Self-compassion has already been well studied for mental health and well-being on an inter-individual level. On the intra-individual level, however, little research has been done on self-compassion and its possible correlations with other variables. This study aimed to examine the moderating effect of neuroticism on the relation between momentary self-compassion and momentary coping and examines this interaction more specifically by dividing self-compassion in its two subscales compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding.
Method
A total of 210 participants completed measures of momentary self-compassion, momentary coping, and trait neuroticism among other measures via their smartphones. The ambulatory assessment design consisted of three measurements per day (morning, afternoon, evening) for 7 days.
Results
The association between more momentary self-compassion and momentary emotional approach coping was strengthened by lower levels of neuroticism, whereas no moderation effect could be found for the other two subscales (problem-focused and emotional avoidance coping). Considering the self-compassion subscales, the association between compassionate self-responding and more emotional approach coping is strengthened by lower levels of neuroticism as well as the association between compassionate self-responding and more emotional avoidance coping is strengthened by higher levels of neuroticism.
Conclusions
The results provide insights into the moderating effect the personality trait neuroticism has on the relation of self-compassion and coping on state level, which has implications for future research.
Preregistration
This study is preregistered (10.17605/OSF.IO/SBNJ7).
In the fast-paced modern world, stress has become an almost ubiquitous companion in the lives of individuals across the globe. It permeates our daily experiences, seeping into our personal and professional space, affecting our physical health, mental well-being, and overall quality of life (Yaribeygi et al., 2017). Given its profound impact on well-being, there is a pressing need to understand mechanisms that can facilitate effective stress management. Traditional stress-management interventions often focus on external strategies such as time management, relaxation techniques, and exercise. However, these approaches may not fully address the internal psychological resources that can buffer individuals from the adverse effects of stress. Self-compassion (SC) has recently gained attention as a promising internal resource that promotes adaptive stress responses (Neff, 2003a). By fostering self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness, SC may provide individuals with the resilience needed for effective coping, which involves cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, coping tendencies do not occur in isolation. The personality trait neuroticism plays a significant role in shaping how individuals respond to stress (Ormel et al., 2013). It is characterized by heightened emotional reactivity and negative affect and may moderate the relationship between SC and effective coping. Understanding the interplay between SC, coping, and neuroticism offers valuable insights into the dynamic nature of stress regulation and could inform interventions designed to enhance psychological resilience.
SC 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 with kindness” (Neff, 2003a, p. 87). SC comprises three interconnected dimensions: self-kindness versus self-judgement, common humanity versus isolation, and mindfulness versus over-identification. Self-kindness emphasizes treating oneself with forgiveness, empathy, and patience during times of suffering. It includes fully accepting one’s fallibility while nurturing a desire to care for oneself in moments of grief and pain. Common humanity fosters a sense of connection with others, recognizing failures as universal aspects of the human experience. Mindfulness provides a balanced awareness of painful experiences, avoiding both extremes of suppression and over-identification. It allows individuals to acknowledge their vulnerabilities without being overwhelmed by worry or harsh self-criticism (Neff, 2003a). Together, these three facets promote self-care, replacing self-criticism with understanding and equipping individuals with greater resources for effective coping and stress management (Ewert et al., 2021).
Coping, as defined by Lazarus and Folkman (1984, p. 233), involves cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage internal and external stressors. Coping strategies are generally classified into problem-focused coping, which addresses the source of stress, and emotion-focused coping, which aims to regulate emotional responses (Carver et al., 1989). Problem-focused coping is linked to better long-term mental health outcomes (Chen & Sun, 2019; Cong et al., 2021; Reyes et al., 2021), whereas the effectiveness of emotion-focused coping depends on the specific strategy employed. Within emotion-focused coping, researchers distinguish between emotional approach coping and emotional avoidance coping (e.g., Roth & Cohen, 1986). Emotional approach coping involves actively engaging with emotions through strategies like self-regulation and controlled emotional expression. This strategy is particularly effective when stressors are uncontrollable or have already occurred (Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004; Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). In contrast, emotional avoidance coping is a defensive strategy that consists of ignoring, distorting, and fleeing from the stressors. While avoidance may offer temporary relief, it is generally ineffective in the long run and is associated with poorer outcomes (Roth & Cohen, 1986).
SC plays a significant role in shaping coping tendencies. Research suggests that self-compassionate individuals are less likely to rely on avoidant coping mechanisms and are more inclined toward effective coping strategies, such as problem-focused and emotional approach coping (Chishima et al., 2018; Neff, 2003a). Meta-analytic findings further support these associations at the state level (Ewert et al., 2021). In their longitudinally designed population-based study, Ewert et al. (2024) selected scales comparable to those chosen in our study. Their findings revealed that SC was positively associated with emotional approach coping and negatively associated with emotional avoidance coping over a 2-month period. These results suggest that SC fosters attentiveness and acceptance toward one’s emotions, thereby facilitating more effective stress management.
