Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Curb your neuroticism – Mindfulness mediates the link between

neuroticism and subjective well-being
Mario Wenzel ⇑, Christina von Versen, Sarah Hirschmüller, Thomas Kubiak
Institute of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recent research has shown that mindfulness moderates the negative emotional reactivity associated with
Received 29 September 2014 neuroticism. In two studies, we investigated how neuroticism and mindfulness are associated with
Received in revised form 5 February 2015 subjective well-being (SWB), assuming a moderated mediation. In Study 1, 147 participants (74.2%
Accepted 14 February 2015
female, M = 34.3 years, SD = 11.9) completed an online survey. Mindfulness partially mediated but did
Available online 7 March 2015
not moderate the relationship between neuroticism and SWB, indicating that low levels of mindfulness
were partially accountable for lower SWB in individuals high in neuroticism. In Study 2, 108 participants
Keywords:
(80.6% female, M = 25.2 years, SD = 6.6) completed daily diaries for 6 days. We found evidence for a
Mindfulness
Neuroticism
moderated mediation in trait as well as daily measures of mindfulness and SWB, in that the lack of mind-
Subjective well-being fulness could explain around one quarter of the negative association between neuroticism and SWB. This
Moderated mediation mediation was moderated by neuroticism itself in Study 2, in that mindfulness was only a significant
mediator for high levels of neuroticism. Our findings demonstrate that negative emotional reactivity
associated with neuroticism is partially due to low levels of mindfulness, which offers a promising future
research avenue for the role of mindfulness.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A plethora of research has shown that neuroticism, character-
ized by negative affective states such as fear, anxiety, or worry, is
negatively linked to subjective well-being (SWB; e.g., Ozer &
Benet-Martinez, 2006). Out of the Big Five personality factors, a
meta-analysis demonstrated that neuroticism is the strongest pre-
dictor of SWB and negative affect (Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008).
Studies trying to reveal the mechanisms by which neuroticism is
negatively associated with SWB are diverse and consider biologi-
cal, psychological, and social factors. For example, Weiss, Bates,
and Luciano (2008) demonstrated that neuroticism and SWB share
a common genetic basis. Considering social factors, social support,
for instance, is both negatively connected to neuroticism (Swickert,
2009; Swickert, Hittner, & Foster, 2010) as well as SWB (Pinquart &
Sorensen, 2000), although the evidence for the association with
SWB is inconsistent (Bolger & Amarel, 2007). The third group of
factors involves cognitive–affective processes such as stress
appraisal. For example, neurotic individuals both experience more
stressful events (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999) and react to
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Psychologisches Institut,
Johannes Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz, Binger-Str. 14-16, D-55122 Mainz,
Germany. Tel.: +49 6131 3939132; fax: +49 6131 3939186.
E-mail address: wenzelma@uni-mainz.de (M. Wenzel).
them with more negative emotions (Gross, Sutton, & Ketelaar,
1998; Zautra, Affleck, Tennen, Reich, & Davis, 2005).
1.1. Mindfulness as a mediator
In the present research, we propose mindfulness as another
promising cognitive–affective mechanism contributing to the low-
er SWB in neurotic individuals. Mindfulness refers to a state of pre-
sent-centered awareness on one’s own sensations, thoughts, and
feelings without judgment (Brown & Ryan, 2003) or with openness
and acceptance (Bishop et al., 2004). It has become an increasingly
important topic in research and clinical applications (Khoury et al.,
2013). Importantly, it is both associated with SWB (Brown & Ryan,
2003) as well as neuroticism (Baer et al., 2008; Brown & Ryan,
2003), demonstrating an averaged effect size of r = .45 for
neuroticism in a recent meta-analysis (Giluk, 2009). One explana-
tion on how mindfulness can explain the negative association of
neuroticism and SWB might be that mindfulness influences cogni-
tive–affective processes, which contribute to increased negative
affectivity and lower SWB in individuals high in neuroticism. Suls
and Martin (2005) focused on five interconnected processes that
form a neurotic cascade: (1) hyperreactivity, (2) differential expo-
sure, (3) differential appraisal, (4) mood spillover, and (5) the sting
of familiar problems. Since each mechanism is seen to reinforce

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.020
0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Wenzel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75
each other, these five processes form a neurotic cascade, leading to
lower SWB in daily life.
