Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01354-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Self-Compassion Relates to Reduced Unethical Behavior Through Lower Moral Disengagement

Ying Yang1 & Zhen Guo2 & Junhui Wu2 & Yu Kou2

Published online: 11 March 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract Objectives Abundant evidence has demonstrated that self-compassion robustly contributes to individuals’ psychological well- being. Yet, less is known about the social benefits of self-compassion. The present research sought to test whether self- compassion is related to less unethical behavior, as well as the mediating role of moral disengagement in this relation. Methods Across two studies in China, a college student sample (study 1, N = 222; 24% men, Mage = 19.44 years) and a large adolescent sample (study 2, N = 3236; 46% boys, Mage = 15.66 years) were recruited to complete measures of self-compassion, moral disengagement, and unethical behavior. Results Structural equation models revealed that self-compassion was negatively associated with unethical behavior (study 1, β = − 0.23, p =0.006;study2, β = − 0.19, p < 0.001) and that a lower level of moral disengagement explained the negative association between self-compassion and unethical behavior (study 1, indirect effect = − 0.14, p = 0.012, 95% CI [− 0.24, − 0.03]; study 2, indirect effect = − 0.08, p < 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.11, − 0.06]). Conclusions The findings support the notion that self-compassion decreases unethical behavior tendency through a lower level of moral disengagement, which expands our understanding of the adaptive functions of self-compassion in the social context.

Keywords Self-compassion . Unethical behavior . Moral disengagement . Morality . Social behavior

Self-compassion refers to a caring attitude toward the self in something all humans go through rather than something that times of suffering that stems from either failures, perceived only happens to them. Thus, they tend to observe the present inadequacies, or life difficulties (Neff 2003a;Neffetal.2018). suffering with clarity and openness, which prevent them from Self-compassion consists of three interconnected components: ruminating on negative emotions and ignoring current failures self-kindness (i.e., treating oneself with loving and under- (Neff 2009). A large body of research has indicated that self- standing rather than harsh self-judgment), common humanity compassion robustly predicts multiple indicators of psycho- (i.e., seeing one’s imperfections as a part of shared human logical well-being, regardless of culture and age (e.g., experience rather than viewing them as isolating), and mind- MacBeth and Gumley 2012;Neffetal.2008). Recent research fulness (i.e., being aware of present painful thoughts and feel- has begun to focus on the adaptive functions of self- ings in a balanced way rather than overidentifying with them). compassion in the context of social issues and has demonstrat- People who are self-compassionate recognize that inadequa- ed that self-compassion is associated with positive social in- cies and imperfections are inevitable and that suffering is dicators, such as empathy, general trust, and prosociality (e.g., Neff and Pommier 2013). Despite the growing research interest in the positive social * Yu Kou consequences of self-compassion, it remains unclear whether [email protected] and how self-compassion may be associated with negative social outcomes, such as unethical behavior. Unethical behav- 1 School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal ior reflects a broad category of actions that violate widely University, Shanghai, China accepted (societal) moral norms (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010) 2 Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, and is facilitated by moral disengagement—a set of cognitive National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology mechanisms that alter and reframe misconducts and thus allow Education (Beijing Normal University), Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China people to engage in unethical behavior without negative self- Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432 1425 reactions or self-sanctions (Bandura 1999). Some studies have demonstrated that self-compassion is positively correlated found that when faced with moral transgressions, self- with feelings of relatedness and general trust (Neff 2003b; compassionate people were less likely to endorse self- Yang et al. 2019). In addition, studies using self-reported mea- serving justifications or accept their own moral mistakes sures revealed that self-compassion was positively correlated (Breines and Chen 2012; Wang et al. 2017a). To add new with other-focused traits, such as perspective taking, empathic insights into the social functions of self-compassion, it is im- concern, and prosociality, among both adult and adolescent perative to further examine whether self-compassion would samples (e.g., Neff and Pommier 2013; Yang et al. 2019). make people less likely to use moral disengagement strategies, Researchers experimentally manipulated self-affirmation to and thus engage in less unethical behavior. engender participants’ feelings of self-compassion and found Two lines of reasoning lend credence to the negative relation- that participants with higher self-compassionate mindset ex- ship between self-compassion and unethical behavior. First, self- hibited more helping behaviors in a shelf-collapse incident compassion can facilitate self-improvement motivation. Because (Lindsay and Creswell 2014). Such concerns about others’ self-compassion encourages individuals to be kind and caring benefits and feelings might deter individuals from engaging toward themselves, lay people might think that self-compassion in unethical behaviors that cause harm to others. In support of would make individuals tolerate their