scale was calculated by reverse-scoring all 47 items, then averaging them, with higher scores indicating higher mindfulness and lower mindlessness. A validation study found the MAAS-C to be a reliable and valid instrument with early adolescents with reported internal consistency of .84 (Lawlor, et al., 2014). In the present investigation the internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .86 at Time 1, .91 at Time 2, and .92, at Time 3. Self-compassion. The Self-Compassion Scale for Children (SCS-C; Sutton et al., 2018) (Appendix C) was utilized to assess self-compassion. The SCS-C was developed for use with children and adolescents by adapting the SCS-SF (Raes et al., 2010), which has primarily been used with adults. Items from the SCS-SF were modified to use with younger populations by altering the language to be age-appropriate. For example, Item 1 on the SCS-SF, “When I fail at something important to me I become consumed by feelings of inadequacy” was changed to “When I fail at something important to me, I feel like I’m not good enough” (Sutton et al., 2018). The measure consists of 12 items assessing self-compassion across 6 two-item subscales: self-kindness (e.g., “I try to be kind towards those parts of myself I don’t like”), self-judgment (e.g., ‘‘I am hard on myself about my own flaws’’), common humanity (e.g., ‘‘When I fail at something, I try to remember that everybody fails sometimes too”), isolation (e.g., ‘‘When I fail at something that’s important to me, I feel like I’m all alone’’), mindfulness (e.g., ‘‘When something upsets me I try to stay calm’’), and over-identification (e.g., ‘‘When I’m feeling down, I can’t stop thinking about everything that’s wrong’’). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1(almost never) to 5 (almost always). Mean scores on the six subscales were then averaged (after the negative items have been reverse-coded) to generate the overall self-compassion score. Cronbach’s alpha was good at Time 1 (.82), Time 2 (.84), and Time 3 (.81). 48 Executive function. To assess inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility, one stimulus-response task, a Dots task (here referred to as Hearts and Flowers task) was utilized. This measure is appropriate for ages four through adults and assesses all three dimensions of core EF skills. The task was presented on a laptop using the Presentation program by Neurobehavioral Systems (Berkeley, CA) to present stimuli and record responses. Responses were collected via two input keys on the keyboard. Participants were positioned approximately 50 cm from the screen. The task consisted of three different conditions. Each condition began with condition-specific instructions and a short block of four practice trials. The practice trials consisted of all relevant trial types included in the task condition. If necessary, the practice trials were repeated, to ensure that the participant had understood the task and the condition-specific requirements. Stimulus presentation time was 750 ms, and the interstimulus time interval was 500 ms. Central stimuli of the Hearts and Flowers task were a heart and a flower, appearing either on the left or right side of the screen (see Figure 1). The two stimuli were equated for visual characteristics, such as luminance, color, and size. Participants were instructed to respond to a heart by pressing the key on the same side as the heart (congruent trials), and to respond to a flower by pressing the key on the opposite side as the flower (incongruent trials). The task consists of three different conditions, representing the congruent trials, incongruent trials, and congruent and incongruent intermixed. In the beginning of each condition, a research assistant explained the rule of the condition and the participant practiced the rule in four to 12 practice trials. The stimulus presentation interval and the interstimulus interval were 500 ms. The primary variable of interest in the present study was the combination of EF skills (working memory, 49 cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control), as such, only Condition 3 (mixed rule) was used in the present study. Condition 1 (congruent rule) consisted of 12 trials in which a heart appeared either on the left or right side of the computer screen. The rule was to press the key on the same side as the heart as fast as possible. Condition 2 (incongruent rule) consisted of 12 trials in which a flower appeared either on the left or right side of the computer screen. The rule was to press the key on the opposite side of the heart as fast as possible. Condition 3 (mixed rule) consisted of 33 trials in which a heart or a flower appeared on the right or left side of the screen, requiring participants to flexibly shift between applying the congruent and the incongruent rule. Prior to calculating response time (RT) and accuracy scores, responses were filtered to retain only those RTs that were greater than or equal to 200 ms because anything less than 200 ms is considered anticipatory (Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006). Responses were determined to be correct if students pressed the button on the keyboard (a) that corresponded to the condition-specific rule, (b) no sooner than 200 ms after the trial stimulus had appeared, and (c) before the trial stimulus vanished from sight. Practice trials and the first trial to come after the practice trials were excluded from analyses. Accuracy and RT for the set of trials that demanded the greatest EFs in terms of inhibitory control, working memory, and flexibility, were the incongruent hearts and flowers trial. RT scores were calculated by summing the RT for each trial and then taking the average. Accuracy scores obtained by calculating a percent correct of the 32 included trials. Lower scores of RT indicated a faster response, and higher accuracy scores indicated a greater percentage of correct responses. 50 Well-being. To assess well-being, two measures were employed to examine life satisfaction and positive and negative affect. Satisfaction with life was assessed with the Satisfaction with Life Scale for Children (SWLS-C; Gadermann, Schonert-Reichl, & Zumbo, 2010) (Appendix D). The SWLS-C is a 5-item measure (e.g. “In most ways my life is close to the way I would want it to be”) with a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (disagree a lot) to 5 (agree a lot). Scores for each item are first summed and then averaged, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with life. Internal consistency, as assessed via Cronbach’s alpha, at Time 1 was satisfactory (.83), at Time 2 (.87), and Time 3 (.87). To assess affect, the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent, Catanzaro, Joiner, Rudolph & Potter, 1999) (Appendix E) was utilized. Twenty emotion words (10 positive, 10 negative) are rated according how much the respondent has felt that emotion over the past few weeks. Responses are rated from 1 (Not much) to 4 (Most of the time). For each subscale (positive and negative) scores are summed and then averaged, creating one score for positive affect and one score for negative affect. For each subscale (positive and negative) higher scores indicate higher levels of affect. Internal consistency for Positive Affect, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .88 at Time 1, .86 at Time 2, and .91, at Time 3. Cronbach’s alpha for Negative Affect was .84 at Time 1, .88 at Time 2, and .87 at Time 3. Prosociality. Peer and teacher reports were utilized to assess prosocial behaviour. For peer reports of prosocial behaviour, unlimited and cross-gender peer nominations were used to obtain independent assessments of children’s social behaviour. Four types of prosocial behaviours (“shares and cooperates,” “helps other kids when they have a problem,” “kind,” “understands other kids' point of view”) were assessed. For each question, children were asked to 51 “circle the names of any of your classmates who” fit each of the behavioural descriptions. Below each written question, children were given a roster of all their classmates participating in the research. Children could circle as many or as few names as they wanted. Children’s nominations were standardized within each classroom, and a proportional nominations score was calculated per child for each of the behaviours. Scores were computed by summing the three items and taking an average, with higher scores indicating higher peer reporting of prosocial behaviour. To assess teacher rated prosociality, classroom teachers completed the Teachers’ Ratings of Social Emotional Competence (TRSC; Kam & Greenberg, 1999) scale (Appendix F). The measure consists of 31 items over four subscales (Aggressive Behaviour [5 items], Behavioural Dysregulation [10 items], Attentional Control [7 items], and Social and Emotional Competence [9 items]. For the purposes of this study, only the 9-item Social Emotional Competence subscale was examined. To calculate a score for social and emotional competence, the 9 items of the subscale were summed and then averaged. Higher scores indicate higher levels of teacher reported social emotional competence. Cronbach’s alpha was .84 at Time 1, .84 at Time 2, and .83, at Time 3. 52 Results Overview of Research Aims The aims of the present study were threefold: (1) to examine grade and gender difference of mindfulness and self-compassion in a sample of early adolescents, (2) to use a person-centered approach to examine stability and change of early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one school year, determine whether there are grade and gender differences in these trajectories, and to examine associations between the two constructs over time, and (3) to examine the degree to which early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year predicts various dimensions of their social, emotional, and cognitive competence at the end of the school year. Data Analytic Plan To address the first aim regarding grade and gender differences in mindfulness and self-compassion, a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for both constructs at each of the three time points over the course of one school year; Time 1 = Beginning of the School Year, Time 2 = Mid-year, and Time 3 = End of the School Year. In addition, to investigate grade and gender differences, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted using the positive (self-compassion) and negative items (self-coldness) of the SCS-C as the dependent variables for each of the three time points. Next, to address the second aim of the study, person-centered analyses were conducted to examine the stability and change of early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion across one school year. First, to investigate whether there were any grade and gender differences with regards to change over time, a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs were conducted, with difference scores for mindfulness and self-compassion (Time 2 – Time 1, Time 53 3 – Time 2, and Time 3 – Time 1) serving as the dependent variables. Note that the question regarding grade and gender differences could have been addressed with a repeated measures ANOVA, however, doing so would change the research question to a group-based analysis, whereas, the aim was to employ a person-centered approach to examine change over time. The use of difference scores reflects a more person-centered approach by creating a new variable for each participant (Thomas & Zumbo, 2012; Zumbo, 1999). Second, latent profile analyses (LPA) were conducted to identify distinct subpopulations defined by response profiles for mindfulness and self-compassion. LPA is a person-centered approach that deems membership to be probabilistic and considers the size of a class when assigning class membership. Zero-order correlations were computed to examine relations between mindfulness and self-compassion at each of the three time points across the school year Finally, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to explore the third aim of the study, that focused on examining the degree to which early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year predicts various dimensions of their social, emotional, and cognitive competence at the end of the school year. In order to determine the covariates for each regression model, prior to conducting the regression analyses, a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether there were any grade or gender differences in each of the Time 3 dependent variables representing well-being, prosociality, and EF. Any significant grade or gender differences were placed into the model as covariates in order to control for their potentially confounding effects. For those models that required grade to be included as a covariate, dummy variables with contrast coding were created. In order to provide information about the magnitude of effects beyond statistical significance, partial eta-squared (ηp2) effect sizes were calculated for all of the ANOVAs and 54 MANOVAs. Partial eta-squared is the proportion of total variation attributable to the factor, partialling out (excluding) other factors from the total non-error variation (Pierce, Block, & Aguinis, 2004). According to the criteria proposed by Cohen (1988), effect sizes ranging from .059 to .137 are considered moderate, and those greater than .137 are considered large. To determine the relative importance of the predictors in the multiple regression analyses, the Pratt Index (Pratt, 1987) was used. It has been demonstrated in the literature that the Pratt Index, an R-square based statistic, is a practical strategy to employ when ordering predictors with regards to their importance in multiple regression analysis (e.g., Thomas, Hughes, & Zumbo, 1998). Preliminary Analyses Prior to all analyses, all variables were examined and assumptions were checked for linearity, multicollinearity, independence of residuals, homoscedasticity, normality of the distribution of residuals, and examination with Cook’s Distance values to ensure there were no influential cases biasing the model. All assumptions were met for all but one variable, including mindfulness, self-compassion, positive affect, negative affect, satisfaction with life, teacher ratings of social emotional competence, peer ratings of prosociality, and EFs. The exception was for the variable, negative affect. Specifically, with regard to homoscedasticity for negative affect, examination of the plot of standardised residuals versus standardised predicted values showed some signs of funnelling, suggesting that the assumption of homoscedasticity had not been met. In addition, the P-P plot for the model suggested that the assumption of normality of the residuals may have been violated. Although no extreme violations were observed, there was some evidence that the residuals were not normally distributed. Given the results of the testing of 55 assumptions, readers should use caution in interpreting the regression findings pertaining to negative affect. Missing Data To manage missing data, a list-wise deletion approach was used for cases with incomplete data (note that there were only five cases of the total 146 early adolescents with any missing data). Please note that the sample for the portion of the study investigating research question three consisted of 141 early adolescents across Grades 5, 6, and 7 (see Table 7). List-wise deletion was used to eliminate cases with incomplete data (146 early adolescents reduced to 141 early adolescents). Main Analyses The results are presented in the order of research aims, beginning with the first aim pertaining to grade and gender differences in mindfulness and self-compassion in a sample of early adolescents, followed by the second aim regarding the stability and relations between mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescents, ending with the aim that explores the degree to which mindfulness and self-compassion predict outcomes across social, emotional, and cognitive domains of development at the end of the school year among early adolescents. Aim 1: Gender and grade differences of mindfulness and self-compassion across three time points. The following section describes the results from analyses used to investigate the first aim of the study, which was to investigate gender and grade differences in mindfulness and self-compassion across one school year. Descriptive statistics. Table 2 includes the descriptive statistics of the sample including sample size, grade, gender, and means and standard deviations of the total scores of self-reported mindfulness at each of the three time points and for mindfulness difference scores 56 representing change over the school year. Table 3 includes the descriptive statistics of the sample including sample size, grade, gender, means and standard deviations of the total scores of self-reported self-compassion, as assessed at each of the three time points, and for self-compassion difference scores representing change over time. Grade and gender differences in mindfulness. First, to examine whether there were grade and gender differences in mindfulness at any of the three time points, a variable centered approach was used. A series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether there were any grade, gender, or interaction effects for mindfulness at each of the three time points. As displayed in Table 4, there were no significant main effects nor significant interaction effects for mindfulness for grade or gender at Time 1, Time 2, or Time 3. Grade and gender differences in self-compassion. A series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether there were any grade, gender, or interaction effects at each of the three time points for self-compassion. Results indicated a significant main effect for grade for the average of the three time points of self-compassion scores, F(2, 140) = 4.53 p = .012, h2 = .061. Post hoc Tukey’s test revealed that Grade 5 early adolescents (M = 3.41; SE =.09) had significantly higher self-compassion scores than Grade 7 early adolescents (M = 3.03; SE = .09). In addition, as can be seen in Table 5, a significant main effect for grade was found at Time 1 for self-compassion. Post hoc Tukey’s test revealed that early adolescents in Grade 5 (M = 3.41; SD = .69) scored significantly higher than early adolescents in Grade 7 (M = 3.06; SD = .64), p < .05. A significant grade effect was also found at Time 2. Post hoc Tukey’s test revealed that Grade 5 early adolescents’ (M = 3.43; SD = .65) self-compassion scores were significantly higher than Grade 7 early adolescents (M = 57 3.07; SD = .67) during the middle of the school year, p < .05. Finally, a significant main effect for grade was also found at Time 3 for self-compassion. Post hoc Tukey’s test revealed that Grade 5 early adolescents’ (M = 3.38; SD = .65) self-compassion was significantly higher than Grade 7 early adolescents (M = 2.97; SD = .59) at the end of the school year, p < .01. In summary, with regard to mindfulness, analyses indicated no significant differences between boys and girls, or for grade levels at each of the three time points. With regard to self- compassion, although no significant gender differences were found, analyses revealed a consistent, significant main effect for grade across all three time points, with Grade 5 early adolescents reporting significantly higher levels of self-compassion than their Grade 7 peers at Times 1, 2, and 3. Aim 2: Stability of mindfulness and self-compassion across three time points. The following section describes the results from analyses used to investigate the second aim of the study. First to test for differences over time, ANOVAs were utilized with calculated differences scores (Time 2 – Time 1; Time 3 – Time 2; Time 3 -Time 1) for both mindfulness and self-compassion. Next, Latent Profile Analysis was utilized to investigate whether distinct groups within the data set that could be differentiated by grade and gender. Grade and gender differences in mindfulness across time. Next, to examine whether there were differences in grade or gender with regards to change in mindfulness over time, a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs were conducted, with difference scores for mindfulness across the three time points (Time 2 – Time 1; Time 3 – Time 2; Time 3 – Time 1) as the dependent variables. As can be seen in Table 6, no significant main effects were found for gender or grade across any of the time points. However, there was one significant interaction effect for grade and gender within the Time 3 – Time 2 difference 58 score. Follow-up 1x 2 (Grade x Gender) ANOVAs for simple effects were conducted by splitting the file by grade in order to examine gender differences at each grade level. Results revealed no significant differences for Grade 5 or Grade 6. A significant main effect for gender was found for Grade 7, F(1, 39) = 8.85, p = .005, h2 = .19. Specifically, whereas Grade 7 girls (M = -0.15; SD = .53) declined in mindfulness from Time 2 to Time 3, Grade 7 boys did not (M = 0.35; SD = .54). Grade and gender differences in self-compassion across time. Next, to examine whether there were differences in grade or gender with regards to change in self-compassion over time, a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs were conducted, with difference scores on the SCS-C serving as the dependent variable (Time 2 – Time 1; Time 3 – Time 2; Time 3 – Time 1). As can been seen in Table 7, no significant main effects nor interaction effects for gender or grade across any of the SCS-C difference scores were found. Class solutions for mindfulness. An LPA was conducted next to explore whether there were any distinct groups within the data set that could be differentiated by grade and gender. Within the sample (N = 145), results from the likelihood ratio test indicated that a 3-class solution best fit the data. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and adjusted BIC decreased from a 1-class solution through a 3-class solution indicating an improved fit as the number of class solutions increased, suggesting that a 3-class solution may be optimal (see Table 8). The results of the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) for a 3-class solution was significant (p=.0007). Results of The Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT Test was also significant (p =. 0009) for the 3-class solution. A 4-class solution was tested and determined uninterpretable due to the small number of members (n = 5). Table 8 displays the commonly used fit statistics for 1 through 3 59 class solutions for analytic samples. Class 1 comprising 24% of the sample (n = 35), was labelled the low mindfulness group as they had the lowest average scores of mindfulness. Class 2, the largest class, comprising 46% of the sample (n = 67), was labelled the medium mindfulness group as they had higher scores than Class 1, but lower scores than Class 3. Class 3 comprising of 30% of the sample (n = 43) was labelled the high mindfulness group as they had the highest scores of mindfulness across the three time points. Table 9 displays the average mindfulness scores for each class across the three time points. The pattern of means is indicative that the classes were differentiated simply by their relative level of mindfulness scores. In addition, the pattern of means across the three time points reveals a relatively flat trajectory over time (from Time 1, to Time 2, to Time 3). Next, the three classes were examined to explore whether there were demographic variables, specifically grade and gender, that further differentiated the groups from one another apart from strength of mindfulness scores. Table 10 displays the demographic breakdown of the membership of the three classes. A Chi-Square test revealed that none of the groups were significantly different from one another with regards to gender, X2 (2, N = 145) = 1.437, p = .488. In addition, a Chi-Square test revealed none of the groups were significantly different from another with regards to grade, X2 (4, N = 145) = 1.187, p = .880. These results indicate that the three classes are not differentiated by gender or grade and appear to be distinguished simply by the group members’ level of MAAS-C scores. Class solutions for self-compassion. As with mindfulness, an LPA was conducted to determine whether there were any distinct groups for self-compassion that could be distinguished by grade and gender. Within the sample (n = 1461) the likelihood ratio test 1 Note that there was one more subject for a total of 146 subjects for the investigation of self-compassion. 60 indicated that a 1-class solution best fit the data. The results of the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test for more than a 1-class solution were not significant. In addition, the results of The Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT Test was not significant past a 1-class solution. Results are displayed in Table 11. Relations between mindfulness and self-compassion across time. To investigate the relation between mindfulness and self-compassion across three time points throughout the school year, simple between and within Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated among all three time points for both variables (see Table 12). Both the within variable and between variable correlation coefficients revealed significant relations in hypothesized directions. Specifically, within-variable correlations among Time 1, 2, and 3 assessments were significantly and positively related at each time point, for both mindfulness and self-compassion. In addition, between-variable correlations were also all significantly and positively related; Time 1, 2, and 3 mindfulness was significantly and positively related to Time 1, 2 and, 3 self-compassion. Of particular note, as highlighted in Table 12, the between-variable correlations between mindfulness and self-compassion at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3, were fairly consistent across the three time points of the school year. In summary, findings from the ANOVAs of differences scores revealed no significant differences over time, with regards to gender and age, for both mindfulness and self-compassion with the exception of one significant interaction effect for the mindfulness difference score from Time 2 to Time 3. Tests for simple effects showed Grade 7 girls declined significantly compared to Grade 7 boys. Results from the LPA revealed a best fit of three classes for mindfulness; the classes were distinguished solely by level of mindfulness 61 scores, rather than demographic variables. A one-class solution was found to be the best fit for self-compassion. Aim 3: Predicting Time 3 social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes from Time 1 mindfulness and self-compassion: Hierarchical regression findings. The following section reports on findings from a series of hierarchical regression analyses aimed at determining the degree to which mindfulness and self-compassion predict well-being as assessed via self-report measures, prosociality as measured by teacher and peer reports, and cognitive functioning as assessed by dimensions of EFs. Results from the regression analyses are presented in three parts. Part 1 reviews descriptive statistics, including intercorrelations amongst the variables within the series of models, and the results of a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs examining gender and grade differences for all the variables that were included in the subsequent series of regression analyses. The results of the grade and gender difference analyses informed the inclusion of demographic variables, gender and grade, as covariates into the various regression models. Part 2 details the findings from the examination of predictors of well-being variables, prosociality variables, and EF variables. Part 3 reviews findings from analyses that tested models that included the replacement of the total self-compassion score with the positive and negative items of the scale separated. For each of the four parts, descriptive statistics, including mean and standards deviation for each predictor and dependent variable, will be presented along with intercorrelations amongst the predictor and dependant variables. Then, results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs for each variable in the model are presented. Finally, the results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented. Part 1: Descriptive statistics. A description of the sample demographics for the hierarchical regression analyses is provided in Table 13. Table 14 provides the means and 62 standard deviations for each of the predictor and well-being outcome variables along with the intercorrelations among predictor variables (mindfulness and self-compassion at Time 1) and outcome variables (positive and negative affect, and satisfaction with life at Time 3). As hypothesized, the predictor variable, Time 1 self-compassion, was significantly related in the expected directions to Time 3 positive affect, Time 3 negative affect, and Time 3 satisfaction with life. The predictor variable, Time 1 mindfulness was found to be significantly related in the hypothesized direction to Time 3 negative affect. Table 15 provides the means and standard deviations for each of the predictor and prosociality outcome variables, reports of social competence and ratings of prosocial behaviour, along with the intercorrelations among predictor and outcome variables. Mindfulness at Time 1 was found be to significantly and positively related to peer ratings of prosocial behaviour at Time 3, whereas, self-compassion at Time 1 was not significantly related peer ratings of prosocial behaviour at Time 3. Neither mindfulness nor self-compassion at Time 1 were significantly related to teacher ratings of social competence at Time 3. Table 16 provides the means and standard deviations for each of the predictor and EF variables (reaction time and accuracy), along with the intercorrelations among the predictor and outcome variables. As can be seen, neither mindfulness nor self-compassion was found to be significantly related to Time 3 response time or Time 3 accuracy. Group differences. In order to determine what, if any, demographic variables needed to be included as covariates within the models to control for their potentially confounding effects, a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs were conducted for each of the dependent variables. First, results from a series of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs examining grade and gender differences within the well-being outcome variables Time 3 positive affect, 63 negative affect, and satisfaction with life are presented in Table 17. One significant main effect was found for gender for the variable positive affect, with girls (M = 3.78; SD = .76) reporting higher positive affect than boys (M = 3.52; SD = .91). No other significant main effects were found for grade or gender for negative affect or satisfaction with life. In addition, no significant interactions were found. Next, grade and gender differences were examined for the two prosociality variables – teacher–rated social competence and peer-reported prosocial behaviour. With regards to the teacher–rated social competence, a significant effect was found for gender, with girls (M = 5.16; SD = .83) being rated higher by their teachers in social competence than boys (M = 4.79; SD = .98). No significant interaction effects were found. In light of this finding, gender was added to the model examining the teacher–rated social competence as a covariate in order to control for possible confounding effects. A summary of findings can be found on Table 18. With regards to peer-ratings of prosocial behaviour, main effects were found for peer ratings of prosocial behaviour for both gender and grade (see Table 18). Girls (M = 0.60; SD = .18) were rated significantly higher in prosocial behaviour by their peers than were boys (M = .47; SD = .21). A significant main effect for grade was also found. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that Grade 7 early adolescents (M = 0.60; SD = .17) were rated significantly higher in prosocial behaviour by their peers than were Grade 6 early adolescents (M = 0.47; SD = .22), p < .01. In response to these findings, both grade and gender demographic variables were added to the regression model examining peer ratings of prosocial behaviour to control for their potentially confounding effects. Finally, grade and gender differences were examined for two of the EF variables, response time and accuracy from the incongruent block of the Hearts and Flowers test. A series 64 of 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) ANOVAs revealed one significant main effect for grade for EF accuracy. Post hoc Tukey’s analysis revealed that Grade 6 early adolescents (M = .88; SD = .09) were significantly more accurate than Grade 5 early adolescents (M = .82; SD = .12), p < .05. No further significant main effects for grade or gender were found. In addition, no significant interaction effects were found. See Table 19 for a summary of results. Part 2: Regression analyses. Investigating effects of mindfulness and full-scale of self-compassion on indicators of well-being, prosociality, and EFs. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test whether mindfulness and self-compassion at Time 1 predicted Time 3 indicators of well-being: positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life. In these analyses, Time 3 positive affect, Time 3 negative affect, and Time 3 satisfaction with life were the dependent variables, while Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion were the predictors. In light of the ANOVA results showing significant grade differences for self-compassion, grade was added to the models as a covariate to control for any possible confounding effects. With regards to the regression analysis examining predictors of positive affect, along with grade, gender was also added to the model given the results of the ANOVA revealing a significant gender difference for positive affect. Predictors of positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life. In the first analysis, Time 3 positive affect was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion, with gender and grade included as covariates. Results indicated that Time 1 self-compassion was a significant and positive predictor of Time 3 positive affect; Time 1 mindfulness was not found to be a significant predictor of Time 3 positive affect. In the second analysis, Time 3 negative affect was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion, with grade included as a covariate. Results indicated that Time 1 mindfulness, but 65 not self-compassion predicted negative affect at Time 3, in a negative direction. The third analysis regressed Time 3 satisfaction with life onto Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion, with grade included as a covariate. Results revealed that Time 1 self-compassion was a significant and positive predictor of Time 3 satisfaction with life, whereas, Time 1 mindfulness was not found to be a significant predictor (see Table 20). Predictors of teacher reports of social competence and peer reports of prosocial behaviour. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to test whether mindfulness and self-compassion and Time 1 predicted Time 3 indicators of prosociality: teacher reports of social competence and peer reports of prosocial behaviour. In these analysis, Time 3 teacher reports of social competence and Time 3 peer reports of prosocial behaviour were the dependent variables, while Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion were the predictors. In light of the ANOVA findings that showed a significant gender difference in teacher ratings of social competence, and grade differences for self-compassion and peer ratings of prosocial behaviour, gender and grade were added as covariates to the regression analyses to control for these potential confounding effects. In the first analysis, Time 3 teacher ratings of social competence was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion with gender and grade entered first as covariates. As can be seen on Table 20, results showed the F-test was not significant, thus, neither mindfulness nor self-compassion was a significant predictor of Time 3 teacher ratings of social competence (see Table 21). In the second analysis, Time 3 peer reports of prosocial behaviour were regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion; grade and gender were included as covariates. As can be seen on Table 21, only the demographic variables, gender and grade, were significant 66 predictors of Time 2 ratings of prosocial behaviour. Neither of the variables of interest, mindfulness nor self-compassion were significant predictors of Time 3 peer reports of prosocial behaviour. Predictors of EF. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to test whether mindfulness and self-compassion and Time 1 predicted Time 3 indicators of EF: reaction time and accuracy on the Hearts and Flowers incongruent trial. In these analysis, Time 3 reaction time and Time 3 accuracy were the dependent variables, while, Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion were the predictors. In light of the ANOVA findings that showed a significant grade differences for both self-compassion and EF accuracy, grade was added as a covariate to control for any confounding effects. In the first analysis, Time 3 Hearts and Flowers reaction time was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion, with grade included as a covariate. Results showed the F-test was not significant, thus, neither mindfulness nor self-compassion was a significant predictor of Time 3 reaction time (see Table 22). In the second analysis, Time 3 Hearts and Flowers accuracy was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion, with grade included as a covariate. As can be seen on Table 22, the F-test was not significant, thus, neither mindfulness nor self-compassion was found to be significant predictors of accuracy at Time 3. In summary, Time 1 mindfulness significantly predicted Time 3 negative affect, in a negative direction. Time 1 self-compassion significantly and positively, predicted Time 3 positive affect, and satisfaction with life. Neither mindfulness nor self-compassion predicted prosociality (teacher reports of social competence and peer ratings of prosocial behaviour) or EF (Hearts and Flowers response time and accuracy). 67 Part 3: Regression analyses: Investigating positive and negative items of the self-compassion scale. Due to the debate in the literature with regards to whether the self-compassion scale is one construct or two (self-compassion and self-coldness), the same prediction models above with hierarchical regression analyses were tested with one change – the total score of self-compassion was replaced with the negative and positive items of the SCS-C entered as separate variables. Descriptive statistics. Tables 23, 24, and 25, provide descriptive statistics along with the intercorrelations amongst the predictor and outcomes variables in each of the three models exploring Time 1 predictors of social, emotional, and cognitive Time 3 variables. Table 23 reviews the intercorrelations of the predictor variables with well-being outcome variables. Here, we see that positive items of self-compassion are significantly positively related to Time 1 mindfulness, Time 3 positive affect, and Time 3 satisfaction with life. Positive items of self-compassion were also significantly negatively related to negative items of the self-compassion scale. Negative items of self-compassion, or self-coldness, were found to be significantly negatively related Time 3 positive affect and Time 3 satisfaction with life. Table 24 reviews the intercorrelations of the predictor variables with prosociality outcome variables. Of note, mindfulness at Time 1 was found to be significantly related to Time 3 peer ratings of prosocial behaviour. Time 1 mindfulness showed a significant positive relationship to self-compassion (positive items) and a significant negative relationship to self-coldness (negative items). Self-compassion (positive items) had a significant and negative relationship with self-coldness (negative items). 