Research on SC and its impact on affect has primarily focused on between-person effects. However, it is crucial to consider the fluctuations in SC that occur within individuals over time. These momentary changes in SC could be linked to fluctuations in other state variables, such as the momentary choice of coping strategy, and may operate differently from the more stable, inter-individual effects typically observed. The distinction between trait and state SC is particularly valuable, as examining within-person effects can help to understand whether individuals can benefit from treating themselves more self-compassionately in particular moments. Initial studies suggest that SC’s positive outcomes are not solely due to an individual’s overall SC level but may also be influenced by how self-compassionate they are in specific situations (Breines & Chen, 2013; Kelly & Stephen, 2016). For example, Kelly and Stephen (2016) found that, at the trait level, daily SC was positively associated with body area satisfaction, whereas this relationship was not present at the state level. These findings suggest that the practical implications of SC may differ at the state level, providing valuable insights into how momentary shifts in SC can affect the momentary choice of coping strategies. Furthermore, investigating how personality traits shape the relationship between momentary SC and coping strategies provides an opportunity to explore the interaction between individual differences and situational factors in stress management. A personality trait that appears to be most strongly related to stress experience and psychopathology is neuroticism, which could serve as a key moderating factor in the relationship between SC and coping (Ormel et al., 2013).
Neuroticism, characterized by heightened emotional reactivity and a predisposition toward negative affect (McCrea, 1990), influences how individuals perceive and respond to stressors (e.g., Gunthert et al., 1999). High levels of neuroticism are associated with a tendency to appraise stressors as more threatening or overwhelming, often leading to reliance on emotional avoidance coping strategies such as self-blame, rumination, and denial (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Gunthert et al., 1999). These maladaptive strategies can intensify negative stress appraisals and reinforce self-critical tendencies. Conversely, SC may act as a buffering mechanism by countering neurotic tendencies. Firstly, SC encourages individuals to take a balanced perspective on stressors, recognizing them as part of the shared human experience rather than personal failings. This reframing diminishes the tendency of highly neurotic individuals to view stressors as disproportionately threatening or overwhelming (Neff, 2003a). Secondly, SC promotes mindfulness and self-kindness, which help individuals regulate their emotional responses to stress. For those with high neuroticism, this can mitigate tendencies toward emotional over-reactivity, such as catastrophizing or rumination, by fostering a calmer and more constructive approach to adversity (Chen et al., 2023; Neff et al., 2007). Lastly, SC fosters a desire for self-care and personal growth, motivating individuals to address stressors proactively rather than avoiding them. For individuals with high neuroticism, this can shift coping strategies from avoidant patterns toward more emotional approach coping and problem-focused coping (Neff, 2003a; Neff et al., 2007). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese undergraduate students with high SC reported lower perceived stress, while those with high neuroticism reported elevated stress levels (Chen et al., 2023). This suggests that SC has the potential to buffer the adverse effects of neuroticism on stress responses by reducing reactivity to stress and promoting healthier coping strategies. Thus, SC may serve as a resilience factor, even for individuals prone to neurotic tendencies.
Building on prior research, this study aims to examine the momentary interplay between SC, coping, and neuroticism. Specifically, we investigate whether neuroticism moderates the relationship between momentary SC and momentary coping tendencies. Based on previous findings, we posit the following hypotheses: (a) The association between more momentary SC and more problem-focused coping is strengthened by lower neuroticism. (b) The association between more momentary SC and more emotional approach coping is strengthened by lower neuroticism. (c) The association between momentary SC and more emotional avoidance coping is strengthened by higher neuroticism.
To test these hypotheses, this study employed an ambulatory assessment approach. To minimize retrospective biases that one-time daily diary studies have, we collected state measures of SC, problem-focused coping, emotional approach coping, and emotional avoidance coping three times a day over a 1-week period. Additionally, trait neuroticism is assessed via questionnaires completed both before and after the assessment period, allowing for a nuanced exploration of the interactions at both trait and state levels. By integrating momentary SC, coping strategies, and neuroticism, this study aimed to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of stress regulation and guide the development of targeted interventions for enhancing psychological resilience, particularly for individuals high in neuroticism who are more vulnerable to stress.