moral mistakes and engage this claim, consistent displays of other-focused traits, such as in more unethical behavior. Yet, a distinction between self- empathy and perspective taking, were negatively associated compassion and self-indulgence would suggest that this is not with unethical behavior, including cheating, lying, and steal- the case. While focusing exclusively on hedonic pleasure for ing (Moore et al. 2012). Taken together, both lines of reason- oneself might lead to self-indulgence, self-compassion entails ing and empirical evidence suggest a negative association be- desiring health and well-being for oneself rather than pleasure tween self-compassion and unethical behavior. per se (Brach 2003). Self-compassion enhances individuals’ Moral disengagement has been proposed to be a signif- emotional stability, which helps them to learn from mistakes icant cognitive process that explains why people with cer- instead of denying their faults or colluding with them (Barnard tain personality traits were more or less likely to engage and Curry 2011), and thus enhances their motivation for self- in unethical behavior (Detert et al. 2008). Social-cognitive improvement (Neff and Seppälä 2016). That is, self- theory offers a comprehensive framework to understand compassionate people were more likely to take responsibility human behavior, as it proposes that people control their for their past mistakes and meanwhile were less emotionally own thoughts and actions through self-regulatory process- upset by them, therefore, displaying more adaptive and healthy es (Bandura 2001). According to this theory, most indi- behaviors in the future (Leary et al. 2007). viduals have developed personal moral standards that For instance, Breines and Chen (2012)usedmoodinductions guide good behaviors and prevent unethical behaviors. to engender participants’ feelings of self-compassion for their These standards serve a self-regulatory role, such that past moral transgressions and found that compared with self- people use these standards to anticipate, control, and eval- esteem and positive emotion conditions, self-compassion elicited uate their own actions (Bandura 1999;Detertetal.2008). stronger motivation to make amends and commitments to avoid Behaving in line with these moral standards leads to a repeating a similar moral transgression in the future. A recent positive moral self-image, whereas violating these stan- study also showed that higher self-compassion was associated dards may result in self-censure (Bandura et al. 1996). with less acceptance of one’s own moral transgressions among However, the usage of moral disengagement strategies both Chinese and American samples (Wang et al. 2017a). can deactivate the normal self-regulatory processes that Similarly, Morley et al. (2016) found that higher self- monitor deviant behaviors (Bandura 1999). That is, moral compassion was associated with lower levels of violence and disengagement allows people to perform actions inconsis- criminality among prisoners. In addition, mindfulness, one relat- tent with their moral standards without self-censure or ed component of self-compassion, was found to be negatively guilt (Bandura 1999). Prior to conducting unethical be- associated with unethical behaviors (e.g., cheating; Ruedy and haviors, people cognitively alter or reframe those miscon- Schweitzer 2010). ducts via moral disengagement mechanisms (e.g., moral Second, the positive social consequences of self- justification or attribution of blame), which encourage compassion may provide insights into the relationship be- their unethical actions without bad feelings about them- tween self-compassion and unethical behavior. Self- selves (Detert et al. 2008). In line with this reasoning, compassion involves open-hearted awareness that one’sexpe- moral disengagement has been shown to robustly predict rience of inadequacies is part of a shared human condition, unethical behavior. For instance, research found that mor- and thus all human beings are intimately connected and wor- al disengagement positively predicted unethical behavior thy of compassion (Neff and Seppälä 2016). Thus, self- in both school and organizational situations (Detert et al. compassion fosters social connectedness and caring toward 2008;Mooreetal.2012). Similarly, moral disengagement others (Barnard and Curry 2011). For instance, research has positively predicted unethical consumer attitudes above 1426 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432 and beyond the effects of general personality and dark Study 1 triad (Egan et al. 2015). Furthermore, longitudinal studies showed that moral disengagement tendency stimulated ad- Method olescents to develop deviant behaviors (e.g., aggression, bullying; Teng et al. 2019;Wangetal.2017b). Participants Despite little research on the relationship between self- compassion and moral disengagement, extant evidence As we were not sure of the appropriate sample size, we re- does provide some support for the argument that self- cruited as many participants as resources permitted prior to compassion might reduce individuals’ use of morally dis- any data analysis. We were able to recruit 230 Chinese college engagement strategies. The activation of moral disengage- students to participate in study 1. Eight participants were ex- mentcouldbeconsideredanessentiallydefensiveand cluded in the data screening process because they chose the self-serving justification process (Ribeaud and Eisner same option in all the scales. The valid sample included 222 2010). To maintain a positive self-view as a moral person, Chinese adults (24% men; mean age = 19.44 years, SD = 1.56, individuals need to cognitively justify morally inappropri- age range 18–28 years; 216 were undergraduates, 6 were grad- ate behaviors through moral disengagement, which allows uate students). them to act unethically while mitigating the threat of those inappropriate actions to moral self (Shalvi et al. 