The Functions of Self-Criticizing/Attacking Scale (FSCS)

Abstract

The Functions of Self-Criticizing/Attacking Scale (FSCS) is a 21-item psychometric self-report instrument developed by Professor Paul Gilbert and his colleagues (2004) to elucidate the teleological dimensions—specifically the motivational underpinnings and perceived functional utility—of self-critical and self-directed punitive cognitive processes. While antecedent instruments predominantly captured the frequency, stylistic typology, or phenotypic severity of self-criticism, the FSCS addresses why individuals engage in self-blame, self-reproach, and self-directed hostility. Grounded within evolutionary psychology, ethological rank theory, and the theoretical architecture of Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT), the instrument delineates two psychometrically robust, divergent functional dimensions: Self-Correction (comprising 13 items calibrated toward adaptive error prevention, maintenance of personal standards, and inhibition of hubristic or socially precarious behaviors) and Self-Persecution (comprising 8 items reflecting pathogenic, malevolent impulses toward self-retaliation, somatic or psychological degradation, venting of self-disgust, and sadomasochistic internal punishment). Administered via a five-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (“Not at all like me”) to 4 (“Extremely like me”), the FSCS exhibits exceptional psychometric stability across clinical and non-clinical populations. In foundational validation trials, both dimensions exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha $\alpha = .92$ for Self-Correction; $\alpha = .92$ for Self-Persecution). Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that while Self-Correction exhibits modest associations with perfectionism and anxiety, Self-Persecution is uniquely, robustly predictive of treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, shame proneness, border-line personality organization, and non-suicidal self-injury. The scale represents a critical diagnostic and formulation tool across cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, and evolutionary clinical frameworks.

Keywords

Functions of Self-Criticizing/Attacking Scale, FSCS, self-criticism, self-persecution, self-correction, Compassion Focused Therapy, Paul Gilbert, evolutionary psychology, social rank theory, internal hostility, shame, psychometrics.

Authors

The Functions of Self-Criticizing/Attacking Scale (FSCS) was formulated and empirically validated by a team of clinical psychologists and psychometricians based in the United Kingdom:

• Paul Gilbert, Ph.D., FBPsS, OBE: Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, UK, and University of Derby. Professor Gilbert is the developer of Compassion Focused Therapy, a world authority on shame, social mentalities, and evolutionary psychopathology, and the founder of the Compassionate Mind Foundation.
• Miles Clarke, D.Clin.Psy.: Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, UK; contributing clinical psychologist specializing in cognitive processes in affective disorders.
• Sabine Hempel, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, University of York, UK; systematic reviewer and psychometric researcher focusing on clinical assessment paradigms.
• Jeremy N. V. Miles, Ph.D.: Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK (later RAND Corporation); psychometrician and quantitative methodologist specializing in structural equation modeling, latent factor architecture, and multivariate clinical psychometrics.
• Chris Irons, D.Clin.Psy.: Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, and University of Derby; clinical psychologist, prominent CFT trainer, researcher on attachment dynamics, self-compassion, and interpersonal rank dynamics.

Purpose

In clinical psychopathology and personality psychology, self-criticism has long been recognized as a core vulnerability factor across a spectrum of diagnostic categories, including major depressive disorder, bipolar affective disorders, social anxiety disorder, eating disorders (notably anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa), body dysmorphic disorder, and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). However, historical self-report measures—such as the Self-Criticism subscale of the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt et al., 1976) or the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS; Weissman & Beck, 1978)—predominantly conceptualized self-criticism as a monolithic, trait-like vulnerability index. These traditional instruments captured the valence, intensity, or semantic content of self-evaluative thoughts without dissecting the internal operant contingencies, motivational drives, or evolutionary functions that maintain them.

The FSCS was conceived to bridge this diagnostic and mechanistic gap. Developed concurrently with its sibling instrument, the Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale (FSCRS; Gilbert et al., 2004), the FSCS explicitly isolates the teleology of the inner critic. In clinical cognitive-behavioral assessments, clients frequently report that they engage in self-blame because they believe that ceasing to do so would lead to catastrophic failure, uncontrolled indolence, moral degradation, or social rejection. Gilbert and colleagues posited that self-criticism does not operate as an accidental cognitive glitch or mere secondary symptom; rather, it is maintained by deeply internalized functional systems that serve divergent survival, rank-maintenance, and affect-regulation goals.