Method
Participants
A sample of 222 adults was recruited to participate in an ambulatory assessment study via a student’s pool of cognitive sciences at two urban universities in Germany and via course announcements. Moreover, flyers were positioned at the university campus, urban meditation centers, and yoga and fitness studios as well as at local supermarkets. The study included a trait questionnaire followed by a 7-day ambulatory assessment answering questions about their levels of momentary SC and coping with stressful situations three times a day resulting in 21 data points for each participant. However, 12 participants were excluded from the final sample as they either did not participate at all in the ambulatory assessment (n = 8) or they had less than three data points in the entire dataset (n = 4). Thus, the final sample consisted of 210 participants with a mean age of 23.33 years (SD = 5.59, range = 16 to 59 years). Overall, 4109 reports were completed, which resulted in an average of 19.57 per person and a response rate of 92%. Around 86% (n = 182) of the participants defined themselves as female. Most of the participants were students (n = 200); around 60% of them majored in psychology.
Procedure
The study was promoted as a 7-day ambulatory assessment study using the participants’ smartphones to explore the relations between personality and stress regulation. After expressing interest, participants were invited to the laboratory via e-mail, where a maximum of six people could simultaneously answer questionnaires assessing demographic and psychological trait variables such as neuroticism. Data were collected using SoSci Survey (SoSci Survey GmbH, see www.soscisurvey.de). After completing the trait questionnaires, further instructions were given to the participants about the ambulatory assessment design of the study. For data collection of the state variables, the smartphone app movisensXS (movisens GmbH, see www.movisens.com) was installed on their android smartphone (or tablet). One day later, the state measures (e.g., the experience sampling) started. For 7 days, data was collected at three time points per day. Participants were pseudo-randomly prompted (via audible signal) to answer questions in the morning (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.), afternoon (1 p.m. to 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to 10 p.m.) with an interval of minimum 1 hr between prompts. In case of participants not immediately responding, further reminders were given at 10-min intervals. The response window was closed after 20 min, resulting in no data recorded if the participants had not answered. Finally, a last survey consisting of trait measures was conducted by invitation via email (using SoSci Survey) but these data were not analyzed in this study. Participants either gained course credits for their psychology studies or were paid 20€ if they participated in 90% of the questionnaires.
Measures
Momentary Self-compassion
Momentary SC was measured with a modified and shortened 26-item version of the SCS-D (Self-compassion Scale German version) (Hupfeld & Ruffieux, 2011; Neff, 2003b). The scale demonstrated a good internal consistency α = 0.86.
The shortened Daily Self-compassion Scale used for the measurement of momentary SC contained 12 of the 26 items, 2 for each of the 6 facets of SC: self-kindness (e.g., “…I try to be understanding and patient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like”), self-judgment, (e.g., “…I am disapproving and judgmental about my flaws and inadequacies”), common humanity (e.g., “…I try to see my failings as part of the human condition”), isolation (e.g., “…I think that other people are happier than I am.”), mindfulness (e.g., “…I try to take a balanced view of the situation”), and over-identification (e.g., “…I get carried away with my feelings”). The adaptation to measure state rather than trait SC was aided by the prompt: “When I experienced challenging moments since the last prompt…” The wording of some items was modified to make them more appropriate to the current moment rather than to the typical stance towards oneself in difficult times. The scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (strongly).
The data was collected shortly before Neff’s (2021) State Self-compassion Scale was released. Nevertheless, Büchner et al. (2024) analyzed the factor structure of the adapted scale used in the present study and found evidence supporting its validity at the within-person level.
There is an ongoing debate surrounding the operationalization of SC (e.g., Muris & Otgaar, 2020, 2022; Muris & Petrocchi, 2017; Pfattheicher et al., 2017); while we do not aim to resolve it here, we consider both sides by analyzing both the positive and negative aspects alongside the total SC score. For the total score, a mean of the items was calculated. Items of the subscales of self-criticism, isolation, and over-identification were reversed before averaging for the total score. The indices compassionate self-responding (CS) and uncompassionate self-responding (UCS) were calculated as the average of the items of the positive (self-kindness, common humanity, mindfulness) and negative (self-criticism, isolation and over-identification) subscale respectively (Neff, 2020).