2015). Procedures Self-compassion, however, is thought to facilitate realistic self-appraisals that enable a clear view of oneself without Study 1 was conducted online via a Chinese survey website a need for being defensive (Leary et al. 2007). Thus, self- (https://www.wjx.cn). All participants were voluntary and compassion provides individuals with an unbiased self- provided their informed consent. Once they finished the view and a stable self-worth (Leary et al. 2007), which questionnaire, the participants were debriefed about the alleviate the activation of ego-defensive mechanisms purpose of the current study and appreciated for their (Neff 2011). Such a stable self-attitude afforded by self- participation. compassion might deactivate the moral disengagement processes (e.g., moral justification), which in turn prevent Measures people from behaving unethically. Existing research has demonstrated that treating oneself in a compassionate way Self-Compassion Participants completed the Self-Compassion allows people to take more responsibility for their own Scale (SCS; Neff 2003b), which contained 26 items that actions rather than engaging in defensiveness (Leary assessed the three components of self-compassion and their et al. 2007). In addition, self-compassion was shown to negative counterparts: self-kindness (vs. self-judgment), com- be negatively correlated with avoidance-oriented coping mon humanity (vs. isolation), and mindfulness (vs. over-iden- strategies, such as denial and mental disengagement tification). They rated each item (e.g., “I try to be understand- (Neff et al. 2005). A recent correlational study also found ing and patient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t a significant negative relationship between self- like”) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) compassion and moral disengagement among Chinese ad- to 5 (almost always). The scale demonstrated excellent inter- olescents (Han 2016). nal consistency in the present sample (α =0.86). Accordingly, the current research aimed to test the re- lationship between self-compassion and unethical behav- Moral Disengagement We used the 8-item Moral ior and to examine whether moral disengagement mediat- Disengagement Scale (Moore et al. 2012) to measure partici- ed this relationship. Based on the literature above, we pants’ moral disengagement tendency. Moore et al. (2012) proposed that (1) self-compassion would be negatively originally developed three potential versions of measure: a associated with both the propensity to morally disengage 24-item version (three items per moral disengagement mech- and unethical behavior, (2) moral disengagement would anism), a 16-item version (two items per mechanism), and an be positively associated with unethical behavior, and (3) 8-item version (one item per mechanism). After comparison, moral disengagement would mediate the negative associ- we chose the 8-item version that was a more parsimonious and ation between self-compassion and unethical behavior. validated measure of the propensity to morally disengage. That is, we predicted that people with higher self- Participants rated each item (e.g., “Taking something without compassion would be less prone to engage in morally the owner’s permission is okay as long as you’re just borrow- disengaged reasoning and therefore be less likely to be- ing it”) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree;7= have unethically. To test our hypotheses, we conducted totally agree). This 8-item scale was widely used and has been two empirical studies with both adult (study 1) and ado- shown to be a reliable measure of moral disengagement in lescent (study 2) samples from China. previous studies, including in Chinese samples (e.g., Zheng Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432 1427 et al. 2019). The scale demonstrated good internal consistency Results in the present study (α =0.81). As expected (Table 1), self-compassion was negatively corre- Unethical Behavior Unethical behavior was measured with the lated with moral disengagement and unethical behavior. In modified Unethical Decision-Making Scale (Detert et al. addition, moral disengagement was positively correlated with 2008). Participants were presented with seven different sce- unethical behavior. narios that described a selfish or unrightful act that violates the A structural equation model was estimated with self- accepted moral norms (α = 0.77) and reported the likelihood compassion as a predictor, moral disengagement as a media- that they would engage in each unethical behavior on a 7- tor, and unethical behavior as the outcome variable, while point Likert scale (1 = not at all likely,7=highly likely). controlling for age, gender, and subjective SES. The results Participants also reported their demographic information, suggested a good fit to the data: CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, including age and gender. Since previous research indicated SRMR = 0.05. As hypothesized (Fig. 1), the total effect of that individuals’ socioeconomic status (SES) positively pre- self-compassion on unethical behavior in the absence of the dicted unethical behavior (Piff et al. 2012), we also measured moral disengagement was significant (β = − 0.23, p =0.006). participants’ subjective SES using the MacArthur scale (Adler Self-compassion negatively predicted moral disengagement et al. 2000) and controlled for it in the analysis. (β = − 0.20, p = 0.007), and moral disengagement positively predicted unethical behavior (β =0.67, p <0.001). Data Analyses Moreover, the indirect effect of moral disengagement was significant, indirect effect = − 0.14, p = 0.012, 95% CI [− We used SPSS 20.0 to calculate descriptive statistics and cor- 0.24, − 0.03]. After accounting for the indirect effect of moral relations between the key variables. Structural equation disengagement, the direct effect of self-compassion on uneth- modeling (SEM) procedures using Mplus 