We propose that mindfulness is associated with these process-
es. For instance, neurotic individuals are more sensitive to negative
stimuli signaling punishment (Boksem, Tops, Wester, Mejman, &
Lorist, 2006) and to mood induction (Thake & Zelenski, 2013),
demonstrating increased affective hyperreactivity. However,
recent research found that mindfulness is also linked to reward
sensitivity, in that it moderated the association of reward sensi-
tivity on psychological distress (Hamill, Pickett, Amsbaugh, &
Aho, 2015). Moreover, neurotic individuals may use differential
appraisals. For example, they reported stressful events as more
threatening, which they could cope with less personal resources
(Gunthert et al., 1999). In turn, Weinstein, Brown, and Ryan
(2009) showed that mindful individuals stated more positive stress
appraisals and a higher use of approach and a lower use of avoid-
ance coping leading to higher SWB. Furthermore, Suls and Martin
(2005) argue that neuroticism leads to mood spillover effects due
to its association with rumination (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, &
Lyubomirsky, 2008). Since mindfulness training can decrease
ruminative thinking (Deyo, Wilson, Ong, & Koopman, 2009), it
seems plausible to view mindfulness as a state with the potential
to reduce negative emotional outcomes associated with neuroti-
cism. Finally, due to the maladaptive coping strategies and rumina-
tion, recurring stressful events lead to a negative self-concept and
low self-esteem, which Suls and Martin (2005) term the sting of
familiar problems. Mindfulness, demonstrating a positive correla-
tion with self-esteem (Pepping, O’Donovan, & Davis, 2013), might
interrupt this familiarity by concentrating on the present moment
experiences with a curious, accepting stance. Taken together, we
view the neurotic cascade as an intriguing concept, which can be,
in our view, summarized into mindfulness or a lack thereof.
1.2. Mindfulness as a moderator
However, studies investigating the role of mindfulness in the
neuroticism – SWB link only tested, to the best of our knowledge,
for moderation but not for mediation. There is evidence that the
relation between neuroticism and SWB is moderated by mindful-
ness, in that individuals with high levels of neuroticism only
reported more depressive mood and anger if levels of mindfulness
were low to medium (Barnhofer, Duggan, & Griffith, 2011;
Feltman, Robinson, & Ode, 2009). Since these studies did not test
other possible mechanisms, such as mindfulness acting as a med-
iator or moderated mediation, they cannot indicate whether mind-
fulness might explain the neuroticism – SWB link. If mindfulness
were a moderator, neuroticism should differently affect SWB
depending on the degree of mindfulness, in that high levels of
mindfulness would ‘‘counteract’’ the negative effect of neuroticism
on SWB. In contrast, if mindfulness were a mediator, neuroticism
should exert its influence on SWB via mindfulness. Here, instead
of mindfulness ‘‘counteracting’’ effects of neuroticism, differences
in mindfulness could account for the negative association of neu-
roticism and SWB.
Our meditation hypothesis is not necessarily inconsistent with
the evidence for moderation, since mediation and moderation
might also co-occur (Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005). For example,
a fourth variable might moderate the mediation effect or moderat-
ed mediation might also occur in absence of a fourth variable
where the predictor itself could moderate the effect of a mediator
on an outcome (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). With regard to
the interplay of mindfulness, neuroticism, and SWB, the negative
association between neuroticism and SWB might be mediated by
mindfulness, which is amplified by high levels of neuroticism.
Thus, individuals high in neuroticism indicate lower SWB due to
a lack of mindfulness, whereas mindfulness might provide no
69
explanatory content for differences in SWB in individuals low in
neuroticism.
1.3. Aim and hypothesis
The present research examined how mindfulness impacts the
effect of neuroticism on SWB covering moderation, mediation,
and moderated mediation models. We hypothesized that mindful-
ness acts as a mediator of the relationship between neuroticism
and SWB, that may, in turn, be moderated by neuroticism, in that
the indirect effect of neuroticism via mindfulness is larger for
increasing levels of neuroticism. In Study 1, we tried to replicate
current findings (Barnhofer et al., 2011; Feltman et al., 2009) and
expanded the analytical approach by including both moderation
and mediation models. In Study 2, we investigated whether the
evidence found on the trait level can also be found within indi-
viduals in everyday life.