From a clinical application standpoint, the FSCS is uniquely designed to achieve several critical objectives:

• Functional Behavioral Clarification: It enables the clinician to unpack the functional payoffs and catastrophic fears driving a patient's self-attack. Clinicians can determine whether a patient is criticizing themselves out of a perfectionistic, anxious bid to avoid errors (Self-Correction) versus an affective state characterized by unmitigated self-hatred, disgust, and punitive malice (Self-Persecution).
• Targeted Case Formulation in Compassion Focused Therapy: In CFT, case formulation hinges upon mapping the patient's Threat-Defense System, Drive System, and Soothing-Affiliation System. The FSCS directly delineates whether self-criticism functions as an internal safety strategy (designed to appease dominant others, prevent hubris, and enforce standards) or as an internalized predatory attack (designed to destroy or purge parts of the self perceived as repugnant).
• Therapeutic De-shaming and Resistance Resolution: Many self-critical individuals aggressively resist self-compassion, perceiving it as an invitation to moral laxity, weakness, or self-indulgence. Administering the FSCS illuminates the patient's positive beliefs about self-criticism (e.g., “If I am not hard on myself, I will become lazy or arrogant”), permitting the therapist to validate the safety function of self-correction while dismantling the destructive illusions of self-persecution.
• Differentiation of Affective Pathology: Research demonstrates that while Self-Correction correlates with performance anxiety and obsessive-compulsive traits, Self-Persecution strongly mediates the link between traumatic early attachment, shame memories, and intractable depressive paralysis, deliberate self-harm, and active suicidal ideation.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the FSCS is the functional motivational architecture of self-directed hostility. Factor analytic and structural investigations confirm that self-criticism cannot be treated as a unidimensional continuum. Instead, it fragments into two qualitative, functionally distinct motivational systems: Self-Correction (SC) and Self-Persecution (SP).

1. Self-Correction (SC)

The Self-Correction dimension (operationalized across 13 items) reflects a regulatory, preventive, and pedagogical function of self-criticism. Conceptually rooted in the evolutionary drive to maintain social standing, group membership, and functional competence, self-correction represents an individual's effort to modify their behavior, eliminate errors, and enforce behavioral compliance. When engaging in self-correction, the internal relationship is analogous to an anxious, demanding, or perfectionistic coach, parent, or taskmaster who employs harshness not to destroy the individual, but to prevent downstream catastrophe.

Key psychological markers of the Self-Correction construct include:

• Maintenance of Behavioral Standards: Exemplified by items such as “To make sure I keep up my standards” (Item 1) and “To keep me from making minor mistakes” (Item 19). The motivation is proactive quality control and avoidance of inadequacy.
• Inhibition of Socially Hazardous States: Exemplified by “To stop me getting overconfident” (Item 11), “To stop me becoming arrogant” (Item 16), and “To prevent future embarrassments” (Item 17). From an evolutionary perspective, hubris, overconfidence, and arrogance carry severe interpersonal risks, including provoking subordinate-challenging aggression from higher-ranking conspecifics or triggering ostracism from the social group. Self-correction operates here as an internal rank-appeasement strategy.
• Overcoming Inhibitory or Avoidant Impulses: Exemplified by “To stop me being lazy” (Item 5), “To make me concentrate” (Item 14), and “To remind me of my responsibilities” (Item 20). Self-criticism is enlisted as an aversive motivational stimulus to overcome procrastination, lethargy, or distraction.
• Interpersonal Safety and Appeasement: Exemplified by “To show I care about my mistakes” (Item 3), “To stop me being angry with others” (Item 12), and “To gain reassurance from others” (Item 15). Self-criticism serves as an internal display of submissive contrition, preempting external condemnation by striking oneself first.

2. Self-Persecution (SP)

The Self-Persecution dimension (operationalized across 8 items) reflects a sadistic, destructive, and vindictive functional system. In self-persecution, the emotional tone shifts decisively from anxious urgency, frustration, and perfectionism to genuine malice, revulsion, contempt, and visceral self-disgust. The subjective goal of the internal attack is not behavioral modification, performance optimization, or future improvement; rather, the objective is the psychological or physical infliction of pain, retribution, and symbolic eradication.