68 Table 25 reviews the intercorrelations of the predictor variables with EF outcome variables. Neither mindfulness, nor, the two dimensions of self-compassion (positive items and negative items) were significantly related to any of the Time 3 EF reaction time and accuracy. Examining group differences of the positive and negative subscales of the SCS-C. First, to examine whether there were grade and gender differences in self-compassion or self-coldness, at any of the three time points, a series of Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) tests were conducted for each of the three points. Results, as presented in Tables 26 and 27, revealed no significant main effects or interaction effects for grade and gender at Time 1 or Time 2 for positive and negative items of Self-Compassion Scale. At Time 3, significant main effects were found for both gender and grade for positive self-compassion items, and for grade for self-coldness (see Table 28). A significant gender difference was found, F(1,140) = 5.77, p = .02, h2 = .04; girls (M = 3.33; SD = .79) reported significantly higher levels of self-compassion than their male peers (M = 3.04; SD = .71). A significant grade effect was found for Time 3 Self-compassion F(2,140) = 3.47, p = .03, h2 = .05. However, post hoc Tukey’s analysis were not significant, there was a trend of grade 5 early adolescents (M = 3.30; SD = .82) reporting higher levels of self-compassion (positive items) than early adolescents in Grade 7 (M = 2.94; SD = .68), p = .07. A significant grade effect was found for Time 3 Self-Coldness, F(2,140) = 3.24, p = .04, h2 = .04. Post hoc Tukey’s analysis revealed that grade 7 early adolescents (M = 3.01; SD = .83) reported significantly higher levels of self-coldness (negative items) than early adolescents in Grade 5 (M = 2.54; SD = .87), p = .04. Regression Analyses: Mindfulness, self-compassion and self-coldness as predictors of well-being, prosociality, and EFs. Inclusion of positive and negative items of self-compassion. The final set of analyses were conducted to examine mindfulness and two components of self- 69 compassion, self-compassion (positive items) and self-coldness (negative items) at Time 1 as predictors of well-being, prosociality, and EF at Time 3. For all analyses, covariates matched the initial inclusion criteria from the previous hierarchical analysis as described above. Findings for the three regression model analyses can be found in Tables 28, 29, and 30. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to test whether mindfulness, self-compassion, and self-coldness at Time 1 predicted Time 3 indicators of well-being: positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life. In these analysis, time 3 positive affect, time 3 negative affect, and time 3 satisfaction with life were the dependent variables, while Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-compassion and self-coldness were the predictors, with grade added as a covariate. Note that the model predicting Time 3 positive affect also included gender as a covariate. In the first analysis, Time 3 positive affect was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness, Time 1 self-compassion (positive items), and Time 1 self-coldness (negative items), with gender and grade included as covariates. Results, displayed in Table 29, indicated that the model was significant. Further, both Time 1 self-compassion (positive items) and Time 1 self-coldness (negative items) were found to be significant predictors of Time 3 positive affect, with self-compassion showing a positive direction and self-coldness showing a negative direction. Time 1 mindfulness was not found to be a significant predictor. Next, to examine the relative importance of the variables in the regression model, the Pratt Index was calculated. In order to gather values to calculate the Pratt Index, a regression analysis was conducted with Time 3 positive affect regressed on only the significant predictors, self-compassion (positive items) and self-coldness (negative items). As shown in Table 29, the Pratt Index values indicate that Time 1 self-compassion (positive items) was a stronger predictor 70 of Time 3 positive affect than Time 1 self-coldness (negative items), accounting for 74% of the variance. In the second analysis, Time 3 negative affect was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness, Time 1 self-compassion (positive items), and Time 1 self-coldness (negative items); grade was included as a covariate. Results indicated that Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-coldness (negative items) predicted negative affect at Time 3; Time 1 mindfulness showed a negative direction, whereas self-coldness showed a positive direction in predicting Time 3 negative affect. Time 1 self-compassion (positive items) was not found to be a significant predictor. Next, I looked the relative importance of the variables in the regression model with the Pratt Index. To gather values to calculate the Pratt Index, a new model with Time 3 negative affect regressed on only the significant predictors, mindfulness and self-coldness, was conducted. As shown in Table 29, the Pratt Index values show that Time 1 mindfulness and Time 1 self-coldness (negative items) were almost evenly split with regards to amount of variance accounted for (52% and 48%, respectively) Time 3 negative affect. For the third analysis examining well-being at Time 3, I regressed Time 3 satisfaction with life onto Time 1 mindfulness, Time 1 self-compassion (positive items), and Time 1 self-coldness (negative items), with grade included as a covariate. Results revealed that both Time 1 self-compassion (positive items) and self-coldness (negative items) were significant predictors of Time 3 satisfaction with life. Self-compassion showed a positive direction in the prediction, whereas, self-coldness had a negative direction in the prediction. Mindfulness was not found to be a significant predictor. Next, to examine the relative importance of the variables in the regression model the Pratt Index was calculated. To gather values to calculate the Pratt Index, a regression analysis was conducted with Time 3 negative affect regressed onto only the 71 significant predictors, self-compassion and self-coldness, thus removing mindfulness from the model as it was found not to be a significant predictor in the initial analysis. As shown in Table 29, the Pratt Index values show that self-compassion accounted for 53%, whereas self-coldness accounted for 47% of the variance in predicting Time 3 satisfaction with life. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to test whether mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items) and self-coldness (negative items) at Time 1 predicted Time 3 indicators of prosociality as assessed by teacher reports of social competence and peer reports of prosocial behaviour. In these analysis, Time 3 teacher reports of social competence and Time 3 peer reports of prosocial behaviour were the dependent variables, while Time 1 mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items), and self-coldness (negative items) were the predictors, with gender and grade included as covariates. In the first analysis, Time 3 teacher ratings of social competence were regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items), and self-coldness (negative items), with gender and grade entered as a covariate. As can be seen on Table 30, the F-test was not significant for the model, as such, the coefficient values were not interpreted. In the second analysis, Time 3 peer reports of prosocial behaviour were regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items), and self-coldness (negative items). Grade and gender were included as covariates. As can be seen on Table 30, only the demographic variables, gender and grade, were significant predictors of Time 3 ratings of prosocial behaviour. None of the variables of interest, mindfulness, self-compassion, nor self-coldness were significant predictors. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to test whether mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items) and self-coldness (negative items) at Time 1 predicted Time 3 72 indicators of EF as assessed by the reaction time and accuracy scores from the incongruent Hearts and Flowers trials. In these analysis, Time 3 reaction time and Time 3 accuracy were the dependent variables, while, Time 1 mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items), and self-coldness (negative items) were the predictors. Grade was included as a covariate. In the first analysis, Time 3 Hearts and Flowers Block 3 reaction time was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items), and self-coldness (negative items), with grade entered as a covariate. As can be seen on Table 31, the F-test was not significant for the model, as such, the coefficient values were not interpreted. In the second analysis, Time 3 Hearts and Flowers Block 3 accuracy was regressed onto Time 1 mindfulness, self-compassion (positive items), and self-coldness (negative items). Grade was included as a covariate. As can be seen on Table 31, the F test was not significant for the model, as such, the coefficient values were not interpreted. In summary, self-compassion (positive items) significantly predicted positive affect and satisfaction with life at Time 3. Self-coldness (negative items) significantly predicted negative affect and inversely predicted satisfaction with life at Time 3. Pratt Index scores indicated that self-compassion (positive items) was responsible for a greater percentage of the variance of Time 3 positive affect than was self-coldness (negative items). Pratt Index scores revealed self-compassion and self-coldness were relatively equal in their prediction of negative affect and satisfaction with life at Time 3. 73 Discussion This chapter begins with a brief overview of the rationale for the present study and an outline of its primary aims in relation to understanding mindfulness and self-compassion during the early adolescent age-period. In the following section, findings are delineated and discussed in the context of extant theory and research. Lastly, strengths, limitations, and generalizability of the present research are considered, followed by suggestions for future research and a discussion of educational implications. Rationale and Study Aims Current understanding of trait mindfulness and self-compassion in children and youth is nascent (Lawlor, 2014; Peter & Gazelle, 2017; Sutton et al., 2018). Although mindfulness and self-compassion have garnered more interest in recent years, particularly with regard to their potential salutary effects in intervention research (e.g., Klingbeil et al., 2017), an understanding of the nature and function of these constructs in early adolescence is limited (Bluth & Blanton, 2014; Lawlor, 2014). Indeed, questions about the nature and function of mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence have not yet been fully investigated and understood. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study was to advance the understanding of mindfulness and self-compassion during early adolescence in order to shed light on the nature and function of these two constructs at a particularly important transitional phase in the lifespan. Early adolescence is marked as a time in which individuals undergo myriad of changes across biological, social, and emotional domains (Del Giudice, 2014). Along with increases in social and cognitive abilities that occur during this period, comes increased risk, including the onset of clinical mental illness (Lee, et al., 2014; Mills et al., 2014). In addition, personality traits appear to be particularly susceptible to change during this period of development (e.g., Borghuis et al., 74 2017). To address questions about the nature and function of mindfulness and self-compassion during this dynamic period of development, the present study sought to examine: (1) individual differences in mindfulness and self-compassion, (2) stability and change of mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one year, and examine associations between the two constructs over time, and (3) the degree to which early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year are associated with various dimensions of their social, emotional, and cognitive competence at the end of the school year. The present study used both variable-centered and person-centered approaches to investigate self-reported mindfulness and self-compassion in a group of early adolescents in Grades 5, 6, and 7 - in the fall, midyear, and end of one school year. A multi-informant and multi-method approach was utilized. That is, rather than relying solely on self-reports, the study design included both teacher and peer ratings of prosocial behaviour. Moreover, as was known at the time of writing, this is the first study to examine mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence, longitudinally and in relation to a third-person objective measure of executive functions. Mindfulness and Self-Compassion in Early Adolescence Mindfulness and self-compassion: Individual differences. The first aim of the study was to examine grade and gender difference for mindfulness and self-compassion in a sample of early adolescents. Examination of grade and gender differences for self-reported mindfulness via multivariate analyses revealed no significant gender or grade differences at any of the three time points across the school year. Moreover, no significant interactions for Grade x Gender emerged in these analyses. The examination of grade and gender differences has revealed inconsistent findings in the literature. On the one hand, the present study findings mirror those of Greco et al. 75 (2011) who found no grade or gender differences in a sample of children and adolescents ranging from Grade 5 – 10 (N = 319). Similarly, a study examining mindfulness and well-being in a sample of Grade 10 adolescents (N =776) reported no gender differences in mindfulness (Ciarrochi et al., 2011). On the other hand, the present findings differ from previous cross-sectional research that examined early adolescent grade and gender differences in mindfulness with a similar aged sample. For example, in a study conducted by Lawlor and colleagues (2014), Grade 5 students were found to score significantly higher on self-reported mindfulness than their Grade 7 peers; no significant gender differences were reported. This inconsistent finding points to a larger replication issue that is currently occurring in psychological research (Maxwell, Lau, & Howard, 2015). With regards to grade differences in self-compassion, it was found that Grade 5 students reported significantly higher levels of self-compassion than their Grade 7 peers. Findings from the present study are in accord with those of Peter and Gazelle (2017) who examined trajectories of self-compassion in a sample of early adolescents from fifth to seventh grade (N = 213). The authors reported growth curves that showed a decline in self-compassion from fifth grade to seventh grade. These findings parallel other research, which has examined social and emotional changes in early adolescence and shows a general downward trajectory in positive affect and increase in negative affect during the early adolescent age-period (Bluth & Blanton, 2016; Larson et al., 2002). With regards to gender differences in self-compassion, the literature has reported mixed findings across the adolescent period. The present study found no significant main effects or interaction effects for gender. This replicates findings from a study with an early adolescent sample, conducted by Peter and Gazelle (2017), that revealed no significant main or interaction 76 effects for gender. In contrast, in a cross-sectional study examining age and gender differences in self-compassion with older adolescents (Grade 7 to 12) Bluth et al. (2016) found a significant interaction effect, with older females reporting lower levels of self-compassion compared to younger females or males of any age. Finally, in a study investigating older adolescents (N = 235; Mage = 15.2) and young adults (N = 287; Mage = 21.1), Neff and McGehee found no significant gender differences in the adolescent sample but found a significant main effect for gender in their young adult sample, with females reporting less self-compassion than males. Taken together, evidence in the literature is suggestive of a gender effect in self-compassion that is observed in late adolescence-early adulthood, with females reporting lower levels of self-compassion than males. More research is needed to determine whether this phenomenon is replicated in diverse samples of adolescents and young adults. The findings of grade differences in self-compassion from the present study highlight the importance of taking a developmental perspective when trying to understand self-compassion in human development. That is, the finding that older children display lower levels of self-compassion than their younger peers is in contrast to research on self-compassion conducted with adult samples. For example, in a study by Neff and Vonk (2009) with a large sample of adults (N = 2,187) ranging in age from 18 to 83, self-compassion was found positively correlated with age. Neff and Vonk’s finding suggests self-compassion may be associated with maturity and follow the maturity principle of trait development during adulthood that suggests individuals become more agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable as they age. This diverges from the findings presented herein in which self-compassion is lower in older students than in younger students, suggesting the construct follows the disruption hypothesis during this developmental period. Specifically, the disruption hypothesis, as espoused by Soto and Tackett (2015), suggests 77 that the biological, social, and psychological transitions from childhood to adolescence are associated with temporary dips in aspects of personality maturity (Denissen et al., 2013; Luan et al., 2017). Taken together, findings here and previous studies (Peter & Gazelle, 2017) indicate self-compassion is lower in older early adolescents, than in younger peers. These findings suggest a dip or decline in self-compassion occurs during early adolescence and provide support for the disruption hypothesis of trait development with regard to the trajectory of self-compassion during adolescence. Certainly, more longitudinal research is needed to shed further light on the trajectories of mindfulness and self-compassion across adolescence and to deepen the understanding of the stability and change of these constructs across adolescence and into emerging adulthood (Larson et al., 2002). Mindfulness and self-compassion: Stability. The second aim of the study was to use a person-centered approach to examine stability and change of early adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one school year, and then to determine whether there are grade and gender differences in these trajectories. To my knowledge, at the time of writing this is the first study to examine mindfulness and self-compassion longitudinally across one school year during early adolescence. Overall, findings suggest that the trajectories of mindfulness and self-compassion, in the absence of intervention, show little variability in a sample of early adolescents over the course of one school year. One interpretation of these results is that early adolescents’ self-reported mindfulness is relatively stable across one school year. For each of the three classes that were revealed by the LPA, the trajectory of mindfulness scores from fall, to mid-year, to the end of the school year expressed a moderately flat pattern. The LPA results for self-compassion indicated that there 78 were no previously unknown latent groups in the data, as the best fit was a single class. Examination of the pattern of means for self-compassion revealed a relatively flat pattern across the three time points. An alternative interpretation, however, may be that the measures of mindfulness and self-compassion utilized in the present study are not sensitive to change, and hence there may be variations in mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescents that were not captured in the present study. Examination of change in mindfulness and self-compassion over time via difference scores revealed no significant main effects nor interactions effects for gender or grade for either constructs, with the exception of one interaction effect for mindfulness for Grade x Gender. Specifically, examination of the effect size indicated that there was a small effect for significant changes in mindfulness across the school year for girls, with Grade 7 girls showing a significant decline in self-reported mindfulness from midyear to end of the school year, whereas Grade 7 boys did not. This finding should be interpreted with caution given the small effect size, however, it does point to parallels with research examining adolescent gender differences in indicators of well-being, including depression (for a review see Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Specifically, research indicates that early adolescent females experience a greater increase in rumination and depression during adolescence than males do (Krause et al., 2018). More longitudinal research across the developmental period of early adolescence is needed to ascertain whether mindfulness is indeed stable across this developmental period and whether there are gender differences in the development of the trait. Finally, as hypothesized, mindfulness and self-compassion were significantly and positively related to each other at all three time points: fall, mid-year, and at the end of the school year. Of 79 particular interest, the relationship between these two constructs was relatively stable across the three time points, suggesting there is stability in this relationship over the short-term. In summary, results from the present study suggest that mindfulness and self-compassion displayed fairly stable trajectories over the course of one school year, however, grade differences found for self-compassion, and an observed interaction effect for grade and gender in change in mindfulness over time, indicate that these constructs may not be stable throughout the entire developmental period of early adolescence. Mindfulness and self-compassion as protective factors: Associations with indicators of well-being, prosociality, and EF. Upon examination of the relations of mindfulness and self-compassion to indicators of well-being, prosociality, and EFs, several significant associations were found in hypothesized directions. Specifically, with regards to well-being, self-compassion was significantly and positively related to positive affect and satisfaction with life, and significantly and negatively related to negative affect. Mindfulness, however, was found to have only one significant association: a significant and negative relation to negative affect. That is, lower levels of mindfulness were found to be associated with higher levels of negative affect. In addition, mindfulness was found to be significantly and positively related to peer ratings of prosocial behaviour. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine whether mindfulness and self-compassion at the beginning of the school year were associated with well-being at the end of the school year. Results revealed that self-compassion, but not mindfulness, was a significantly and positively associated with positive affect at the end of the year. Mindfulness, but not self-compassion was found to be significantly and negatively associated with negative affect at the end of the year. In contrast, results revealed that self-compassion, but not mindfulness, was 80 found to be significantly and positively associated with satisfaction with life. The findings for self-compassion are in line with previous research with adolescent populations that examined the relationship between self-compassion and emotional well-being (Bluth et al., 2016; Sutton et al., 2018). Specifically, Sutton and colleagues (2018) found self-compassion to be significantly and positively related to positive affect and satisfaction with life in a sample of pre and early adolescents (N = 442; Mage = 11.3). Similarly, in a study of 765 adolescents in Grades 7 to 12, conducted by Bluth and colleagues (2016), self-compassion was found to be positively and significantly related to life satisfaction, ability to tolerate challenging emotional states, and significantly related to lower levels of perceived stress. Finally, in a study investigating older adolescents (N = 235; Mage = 15.2) and young adults (N = 287; Mage = 21.1), Neff and McGehee found self-compassion was strongly associated with indicators of well-being, including connectedness and lower reports of anxiety and depression. Neff and McGehee (2010) proposed that self-compassion is beneficial to the promotion of resilience and well-being in adolescence by way of three mechanisms: (a) The aspects of self-acceptance and self-kindness may reduce harsh judgments when adolescents face disliked aspects of themselves, (b) the ability to frame experience with a perspective of common humanity may help to foster interpersonal connectedness and assist adolescent coping, and (c) the mindful component of self-compassion may ameliorate rumination of negative thoughts. The present findings suggest that self-compassion is a promoter of well-being by means of fostering positive affect and life-satisfaction, which involve both the emotional component (frequency of positive and negative affect over time), and cognitive component (life satisfaction) that comprise subjective-well-being (Diener et al., 1999). With regards to mindfulness, the present findings are in accord with those of Brown and 81 Ryan (2003), who found that self-reported mindfulness was more strongly associated with reduced negative affect than increased positive affect in a sample of adults. In light of their findings, Brown and Ryan (2003) suggested that individuals with a more mindful disposition would, in general, display a mild emotional demeanor that is not marked by the experience of an abundance of positive affect. The authors went on to discuss mindfulness from the perspective of spiritual traditions where the emphasis of mindfulness effects is placed upon bringing equanimity, peace, and a balanced emotional life, rather than simply increasing happiness or positive affect. Mindfulness involves a stance of impartial observation to emotional and psychological experience that is theorized to promote a more balanced and even keeled emotional life (Brown & Ryan, 2003). The present findings reflect this idea, in that mindfulness was significantly and positively associated with reduced negative affect, rather than positive affect. Apart from the significant relation with negative affect, the associations found in the present study do not replicate previous research examining the relation of mindfulness, as measured by the MAAS-C, to indicators of emotional well-being with early adolescents. For example, Lawlor et al. (2014) found significant relations of mindfulness to both positive and negative affect in the expected direction (positive association with positive affect and a negative association with negative affect); the authors did not include an assessment of satisfaction with life. An alternative measure to the MAAS-C, the Children and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM; Greco et al., 2011), has been used to examine associations between mindfulness and emotional well-being. The CAMM is a 10-item unidimensional measure that is similar to the MAAS-C, in that the items are designed to tap into a lack of mindful attention (e.g. “I keep myself busy so I don’t notice my thoughts or feelings”), rather than directly inquiring about 82 mindful attention. Like the MAAS and MAAS-C, the CAMM actually assesses mindlessness, and to calculate a score, it is reverse-scored, summed, and averaged. Items on the CAMM assess lack of present-moment awareness as well as judgmental and nonaccepting responses to thoughts and feelings, whereas items on the MAAS-C are distributed across across cognitive, emotional, physical, interpersonal, and general domains. Using the CAMM, researchers have found significant relations in the expected directions, with mindfulness showing a significant positive relationship with positive affect, a significant negative association with negative affect, and a significant positive relationship with life satisfaction (Bluth & Blanton, 2014; Ciarrochi et al., 2011). With regards to the associations of mindfulness and self-compassion to dimensions of prosociality (as assessed by teacher and peer reports), zero-order correlation results indicated mindfulness was significantly and positively correlated to peer ratings of prosocial behaviour but not significantly related to teacher reports of social competence. Self-compassion was not found be to significantly related to either teacher ratings of social competence nor peer ratings of prosocial behaviour. With grade and gender entered first as covariates in hierarchical linear regression analyses, neither mindfulness nor self-compassion was found to be significantly and associated with teacher reports of social competence or peer ratings of prosocial behaviour. The small correlation found between mindfulness and peer ratings of prosocial behaviour is in accord with research involving older adolescents. Specifically, Ciarrochi and colleagues (2011) found a significant and positive association between mindfulness and two prosocial traits, conscientiousness and low psychoticism, in a sample of Grade 10 adolescents. In contrast, results from the present study contradict other research with adult samples that has found a link between self-compassion and prosociality (Lindsay & Creswell, 2014; Sutton et al., 2018; Welp & 83 Brown, 2013). The relationships of mindfulness to prosociality and self-compassion to prosociality remain unclear during the developmental period of early adolescence and further research is needed. One possible explanation for the inconsistent findings regarding the association between self-compassion and prosociality across studies may pertain to issues of measurement. Specifically, the extant research showing associations of mindfulness and self-compassion to prosociality all use different assessments to measure prosociality. The present study used teacher and peer behaviour reports to assess prosociality, whereas previous studies have used a variety of instruments, including self-reported concern for others (Sutton et al., 2018), an objective helping behaviours test (Lindsay & Creswell, 2014), and self-reported helping intentions (Welp & Brown, 2013). Although all of these different assessments may fall under the large umbrella of prosociality, they are each assessing specific facets of prosocial attitudes and behaviours. It may be the case that self-compassion is associated in different ways to these varying facets of prosociality. Relations of mindfulness and self-compassion to EF revealed that neither mindfulness or self-compassion were significantly related to RT or accuracy as assessed with the incongruent trail of the Hearts and Flowers Task, a task that taxes the three components of EF (working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control). Results from hierarchical regression analyses modelling both mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of EF (RT and accuracy) yielded non-significant results. These finding were unexpected because they do not replicate previous research with early adolescents that has reported significant associations between mindfulness and EFs, specifically inhibitory control, as assessed with the Hearts and Flowers task (Oberle et al., 2012). The present findings also differ from previous research that used the BRIEF-SR to assess EF, which reported significant associations with EFs for both mindfulness 84 and self-compassion (Riggs et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2016). The present findings were surprising given the aforementioned research that found positive associations of mindfulness and self-compassion to different measures of EFs. These inconsistent findings speak to the issue of replication that is currently challenging the field of psychological research (Maxwell et al., 2015). More research is needed to better understand the association of mindfulness and self-compassion to EFs. In particular, it would be helpful to examine these relations using multiple assessments of the constructs (e.g., the BRIEF, Flanker Fish and Hearts and Flowers; the MAAS-C, and CAMM) in order to assess whether there is agreement among the measures, with regard to their associations and construct validity, when used with early adolescents. In summary, mindfulness and self-compassion were found to be related, in differing ways, to aspects of well-being during early adolescence. For example, self-compassion in the fall was found to be significantly and positively associated with positive affect and satisfaction with life at the end of the school year. In contrast, mindfulness in the fall significantly and negatively associated with negative affect at the end of the school year. This is suggestive of differing functions each construct may serve in the promotion of well-being during early adolescence. Mindfulness may serve in a protective role, buffering the increase of negative affect commonly seen during adolescence. In contrast, self-compassion may promote positive affect and life satisfaction during this developmental period. Analyses Using a Two-Factor Structure of the SCS-C: Self-compassion and Self-coldness Currently, there is debate in the literature about the factor structure of Self-Compassion Scale with some researchers arguing that it is not representative of a single construct, but rather, is comprised of two distinct constructs – Self-Compassion (positive items of the scale) and Self-Coldness (negative items of the scale) (e.g., Brenner et al., 2018; Lopez et al., 2015; Muris & 85 Petrocchi, 2017). In acknowledgment of this debate, self-compassion and self-coldness were examined as two separate subscales. Grade and gender differences: Self-compassion and self-coldness. Examination of grade and gender differences in self-compassion and self-coldness revealed significant grade differences, only at the end of the school year. Specifically, Grade 7 students reported significantly higher levels of self-coldness than Grade 5 students. Similar to the pattern exhibited with the total score, a similar step-wise pattern can be noted with the separated positive and negative constructs. Rather than the downward pattern noted across grades for the SCS total score, an upward pattern of scores of self-coldness (negative items) from younger to older grades was observed. The findings are in line with findings for the total score, in that Grade 7 students appear to decline in self-compassion, however, as can be seen with the analysis of the separate positive and negative items of the SCS, that change over time may be more driven by an increase in self-coldness. Future longitudinal research is needed to follow early adolescents over time to ascertain the typical trajectory of self-compassion, inclusive of self-coldness, throughout this developmental period. Self-compassion and self-coldness: Associations with indicators of well-being, prosociality, and EF. Relations of the two components of self-compassion to indicators of well-being revealed significant relations in the expected directions. Specifically, the positive items of the SCS are significantly and positively related to mindfulness, positive affect, and, satisfaction with life. Positive items of self-compassion were also significantly and negatively related to negative items of the self-compassion scale. Negative items of self-compassion, or self-coldness, were found to be significantly and negatively related to positive affect and satisfaction with life. 86 As with the case with the total score of the SCS-C, neither self-compassion (positive items) nor self-coldness (negative items) were significantly related to or predicted prosociality or EF. Results from hierarchical regression analyses indicated that self-compassion and self-coldness were significantly associated with of well-being, in opposite directions. Specifically, self-compassion (positive items) was significantly and positively associated with positive affect and satisfaction with life. In contrast, self-coldness (negative items) was found be significantly and negatively associated with positive affect and satisfaction with life, and significantly and positively associated with negative affect at the end of the year. Results from the investigation into the two-factor SCS-C appear to support the notion that the scale is representative of two distinct constructs – self-compassion and self-coldness. Of interest, are the intercorrelations and direction of the relationship were in line with expected directions (e.g., self-coldness was negatively related to positive affect and positively related to negative affect). Hierarchical regression results of both models (total score SCS-C and positive/negative SCS-C items) revealed that self-compassion significantly and positively associated with positive affect and satisfaction with life, however, only the model using the two factors, self-compassion and self-coldness separately, yielded significant results with regards to negative affect; with self-coldness showing a significant and positive association. This suggests that the separation of items into positive and negative constructs captured more information about the influence of these constructs on emotional well-being in early adolescence. These findings support the view that self-compassion can be better understood by examining these two constructs separately. With regards to mental health, it has been argued that the negatively worded items on the SCS and SCS-SF should be eliminated from the total self-compassion scale score because they do not represent the protective nature of the self- 87 compassion construct and instead are indicators of psychological maladjustment, such as anxiety and depression (Brenner et al., 2017; Muris, 2016; Muris, Meesters, Pierik, & de Kock, 2016a; Muris, Otgaar, & Petrocchi, 2016b). This position has been partially supported by a recent meta-analysis conducted by Muris and Petrocchi (2017) who discovered that the negatively worded subscales on the original SCS were strongly associated with indicators of psychopathology, when compared to the subscales comprised of positively worded items. In parallel, the results from the present study, reveal that self-coldness predicts negative affect over time, and indicator of potential mental health risk. Strengths, Limitations, and Generalizability Strengths. The present study offers scientific value in a few areas. First, the longitudinal design of the study allowed for examination of the stability of these two constructs over time. Specifically, the three time points of observation allowed for examination of change over time, over the course of one school year. The design also included a sample comprising of early adolescents from three different grade levels which enabled an in-depth examination of both gender and age differences of mindfulness and self-compassion, along with their changes, in these subgroups over time. Second, the present study took both a person-centered and variable-centered approach to investigating mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence. The use of LPA and difference scores to examine change over time reflects a person-centered approach that allowed for examination of group differences in patterns of development of mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one school year. In tandem, the investigation of the associations of mindfulness, self-compassion, well-being, prosociality, and EF via hierarchical regression analysis utilized a variable-centered approach in order to best answer questions about the relative 88 importance of mindfulness and self-compassion to an end of year outcomes in well-being, prosociality, and EFs. Finally, the study design included a multi-informant and multi-method approach to investigating mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescence. At the time of this writing, this was the first study with early adolescents to examine mindfulness and self-compassion longitudinally in relation to an objective measure of EF. In addition, the study design included both teacher and peer ratings of prosocial behaviour, rather than relying solely of self-reports. Limitations. A limitation of the present study pertains to the sole use of single self-report measures to assess mindfulness and self-compassion. Only two assessments were used to capture mindfulness and self-compassion: The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Children (MAAS-C) and the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-C) for Children. The limitation of the measurement of these constructs is not unique to the present study. Discussion in the literature highlights the issues and challenges that arise when attempting to assess these constructs (e.g., Bergomi, Tschacher, & Kupper, 2013; Muris, 2016; Muris & Petrocchi, 2017). Specifically, mindfulness is defined and operationalized differently across various assessments which brings forth questions as to whether the different assessments/scales are capturing the same the latent variable. A further question arises, which is whether findings from independent studies are comparable if the measures used to assess mindfulness differ. The results from the present study represent mindfulness as assessed by the MAAS-C. Would the findings be replicated in the same sample with an alternative measure of mindfulness? Certainly, an issue for the field as a whole is to determine a standardized operational definition of mindfulness so that findings from independent studies can be more readily compared and extended. 