Momentary Coping
Participants were asked to answer relevant subscales of the German version of the Brief COPE (Carver, 1997; Knoll et al., 2005) to measure coping strategies three times a day. They answered how they had coped with threatening or challenging moments since the last beep or since waking up (for the first prompt of the day). According to the classical coping literature, the subscales of Brief COPE can be divided into the three aggregated scales problem-focused coping, emotional approach coping, and emotional avoidance coping. The selected coping subscales included coping strategies from all three approaches which have been demonstrated to be strongly linked to SC (cf. Ewert et al., 2021). To shorten the scale length to a minimum, we only integrated five subscales in our ambulatory assessment. Active coping was equated to problem-focused coping (e.g., “I’ve been concentrating my efforts on doing something about the situation I’m in”); positive reinterpretation (e.g., “I’ve been looking for something good in what is happening”) and acceptance (e.g., “I’ve been learning to live with it”) aggregated to emotional approach coping; and denial (e.g., “I’ve been refusing to believe that it has happened”) and behavioral disengagement (e.g., “I’ve been giving up the attempt to cope.”) aggregated to emotional avoidance coping. The rating of the items ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). To form problem-focused coping, the two items of the active coping subscale were averaged. Composite scores for emotional approach and emotional avoidance coping were created by averaging the means of the corresponding subscales.
Neuroticism
The short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K; Rammstedt & John, 2005) was used to measure trait neuroticism. The BFI-K is a standardized and economical questionnaire to measure the five personality traits. The BFI-K consists of a total of 21 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = does not apply at all to 5 = applies completely). For measuring neuroticism, four items were included (e.g., “I worry a lot.”). For these four items, a reliability coefficient of α = 0.80 was found (Rammstedt & John, 2005). To assess the level of neuroticism in an individual, one negatively coded item had to be inverted and afterwards the mean value of the four items were calculated.
Data Analyses
Given the nested structure of our data, a multilevel analysis using the software Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998‐2017) was conducted. The used predictor variable was state SC. The criterion variables were the three different coping responses.
The moderation effect of trait neuroticism was additionally analyzed. Missing data were estimated with the full information maximum likelihood method (FIML; Enders, 2010) using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). For the purpose of a meaningful interpretation, predictor variables were centered (Geiser, 2010). The Level 1 predictor SC was centered at group mean and the Level 2 predictor neuroticism was centered at grand mean (Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). To ensure that a multilevel model was the adequate method, intraclass-correlations (ICC) of the variables were calculated. According to Geiser (2010), even ICC values as low as 0.05 or 0.10 can result in biased results, such as inflated alpha error rates, particularly in multilevel modeling.
A post hoc power analysis was conducted using 1000 simulations to evaluate the statistical power of the predictor SC with respect to the criterion variables problem-focused, emotional approach, and emotional avoidance coping. The power for SC predicting problem-focused coping was estimated at 6.3% (95%CI = [4.87, 7.99]). For emotional approach coping, the power for the predictor SC was estimated at 11.9% (95%CI = [9.96, 14.07]). For emotional avoidance coping, the power for the predictor SC was estimated at 73.30% (95%CI = [70.44, 76.02]).
For the investigation of the relation of momentary SC and momentary coping only repeated measure (Level 1) variables were used — SC was entered in the model as predictor, and problem-focused and emotional approach as well as emotional avoidance coping as criterion variables. The model regarding the moderation effect of neuroticism included both Level 1 and 2 variables: SC as a Level 1 predictor, neuroticism as a Level 2 predictor. The decision for the model fit was based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The model with the lower BIC is considered to have a better fit for the data, in that a difference over 10 points is considered a very strong indication for a better model fit (Lorah & Womack, 2019).
The moderation effect of neuroticism as a Level 2 predictor was only tested if the model with random intercept and random slope results in a better fit for the model used to test the relation of momentary SC and momentary coping. Firstly, with the help of a means-as-outcomes model, it was analyzed whether neuroticism itself has a predicting power for the three different coping responses regardless of momentary SC. Secondly, it was analyzed whether neuroticism as a Level 2 predictor can explain the slope variability at Level 1 (regression of coping on SC). The study used p < 0.10 as a threshold for significance to enhance sensitivity to potential moderation effects. Given the complex hierarchical data structure, small effect sizes are expected. A stricter threshold could lead to an increased risk of false negatives, missing real effects, while a threshold of p < 0.10 allows for initial detection of possible trends while maintaining reasonable statistical rigor.