Key psychological markers of the Self-Persecution construct include:

• Desire to Harm or Annihilate the Self: Exemplified by “To harm part of myself” (Item 6) and “To destroy a part of me” (Item 13). The intrapsychic relationship mirrors that of a predator attacking prey, or an abusive dominant figure attempting to crush an abhorred subordinate.
• Retribution and Vindictive Punishment: Exemplified by “To punish myself for my mistakes” (Item 8) and “To take revenge on part of myself” (Item 10). Self-criticism here operates within an archaic talionic framework (“an eye for an eye”), where subjective suffering is demanded as payment for perceived flaws.
• Affective Catharsis via Self-Torment: Exemplified by “Because, if I punish myself I feel better” (Item 4). This item captures the paradoxical psychological dynamic wherein self-directed punishment relieves unbearable guilt or distress, functioning as an internal penance or masochistic affect-regulation mechanism.
• Purging of the Disgust-Eliciting Self: Exemplified by “To cope with feelings of disgust with myself” (Item 9) and “To get at the things I hate in myself” (Item 21). Self-persecution is heavily fueled by self-directed disgust—an emotional system fundamentally designed to reject, expel, or destroy contaminating, toxic, or diseased entities.
• Hedonic Sabotage: Exemplified by “To stop myself being happy” (Item 2). This reflects a malignant self-invalidation wherein positive affect, contentment, or joy are experienced as dangerous, undeserved, or threatening, prompting immediate self-punitive intervention.

Theoretical Framework

The Functions of Self-Criticizing/Attacking Scale is situated firmly within the intersection of Social Rank Theory, Evolutionary Psychopathology, and the Tripartite Affect Regulation Model pioneered by Paul Gilbert.

1. Social Rank Theory and Internalized Dominance Hierarchies

Social Rank Theory (Price & Sloman, 1987; Gilbert, 1992, 2000) posits that human evolutionary history has been profoundly shaped by competition for scarce resources (e.g., status, territory, mates, alliances). To prevent costly, lethal physical conflict within social groups, animals evolved specialized social mentalities: dominant animals exhibit threat, display, and punishing behaviors to enforce hierarchy, while subordinate animals exhibit involuntary subordinate strategies (e.g., appeasement, submissive posturing, behavioral de-escalation, hyper-vigilance to threat).

Gilbert extended this ethological model inward: human intrapsychic dialogue is not merely an assemblage of disembodied linguistic thoughts; it is an internalized interpersonal relationship. When an individual self-criticizes, one part of the self adopts the dominant, punishing, supervisory role, while another part adopts the subordinate, appeasing, terrified, or depressed role. In the FSCS, Self-Correction mirrors a benign or strict dominant figure whose threats are designed to keep the subordinate aligned with group norms, preventing external expulsion. In contrast, Self-Persecution reflects a toxic, despotic, or predatory dominant figure whose objective is the absolute subjugation, mutilation, or expulsion of the subordinate.

2. The Tripartite Evolutionary Affect Regulation Systems

Compassion Focused Therapy models human emotion across three interconnected neurobiological systems:

1. The Threat-Defense System (Protection): Linked neurologically to the amygdala, HPA axis, cortisol, and adrenaline. Its primary evolutionary task is threat detection, triggering fight, flight, freeze, or appease responses.
2. The Drive-Incentive System (Resource Acquisition): Linked to the nucleus accumbens and dopaminergic pathways. It energizes seeking, achieving, competing, and maintaining standards.
3. The Soothing-Affiliation System (Rest and Digest / Attachment): Linked to the parasympathetic nervous system, vagus nerve, oxytocin, and endogenous opioids. It facilitates attachment, contentment, safety, and mutual care.

Within this framework, the FSCS captures a state where the Threat System and Drive System have become pathologically coupled, while the Soothing System is offline. In Self-Correction, the individual recruits the Drive System under the coercive whip of the Threat System: standards are maintained not through intrinsic joy, but through threat-driven urgency. In Self-Persecution, the Threat System operates in its rawest, most destructive manifestation—activating the autonomic fight response against one's own biological and psychological self, generating internalized terror and despair.