89 The design of the present study is a short-term longitudinal study, which does not allow for interpretation past the 9-month observation period. Although, grade differences were noted in self-compassion, this observed dip or decline was between different individuals in different grades, rather than observing this downward trajectory occur in the same individuals over time. Future studies could follow early adolescent subjects over a multi-year period to gain a greater understanding of trajectories mindfulness and self-compassion within this specific developmental period. Because an alpha level of .05 or lower was used for determining statistical significance in all models in the present study, the occurrence of Type 1 error could be a potential limitation. Given that research exploring the relations of mindfulness and self-compassion to dimensions of well-being, EFs, and prosociality in early adolescence is in a nascent stage, it was decided that a less conservative approach was warranted. Nonetheless, if a more conservative approach was utilized, such as setting the alpha to .01 or lower, the overall results would have been essentially the same, with the exception of some results from hierarchical regression that examined mindfulness, self-compassion and self-coldness as predictors of well-being would no longer be statistically significant if a threshold of p < .01 was employed (see Table 29). Specifically, the following results from hierarchical regression that examined mindfulness, self-compassion and self-coldness as predictors of well-being would no longer be statistically significant if a threshold of p < .01 was employed (see Table 29): Self-coldness at Time (negative SCS-C items) predicting positive affect at Time 3; Mindfulness and self-coldness predicting negative affect at Time 3. Generalizability. The sample was drawn from six elementary schools in a large Western Canadian city. The six schools are representative of a diverse range of socioeconomic 90 neighbourhoods within the city, hence there is some generalizability of the results across differing socioeconomic populations. However, there are limitations with regard to generalizability of the study, in terms of different cultural groups. The majority of the sample (79.5%) identified English as a first language, so results may not be generalizable to more diverse populations with regards to first language. Directions for Future Research Constructs as measured by MAAS-C and SCS-C. There is debate in the field about how the MAAS and SCS capture the constructs of mindfulness and self-compassion. With regard to mindfulness, there are various other measures that define and operationalize the construct differently such as the Five Factor Mindfulness Scale (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2008). The MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003), like the CAMM (Greco et al., 2011), assesses mindfulness as a unidimensional construct of mindfulness, whereas, the FFMQ is derived from an operational definition that describes mindfulness as a multi-dimensional construct. In addition, the MAAS, in effect, is a measure of mindlessness, with items designed to tap into a lack of mindful attention (e.g., “I find it hard to stay focused on what’s happening in the present moment”), as opposed to directly capturing mindful attention. Items are then reverse-scored to represent an overall mindfulness score. In contrast, the FFMQ, includes subscales to capture unique facets of mindfulness, including observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience. The latent variable captured in the present study, as assessed by the MAAS-C, may indeed be different from research investigating mindfulness with alternate measures. A question remains with regard to consistency and agreement in the literature pertaining to how mindfulness is defined, operationalized, and measured. 91 As for the assessment of self-compassion, as mentioned above, the debate continues regarding whether the SCS and SCS-C should be separated by positive and negative items to capture two distinct constructs – self-compassion and self-coldness (Muris, 2016, Muris & Petrocchi; 2017; Sutton et al., 2018). In addition, questions have been raised about whether the Self-Compassion Scale truly captures the construct as intended. According the Neff (2003b), the self-compassion scale stemmed from concepts drawn out of Buddhist psychology. Despite this assertion, a recent study investigating the validity of the SCS, found that it was not validated in a Buddhist population (Zeng, Wei, Oei, & Lui, 2016), which is surprising given that the scale was derived from Buddhist definitions of self-compassion. There certainly appears to be some confusion pertaining to the assessment of self-compassion, in particular, how the concept is defined, operationalized, and validated. Self-compassion, as operationalized by Neff, has accrued evidence of benefits within Western psychological research (e.g. Neff & Dahm, 2015), hence, further application and investigation is warranted. With that said, important work needs to be done in regards to the investigation of cultural differences that may influence the validity of this measure across diverse populations. The field would benefit from a more intensive investigation into the construct validity of assessments of both mindfulness and self-compassion. Further, there are developmental considerations with regard to how children and youth understand the items of these measures. Do young respondents understand the item questions as intended by the test developer? And, do children and adolescents’ understanding of the test items change with development? The field of research investigating mindfulness and self-compassion with younger populations would advance from construct validity research that seeks to understand the cognitive processes of children and adolescents when responding to the items on assessments such as the MAAS-C and 92 SCS-C. This type of validity study was previously conducted on one measure included in the present research, the Satisfaction with Life Scale adapted for Children (SWLS-C; Gadermann et al., 2010). In this study, the authors used a Think-Aloud protocol, where children were asked to “think aloud” as they responded to each of the scale items, in order to capture their cognitive process and understanding for each item. Results indicated that the SWLS-C is a psychometrically sound instrument for use with children in grades 4 - 7. This type of research could be particularly illuminating in differentiating the presentation of mindfulness and self-compassion across different developmental periods. Considering context. Another area of future research pertains to the investigation of environmental factors that may contribute to our understanding of these constructs during early adolescence. Stage-Environment Fit Theory suggests that it is a mismatch between the needs of developing adolescents and the opportunities provided to them, by their social environments, to meet those needs. It is theorized that this mismatch is responsible for some of the negative psychological changes that are noted in the period of adolescence (Roeser & Eccles, 2014). Given the important role of environmental supports during the early adolescent period of development, it would be important to examine the contextual factors that may or may not influence changes in mindfulness or self-compassion over time. Educational Implications While there has been increased interest in bringing contemplative practices to children and adolescents in recent years (e.g., Klingbeil et al., 2017; Zoogman, Goldberg, Hoyt, & Miller, 2014), there has been little effort in understanding the developmental trajectories and function of trait mindfulness and self-compassion in younger populations (Lawlor, 2014). Hence, there is very little empirical understanding regarding the types of contemplative practices that would be 93 most developmentally appropriate to include in intervention programming for particular age groups. The present study examined mindfulness and self-compassion with a developmental lens in order to better understand the nature and function of these constructs during the early adolescent period. These findings highlight some developmental considerations that may be of use for educators and researchers who are currently developing contemplative-based interventions - intended to foster mindfulness and self-compassion in early adolescents. Results from the present study indicate that the trajectories of mindfulness and self-compassion over the course of one school year show little change, however, these constructs have been found to be malleable via brief interventions that introduce intentional contemplative practice (Bluth et al., 2015; Galla, 2016; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Bluth, Robertson, and Gaylord (2015), for example, conducted a small pilot study of a mindfulness curriculum with a small group of 28 adolescents (age range 10 – 18 years). Post intervention results indicated improvement in both mindfulness and self-compassion, along with improvements in life satisfaction and perceived stress. In an investigation of a short-term meditation training session for adolescents (N = 132 Mage = 16.76), Galla (2016) found significant improvements in both mindfulness and self-compassion following the intervention, in addition to significant improvements to emotional well-being at post-test. Schonert-Reichl and colleagues (2015) investigated a mindfulness-based social emotional learning program with a sample of 99 fourth and fifth graders (Mage = 10.24). Results indicated significant post program improvements in mindfulness, in addition to improvements in a variety of indicators of well-being including empathy, perspective-taking, emotional control, optimism, school self-concept, and declines in self-reported symptoms of depression. Findings also included significant improvements in peer-rated prosocial behaviour, peer acceptance, and reduced peer-rated aggression. Taken together, 94 findings from intervention studies, that included assessments of mindfulness and self-compassion as outcome variables, show the two constructs are malleable in younger populations. Results from the present study indicated grade differences in self-compassion, with younger grades reporting higher levels of self-compassion than their older peers. In addition, self-coldness was found to be significantly higher in Grade 7 early adolescents than those in Grade 5. This observed dip or decline in self-compassion and increase in self-coldness across grades suggests the construct may follow the disruption hypothesis of trait development during this developmental period. The findings are interpreted cautiously, given small effects, however, this particular finding points to a further facet of increased vulnerability that early adolescents may face during this developmental time. Given the research that has established the benefits of self-compassion with early adolescent samples (Peter & Gazelle, 2017; Sutton et al., 2018), coupled with evidence that self-compassion is malleable during adolescence (Galla, 2016), the opportunity for intervention efforts that focus on fostering self-compassion in early adolescents is worth pursuing in future research. A key challenge for early adolescents is the increase in their experience of negative affect that has been observed during this developmental period (Larson et al., 2002). Results from the present study point to the possibility that mindfulness may serve as a protective factor, in that mindfulness as assessed in the fall was a significantly and negatively associated with lower negative affect at the end of the school year. Indeed, this finding is encouraging, in that efforts to bolster early adolescents’ mindfulness may serve to ameliorate the risk of increased in negative affect that is noted during this developmental period. More research is needed to ascertain whether mindfulness does indeed serve in this protective role during the early adolescent developmental period. 95 Findings indicated that self-compassion at the beginning of the year was significantly and positively associated with indicators of well-being, specifically positive affect and life satisfaction at the end of the school year. In addition, mindfulness was found to be significantly and negatively associated with lower negative affect at the end of the school year. Taken together, both constructs displayed relations to well-being at the end of the year in different ways. Future investigation is needed to ascertain whether self-compassion serves as a promotive factor by improving facets of well-being, such as positive affect and satisfaction with life, and, whether mindfulness serves as a protective factor by buffering early adolescents from increased negative affect, resulting in a reduction of negative affect over time. Program developers would benefit from considering these findings in regards to the possible unique functions mindfulness and self-compassion may serve in fostering well-being in early adolescents, specific to affect and perceived satisfaction with life. In addition, efforts to evaluate contemplative based programming would benefit from the inclusion of assessments of affect and life satisfaction given the present study findings indicating the associations of mindfulness and self-compassion with regard to these outcomes. Conclusion The combined findings of this study indicate that of mindfulness and self-compassion appear to reflect relatively stable trajectories over the course of one year in the absence of intervention, with the exception of one interaction effect seen for Grade 7 girls, with a decline observed from mid-year to the end of the year. However, differences were seen across grades, in particular, with self-compassion, suggesting that the constructs may not be stable over the course of early adolescence and may follow the disruption hypothesis with regard to trait development. Longitudinal research is needed to follow cohorts of early adolescents over the course of several 96 years in order to determine whether the observed grade differences in self-compassion across Grades 5 to 7 is representative of a dip or decline during early adolescence. Further, longitudinal research is needed to track changes across the adolescent period in order to determine whether there is an observed increase in self-compassion as Neff and Vonk (2009) suggest, and if so, whether that occurs in late adolescence, early adulthood, or even later on adulthood. The present study offers evidence of support for the argument that self-compassion, as assessed by the SCS, should be examined as two distinct constructs: self-compassion and self-coldness. Specifically, self-coldness was found to be significantly associated with increased negative affect, whereas, self-compassion was a significantly associated with positive affect and satisfaction with life, at the end of the year. This suggests the two subscales are not in accord in their associations with well-being. In fact, self-coldness was found to be significantly associated with a risk factor for mental well-being, negative affect. The pattern of relationships between the positive and negative items of self-compassion and indicators of emotional well-being is consistent with findings that the negatively worded items on the SCS, self-coldness, may not represent the protective nature of the self-compassion construct (Muris & Petrocchi, 2017). Further, self-coldness may instead be an indicator of psychological maladjustment (Brenner et al., 2017; Muris, 2016; Muris et al., 2016a, 2016b). Findings from the present study offer an illumination of the unique functions mindfulness and self-compassion may serve in both protective and promotive capacities. Findings showed that self-compassion is significantly and positively associated with indicators of well-being, specifically positive affect, and life satisfaction over time in early adolescents. Mindfulness was found to be significantly and negatively associated with negative affect at the end of the school year. Taken together, both constructs were related to well-being at the end of the year in different 97 ways. Self-compassion was found to be significantly related to higher positive affect and life satisfaction, whereas, mindfulness was found to be significantly related to lower negative affect and the end of the school year. Indeed, the present study findings point to differing functions mindfulness and self-compassion may have during early adolescent development. Specifically, mindfulness may serve as a protective factor by buffering early adolescents from the typical increase in negative affect that is noted during this developmental period (e.g., Larson & Asmussen, 1991). In contrast, self-compassion may serve as a promotive factor by fostering psychological well-being through improved positive affect and life satisfaction. Taken together, findings from the present study suggest mindfulness and self-compassion may have different functions in the trajectory of well-being during the early adolescent developmental period. 