Results
Minima, maxima, means, standard deviation, and reliability coefficients for Level 1 as well as Level 2 variables are presented in Table 1. To assess the reliability of the scales, the more robust McDonald’s omega was used instead of Cronbach’s alpha (Hayes & Coutts, 2020). There is no fixed cutoff value for acceptable reliability levels for multilevel analyses. In order to classify the results, the current study follows the guideline proposed for trait measures by Shrout (1998) including the following ranges: 0.00–0.10, virtually no reliability; 0.11–0.40, slight; 0.41–0.60, fair; 0.61–0.80, moderate; 0.81–1.0, substantial.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of the scales SCS-D, BFI-K, and Brief COPE
min
max
M
SD
ω within
ω between
SCS-D
Self-compassion
1.00
5.00
3.54
0.41
0.71
0.61
BFI-K
Neuroticism
1.25
5.00
3.28
0.89
0.84
Brief COPE
Problem-focused coping
1.00
4.00
2.38
0.92
0.20
0.42
Emotional approach coping
1.00
4.00
2.41
0.85
0.64
0.89
Emotional avoidance coping
1.00
4.00
1.40
0.51
0.29
0.89
N = 210. Gender = 182 female. Age = 16–59 years
SCS-D, German version of the Self-Compassion Scale; BFI-K, Big Five Inventory short version
As shown in Table 1, the full range of scores from low to high was covered for all coping scales and SC, as indicated by the minimum and maximum scores. Regarding the neuroticism scale, almost the full range was covered.
Momentary SC showed an intra-class correlation (ICC) of 0.50, for problem-focused coping an ICC of 0.43, for emotional approach coping an ICC of 0.50, and for emotional avoidance coping an ICC of 0.41. These values imply that the variance in SC and coping is a result of intra-individual differences and therefore multilevel modelling fits the dataset the best (Geiser, 2010).
The model fit check using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) showed that a random slope random intercept model is the best fit for the data (Problem-focusedF: BIC = 9182.4; Problem-focusedR: BIC = 9142.6; ApproachF: BIC = 7606.3; ApproachR: BIC = 7539.2; AvoidanceF: BIC = 4391.5; AvoidanceR: BIC = 4339.9).
To test the moderation effect of neuroticism, we started by using a means as outcomes model to check whether neuroticism can predict the individual coping subscales independently of the Level 1 predictor SC. The results were significant for all three regression coefficients (BProblem-focused = − 0.09, p < 0.05, 90%CI = [− 0.165; − 0.022]; BApproach = − 0.16, p < 0.01, 90%CI = [− 0.231; − 0.078]; BAvoidance = 0.06, p < 0.05, 90%CI = [0.017; 0.105]).
We then considered the cross-level interaction. We found a statistically significant cross-level interaction between neuroticism and SC for emotional approach coping but not for problem-focused and emotional avoidance coping (see Table 2). Therefore, a simple slope calculation was performed only for the criterion variable emotional approach coping (see Fig. 1). For subjects with lower neuroticism (− 1 SD) a significantly positive relation between SC and emotional approach coping could be found (slope = 0.59, z = 14.45, p < 0.001). Likewise for subjects with mean (slope = 0.51, z = 21.74, p < 0.001) and higher neuroticism scores (slope = 0.43, z = 13.51, p < 0.001). To conclude, we found that the relation of more momentary SC and momentary emotional approach coping is strengthened by lower neuroticism.
Fig. 1
Cross-level interaction between self-compassion and emotional approach coping for low, mean, and high levels of neuroticism. N = neuroticism; SD, standard deviation
Results of the effect of trait neuroticism on the variance of slopes in the regression of momentary coping on momentary self-compassion
Estimate
SE
90%CI
90%CI
LL
UL
Problem-focused coping
N × SC
− 0.04
0.04
− 0.113
0.029
Problem-focused on N
− 0.09*
0.04
− 0.165
− 0.022
Problem-focused with slope (problem-focused on SC)
0.10***
0.02
0.058
0.135
Intercept
2.38***
0.04
2.308
2.448
Slope
0.25***
0.04
0.185
0.306
Emotional approach coping
N × SC
− 0.09*
0.03
− 0.141
− 0.031
Approach on N
− 0.16**
0.05
− 0.232
− 0.078
Approach with slope (approach on SC)
0.08**
0.02
0.039
0.111
Intercept
2.41***
0.04
2.341
2.477
Slope
0.51***
0.03
0.458
0.561
Emotional avoidance coping
N × SC
− 0.04
0.02
− 0.075
0.004
Avoidance on N
0.06*
0.03
0.017
0.113
Avoidance with slope (avoidance on SC)
− 0.01*
0.01
− 0.024
− 0.004
Intercept
1.40***
0.02
1.359
1.436
Slope
− 0.20***
0.02
− 0.235
− 0.168
SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; SC, self-compassion
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
Regarding the exploratory analyses, we considered momentary CS and UCS. To test the moderation effect of neuroticism, we started by using a means as outcomes model to check whether neuroticism can predict the individual coping subscales independently of the Level 1 predictors CS and UCS. The results were significant for all three regression coefficients (BProblem-focused = − 0.09, p < 0.05, 90%CI = [− 0.165; − 0.022]; BApproach = − 0.16, p < 0.01, 90%CI = [− 0.231; − 0.078]; BAvoicance = 0.17, p < 0.05, 90%CI = [0.017; 0.105]).