3. The Role of Internalized Shame and Disgust

Gilbert distinguishes between external shame (the perception that others view oneself as defective, inadequate, or bad) and internal shame (the subjective judgment that oneself is intrinsically flawed, disgusting, or repulsive). Self-correction is frequently driven by anticipatory anxiety over external shame (e.g., “If I do not correct myself, others will reject or ridicule me”). Self-persecution, however, represents the full institutionalization of internal shame fused with disgust. Disgust is an evolutionary defense against pathogen ingestion; when transposed intrapsychically onto the self, the individual treats aspects of their own psyche or physical body as a contaminant that must be excised, attacked, or violently repudiated.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the FSCS have been established through extensive psychometric evaluations in both community and clinical samples.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

In the seminal validation study by Gilbert et al. (2004) involving $N = 246$ female university students, exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation unambiguously validated a two-factor structure accounting for substantial total variance. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations across international cohorts (e.g., Castilho, Pinto-Gouveia, & Duarte, 2015, in Portuguese clinical and non-clinical populations; Hermanto et al., 2016, in North American samples) have supported the statistical superiority of the two-factor oblique model over a unidimensional formulation. Indices consistently achieve excellent benchmarks: $\chi^2/df < 2.5$, Comparative Fit Index ($\text{CFI}$) $ge .93$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($\text{TLI}$) $ge .92$, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($\text{RMSEA}$) $le .06$.

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by evaluating correlations between FSCS subscales and established psychopathological and cognitive constructs:

• Forms of Self-Criticism (FSCRS): Self-Correction correlates moderately to strongly with the FSCRS Inadequate Self subscale ($r \approx .55$ to $.68$), confirming that attempting to correct oneself is associated with feeling inadequate. Crucially, Self-Persecution correlates exceptionally strongly with the FSCRS Hated Self subscale ($r = .70$ to $.82$, $p < .001$), confirming that self-persecution is the primary functional driver of deep self-loathing.
• Shame Scales: Both subscales correlate positively with the Other As Shamer scale (OAS; Goss et al., 1994) and the Internalized Shame Scale (ISS; Cook, 1996). However, Self-Persecution displays dramatically higher correlations with internal shame ($r > .65$) than does Self-Correction ($r \approx .35$ to $.45$).
• Depression and Anxiety: In clinical samples presenting with Major Depressive Disorder (BDI-II), Self-Persecution demonstrates large effect sizes in its association with depressive severity ($r = .58$ to $.71$), whereas Self-Correction exhibits modest to moderate associations ($r = .28$ to $.42$).

3. Discriminant and Incremental Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the distinct differential profiles of the two subscales regarding positive psychological constructs:

• Self-Reassurance: The FSCRS Reassuring Self subscale exhibits weak, non-significant, or slightly negative correlations with Self-Correction, but displays strong, statistically significant negative correlations with Self-Persecution ($r = -.52$ to $-.64$, $p < .001$). Individuals high in self-persecution have virtually zero internal capacity to access self-soothing or affiliative internal states.
• Incremental Predictive Power: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses demonstrate that Self-Persecution accounts for significant incremental variance in predicting suicidal ideation, history of non-suicidal self-injury, and treatment resistance after controlling for baseline depression, trait anxiety, and general perfectionism. Conversely, Self-Correction accounts for incremental variance in predicting performance perfectionism, social evaluation fears, and obsessive checking behaviors.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the FSCS has been thoroughly tested across non-clinical, student, and psychiatric cohorts, demonstrating exceptional internal consistency and temporal stability.

1. Internal Consistency

In the foundational investigation by Gilbert, Clarke, Hempel, Miles, and Irons (2004), the internal consistency of both subscales was exceptionally high:

• Self-Correction Subscale (13 items): $\alpha = .92$
• Self-Persecution Subscale (8 items): $\alpha = .92$

Subsequent international validation studies have consistently replicated these robust reliability indices. In a comprehensive psychometric validation of the Portuguese version within both non-clinical ($N = 432$) and clinical outpatient ($N = 189$) cohorts by Castilho, Pinto-Gouveia, and Duarte (2015):

• Self-Correction: Cronbach's alpha ranged from $\alpha = .89$ (non-clinical) to $\alpha = .91$ (clinical); McDonald's omega coefficients ($\omega$) exceeded $.90$.
• Self-Persecution: Cronbach's alpha ranged from $\alpha = .88$ (non-clinical) to $\alpha = .93$ (clinical); McDonald's omega coefficients ($\omega$) exceeded $.91$.

