Verbal barriers to self-compassion : the frequency and impact of frames of coordination and opposition on indices of distress and well-being

Background: Self-compassion has received increased attention as a process of change inevidence-based psychotherapies, owing to its relation with numerous positive health outcomes. Though several practices have been shown to increase self-compassion, our aim here is to evaluate the utility of one particular practice, namely loving-kindness or metta meditation (LKM). Despite evidence supporting biological and psychological benefits of LKM, other research has identified various nonspecific barriers and challenges associated with this practice that are linked with poor response to the practice itself. Relational Frame Theory (RFT) provides a behavioral and contextual perspective that may help clarify for whom LKM would likely result in greater receptivity to the practice and those who may either reject or respond negatively to the practice itself.

Methods: Participants (N = 149) provided open-ended responses to 13 common phrases used in loving-kindness meditations (i.e., metta phrases), and completed a battery of validated measures assessing indices of distress (e.g., depression) and well-being. Consistent with RFT, qualitative responses were coded as frames of coordination, frames of opposition, or ambiguous responses and were summed across phrases and participants.

Results: The metta phrase "May I be safe" evoked the highest frequency of frames of coordination, whereas "may I be at ease" yielded the most frames of opposition responses. Linear multiple regression showed that greater depressive symptomatology predicted more frequent frames of opposition, whereas better quality of life predicted more frequent frames of coordination in response to metta phrases. These results were confirmed with relative importance analyses.

Discussion: Overall, findings suggest that those with elevated indices of psychological suffering may benefit the most from self-compassion interventions and yet also respond to such practices with greater frames of opposition. Future directions and clinical implications are discussed.