We found a moderating effect of neuroticism regarding the relation of momentary CS and both emotion-focused coping subscales (BApproach = − 0.04, p = 0.079, 90%CI = [− 0.078; − 0.003]; BAvoidance = 0.05, p = 0.051, 90%CI = [− 0.06; − 0.005]).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine whether neuroticism moderates the relationship between momentary SC and momentary coping strategies using multilevel regression analysis. Our findings revealed a moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship between SC and emotional approach coping but not for problem-focused or emotional avoidance coping.
Our results indicate that individuals with high or low neuroticism differ significantly in their momentary usage of SC and emotional approach coping. A possible reason that we were able to find evidence for a cross-level interaction with emotional approach coping but not with problem-focused and emotional avoidance coping could be that the correlation between momentary SC and momentary emotional approach coping is descriptively the strongest of all the three subscales. Another reason could lay in the measurement of the coping subscales. Emotional approach coping was measured through the coping mechanisms positive reinterpretation and acceptance. Neurotic individuals experience more anxiety, depression, hostility, and self-doubt (Gunthert et al., 1999). Hence, even in self-compassionate moments, it may still be challenging for them to look for something good in a negative situation or to learn to live with the situation compared to less neurotic individuals.
The absence of evidence for a moderation effect by trait neuroticism could be attributed to the exclusive measurement of active coping as problem-focused strategy. Active coping may inherently involve recognizing a situation as a stressor and taking steps to address it, a process that might be relatively straightforward and consistent across individuals, regardless of their level of neuroticism. Further research could take a look into the relation with instrumental support as a problem-focused coping strategy, as self-compassionate individuals are likely to seek social support more quickly and are also more likely to acknowledge when they need it.
The lack of evidence for a moderation effect of neuroticism on the relationship between momentary SC and momentary emotional avoidance coping might be due to the short-term efficacy these strategies (e.g., denial or behavioral disengagement) provide in managing stress (e.g., Ewert et al., 2021; Suls & Fletcher, 1985). Given that highly neurotic individuals tend to experience heightened emotional reactivity and perceive stressors as more overwhelming (Gunthert et al., 1999), they might be particularly inclined to use avoidance coping as a form of short-term emotion regulation. However, if avoidance strategies offer temporary relief regardless of individual differences in neuroticism, their use may reflect a general stress-response mechanism rather than one predominantly shaped by personality traits.
Considering the findings regarding the two subscales of SC, trait neuroticism turned out to be an influential factor for the relation of momentary CS and momentary emotional approach and emotional avoidance coping. A possible reason could be that on the one hand, emotional approach coping is strongly associated with SC (Ewert et al., 2021). On the other hand, neuroticism is related with an impaired ability to cope with stress (Mohiyeddini et al., 2015). Similarly, in emotional avoidance coping, the stressor is not approached but avoided (e.g., Schnider et al., 2007). Consequently, it is reasonable that we found neuroticism as a moderator is that in neurotic individuals, ineffective coping with stress is already anchored in their personality and therefore leads to more momentary stress coping behavior in different specific occasions.
One reason for the lack of evidence for an influential effect of trait neuroticism on the association between momentary CS and momentary problem-focused coping could be based on temperament and emotional regulation tendencies. While emotion-focused coping strategies may provide immediate relief for individuals high in neuroticism, active coping strategies might require more cognitive effort and problem-solving skills that individuals high in neuroticism may find challenging to engage in consistently. The findings from the means as outcomes model indicate that neuroticism can predict the choice of coping strategy regardless of CS and UCS. Previous critiques concerning UCS suggest that it might essentially reflect neuroticism itself (e.g., Muris & Otgaar, 2020, 2022; Muris & Petrocchi, 2017; Pfattheicher et al., 2017).
In line with that, we did not find evidence for a moderating effect as UCS might already reflect neuroticism and therefore independently predicts how individuals cope with stress in the moment. This redundancy suggests that including neuroticism as a moderating variable may not provide additional explanatory power beyond what is already accounted for by UCS. Future research should consider this and investigate the effect of both SC subscales separately.