98 Tables and Figures Table 1 Sample Descriptives Gender Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Total Boy 19 43 19 81 Girl 22 21 22 65 Total 41 64 41 146 99 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics (Sample size, Means, and Standard Deviations) of the Sample for Mindfulness Difference scores Grade Gender n Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 2-Time 1 Time 3-Time 2 Time 3-Time 1 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Grade 5 Boy 19 4.49 .67 4.55 .80 4.40 .97 .06 .88 -.15 .86 -.09 .95 Girl 21 4.45 1.00 4.47 .99 4.53 1.07 .02 .95 .05 .57 .05 .96 Total 40 4.47 .85 4.51 .89 4.47 1.01 .04 .91 -.04 .72 -.01 .95 Grade 6 Boy 43 4.40 .88 4.40 .99 4.57 1.01 -.01 .67 .20 .76 .16 .94 Girl 21 4.56 .56 4.16 1.00 4.39 .90 -.38 .69 .25 .51 -.17 .63 Total 64 4.45 .79 4.32 .99 4.51 .97 -.13 .70 .22 .68 .05 .86 Grade 7 Boy 19 4.26 .62 4.12 .69 4.47 .70 -.14 .55 .35 .54 .21 .61 Girl 22 4.41 .81 4.47 .82 4.33 .83 .05 .66 -.15 .53 -.08 .84 Total 41 4.34 .73 4.31 .77 4.39 .77 -.03 .61 .09 .59 .05 .75 Total Boy 81 4.39 .77 4.37 .89 4.50 .93 -.02 .69 .15 .75 .11 .87 Girl 64 4.47 .80 4.37 .93 4.42 .92 -.10 .79 .05 .56 -.06 .82 Total 145 4.43 .79 4.37 .91 4.47 .92 -.06 .74 .11 .67 .03 .85 100 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics (Sample size, Means, and Standard Deviations) of the Sample for Self-Compassion Difference Scores Grade Gender n Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 2-Time 1 Time 3-Time 2 Time 3-Time 1 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Grade 5 Boy 19 3.37 .60 3.42 .68 3.33 .59 .05 .63 -.08 .41 -.04 .41 Girl 22 3.4 .765 3.44 .64 3.42 .71 .00 .45 -.02 .41 -.02 .42 Total 41 3.4 .688 3.43 .65 3.38 .65 .02 .54 -.05 .41 -.03 .41 Grade 6 Boy 43 3.17 .53 3.19 .59 3.18 .59 .02 .51 -.01 .36 .01 .54 Girl 21 3.35 .66 3.20 .69 3.25 .62 -.15 .41 .05 .46 -.10 .35 Total 64 3.23 .57 3.20 .62 3.20 .60 -.04 .49 .01 .39 -.03 .48 Grade 7 Boy 19 2.96 .69 2.91 .67 2.96 .60 -.05 .51 .05 .31 .00 .52 Girl 22 3.14 .62 3.21 .65 2.97 .59 .06 .46 -.23 .41 -.17 .63 Total 41 3.06 .65 3.07 .67 2.97 .59 .01 .48 -.10 .39 -.09 .59 Total Boy 81 3.17 .60 3.18 .65 3.16 .60 .01 .54 -.01 .36 -.00 .50 Girl 65 3.31 .69 3.29 .66 3.22 .66 -.03 .44 -.07 .44 -.10 .48 Total 146 3.23 .64 3.23 .65 3.19 .63 -.01 .50 -.04 .40 -.05 .49 101 Table 4 Mindfulness: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade) ANOVAs for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3. Mindfulness Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Variable F df p h2 F df p h2 F df p h2 Gender .44 1, 139 .51 .003 .01 1, 139 .93 .000 .14 1, 139 .71 .001 Grade .46 2, 139 .63 .007 .88 2, 139 .42 .012 .09 2, 139 .91 .001 Gender x Grade .19 2, 139 .82 .003 1.31 2, 139 .27 .019 .37 2, 139 .69 .005 Note. N = 145 102 Table 5 Self-Compassion: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade) ANOVAs for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3. Self-compassion Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Variable F df p h2 F df p h2 F df p h2 Gender 1.80 1 .18 .013 1.03 1 .31 .007 .31 1 .58 .002 Grade 3.27 2 .04 .045 3.51 2 .03 .048 4.65 2 .01 .062 Gender x Grade .10 2 .90 .001 .70 2 .50 .010 .05 2 .96 .001 Note. N = 146 103 Table 6 Mindfulness: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade) ANOVAs Examining Time Differences Scores Mindfulness (Difference scores) Time 2 - 1 Time 3 - 2 Time 3 - 1 Variable F df p h2 F df p h2 F df p h2 Gender 1.39 2 .25 .02 1.68 2 .19 .02 .09 2 .92 .00 Grade .37 1 .54 .00 .43 1 .51 .00 1.05 1 .31 .01 Gender x Grade 2.01 2 .14 .03 3.42 2 .04* .05 1.13 2 .33 .02 Note. N = 145 104 Table 7 Self-Compassion: Results from 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade) ANOVAs Examining Time Differences Scores Self-Compassion (Difference scores) Time 2 -1 Time 3 - 2 Time 3 -1 Variable df F p h2 df F p h2 df F p h2 Gender 2 .46 .63 .01 2 .98 .38 .01 2 .14 .87 .00 Grade 1 .15 .70 .00 1 .62 .43 .00 1 1.02 .31 .01 Gender x Grade 2 .95 .39 .01 2 2.89 .06 .04 2 .38 .69 .01 Note. N = 146 105 Table 8 Three Class Solution for Mindfulness Across Three Time Points Number of latent classes VUONG-LO-MENDELL-RUBIN LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST FOR k-1 (H0) VERSUS k CLASSES (p) LO-MENDELL-RUBIN ADJUSTED LRT TEST FOR k-1 (H0) VERSUS k CLASSES (p) AICa BICb Sample-Size Adjusted BIC Entropy 1-class - - 1121.558 1139.419 1120.433 - 2-class 0.0120 0.0143 1003.934 1033.701 1002.057 0.744 *3-class 0.0007 0.0009 948.785 990.459 946.158 0.844 Note. aAIC Akaike Information Criterion, bBIC Bayesian Information Criterion 106 Table 9 Means and Variances for the Mindfulness Latent Profile Analysis Three Class Solution Mean Variance Latent Class 1 Time 1 3.75 .39 Time 2 3.20 .16 Time 3 3.41 .31 Latent Class 2 Time 1 4.37 .39 Time 2 4.29 .16 Time 3 4.40 .31 Latent Class 3 Time 1 5.04 .39 Time 2 5.41 .16 Time 3 5.40 .31 107 Table 10 Description of Membership by Grade and Gender of the Three Class Solution for Mindfulness MAAS Class Assignment Total 1 Low mindfulness 2 Medium mindfulness 3 High mindfulness Grade Gender (n) (n) (n) Grade 5 Boy 3 11 5 19 Girl 6 6 9 21 Both 9 17 14 40 Grade 6 Boy 10 19 14 43 Girl 6 10 5 21 Both 16 29 19 64 Grade 7 Boy 5 11 3 19 Girl 5 10 7 22 Both 10 21 10 41 Total Boy 18 41 22 81 Girl 17 26 21 64 Both 35 67 43 145 108 Table 11 One Class Solution for Self-Compassion Over Time Number of latent classes VUONG-LO-MENDELL-RUBIN LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST FOR k-1 (H0) VERSUS k CLASSES (p) LO-MENDELL-RUBIN ADJUSTED LRT TEST FOR k-1 (H0) VERSUS k CLASSES (p) AICa BICb Sample-Size Adjusted BIC Entropy *1-class - - 859.982 877.883 858.897 - 2-class 0.0869 0.0950 737.449 767.285 735.641 0.778 3-class 0.0560 0.0613 656.261 698.031 653.729 0.844 Note. * Best fitting solution, aAIC Akaike Information Criterion, bBIC Bayesian Information Criterion 109 Table 12 Intercorrelations Among Mindfulness and Self-Compassion at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD 1. T1 Mindfulness - 4.42 .79 2. T2 Mindfulness .62** - 4.35 .91 3. T3 Mindfulness .51** .74** - 4.47 .93 4. T1 Self-Compassion .46** .41** .33** - 3.24 .65 5. T2 Self-Compassion .25** .44** .32** .71** - 3.24 .66 6. T3 Self-Compassion .31** .47** .48** .70** .81** - 3.20 .63 Note. N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 110 Table 13 Sample Size of Each Student Group for Hierarchical Regression Analyses Grade Gender Grade 5 n Grade 6 n Grade 7 n Total n Boy 19 41 18 78 Girl 21 21 21 63 Total 40 62 39 141 111 Table 14 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion) with Indicators of Well-being Variable 1 2 3 4 5 M SD 1. T1 Mindfulness - 4.42 .79 2. T1 Self-Compassion .46** - 3.23 .65 3. T3 Positive Affect .12 .43** - 3.63 .85 4. T3 Negative Affect -.34** -.26** -.26** - 1.90 .73 5. T3 SWLS .13 .41** .50** -.28 - 3.78 .93 Note: N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 112 Table 15 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion) with Time 3 Dimensions of Prosociality Variable 1 2 3 4 M SD 1. T1 Mindfulness - 4.42 .79 2. T1 Self-Compassion .48** - 3.24 .65 3. T3 Teacher Ratings of Social Competence .17 -.21 - 4.95 .93 4. T3 Peer ratings of Prosocial Behaviour .18* .16 .52** - .53 .20 Note. N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 113 Table 16 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion) with Time 3 Executive Function Variable 1 2 3 4 M SD 1. T1 Mindfulness - 4.42 .79 2. T1 Self-Compassion .46** - 3.24 .65 3. T3 Response Time -.04 .09 - 533.90 72.92 4. T3 Accuracy .09 -.06 .16 - .86 .11 Note. N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 114 Table 17 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade) ANOVAs for Dependent Variables, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, and Satisfaction with Life Time 3 Positive Affect Negative Affect Satisfaction with Life Variable df F p h2 df F p h2 df F p h2 Gender 1 4.08 .045* .029 1 2.44 .121 .018 1 .80 .372 .006 Grade 2 .51 .604 .007 2 .79 .455 .012 2 1.21 .302 .018 Gender x Grade 2 .76 .469 .011 2 .65 .526 .009 2 1.16 .316 .017 Note. N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 115 Table 18 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade) ANOVAs For Dependent Variables Teacher Ratings of Social Emotional Competence, And, Peer Ratings of Prosocial Behaviour Time 3 Teacher Ratings of Social Competence Peer Ratings of Prosocial Behaviour Variable df F p h2 df F p h2 Gender 1 4.95 .028* .036 1 10.80 .001** .074 Grade 2 .56 .575 .008 2 3.30 .040* .047 Gender x Grade 2 .32 .730 .005 2 .17 .841 .003 Note. N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 116 Table 19 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade) ANOVAs For Hearts and Flowers Incongruent Trial Response Time and Accuracy Time 3 Response Time Accuracy Variable df F p h2 df F p h2 Gender 1 1.24 .267 .009 1 .21 .646 .002 Grade 2 2.51 .085 .036 2 3.18 .045* .045 Gender x Grade 2 .63 .534 .009 2 1.70 .187 .025 Note. N = 141. 117 Table 20 Regression Analyses with Time 1 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion as Predictors of Well-being at Time 3 Time 3 Positive Affect Negative Affect Satisfaction with Life (SWLS) Variable b b t b b t b b t Step 1 Gendera .20 .12 1.47 - - - - - - Grade (5 vs 7) contrast -.03 -.02 -.26 -.05 -.05 -.59 -.19 -.16 -1.80 Grade (6 vs 7) contrast -.02 .02 .25 .04 .04 .45 -.10 -.09 -1.07 Step 2 Time 1 Mindfulness -.11 -.10 -1.14 -.26 -.29 -3.21** -.09 -.08 -.93 Time 1 Self-Compassion .61 .47 5.29*** -.14 -.12 -1.30 .69 .49 5.58*** R2 .21 7.04*** .13 .21 F 5.24*** 9.27*** Note. aGender: 1 = boy, 2 = girl. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 118 Table 21 Time 1 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion as Predictors of Prosociality at Time 3: Results from Regression Analyses Time 3 Teacher Reports of Social Competence (SC) Peer Reports of Prosocial Behaviour (PB) Variable b b t b b t Step 1 Gendera .35 .19 2.17* .10 .26 3.20** Grade (5 vs 7) contrast .07 .06 .58 -.01 -.05 -.57 Grade (6 vs 7) contrast -.11 -.10 -1.01 -.05 -.22 -2.43* Step 2 Time 1 Mindfulness .19 .16 1.70 .04 .14 1.57 Time 1 Self-Compassion -.17 -.12 -1.21 .03 .10 1.12 R2 07 .18 F 1.95 6.02*** Note. aGender: 1 = boy, 2 = girl. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 119 Table 22 Time 1 Mindfulness and Self-Compassion as Predictors of Executive Function at Time 3: Results from Regression Analyses Time 3 Hearts and Flowers (EF) Response Time Hearts and Flowers (EF) Accuracy b b t b b t Model Step 1 Grade (5 vs 7) contrast 11.13 .11 1.19 - - - Grade (6 vs 7) contrast 7.09 .08 .86 - - - Step 2 Time 1 Mindfulness -9.73 -.11 -1.12 .02 .15 1.61 Time 1 Self-Compassion 12.37 .11 1.14 -.02 -.13 -1.40 R2 .04 .02 F 1.57 1.57 *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 120 Table 23 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness, Self-Compassion, and Self-Coldness) with Time 3 Well-being Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD 1. T1 Mindfulness - 4.42 .79 2. T1 Self-Compassion (positive items) .20* - 3.28 .79 3. T1 Self-Compassion (negative items) -.52** -.27** - 2.80 .84 4. T3 Positive Affect .12 .41** -.28** - 3.64 .85 5. T3 Negative Affect -.34** -.07 .34** -.26** - 1.90 .73 6. T3 SWLSa .13 .33** -.32** .50** -.28** - 3.78 .93 Note. N = 141 aSatisfaction with Life Scale *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 121 Table 24 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness, Self-Compassion, and Self-Coldness) with Time 3 Prosociality Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 M SD 1. T1 Mindfulness - 4.42 .79 2. T1 Self-Compassion (positive items) .20* - 3.28 .79 3. T1 Self-Compassion (negative items) -.52** -.27** - 2.80 .85 4. T3 Teacher Ratings of Social Competence .12 -.03 .00 - 4.95 .93 5. T3 Peer ratings of Prosocial Behaviour 19* .12 -.13 .52** - .53 .20 Note. N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 122 Table 25 Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables (T1 Mindfulness, Self-Compassion, and Self-Coldness) with Time 3 Executive Function Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 M SD 1. T1 Mindfulness - 4.42 .79 2. T1 Self-Compassion (positive items) .19* - 3.28 .79 3. T1 Self-Compassion (negative items) -.52** -.25** - 2.79 .84 4. T3 Response Time -.04 .09 -.06 - 533.81 72.59 5. T3 Accuracy .10 -.04 .05 .15 - .86 .11 Note. N = 141. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 123 Table 26 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) MANOVA for Independent Variables Self-Compassion (Positive Items) And Self-Coldness (Negative Items) at Time 1 Variable Wilk’s F df Error df p h2 Gender .99 .88 2 139 .42 .01 Grade .95 1.69 2 278 .15 .02 Gender x Grade .98 .56 2 278 .69 .01 *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 124 Table 27 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) MANOVA for Independent Variables Self-Compassion (Positive Items) And Self-Coldness (Negative Items) at Time 2 Wilk’s F df Error df p h2 Gender .97 2.17 2 139 .12 .03 Grade .94 2.12 4 278 .08 .03 Gender x Grade .97 1.12 4 278 .35 .02 *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 125 Table 28 2 x 3 (Gender x Grade [5, 6, 7]) MANOVA for Independent Variables Self-Compassion (Positive Items) And Self-Coldness (Negative Items) at Time 3 Wilk’s F df Error df p h2 Gender .94 4.24 2 139 .02* .06 Grade .92 3.04 4 278 .02* .04 Gender x Grade .98 .71 4 278 .59 .01 *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 126 Table 29 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness as Predictors of Well-being: Results from Regression Analyses Model b b t R2 F Pratt Positive Affect at Time 3 .22 6.17*** Gendera .21 .12 1.53 Grade (5 vs 7) contrast -.01 -.01 -.09 Grade (6 vs 7) contrast .01 .01 .11 Time 1 Mindfulness -.07 -.06 -.70 Time 1 Positive SC items .39 .36 4.53*** Time 1 Negative SC items -.21 -.20 -2.15* Regression Analysis for Pratt Calculation .20 17.23*** Time 1 Positive SC items .39 .36 4.57*** .74 Time 1 Negative SC items -.19 -.18 -2.30* .26 Negative Affect at Time 3 .16 4.94*** Grade (5 vs 7) contrast -.03 -.03 -.36 Grade (6 vs 7) contrast .02 .02 .25 Time 1 Mindfulness -.22 -.24 -2.55* Time 1 Positive SC items .04 .04 .50 Time 1 Negative SC items .19 .22 2.26* Regression Analysis for Pratt Calculation .15 12.39*** Time 1 Mindfulness -.21 -.23 -2.52* .52 Time 1 Negative SC items .19 .22 2.35* .48 Satisfaction with Life (SWLS) at Time 3 .22 7.39*** Grade (5 vs 7) contrast -.19 -.16 -1.79 Grade (6 vs 7) contrast -.10 -.09 -1.05 Time 1 Mindfulness -.10 -.08 -.92 Time 1 Positive SC items .34 .29 3.63*** Time 1 Negative SC items -.36 -.32 -3.45** Regression Analysis for Pratt Calculation .17 13.88*** Time 1 Positive SC items .31 .27 3.28** .53 Time 1 Negative SC items -.27 -.25 -3.07** .47 Note. aGender 1 = boy, 2 = girl *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001. 127 Table 30 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness as Predictors of Prosociality: Results from Regression Analyses Time 3 Teacher Reports of Social Competence (SC) Peer Reports of Prosocial Behaviour (PB) Model b b t b b t Step 1 Gender .35 .19 2.18* .11 .26 3.21** Grade (5 vs 7) contrast .07 .06 .62 -.01 -.04 -.48 Grade (6 vs 7) contrast -.11 -.10 -1.04 -.05 -.22 -2.48* Step 2 Time 1 Mindfulness .20 .17 1.74 .04 .16 1.70 Time 1 Positive SCS items -.05 -.04 -.49 .03 .10 1.21 Time 1 Negative SCS items .12 .10 1.07 -.00 -.01 -.14 R2 .07 .18 F 1.65 5.05*** Note. Gender 1 = boy, 2 = girl *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001. 128 Table 31 Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Self-Coldness as Predictors of Executive Function at Time 3: Results from Regression Analyses Time 3 Hearts and Flowers (EF) Response Time Hearts and Flowers (EF) Accuracy b b t b b t Model Grade (5 vs 7) contrast 11.41 .12 1.21 -.04 -.24 -2.49 Grade (6 vs 7) contrast 6.89 .08 .83 .02 .13 1.34 Time 1 Mindfulness -9.15 -.10 -1.00 .02 .16 1.58 Time 1 Positive SC items 7.33 .08 .89 -.01 -.04 -.45 Time 1 Negative SC items -4.68 -.05 -.52 .01 .09 .85 R2 .05 .07 F 1.25 2.00 *p < .05. 129 Figure 1. Two Trials of Hearts and Flowers Congruent and Incongruent. Reprinted from Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007. 130 References Ahmed, S. P., Bittencourt-Hewitt, A., & Sebastian, C. L. (2015). Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 11-25. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.07.006 Alispahic, S., & Hasanbegovic-Anic, E. (2017). Mindfulness: Age and gender differences on a Bosnian sample. Psychological Thought, 10, 155-166. doi:10.5964/psyct.v10i1.224 Arnett, J. J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54, 317-326. Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L. B., & Peters, J. R. (2012). Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of psychological well-being in long-term meditators and matched non- meditators. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 230–238. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.674548 Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Construct validity of the five-facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329–342. doi:10.1177/1073191107313003. Baijal, S., Jha, A.P., Kiyonaga, A., Singh, R., & Srinivasan, N. (2011). The influence of concentrative meditation training on the development of attention networks during early adolescence. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 2, 1-9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00153 Barnard, L. K., & Curry, J. F. (2011). Self-compassion: Conceptualizations, correlates, & interventions. Review of General Psychology, 15, 289-303. doi: 10.1037/a0025754 Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K, & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The role of 131 mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 482—500. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00033.x Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment of mindfulness with self- report measures: Existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness 4, 191-202. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0110-9 Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230-241. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077 Blakemore, S. J. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 267–77. doi: 10.1038/nrn2353 Blakemore, S. J. (2018). Avoiding social risk in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 116-122. doi:10.1177/0963721417738144 Bleidorn, W. (2015). What accounts for personality maturation in early adulthood? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 245–252. doi:10.1177/0963721414568662 Bergen-Cico, D., & Cheon, S. (2013). The mediating effects of mindfulness and self-compassion on trait anxiety. Mindfulness, 4, 505-519. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0205-y Berry, D. R., Cairo, A. H., Goodman, R. J., Quaglia, J. T., Green, J. D., & Brown, K. W. (2018). Mindfulness increases prosocial responses toward ostracized strangers through empathic concern. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 93-112. doi:10.1037/xge0000392 Birnie, K., Speca, M., & Carlson, L. E. (2010). Exploring self-compassion and empathy in the 132 context of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Stress and Health, 26, 359–371. doi: 10.1002/smi.1305 Black, D. S., Sussman, S., Johnson, C., & Milam, J. (2012a). Trait mindfulness helps shield decision-making from translating into health-risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 588-592. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.03.011 Black, D. S., Sussman, S., Johnson, C., & Milam, J. (2012b). Testing the indirect effect of trait mindfulness on adolescent cigarette smoking through negative affect and perceived stress mediators. Journal of Substance Use, 17, 417-429. doi: 10.3109/14659891.2011.587092 Black, D. S. (2011). A brief definition of mindfulness. Mindfulness Research Guide. Accessed from http://www.mindfulexperience.org Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development 72, 647-663. doi: 10.3109/14659891.2011.587092 Bluth, K., & Blanton, P. W. (2014). Mindfulness and self-compassion: Exploring pathways to adolescent emotional well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 1298-1309. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9830-2 Bluth, K., Campo, R. A., Futch, W. S., & Gaylord, S. A. (2017). Age and gender differences in the associations of self-compassion and emotional well-being in a large adolescent sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 840-853. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0567-2 Bluth, K., Roberson, P. E., Gaylord, S. A., Faurot, K. R., Grewen, K. M., Arzon, S., & Girdler, S. S. (2016). Does self-compassion protect adolescents from stress? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1098-1109. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0307-3 133 Bluth, K., Roberson, P. E., & Girdler, S. S. (2017). Adolescent sex differences in response to a mindfulness intervention: A call for research. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1900-1914. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0696-6 Borghuis, J., Denissen, J. A., Oberski, D., Sijtsma, K., Meeus, W. J., Branje, S., & ... Bleidorn, W. (2017). Big Five personality stability, change, and co-development across adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 641-657. doi:10.1037/pspp0000138 Bravo, A. J., Boothe, L. G., & Pearson, M. R. (2016). Getting personal with mindfulness: A latent profile analysis of mindfulness and psychological outcomes. Mindfulness, 7, 420– 432. doi:10.1007/ s12671-015-0459-7. Bravo, A. J., Pearson, M. R., & Kelley, M. L. (2018). Mindfulness and psychological health outcomes: A latent profile analysis among military personnel and college students. Mindfulness, 9, 258-270. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0771-5 Brenner, R. E., Heath, P. J., Vogel, D. L., & Credé, M. (2017). Two is more valid than one: Examining the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000211 Brenner, R. E., Vogel, D. L., Lannin, D. G., Engel, K. E., Seidman, A. J., & Heath, P. J. (2018). Do self-compassion and self-coldness distinctly relate to distress and well-being? A theoretical model of self-relating. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 346-357. doi:10.1037/cou0000257 Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 134 Brown, T. T., Lugar, H. M., Coalson, R. S., Miezin, F. M., Petersen, S. E., & Schlaggar, B. L. (2005). Developmental changes in human cerebral functional organization for word generation. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 275–290. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhh129 Brown, K. W., West, A. M., Loverich, T. M., & Biegel, G. M. (2011). Assessing adolescent mindfulness: Validation of an adapted Mindful Attention Awareness Scale in adolescent normative and psychiatric populations. Psychological Assessment, 23, 1023-1033. doi: 10.1037/a0021338 Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children's academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302-306. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00260 Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1993). Early emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression: Some methodological aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7, 19–36. doi: 10.1002/per.2410070103 Caprara, G., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self- efficacy beliefs to prosocial behavior across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 218-239. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.218. Carsley, D., Khoury, B., & Heath, N. L. (2018). Effectiveness of mindfulness interventions for mental health in schools: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 9, 693-707. doi: 10.1111/camh.12113 Casey, B. J., Duhoux, S., & Malter Cohen, M. (2010). Adolescence: What do transmission, transition, and translation have to do with it? Neuron, 67, 749-760. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.033 Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New 135 York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 111-126. doi: 10.1196/annals.1440.010 Castilho, P., Carvalho, S. A., Marques, S., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2017). Self-compassion and emotional intelligence in adolescence: A multigroup mediational study of the impact of shame memories on depressive symptoms. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 759-768. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0613-4 Castilho, P., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, J. (2015). Evaluating the multifactor structure of the long and short versions of the self-compassion scale in a clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71, 856–870. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22187 Ciarrochi, J., Kashdan, T. B., Leeson, P., Heaven, P., & Jordan, C. (2011). On being aware and accepting: A one-year longitudinal study into adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 695-703. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.003 Ciesla, J., Reilly, L., Dickson, K., Emanuel, A., & Updegraff, J. (2012). Dispositional mindfulness moderates the effects of stress among adolescents: Rumination as a mediator. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 760-770. doi:10.1080/15374416.2012.698724 Cillessen, L., van de Ven, M. O., & Karremans, J. C. (2017). The role of trait mindfulness in quality of life and asthma control among adolescents with asthma. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 99, 143-148. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.06.014 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Compas, B., Howell, D., Phares, V., Williams, R., & Giunta, C. (1989). Risk factors for emotional/behavioral problems in young adolescents: A prospective analysis of adolescent and parental stress and symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 732-740. 136 Condon, P. (2017). Mindfulness, compassion, and prosocial behavior. In J. C. Karremans & E. K. Papies (Eds.), Mindfulness in social psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863. Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 560-565. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180f6171f Dahl, R. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2009). Heightened stress responsiveness and emotional reactivity during pubertal maturation: Implications for psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1-6. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409000017 Davidson, R. J., & Harrington, A. (2001). Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature. USA: Oxford University Press. Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2037–2078. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006Davidson et al., 2012 – Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 1–17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York: Plenum Press. Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008). Mindfulness 137 skills and interpersonal behavior. Personality & Individual Differences, 44, 1235-1245. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.018 Del Giudice, M. (2014). Middle childhood: An evolutionary-developmental synthesis. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 193-200. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12084 Denissen, J. J. A., van Aken, M. A. G., Penke, L., & Wood, D. (2013). Self-regulation underlies temperament and personality: An integrative developmental framework. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 255–260. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/cdep.12050. Denissen, J. J. A., van Aken, M. A. G., & Roberts, B. W. (2011). Personality development across the life span. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, & S. von Stumm (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 77–100). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 tears old. Science, 333, 959-964. doi:10.1126/science.1204529 Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 387–388. Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31, 103-157. doi: 10.1007/BF01207052 Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909 Durston, S., Davidson, M. C., Tottenham, N., Galvan, A., Spicer, J., Fossella, J. A., & 138 Casey, B. J. (2006). A shift from diffuse to focal cortical activity with development. Developmental Science, 9, 1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00454.x Eccles, J. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9, 30-44. doi: 10.2307/1602703 Eccles, J. S., Midgely, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Rueman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage- environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101. Eisenberg, N. (2002). Empathy-related emotional responses, altruism, and their socialization. In R. J. Davidson & A. Harrington (Eds.). Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature (pp. 131-164). London: Oxford University Press. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Prosocial development. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (7th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 610–656). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Ferrari, M., Yap, K., Scott, N., Einstein, D. A., & Ciarrochi, J. (2018). Self-compassion moderates the perfectionism and depression link in both adolescence and adulthood. Plos ONE, 13, 1-19. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192022 Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Investigating the substantive aspect of construct validity for the Satisfaction with Life Scale adapted for children: A focus on cognitive processes. Social Indicators Research, 100, 37-60. doi:10.1007/s11205-010- 9603-x 139 Gadermann, A. M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Investigating validity evidence of the Satisfaction with Life Scale adapted for Children. Social Indicators Research, 96, 229–247. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9474-1 Galla, B. M. (2016). Within-person changes in mindfulness and self-compassion predict enhanced emotional well-being in healthy, but stressed adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 49, 204-217. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.03.016 Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills and educational attainment: Evidence from National Curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–16. doi: 10.1002/acp.934 Germer, C. K. (2009). The mindful path to self-compassion. New York: Guilford Press. Gilman, R., & Huebner, S. (2003). A review of life satisfaction research with children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 192-205. doi: 10.1521/scpq.18.2.192.21858 Gilman, R., Huebner, E. S., & Furlong, M. J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of positive psychology in schools, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Greco, L., Baer, R. A., & Smith, G. T. (2011). Assessing mindfulness in children and adolescents: Development and validation of the child and adolescent mindfulness measure (CAMM). Psychological Assessment, 23, 606–614. doi: 10.1037/a0022819 Greenberg, M. T., & Harris, A. R. (2012). Nurturing mindfulness in children and youth: Current state of research. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 161–166. Doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00215.x Guy, S. C., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2004). Behavior rating inventory of executive function-self-report version. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. 140 Hayes, S. C., Villatte, M., Levin, M., & Hildebrandt, M. (2011). Open, aware, and active: contextual approaches as an emerging trend in the behavioral and cognitive therapies. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 141–168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449 Hede, A. (2010). The dynamics of mindfulness in managing emotions and stress. Journal of Management Development, 29, 94–110. doi: 10.1108/02621711011009090 Herwig, U., Kaffenberger, T., Jancke, L., & Bruhl, A. B. (2010). Self-related awareness and emotion regulation. Neuroimage, 50, 734–741. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.089 Hofmann, S. G., Grossman, P., & Hinton, D. E. (2011). Loving-kindness and compassion meditation: potential for psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1126–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.003 Hölzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., Congleton, C., Yerramsetti, S. M., Gard, T., & Lazar, S. W. (2011). Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Research, 191, 36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006 Hopwood, C. J., & Bleidorn, W. (2018). Stability and change in personality and personality disorders. Current Opinion in Psychology, 21, 6-10. doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.034 Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the students’ life satisfaction scale. School Psychology International, 12, 231–240. doi: 10.1177/0143034391123010 Huebner, E. S. (2004). Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 66, 3-33. doi: 10.1023/B:SOCI.0000007497.57754.e3 Immordino-Yang, M. H., McColla, A., Damasioa, H, & Damasio, A. (2009). Neural correlates 141 of admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 8021-8026. doi:10.1073/pnas.0810363106 Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 109-119. doi: 10.3758/CABN.7.2.109 Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: The program of the Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. New York: Dell Publishing. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144-156. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.bpg016 Kam, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). Technical measurement report on the teacher social competence rating scale. Unpublished technical report, Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University Katz, D., & Toner, B. (2012). A systematic review of gender differences in the effectiveness of mindfulness-based treatments for substance use disorders. Mindfulness, 4, 318–331. doi:10. 1007/s12671-012-0132-3. Kemeny, M. E., Foltz, C., Cavanagh, J. F., Cullen, M., Giese-Davis, J., Jennings, P., & ... Ekman, P. (2012). Contemplative/emotion training reduces negative emotional behavior and promotes prosocial responses. Emotion, 12, 338-350. doi:10.1037/a0026118 Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1041-1056. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006 142 Kilford, E. J., Garrett, E., & Blakemore, S. (2016). The development of social cognition in adolescence: An integrated perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 106-120. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.016 Kimmes, J. G., Durtschi, J. A., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). Perception in romantic relationships: a latent profile analysis of trait mindfulness in relation to attachment and attributions. Mindfulness, 8, 1–11. doi:10. 1007/s12671-017-0708-z. Kirby, J. N. (2017). Compassion interventions: The programmes, the evidence, and implications for research and practice. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, 90, 432-455. doi:10.1111/papt.12104 Klingbeil, D. A., Renshaw, T. L., Willenbrink, J. B., Copek, R. A., Chan, K. T., Haddock, A., & ... Clifton, J. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions with youth: A comprehensive meta-analysis of group-design studies. Journal of School Psychology, 77-103. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.006 Krause, E. D., Vélez, C. E., Woo, R., Hoffmann, B., Freres, D. R., Abenavoli, R. M., & Gillham, J. E. (2018). Rumination, depression, and gender in early adolescence: A longitudinal study of a bidirectional model. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38, 923-946. doi: 10.1177/0272431617704956 Larson, R., & Asmussen, L. (1991). Anger, worry, and hurt in early adolescence: An enlarging world of negative emotions. In M. E. Colten & S. Gore (Eds.), Social institutions and social change. Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 21-41). Hawthorne, NY, US: Aldine de Gruyter. Larson, R., & Ham, M. (1993). Stress and “storm and stress” in early adolescence: The 143 relationship of negative events with dysphoric affect. Developmental Psychology, 29, 130-140. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.130 Larson, R., & Lampman-Petraitis, C. (1989). Daily emotional states as reported by children and adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1250-1260. doi: 10.2307/1130798 Larson, R. W., Moneta, G., Richards, M. H., & Wilson, S. (2002). Continuity, stability, and change in daily emotional experience across adolescence. Child Development, 73, 1151-1165. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00464 Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Jr., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., . . . Gathright, T. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment, 11, 326-338. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.326 Laursen, B., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377-389. doi:10.1353/mpq.2006.0029 Lawlor, M. S. (2014). Erratum: Mindfulness in practice: Considerations for implementation of mindfulness-based programming for adolescents in school contexts. New Directions for Youth Development, 2014, 83-95. doi:10.1002/yd.20129 Lawlor, M. S., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A, Gadermann, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). A validation study of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale adapted for children. Mindfulness, 5, 730–741. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0228-4 Lee, F. S., Heimer, H., Giedd, J. N., Lein, E. S., Šestan, N., Weinberger, D. R., & Casey, B. J. (2014). Mental health. Adolescent mental health--opportunity and obligation. Science, 346, 547-549. doi:10.1126/science.1260497 144 Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Helping the self-help others: Self-affirmation increases self-compassion and pro-social behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00421 López, A., Sanderman, R., Smink, A., Zhang, Y., van Sonderen, E., Ranchor, A., & Schroevers, M. J. (2015). A reconsideration of the Self-Compassion Scale’s total score: Self-compassion versus self-criticism. Plos ONE, 10, 1-12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132940 Luders, E., Toga, A., Lepore, N., & Gaser, C. (2009). The underlying anatomical correlates of long-term meditation: Larger hippocampal and frontal volumes of gray matter. Neuroimage, 45, 672–678. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008 Lutz, A., Jha, A. P., Dunne, J. D., & Saron, C. D. (2015). Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective. American Psychologist, 70, 632-658. doi:10.1037/a0039585 MacBeth, A., & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: A meta- analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 545–552. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003 Marks, A. G., Sobanski, D. J., & Hine, D. W. (2010). Do dispositional rumination and/or mindfulness moderate the relationship between life hassles and psychological dysfunction in adolescents? Australian And New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 831-838. doi: 10.1007/s12671-017-0762-6 Marsh, H. W. (1988). Self-description questionnaire: a theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: a test manual and a research monograph. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Marshall, S. L., Parker, P. D., Ciarrochi, J., Sahdra, B., Jackson, C. J., & Heaven, P. C. L. 145 (2015). Self-compassion protects against the negative effects of low self-esteem: A longitudinal study in a large adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 116–121. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.013 Maxwell, S.E., Lau, M.Y., & Howard, G.S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does "failure to replicate" really mean? The American psychologist, 70 6, 487-98. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 173–175. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770693 Mills, K. L., Lalonde, F., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & Blakemore, S. (2014). Developmental changes in the structure of the social brain in late childhood and adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 123-131. doi:10.1093/scan/nss113 Mind and Life Education Research Network (MLERN). (2012). Contemplative Practices and Mental Training: Prospects for American Education. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 146–153. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00240.x Modinos, G., Ormel, J., & Aleman, A. (2010). Individual differences in dispositional mindfulness and brain activity involved in reappraisal of emotion. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 369-377. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq006 Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., …Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 Monk, C. S., McClure, E. B., Nelson, E. E., Zarahn, E., Bilder, R. M., Leibenluft, E., 146 Charney, D. S., Ernst, M., & Pine, D. S. (2003). Adolescent immaturity in attention-related brain engagement to emotional facial expressions. Neuroimage, 20, 420–428. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00355-0 Muris, P. (2016). A protective factor against mental health problems in youths? A critical note on the assessment of self-compassion. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1461–1465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10826-015-0315-3 Muris, P., van den Broek, M., Otgaar, H. Oudenhoven, I., & Lennartz, J. (2018). Good and bad sides of self-compassion: A face validity check of the self-compassion scale and an investigation of its relations to coping and emotional symptoms in non-clinical adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 2411-2421. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1099-z Muris, P., Meesters, C., Pierik, A., & de Kock, B. (2016a). Good for the self: Self-compassion and other self- related constructs in relation to symptoms of anxiety and depression in non-clinical youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 607–617. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0235-2 Muris, P., Otgaar, H., & Petrocchi, N. (2016b). Protection as the mirror image of psychopathology: Further critical notes on the self-compassion scale. Mindfulness, 7, 787–790. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0509-9 Muris, P., & Petrocchi, N. (2017). Protection or vulnerability? A meta-analysis of the relations between the positive and negative components of self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24, 373-383. doi:10.1002/cpp.2005 Nantel-Vivier, A., Kokko, K., Caprara, G., Pastorelli, C., Gerbino, M., Paciello, M., & ... 147 Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Prosocial development from childhood to adolescence: A multi-informant perspective with Canadian and Italian longitudinal studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 590-598. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02039.x Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-Compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85-101. doi: 10.1080/15298860309032 Neff, K. D. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self- compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. doi: 10.1080/15298860309027 Neff, K. D. (2009). Self-compassion. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 561–573). New York: Guilford Press. Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-Compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x Neff, K. D. (2016a). The self-compassion scale is a valid and theoretically coherent measure of self- compassion. Mindfulness, 7, 264–274. doi: 10.1007/s12671-015-0479-3 Neff, K. D. (2016b). Does self-compassion entail reduced self-judgment, isolation, and over- identification? A response to Muris, Otgaar, and Petrocchi (2016). Mindfulness, 7, 791–797. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0531-y Neff, K. D., & Costigan, A. P. (2014). Self-compassion, wellbeing, and happiness. Psychologie in Österreich, 114-117. doi: 10.4236/psych.2012.312A177 Neff, K. D., & Dahm, K. A. (2015). Self-compassion: What it is, what it does, and how it relates to mindfulness. In M. Robinson, B. Meier & B. Ostafin (Eds.), Mindfulness and Self-Regulation (pp. 121-137). New York: Springer. Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2012). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the 148 Mindful Self-Compassion Program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 28–44. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21923 Neff, K. D., & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among adolescents and young adults. Self and identity, 9, 225-240. doi: 10.1080/15298860902979307 Neff, K. D., & Pommier, E. (2013). The relationship between self-compassion and other- focused concern among college undergraduates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self and Identity, 12, 160-176. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2011.649546 Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Lawlor, M., & Thomson, K. C. (2012). Mindfulness and inhibitory control in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 565-588. doi:10.1177/0272431611403741 Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Thomson, K. C. (2010). Understanding the link between social and emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: Gender-specific predictors of peer acceptance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 13301342. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9 Offer, D., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (1992). Debunking the myths of adolescence: Findings from recent research. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 1003-1014. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199211000-00001 Pavot, W., Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (1997). The relation between self-aspect congruence, personality, and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 149 183–191. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00196-1 Peter, D., & Gazelle, H. (2017). Anxious solitude and self-compassion and self-criticism trajectories in early adolescence: Attachment security as a moderator. Child Development, 88, 1834-1848. doi:10.1111/cdev.12926 Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multi-factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 916-924. doi: 10.1177/0013164404264848 Pratt, J. W. (1987). Dividing the indivisible: Using simple symmetry to partition variance explained. In T. Pukkila & S. Puntanen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference in Statistics (pp. 245-260). Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere. Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2010). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18, 250-255. doi: 10.1002/cpp.702 Riggs, N. R., Black, D. S., & Ritt-Olson, A. (2015). Associations between dispositional mindfulness and executive function in early adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2745-2751. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0077-3 Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1. Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (2015). Mindfulness and compassion in human development: Introduction to the special section. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1-6. doi: 10.1037/a0038453 Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (2014). School and the mental health of children and adolescents: 150 A developmental systems approach. In M. Lewis & K. Rudolph (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 163-184). New York, NY: Springer. Roeser, R. W., & Zelazo, P. D. (2012). Contemplative science, education and child development: Introduction to the special section. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 143-145. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00242.x Roth, R. M., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2014). Assessment of executive functioning using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of executive functioning (pp. 301-331). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_18 Rubia, K., Overmeyer, S., Taylor, E., Brammer, M., Williams, S. C., Simmons, A., Andrew, C., & Bullmore, E. T. (2000). Functional frontalisation with age: Mapping neurodevelopmental trajectories with fMRI. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 13–19. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07071084 Rubia, K., Smith, A. B., Woolley, J., Nosarti, C., Heyman, I., Taylor, E., & Brammer, M. (2006). Progressive increase of frontostriatal brain activation from childhood to adulthood during event-related tasks of cognitive control. Human Brain Mapping, 27, 973–993. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20237 Sahdra, B. K., MacLean, K. A., Ferrer, E., Shaver, P. R., Rosenberg, E. L., Jacobs, T. L., & ... Saron, C. D. (2011). Enhanced response inhibition during intensive meditation training predicts improvements in self-reported adaptive socioemotional functioning. Emotion, 11, 299-312. doi:10.1037/a0022764 Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The effects of a mindfulness-based education on pre- and early adolescents’ well-being and social and emotional competence. 151 Mindfulness 1, 137-151. doi: 10.1007/s12671-010-0011-8 Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., Lawlor, M. S., Abbott, D., Thompson, K., Oberlander, T. & Diamond, A (2015) Enhancing cognitive and social-emotional development though a simple-to-administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary students: A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Psychology, 51, 52-66. doi: 10.1037/a0038454 Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K., Thoresen, C., & Plante, T. G. (2011). The moderation of mindfulness-based stress reduction effects by trait mindfulness: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 267-277. doi:10.1002/jclp.20761 Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach to preventing relapse. New York: Guildford. Seligman, E. P., & Csikszentimihalyi (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 Shin, H. S., Black, D. S., Shonkoff, E. T., Riggs, N. R. & Pentz, M. A. (2016). Associations among dispositional mindfulness, self-compassion, and executive function proficiency in early adolescents. Mindfulness, 7, 1377–1384. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0579-8 Singer, T., Critchley, H. D., & Preuschoff, K. (2009). A common role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 334-340. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.05.001 Sirois, F. M., Kitner, R., & Hirsch, J. K. (2015). Self-compassion, affect, and health-promoting behaviors. Health Psychology, 34, 661–669. doi: 10.1037/hea0000158 152 Soto, C. J., & Tackett, J. L. (2015). Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure, development, and outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 358-362. doi: 10.1177/0963721415589345 Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778. doi: 10.1037/a0012955 Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 2, 55–87. doi: 10.1891/194589501787383444 Sutton, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Wu, A. D. & Lawlor, M. S. (2018). Evaluating the reliability and validity of the self-compassion scale short form adapted for children ages 8– 12. Child Indicators Research, 11, 1217–1236. doi:10.1007/s12187-017-9470-y Tang, Y., Ma, Y., Wang, J., Fan, Y., Feng, S., Lu, Q.,…Posner, M.I. (2007). Short-term meditation training improves attention and self-regulation. PNAS, 104, 17152-17156. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707678104 Tang, Y., & Posner, M. (2009). Attention training and attention state training. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 222-227. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.009 Teper, R., Segal, Z. V., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Inside the mindful mind: How mindfulness enhances emotion regulation through improvements in executive control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 1-6. doi: 10.1177/0963721413495869 Thomas, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Difference scores from the point of view of reliability and repeated-measures ANOVA: In defense of difference scores for data analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 37-43. 153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164411409929 Thomas, D. R., Hughes, E., & Zumbo, B. D. (1998). On variable importance in linear regression. Social Indicators Research, 45, 253-275. doi: 10.1023/A:1006954016433 Tomlinson, E. R., Yousaf, O., Vittersø, A. D., & Jones, L. (2018). Dispositional mindfulness and psychological health: A systematic review. Mindfulness, 9, 23-43. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0762-6 Van Dam, N. T., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., & Earleywine, M. (2011). Self-compassion is a better predictor than mindfulness of symptom severity and quality of life in mixed anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 123–130. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.08.011 Welp, L. R., & Brown, C. M. (2014). Self-compassion, empathy, and helping intentions. Journal Of Positive Psychology, 9, 54-65. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.831465 Wheeler, M. S., Arnkoff, D. B., & Glass, C. R. (2017). The neuroscience of mindfulness: How mindfulness alters the brain and facilitates emotion regulation. Mindfulness, 8, 1471-1487. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0742-x Yarnell, L. M., Stafford, R. E., Neff, K. D., Reilly, E. D., Knox, M. C., & Mullarkey, M. (2015). Meta-analysis of gender differences in self-compassion. Self and Identity, 14, 499–520. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2015.1029966 Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2007). Emotional and cognitive changes during adolescence. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17, 251–257. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.009 Zelazo, P. D., & Lyons, K. E. (2012). The potential benefits of mindfulness training in early childhood: A developmental social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 254-160. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00241.x 154 Zeller, M., Yuval, K., Nitzan-Assayag, Y., & Bernstein, A. (2015). Self-compassion in recovery following potentially traumatic stress: Longitudinal study of at-risk youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 645-653. doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9937-y Zessin, U., Dickhäuser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analysis. Applied Psychology Health Well-Being, 7, 340-364. doi:10.1111/aphw.12051 Zoogman, S., Goldberg, S. B., Hoyt, W. T., & Miller, L. (2014). Mindfulness interventions with youth: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 6, 290–302. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0260-4 Zumbo, B. D. (1999). The simple difference score as an inherently poor measure of change: Some reality, much mythology. In Bruce Thompson (Ed.). Advances in Social Science Methodology, (Vol. 5, pp. 269-304). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 155 Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire Please tell us a little bit about yourself 1. Are you a boy or a girl? (Circle One) Boy Girl 2. What grade are you in this year? (Circle One) 4 5 6 7 3. What is your birth date? _____________ ________ ___________ Month Day Year 4. Which of these adults do you live with most of the time? (Check all adults you live with.) □ Mother □ Grandmother □ Part time with each parent □ Father □ Grandfather □ Foster parent(s) or caregiver(s) □ Stepfather □ Second mother □ Stepmother □ Second father □ Other adults (write in the space below, for example, aunt, uncle, mom's boyfriend or girlfriend, dad’s boyfriend or girlfriend): ________________________________ 5. How many brothers or sisters do you have? ________ 6. What is the first language you learned at home? (You can check more than one if you need to.) □ English □ Hindi □ Punjabi □ Cantonese □ Japanese □ Spanish □ Filipino/Tagalog □ Korean □ Vietnamese □ French □ Mandarin □ Other _____________________ 7. Which language(s) do you speak at home? (You can check more than one if you need to.) □ English □ Hindi □ Punjabi □ Cantonese □ Japanese □ Spanish □ Filipino/Tagalog □ Korean □ Vietnamese □ French □ Mandarin □ Other _____________________ 8. Which language do you prefer to speak? ______________________ 9. How difficult is it for you to read in English? □ Very hard □ Hard □ Easy □ Very easy 10. Have you ever had a mindfulness program or activity? □ Yes □ No □ Don’t know If Yes, please write in the grade you had it _______________. 156 Appendix B: Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Children (MAAS-C; Lawlor et a., 2014) How true is each statement for you? Almost Never Not Very Often at All Not Very Often Somewhat Often Very Often Almost Always 1. I could be feeling a certain way and not realize it until later. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of something else. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. I find it hard to stay focused on what’s happening in the present moment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Usually, I walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Usually, I do not notice if my body feels tense or uncomfortable until it gets really bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. It seems that I am doing things automatically without really being aware of what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. I focus so much on a future goal I want to achieve that I don’t pay attention to what I am doing right now to reach it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. I do jobs, chores, or schoolwork automatically without being aware of what I’m doing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. I walk into a room, and then wonder why I went there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. I can’t stop thinking about the past or the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. I find myself doing things without paying attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. I snack without being aware that I’m eating. 1 2 3 4 5 6 157 Appendix C:The Self-Compassion Scale for Children (SCS-C; Sutton, et al., 2017) How often do you do the following? Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always 1. When I fail at something important to me, I feel like I’m not good enough. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I try to be kind towards those things about myself I don’t like. 1 2 3 4 5 3. When something bad happens, I try not to focus only on the bad, but think about the good things as well. 1 2 3 4 5 4. When I’m feeling sad, I feel like most other kids are happier than I am. 1 2 3 4 5 5. When I fail at something, I try to remember that everybody fails sometimes too. 1 2 3 4 5 6. When I’m going through a very hard time, I’m really nice to myself 1 2 3 4 5 7. When something upsets me I try to stay calm. 1 2 3 4 5 8. When I fail at something that’s important to me, I feel like I’m all alone. 1 2 3 4 5 9. When I’m feeling sad, I can’t stop thinking about everything that’s wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 10. When I feel like I’m not good enough at something, I try to remind myself that everyone feels that way sometimes. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I am hard on myself about my own flaws/weaknesses 1 2 3 4 5 12. I get frustrated or upset about the things about myself I don’t like. 1 2 3 4 5 158 Appendix D: Satisfaction with Life Scale for Children (SWLS-C; Gadermann, et al., 2010) How true is each statement for you? Disagree a Lot Disagree a Little Don’t Agree or Disagree Agree a Little Agree a Lot 1. In most ways my life is close to the way I would want it to be. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The things in my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am happy with life. 1 2 3 4 5 4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. 1 2 3 4 5 5. If I could live my life over, I would have it the same way. 1 2 3 4 5 159 Appendix E: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al., 1999) How much you have felt this way DURING THE PAST FEW WEEKS? Very slightly or not at all A little bit Somewhat Quite a bit A lot 1. Sad 1 2 3 4 5 2. Excited 1 2 3 4 5 3. Upset 1 2 3 4 5 4. Happy 1 2 3 4 5 5. Strong 1 2 3 4 5 6. Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 7. Guilty 1 2 3 4 5 8. Energetic 1 2 3 4 5 9. Scared 1 2 3 4 5 10. Miserable 1 2 3 4 5 11. Cheerful 1 2 3 4 5 12. Active 1 2 3 4 5 12. Proud 1 2 3 4 5 14. Afraid 1 2 3 4 5 15. Joyful 1 2 3 4 5 16. Lonely 1 2 3 4 5 17. Mad 1 2 3 4 5 18. Delighted 1 2 3 4 5 19. Gloomy 1 2 3 4 5 20. Lively 1 2 3 4 5 160 Appendix F: Teachers’ Ratings of Social Emotional Competence (TRSC; Kam & Greenberg, 1999) Compared to other (boys/girls) at this grade level, how often does/is this student . . . Almost Never Rarely Some-times Often Very Often Almost Always 1. Takes others property 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Yells at others 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Fights 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Stubborn 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Controls temper when there is a disagreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Lies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Breaks rules 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Teases classmates 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Harms others 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Obeys classroom rules 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Works hard 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Easily distractible 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Concentrates 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Stays on task 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Pays attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. Mind wanders 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Easily irritated when he/she has trouble with some task (reading, math, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Disliked by classmates 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Liked by classmates 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Accepts adult limits 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Feel at ease to talk to you 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. Performs at grade level 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. Shows empathy and compassion for other’s feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Provides help, shares materials, and acts cooperatively with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Takes turns, plays fair, and follows the rules of the game. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. Listens carefully to others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. Initiate interactions and joins in with others in a positive manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. Stops and calms down when excited or upset. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Recognizes and label his/her feelings and those of others appropriately. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Handle disagreements in a positive way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. Gets angry when provoked by other children 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Human Development, Learning, and Culture
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Mindfulness and self-compassion : exploring stability and relations to cognitive, social, and emotional indicators across one school year in a group of early adolescents
Text