Item-total correlation analyses indicate that for the Self-Correction dimension, corrected item-total correlations consistently range between $.51$ and $.76$, with no single item removal improving overall scale alpha. For the Self-Persecution dimension, item-total correlations range between $.58$ and $.81$, reflecting high internal coherence among the punitive indicators.

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

In longitudinal assessments assessing test-retest reliability across 4-week and 8-week intervals in unselected adult samples, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) demonstrated high stability:

• Self-Correction: $r_{tt} = .81$ (4-week interval); $r_{tt} = .76$ (8-week interval).
• Self-Persecution: $r_{tt} = .84$ (4-week interval); $r_{tt} = .79$ (8-week interval).

Crucially, research examining clinical populations undergoing Compassion Focused Therapy or Compassionate Mind Training (CMT) shows that while Self-Persecution exhibits temporal stability in untreated control groups, it demonstrates significant treatment sensitivity, showing sharp decreases following interventions targeting self-compassion and soothing-system activation.

Factor Analysis

The internal factorial validity of the FSCS was established using exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original scale development study (Gilbert et al., 2004), the 21 candidate functional items were submitted to Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) utilizing Oblimin (oblique) rotation to account for expected theoretical intercorrelations between different expressions of self-criticism. Both Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy ($ ext{KMO} = .93$) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity ($chi^2 = 3124.6, p < .001$) confirmed data suitability.

Inspection of the scree plot and Kaiser's eigenvalue criterion ($> 1.0$) identified a clean two-factor solution:

• Factor 1: Self-Correction accounted for approximately $40.5%$ of the shared variance (initial eigenvalue $\approx 8.5$). All 13 designated items demonstrated primary pattern matrix loadings ranging from $.51$ to $.82$ onto this factor, with negligible cross-loadings ($< .25$) on the secondary factor. Items loading highest included “To keep me from making minor mistakes” (.82), “To keep myself in check” (.79), and “To make sure I keep up my standards” (.76).
• Factor 2: Self-Persecution accounted for approximately $13.2%$ of the shared variance (initial eigenvalue $\approx 2.8$). The 8 designated items demonstrated robust primary pattern matrix loadings ranging from $.56$ to $.86$ onto this factor. Items loading highest included “To harm part of myself” (.86), “To destroy a part of me” (.84), and “To take revenge on part of myself” (.81).

The two latent factors exhibited a moderate positive intercorrelation ($r \approx .45$), confirming that while both represent expressions of self-criticism, they constitute separable latent constructs.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations have subjected the two-factor model to rigorous CFA evaluation across diverse international samples. Representative fit indices derived from structural equation modeling across standard studies are summarized in the psychometric table below:

CFA demonstrates that collapsing the items into a single general self-criticism factor results in unacceptable model fit ($\text{CFI} = .74$, $\text{RMSEA} = .132$). The correlated two-factor model demonstrates good to excellent fit across samples, meeting all established structural equation modeling benchmarks. Multi-group CFA has further established metric and scalar measurement invariance across gender and clinical versus non-clinical samples, confirming that the scale assesses identical constructs with equivalent psychometric precision across populations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: The Functions of Self-Criticizing/Attacking Scale (FSCS)
• Primary Reference Authors: Paul Gilbert, Miles Clarke, Sabine Hempel, Jeremy N. V. Miles, and Chris Irons (2004)
• Construct Assessed: Motivational teleology and internal functional utilities of self-critical thoughts and attacks
• Format: 21-item self-report questionnaire
• Administration Modality: Paper-and-pencil or secure digital/computerized administration; self-administered or clinician-administered
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older; validated in general, student, and clinical psychiatric populations
• Completion Time: Approximately 4 to 7 minutes
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale scored from 0 to 4:
  • 0: Not at all like me
  • 1: A little bit like me
  • 2: Moderately like me
  • 3: Quite a bit like me
  • 4: Extremely like me
• Subscale Architecture & Item Allocation:
  • Self-Correction (SC): 13 items — Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Evaluates self-criticism intended to maintain standards, prevent mistakes, avoid arrogance/hubris, and motivate performance.
  • Self-Persecution (SP): 8 items — Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 21. Evaluates self-criticism intended to harm, punish, seek revenge upon, destroy, or vent disgust against the self.
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Subscale raw scores are derived by calculating the direct sum of the designated items within each dimension.
  • Self-Correction (SC) Score Range: 0 to 52 (higher scores reflect greater reliance on self-criticism as a functional self-regulation, error-prevention, or perfectionistic strategy).
  • Self-Persecution (SP) Score Range: 0 to 32 (higher scores indicate severe, malevolent intrapsychic attacks, vindictive punishment, and self-directed hostility).
  • Alternatively, researchers and clinicians may compute mean item scores (sum divided by number of items) to allow direct dimensional comparison across the two subscales on the 0–4 metric.
  • No items are reverse-coded.
• Qualitative / Clinical Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Low SP (< 6) with Moderate to High SC (20–38): Typical profile observed in high-functioning student or perfectionistic community samples. Self-criticism is enlisted primarily as an overlearned, threat-based coping mechanism for standard-maintenance. Clinical focus should center on psychoeducation regarding Threat vs. Drive systems and developing cognitive flexibility.
  • Elevated SP (≥ 12) regardless of SC: High clinical alert for severe psychopathology. Suggests the presence of internalized hatred, self-disgust, and sadomasochistic internal relational dynamics. Strongly associated with major depression, complex trauma, borderline personality pathology, and elevated risk for non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) or active suicidality. Requires immediate formulation of internal safety, assessment of risk, and intensive CFT interventions (e.g., compassionate chair work, de-shaming).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Functions of Self-Criticizing/Attacking Scale (FSCS) was formulated and published in 2004 by Professor Paul Gilbert and co-authors in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology (The British Psychological Society).

In accordance with the founding mission of Professor Paul Gilbert and the Compassionate Mind Foundation (Derby, UK; compassionatemind.co.uk), the FSCS is placed in the public domain for clinical practice and non-commercial academic research. No licensing fee, royalty, or prior written permission is required for mental health clinicians, researchers, or students utilizing the scale for clinical evaluation, empirical inquiry, dissertation work, or treatment monitoring, provided that the foundational publication (Gilbert et al., 2004) is properly cited in all scientific reports, publications, and presentations.

Commercial reproduction, incorporation into fee-for-service software platforms, translation into other languages for commercial distribution, or inclusion in proprietary commercial assessment packages requires formal licensing and permission from the copyright holders and the Compassionate Mind Foundation.

References

• Blatt, S. J., D'Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(4), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.85.4.383
• Castilho, P., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, J. (2015). Exploring self-criticism: Confirmatory factor analysis of the FSCRS and FSCS in clinical and non-clinical samples. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1881
• Cook, D. R. (1996). Empirical studies of shame and guilt: The Internalized Shame Scale. In D. L. Nathanson (Ed.), Knowing faces: The affect system (pp. 132–165). W. W. Norton & Co.
• Duarte, C., Matos, M., & Stubbs, R. J. (2017). The functions of self-criticism in eating pathology: A mediation model. Eating and Weight Disorders – Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 22(3), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-017-0382-7
• Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates / Psychology Press.
• Gilbert, P. (2000). The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: The role of the evaluation of social rank. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7(3), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203851197
• Gilbert, P., Clarke, M., Hempel, S., Miles, J. N. V., & Irons, C. (2004). Criticising and reassuring oneself: An exploration of forms, styles and reasons in female students. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466504772812959
• Goss, K., Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1994). An exploration of shame measures: I. The provide-shame scale and other as shamer scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01135.x
• Hermanto, N., Zuroff, D. C., Kopala-Sibley, D. C., Kelly, A. C., Matos, M., & Gilbert, P. (2016). Ability to receive compassion mediates the relationship between functions of self-criticism and depressive symptoms. Australian Psychologist, 51(3), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12151
• Irons, C., Gilbert, P., Baldwin, M. W., Baccus, J. R., & Palmer, M. (2006). Parental recall, attachment style and self-criticism/reassurance. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 909–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.004
• Price, J. S., & Sloman, L. (1987). Depression as yielding behavior: An animal model based on Schjelderup-Ebbe's pecking order. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(87)90020-0
• Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978). Development and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: A preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)