The findings of this study underscore the complexity of the interactions between momentary SC, momentary coping, and trait neuroticism. While neuroticism moderates the use of emotional approach coping in self-compassionate moments, its role is less pronounced for problem-focused and emotional avoidance coping. These results suggest that the interplay between trait neuroticism and momentary coping varies across different contexts and coping mechanisms. From a practical perspective, these findings highlight the need for targeted interventions, especially for highly neurotic individuals. Mental health professionals could focus on enhancing SC skills, particularly mindfulness and self-kindness, to help individuals with high neuroticism manage their emotional reactivity and adopt healthier coping strategies. Incorporating techniques such as cognitive reappraisal, emotional regulation, and fostering social support networks could further assist in making stress responses more effective. Moreover, interventions may consider tailoring their approaches based on the momentary fluctuations of SC rather than focusing solely on trait-level SC. Individuals could benefit from real-time interventions that promote SC during moments of stress, offering a timely buffer against ineffective coping. Future research should delve deeper into the different facets of SC, particularly by examining SC subscales independently and incorporating diverse coping strategies to refine interventions.
Limitations and Future Research
The several strengths of this study are mainly related to the ambulatory assessment design. Due to the fact that the state variables were recorded three times a day, the data could be collected directly in the subjects’ everyday situations. This allowed for ecological validity, as the state variables were actually recorded at the moment and were thus subject to less retrospective bias. Using multilevel regression analysis also ensured that the multilevel structure of the data was taken into account and that the results were not biased. However, some limitations need to be mentioned.
Firstly, it must be noted that the present sample is almost exclusively a student sample (94.8%), as the subjects interviewed came from two German universities. Accordingly, the sample was very homogeneous in terms of educational level and age. Furthermore, there was an unbalanced gender distribution, as the participants were predominantly female (86.3%). Therefore, it should be avoided to relate the results to the general population or other populations. Comparisons are most meaningful with the findings of similar studies with a student sample. However, since studies often use students as subjects, it is quite possible to find comparable material (cf., Henrich et al., 2010).
Secondly, due to our correlative design, it is imperative to approach the interpretation of our results with caution regarding causality. Future research could examine causal relations at the state level through experience-sampling ambulatory assessment designs that include experimental components. One possible approach would be to conduct a randomized controlled trial, where participants are randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group would receive training on the momentary application of SC, while the control group would not receive any training. This design would allow for a more rigorous examination of the causal effects of momentary SC on coping strategies, providing clearer insights into how SC can influence stress responses in real-time.
Third, we will discuss potential reasons why, contrary to expectations, only the cross-level interaction with emotional approach coping became significant. One possible reason could be the weak internal consistencies of the other two subscales. Especially for problem-focused coping, the reliability coefficients both between and within individuals are not in a satisfactory range. This issue may stem from the use of the German version of the Brief COPE by Knoll et al. (2005), which was shortened for economic reasons. While shorter versions of questionnaires are beneficial for increasing the participation rates, they can compromise reliability and validity, especially when existing scales are shortened (Smith et al., 2000; Stanton et al., 2002). In this study, the problem-focused, emotional approach, and emotional avoidance coping strategies, which have shown robust associations with SC in past studies, were all included in the abbreviated coping scale of the Brief COPE. However, this selection criterion weakened their internal consistency. Specifically, the problem-focused coping subscale was limited to only two items, while the emotional approach and emotional avoidance subscales each contained four items. Research has shown that increasing the number of items in a subscale generally improves internal consistency (Carmines & Zeller, 1979, as cited in Niemi et al., 1986). In the case of problem-focused coping, adding more items, such as those related to instrumental support, which has been strongly correlated with SC in prior studies (e.g., Ewert et al., 2021), would likely improve reliability without sacrificing the brevity needed for ambulatory assessments. To address this issue in future research, one approach would be to refine the Brief COPE (Carver, 1997; Knoll et al., 2005) to develop an even more compact version optimized for ambulatory assessments, while maintaining strong reliability and validity. Alternatively, if the existing version of the Brief COPE proves unsuitable for capturing momentary coping, future studies could develop a coping measure specifically designed for intra-individual data collection, ensuring both reliability and accuracy in measuring coping strategies at state level.
Fourth, future studies should focus more on the differentiation between both subscales while measuring SC (e.g., Muris & Otgaar, 2020, 2022; Muris & Petrocchi, 2017; Pfattheicher et al., 2017).
To derive practical implications, the findings of this paper underscore the potential benefits of SC trainings for individuals with high levels of neuroticism, particularly in bolstering emotional approach coping on a specific occasion. Cultivating SC on a regular basis and practicing it in stressful moments might enable individuals with higher neuroticism scores to approach momentary stressors with greater resilience. Future research should continue to explore the moderating effect of personality traits on state-level coping mechanisms. Ultimately, integrating SC practices into therapeutic interventions for individuals with high neuroticism scores may offer a promising avenue for promoting momentary stress coping and hence, overall resilience.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Cosma Hoffmann, Anabel Buechner, and Rosanna Wendel for their help in collecting the data. Additionally, we want to thank Jan Krause for his help in preparing the data for final analyses.