7.0 were employed ical behavior was not significant (β = − 0.09, p =0.20). for hypothesis testing. In the SEM, a parceling approach pro- cedure was used to aggregate items as observed indicators for each construct (Little et al. 2002). The parceling approach is Discussion superior to using all items as indictors, since this approach reduces the number of observed variables in the model and Study 1 provided preliminary support for our hypotheses that increases model parsimony while providing greater power to self-compassion was negatively associated with individuals’ test the relations among latent variables (Little et al. 2013). To unethical behavior and that decreased moral disengagement estimate the latent variables of moral disengagement and un- tendency mediated the negative association between self- ethical behavior, we used the item-to-construct balance tech- compassion and unethical behavior. As stated earlier, self- nique to form three parcels, respectively. We examined the compassion has been shown to promote well-being across standardized factor loadings of each item from a single- different age groups, but whether the negative relation be- factor model and then balanced the best and worst items tween self-compassion and unethical behavior also occurs in across the parcels (Little et al. 2002). To estimate the latent other age groups (e.g., among adolescents) is unknown. Thus, variable of self-compassion, the composite scores of the three study 2 aimed to replicate and extend the present findings in a self-compassion components (i.e., self-kindness and the relatively large adolescent sample. Besides, individuals may reverse-scored self-judgment; common humanity and the be concerned with social evaluation and may respond to items reverse-scored isolation; mindfulness and the reverse-scored on unethical behavior in socially desirable ways. Therefore, in over-identification) were parceled and used as observed indi- study 2, we measured and controlled for adolescents’ social cators (see also Joeng and Turner 2015). Statisticians have desirability so as to rule out its effect when establishing the recommended that the fit of the models is good when the important role of self-compassion. CFI value is above 0.95, the RMSEA is below 0.06, and the SRMR value is below 0.08 (Hu and Bentler 1999). The boot- strap estimation procedure was used to test the significance of Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for key variables for the indirect effect of moral disengagement. In the procedure, study 1 the given sample size was randomly resampled 1000 times with replacement, and then 1000 estimations of the indirect Variable M SD 1 2 3 effect were calculated. When the 95% confidence interval (CI) 1 Self-compassion 3.18 0.48 – for an indirect effect did not include 0, the indirect effect was 2 Moral disengagement 2.58 0.98 − 0.18** – significant (MacKinnon et al. 2004). In study 1, we controlled 3 Unethical behavior 3.37 1.09 − 0.16* 0.48*** – for age, gender, and subjective SES in the SEM when testing our model. Note: * p <0.05,** p < 0.01, *** p <0.001 1428 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432

Fig. 1 Structural equation model in study 1. Standardized coefficients are self-compassion; MD1-MD3 = three parcels for moral disengagement; reported. Endogenous error correlations and control variables are not UB1-UB3= three parcels for unethical behavior. c′= direct effect, c = total shown in figure for parsimony. SC1-SC3 = three main components of effect

Study 2 Moral Disengagement Similar with study 1, moral disengage- ment tendency was assessed with the 8-item Moral Method Disengagement Scale (α = 0.75; Moore et al. 2012). Unethical Behavior Participants We removed one situation from the revised version of Unethical Decision-Making Scale (Detert et al. 2008)instudy Study 2 was a part of a large-scale survey on Chinese adoles- 1, because that situation was about working in a company for cents’ social development. A total of 3283 adolescents aged summer internship and was not suitable for adolescents’ daily between 13 and 19 years were recruited from four different activities. Given that the six items had a somewhat lower public middle schools of China. Forty-seven participants were reliability, we further removed one item and retained five excluded because of substantial missing data or invalid re- items (α =0.63). sponses (e.g., choosing the same option on all the scales). The data of 3236 adolescents (46% boys; mean age = Social Desirability We measured social desirability using the 15.66 years, SD = 0.79) were used for analysis. 13-item Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Reynolds 1982). Participants responded to each item in a – α “ Procedures true false format ( = 0.67; e.g., I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’sfeelings”). All adolescents participated in the study voluntarily provided their parental informed consent. Upon completion, they were Data Analyses debriefed and given small gifts for their participation. We used the same analytical strategy as in study 1, except that Measures we controlled for age, gender, and social desirability in the SEM. SPSS 20.0 and Mplus 7.0 were used to conduct the Self-Compassion Considering the length of the questionnaire, statistical analyses reported in study 2. we adopted the short version of Self-Compassion Scale (SCS- Short Form; Raes et al. 2011), which comprised 12 items on the three components of self-compassion and their negative Results counterparts (two items for each; e.g., “I try to be understand- ing and patient toward those aspects of my personality I don’t Consistent with study 1, self-compassion was negatively cor- like”). Previous studies indicated that the shortened SCS had related with moral disengagement and unethical behavior adequate reliability and strong correlations with the longer (Table 2). Moreover, moral disengagement was positively cor- version of SCS in both adult and adolescent populations related with unethical behavior. The post-hoc power analysis (Raes et al. 2011;Suttonetal.2018). The 12-item short self- using G*Power revealed that the large sample (N = 3236) and compassion scale demonstrated good internal consistency in the effect size of r = − 0.23 provided sufficient power (around the present sample (α =0.70). 100%) to detect key findings, using an alpha level of 0.05. Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432 1429