Declarations
Ethics Approval
All procedures performed in the current study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Potsdam. The procedures used in this study also adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior data collection of the study.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
AI tools were used for proofreading and adjusting R code for the post hoc power analysis.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2013). Activating the inner caregiver: The role of support-giving schemas in increasing state self-compassion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,49(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.015CrossRef
Büchner, A., Ewert, C., Hoffmann, C. F. A., Schröder-Abé, M., & Horstmann, K. T. (2024). On the importance of being clear about the level of analysis of interest: An illustration using the case of self-compassion. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12924CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267CrossRefPubMed
Chen, E. Y., Homolka, C. R., Meyer, J. S., & Gettler, L. T. (2023). A small, exploratory analysis of fingernail cortisol, psychosocial well-being, and social support among undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology,9(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-023-00218-xCrossRef
Chishima, Y., Mizuno, M., Sugawara, D., & Miyagawa, Y. (2018). The influence of self-compassion on cognitive appraisals and coping with stressful events. Mindfulness,9(6), 1907–1915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0933-0CrossRef
Cong, C. W., Ling, W. S., & Aun, T. S. (2021). Problem-focused coping and depression among adolescents: Mediating effect of self-esteem. Current Psychology,40, 5587–5594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00522-4CrossRef
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods,12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121CrossRefPubMed
Ewert, C., Buechner, A., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2024). Stress perception and coping as mediators of the link between self-compassion and affective well-being? Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Mindfulness,15(2), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-023-02295-1CrossRef
Geiser, C. (2010). Datenanalyse mit Mplus: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung (2. Aufl.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Hayes, A. F. & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management,24(5), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504CrossRef
Hupfeld, J., & Ruffieux, N. (2011). Validierung einer deutschen Version der Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-D). Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie,40(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000088CrossRef
Knoll, N., Rieckmann, N., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Coping as a mediator between personality and stress outcomes: A longitudinal study with cataract surgery patients. European Journal of Personality,19(3), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.546CrossRef
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
Lorah, J., & Womack, A. (2019). Value of sample size for computation of the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) in multilevel modeling. Behavior Research Methods,51(1), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1188-3CrossRefPubMed
McCrae, R. R. (1990). Controlling neuroticism in the measurement of stress. Stress Medicine,6, 237–241.CrossRef
Muris, P., & Otgaar, H. (2020). The process of science: A critical evaluation of more than 15 years of research on self-compassion with the self-compassion scale. Mindfulness,11(6), 1469–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01363-0CrossRef
Muris, P., & Otgaar, H. (2022). Deconstructing self-compassion: How the continued use of the total score of the Self-compassion Scale hinders studying a protective construct within the context of psychopathology and stress. Mindfulness,13(6), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01898-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Muris, P., & Petrocchi, N. (2017). Protection or vulnerability? A meta-analysis of the relations between the positive and negative components of self-compassion and 51 psychopathology. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,24(2), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2005CrossRef
Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity,2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032CrossRef
Neff, K. D. (2020). Commentary on Muris and Otgaar (2020): Let the empirical evidence speak on the Self-compassion scale. Mindfulness,11(8), 1900–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01411-9CrossRef
Neff, K. D., Tóth-Király, I., Knox, M. C., Kuchar, A., & Davidson, O. (2021). The development and validation of the State Self-Compassion Scale (Long- and Short Form). Mindfulness,12(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01505-4CrossRef
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality,41(4), 908–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002CrossRef
Niemi, R., Carmines, E. & McIver, J. (1986). The impact of scale length on reliability and validity. Quality and Quantity, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00123086
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review,33(5), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Pfattheicher, S., Geiger, M., Hartung, J., Weiss, S., & Schindler, S. (2017). Old wine in new bottles? The case of self–compassion and neuroticism. European Journal of Personality,31(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2097CrossRef
Reyes, M. F., Satorres, E., Delhom, I., Bueno-Pacheco, A., & Meléndez, J. C. (2021). Coping and life satisfaction in Colombian older adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(20), 10584. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010584CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Schnider, K. R., Elhai, J. D., & Gray, M. J. (2007). Coping style use predicts posttraumatic stress and complicated grief symptom severity among college students reporting a traumatic loss. Journal of Counseling Psychology,54(3), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.344CrossRef
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K. & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x
Yaribeygi, H., Panahi, Y., Sahraei, H., Johnston, T. P. & Sahebkar, A. (2017). The impact of stress on body function: A review. EXCLI Journal, 16, 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2017-480