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations for key variables for General Discussion study 2

Variable M SD 1 2 3 We provided two empirical studies to support our hypotheses that self-compassion was negatively associated with individuals’ 1 Self-compassion 3.10 0.51 – unethical behavior and that moral disengagement mediated this *** 2 Moral disengagement 2.48 0.85 − 0.22 – negative association. Study 1 tested the hypothesized model *** *** 3 Unethical behavior 3.43 1.12 − 0.23 0.35 – while controlling for age, gender, and subjective SES in a sample of Chinese college students. Study 2 sought to extend the find- Note: *** p <0.001 ings in a relatively large adolescent sample, and we replicated our model when controlling for age, gender, and social desirabil- A structural equation model was estimated with self- ity. Overall, we consistently found that people with higher trait compassion as a predictor, moral disengagement as a media- self-compassion reported lower level of moral disengagement, tor, and unethical behavior as the outcome variable, while and in turn, were less likely to engage in unethical behavior. controlling for age, gender, and social desirability. The model Considerable previous research has identified the adaptive showed an excellent fit to the data: CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = role of self-compassion on multiple indicators of psychological 0.03, SRMR = 0.02. As hypothesized (Fig. 2), the total effect well-being and mental health (e.g., MacBeth and Gumley 2012). of self-compassion on unethical behavior in the absence of the Recent studies have begun to explore the adaptive social func- β − moral disengagement was negatively significant ( = 0.19, tions of self-compassion and have found that self-compassion p < 0.001). Self-compassion negatively predicted moral disen- increases individuals’ sense of social connectedness (Akınand β − gagement ( = 0.19, p < 0.001), and moral disengagement Akın 2015), compassionate attitudes and helping behavior to- β positively predicted unethical behavior ( =0.42,p <0.001). ward others (e.g., Neff and Pommier 2013). Our research pro- Moreover, the indirect effect of moral disengagement was vides new insights into the social functions of self-compassion − − significant, indirect effect = 0.08, p < 0.001, 95% CI [ by showing that self-compassion is related to less maladaptive − 0.11, 0.06]. After accounting for the indirect effect, the di- social outcomes, in particular less unethical behavior. rect effect of self-compassion on unethical behavior decreased Self-compassion generates loving attitudes toward oneself β − to = 0.11 (p =0.001). in times of suffering. Despite the concern from lay people that self-compassion may increase unethical behavior by making “ ” Discussion people overly willing to let themselves off the hook (Neff 2003b), it is important to note that self-compassion is about equanimity, instead of indifference about one’smistakes Thus, consistent with study 1, we also found in study 2 that (Barnard and Curry 2011). The emotional stability afforded adolescents with higher self-compassion trait were less likely by self-compassion helps individuals confront and learn from to show moral disengagement tendency, and thus were less shortcomings and failures without harsh self-criticism or de- likely to engage in unethical behavior. That is, moral disen- fensive self-enhancement (Neff 2003a). Thus, self- gagement mediated the negative relationship between self- compassion spurs individuals to take responsibility and to be compassion and unethical behavior in adolescents. more motivated to improve themselves (Breines and Chen

Fig. 2 Structural equation model in Study 2 1430 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432

2012). Having compassion for the self means desiring health social desirability in the current research since these variables and well-being, not stagnation, for the self, so self-compassion could influence individuals’ unethical behavior (e.g., Piff et al. might encourage growth-related behaviors (Barnard and 2012). After ruling out all these potential confounding effects, Curry 2011). Also, researchers have suggested that self- we still observed that self-compassion negatively and unique- compassion decreases maladaptive behavior (e.g., disordered ly predicted moral disengagement and unethical behavior. eating behavior; Barnett and Sharp 2016). In the moral do- main, self-compassionate people were less likely to tolerate Limitations and Future Research their own moral transgressions (Wang et al. 2017a) and were more motivated to rectify their moral misconducts (Breines Some limitations of the present study should be noted. First, and Chen 2012). Moreover, mindfulness, a core component although we had a relatively large sample size, all participants of self-compassion, has been shown be negatively related to were recruited from China. Future studies based on other sam- cheating behavior (Ruedy and Schweitzer 2010). Consistent ples from different cultures are necessary to extend the general- with these findings, we found that self-compassion was neg- izability of the present findings. Second, although we measured atively associated with individuals’ self-reported unethical and controlled for social desirability in study 2, self-report mea- behavior. sures were vulnerable to response bias and common method Another novel finding of the current research was that moral bias. Efforts should be made to use multiple methods for eval- disengagement mediated the negative association between self- uating unethical behavior to minimize such bias. Third, our compassion and unethical behavior. As a positive self-attitude, study suggested that moral disengagement was an underlying self-compassion provides people with stable self-worth and re- mechanism of the link between self-compassion and unethical alistic self-appraisals, and thus protects individuals from ex- behavior. Yet, several other theoretically grounded mediators, tremes of ego-defensiveness and self-serving bias (Neff 2011). such as empathy (Neff and Pommier 2013), social relatedness Previous research has demonstrated that self-compassion is neg- (Yang et al. 2019), and self-control (Morley et al. 2016), still atively associated with defensive coping strategies, such as de- remain to be further explored. nial and mental disengagement (Neff et al. 2005). When faced Finally, although we applied structural equation model with unethical issues, self-compassionate individuals were less techniques to test the mediating effect of moral disengage- likely to utilize moral disengagement as a defensive strategy to ment, the cross-sectional nature of current studies could not reduce the moral threat (Ribeaud and Eisner 2010). Instead of actually establish causality. For instance, while prior work has justifying those morally inappropriate behaviors, self- suggested that moral disengagement is a prominent trigger of compassionate people tended to take more responsibility for immoral behavior (e.g., Moore et al. 2012), some research has their actions (Leary et al. 2007; Breines and Chen 2012). also found dishonest behavior can increase tendency to mor- Thus, self-compassion negatively predicted individuals’ propen- ally disengage (Shu et al. 2011). It could be possible that the sity to morally disengage (Han 2016). In addition, consistent relationship between moral disengagement and unethical be- with the social-cognitive theory (Bandura 1999, 2001), we havior is bidirectional. Thus, we also tested an alternative found that a lower level of moral disengagement was associated model by examining whether unethical behavior mediated with a lower possibility of unethical behavior. Indeed, a large the relationship between self-compassion and moral disen- body of research has demonstrated that moral disengagement gagement. Because both our initial model and this alternative fosters aggressive behavior, bullying, and unethical behavior in model are the tri-variate X-M-Y models with the same covar- both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (e.g., Detert et al. iates, these two models exhibit identical fit indices, and the 2008;Tengetal.2019). That is, low level of moral disengage- results demonstrated that the mediation effect was also signif- ment provides an underlying mechanism that explains why in- icant. It should be noted that the recent simulation work indi- dividuals with higher self-compassion tend to commit less un- cates that testing an alternative model in which the order of ethical behavior. variables is altered cannot provide strong evidence about It is noteworthy that our studies that recruited both adult which model is the correct model (Thoemmes 2015). That (study 1) and adolescent (study 2) samples revealed consistent is, reversing arrows in the mediation models based on cross- findings. Previous research has identified that self-compassion sectional data may not help us distinguish plausible models carries a positive effect on individuals’ well-being across dif- (Thoemmes 2015). Despite that our hypothetical model was ferent age groups. For instance, self-compassion has been grounded in social-cognitive theory, it has been suggested that found to contribute to well-being among adolescents, adults, cross-sectional designs might generate biased estimates of the and elderly people (e.g., Allen et al. 2012; Sun et al. 2016). effects of mediators (Maxwell et al. 2011). Thus, further re- Our results suggested that self-compassion was linked to un- search with longitudinal designs is strongly encouraged to ethical attitudes and behaviors in the same way among both examine the directions of the relations among self-compas- adolescents and adults. In addition, we measured and con- sion, moral disengagement, and unethical behavior. In addi- trolled for participants’ age, gender, and subjective SES and tion, experimental approaches (i.e., experimental induction of Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432 1431 self-compassion) could be used to validate the causal effect of Allen, A. B., Goldwasser, E. R., & Leary, M. R. (2012). Self-compassion – self-compassion on unethical behavior. and well-being among older adults. Self and Identity, 11(4), 428 453. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.595082. Despite the limitations above, the present study adds new Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhu- insights into the social functions of self-compassion. From the manities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. personality perspective, our study sheds light on the moral ben- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3. efits of self-compassion. Individuals high in trait self- Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10. compassion were more likely to maintain a high moral standard 1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1. and less likely to utilize moral disengagement strategies, and Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). thus were less likely to engage in unethical behavior. That is, Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agen- consistent with previous research, self-compassion is not about cy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374. selfishness or self-indulgence; instead, it guides people to be https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364. Barnard, L. K., & Curry, J. F. (2011). Self-compassion: conceptualiza- more concerned about altruism and fairness (Neff and tions, correlates, & interventions. Review of General Psychology, Pommier 2013;Wangetal.2017a). Besides, our findings may 15(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025754. provide insights for the potential interventions aimed at decreas- Barnett, M. D., & Sharp, K. J. (2016). Maladaptive perfectionism, body ing moral disengagement and immoral actions. For instance, image satisfaction, and disordered eating behaviors among US col- lege women: the mediating role of self-compassion. Personality and previous research has found that mindfulness meditation in- Individual Differences, 99,225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. creased prisoners’ self-compassion, which in turn decreased 2016.05.004. their criminal impulsivity (Morley 2018). Additional work Brach, T. (2003). Radical acceptance: embracing your life with the heart should further explore whether self-compassion exercise is a of a Buddha. Bantam. plausible intervention that reduces individuals’ unethical Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2012). Self-compassion increases self- improvement motivation. Personality and Social Psychology behavior. Bulletin, 38(9), 1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167212445599. Author Contributions YY conceived and designed this study, analyzed Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengage- the data, and wrote the manuscript. ZG collaborated with collecting data ment in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and out- and revising the manuscript. JW revised the manuscript critically. YK was comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391. https:// the principle investigator of the project and revised the paper critically. All doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374. authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. Egan, V., Hughes, N., & Palmer, E. J. (2015). Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and unethical consumer attitudes. Personality and Funding Information This research was sponsored by the MOE Project Individual Differences, 76,123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. of Key Research Institutes of Humanities and Social Science at 2014.11.054. Universities (16JJD880007), Research Institute of Wang Yangming’s Han, X. (2016). 初中生自我同情问卷编制及其与道德推脱的关系研究 [the Philosophy of Mind & Current Social Mentality of Confucius Academy construction of self-compassion questionnaire and the relationship (KXTXT201704), Shanghai Sailing Program (19YF1413400), China between self-compassion and moral disengagement] [Master’s Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M651440), and the Fundamental thesis, Hebei Normal University]. China National Knowledge Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019ECNU-HWFW019). Infrastructure. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in Compliance with Ethical Standards covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alter- natives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. Conflict of Interest The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Joeng, J. R., & Turner, S. L. (2015). Mediators between self-criticism and depression: fear of compassion, self-compassion, and importance to Ethical Approval All the research procedures were approved by the others. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 453–463. https:// Institutional Review Board at Beijing Normal University. doi.org/10.1037/cou0000071. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of participants in both studies. unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103. Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant References events: the implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904. https://doi. Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psycho- Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Helping the self help others: logical and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, self-affirmation increases self-compassion and pro-social behaviors. white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/ Frontiers in Psychology, 5,421–421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586. 2014.00421. Akın, U., & Akın, A. (2015). Examining the predictive role of self- Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). compassion on sense of community in Turkish adolescents. Social To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the Indicators Research, 123(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/ merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi. s11205-014-0724-5. org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1. 1432 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1424–1432

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086– Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’tbeone. 4091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118373109. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction a0033266. and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale. MacBeth, A., & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: a meta- Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250–255. https://doi. analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopa- org/10.1002/cpp.702. thology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 545–552. https://doi. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003. of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resam- 1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I. pling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2010). Are moral disengagement, neutraliza- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4. tion techniques, and self-serving cognitive distortions the same? Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross- Developing a unified scale of moral neutralization of aggression. sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: partial and complete International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(2), 298–315. mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-2833. Research, 46(5), 816–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011. Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: the effect of 606716. mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. 95(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0796-y. (2012). Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifica- – unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1 tions doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in 48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x. Psychological Science, 24(2), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Morley, R. H. (2018). The impact of mindfulness meditation and self- 0963721414553264. compassion on criminal impulsivity in a prisoner sample. Journal of Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear – Police and Criminal Psychology, 33(2), 118 122. https://doi.org/10. conscience: when cheating leads to moral disengagement and moti- 1007/s11896-017-9239-8. vated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), Morley, R. M., Terranova, V. A., Cunningham, S. N., & Kraft, G. (2016). 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398138. Self-compassion and predictors of criminality. Journal of Sun, X., Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. K. (2016). Self-compassion and psy- – Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(5), 503 517. https://doi. chological well-being among adolescents in Hong Kong: exploring org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1107170. gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-compassion: an alternative conceptualization of 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.011. – a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2,85102. Sutton, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Wu, A. D., & Lawlor, M. S. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032. Evaluating the reliability and validity of the self-compassion scale Neff, K. D. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to mea- – – short form adapted for children ages 8 12. Child Indicators sure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(2), 223 250. https://doi. Research, 11(4), 1217–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017- org/10.1080/15298860309027. 9470-y. Neff, K. D. (2009). Self-compassion. In Leary, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. Teng, Z., Nie, Q., Guo, C., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., & Bushman, B. J. (2019). (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. A longitudinal study of link between exposure to violent video 561–573). Guilford Press. games and aggression in Chinese adolescents: the mediating role Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social of moral disengagement. Developmental Psychology, 55(1), 184– and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/ 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000624. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x. Thoemmes, F. (2015). Reversing arrows in mediation models does not Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y. P., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, distinguish plausible models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure. Self and 37(4), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049351. Identity, 4(3), 263– 287. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Wang, X., Chen, Z., Poon, K. T., Teng, F., & Jin, S. (2017a). Self- 13576500444000317. compassion decreases acceptance of own immoral behaviors. Neff, K. D., Long, P., Knox, M. C., Davidson, O., Kuchar, A., Costigan, Personality and Individual Differences, 106,329–333. https://doi. A., Williamson, Z., Rohleder, N., Tóth-Király, I., & Breines, J. G. org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.030. (2018). The forest and the trees: examining the association of self- compassion and its positive and negative components with psycho- Wang, C., Ryoo, J. H., Swearer, S. M., Turner, R., & Goldberg, T. S. logical functioning. Self and Identity, 17(6), 627–645. https://doi. (2017b). Longitudinal relationships between bullying and moral org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1436587. disengagement among adolescents. Journal of Youth and – Neff, K. D., Pisitsungkagarn, K., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2008). Self-compassion Adolescence, 46(6), 1304 1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964- and self-construal in the United States, Thailand, and Taiwan. 016-0577-0. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 267–285. https://doi. Yang, Y., Guo, Z., Kou, Y., & Liu, B. (2019). Linking self-compassion org/10.1177/0022022108314544. and prosocial behavior in adolescents: the mediating roles of relat- – Neff, K. D., & Pommier, E. (2013). The relationship between self- edness and trust. Child Indicators Research, 12(6), 2035 2049. compassion and other-focused concern among college undergradu- https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-019-9623-2. ates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self and Identity, Zheng, X., Qin, X., Liu, X., & Liao, H. (2019). Will creative employees 12(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.649546. always make trouble? Investigating the roles of moral identity and – Neff, K., & Seppälä, E. (2016). Compassion, well-being, and the hypo- moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 653 672. egoic self. In The Oxford Handbook of Hypo-egoic Phenomena (pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3683-3. 189–202). Oxford University Press. Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. Publisher’sNoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.