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
A total of 147 participants (109 females), aged 18–62 years
(M = 34.3 years, SD = 11.9), completed an online survey on Sosci
Survey (Leiner, 2014). Three participants were high school stu-
dents, 53 were undergraduate students (69.8% of psychology),
and the rest were employed. We aimed for 170 participants to
achieve a power of .80 to detect interactions of the magnitude
found in previous research (R2change = .03; Barnhofer et al., 2011;
Feltman et al., 2009). The power of the final sample was .74.
2.1.2. Measures
2.1.2.1. Dispositional mindfulness. To assess the trait level of
mindfulness, participants completed the German short version
(KIMS-Short; Höfling, Ströhle, Michalak, & Heidenreich, 2011) of
the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS; Baer, Smith,
& Allen, 2004; Ströhle, Nachtigall, Michalak, & Heidenreich,
2010). The KIMS-Short consists of 20 items (1 = never or very rarely
true to 5 = very often or always true) with four subscales: observing
(six items), describing (five items), acting with awareness (four
items), and accepting without judgment (five items). We computed
the mean score across scales1 with higher scores indicating higher
levels of mindfulness. Cronbach’s alpha was a = .89.
2.1.2.2. Neuroticism. The participants completed the self-report
questionnaire Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle,
1991) in its German short version BFI-K (Rammstedt & John,
2005). The BFI-K assesses the five personality domains with 21
items on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).
Neuroticism is covered by four items with a Cronbach’s alpha of
a = .77 in our sample.
2.1.2.3. Subjective well-being. The 5-item WHO-five Well-being
Index (WHO-5; WHO, 1998) captures mood, vitality, and general
interest as marker of SWB over the last two weeks on a scale rang-
ing from 1 (at no time) to 6 (all of the time). A higher mean score
indicates better SWB. Cronbach’s alpha was a = .84.
1
To investigate whether the KIMS-Short mean score represented an appropriate
index for general mindfulness, we constructed a measurement model using CFA,
where the KIMS-Short subscales loaded on a latent mindfulness factor. This model
yielded an acceptable fit, v2(2) = 4.85, p = .088, CFI = .973, SRMR = .029, RMSEA = .098,
pclose = .170, and, thus, the mean score was used in further analyses to ease
interpretation of the results.
70 M. Wenzel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75
2.1.3. Procedure and analyses
Participants were recruited through e-mail newsletters, posts in
forums about mindfulness, and flyers in schools for yoga or
meditation. The participants received an online survey weblink,
which gained access to the standardized questionnaire (Leiner,
2014) upon giving informed consent.
We computed hierarchical linear regression to test for
moderation and performed path modeling for mediation testing.
If both the moderation and mediation were significant, we tested
for moderated mediation on the basis of a single path model
(Preacher et al., 2007). Data were analyzed with Stata 13 (Stata
Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). We used Stata’s sem com-
mand suite for the path models testing mediation. To test the indi-
rect effects in the mediation model, bootstrapping (1000
resamples) was used to provide bias corrected confidence intervals
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
2.2. Results
Preliminary analyses indicated that scores on BFI-K neuroti-
cism, KIMS-Short, and WHO-5 were normally distributed and did
not differ significantly across gender, t(145) 6 1.39, p P .168,
d 6 0.26. Zero-order correlations showed that neuroticism was
negatively correlated with SWB as well as the KIMS-Short mindful-
ness mean score and its subscales (Table 1). To evaluate the dis-
criminant validity of our measures, we corrected the correlations
for attenuation due to measurement errors, which resulted in a
correlation of rcorr = .66 for neuroticism and SWB, rcorr = .63 for
neuroticism and mindfulness, and rcorr = .56 for mindfulness and
SWB. Furthermore, we computed variance inflation factors (VIF)
in the regression analyses which were all below 1.38. Since all cor-
relations were below .80 and all VIFs were below 10, discriminant
validity could be concluded (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2002;
John & Benet-Martinez, 2000).
2.2.1. Moderation
In the first step of the hierarchical linear regression, we entered
neuroticism as a predictor of SWB in the model, which was sig-
nificant, t = 7.42, p < .001, b = 0.53, R2 = .28, indicating that high-
er levels of neuroticism were associated with lower SWB in the last
two weeks. Entering the KIMS-Short mean score in the second step
yielded a significant effect of mindfulness, t = 3.61, p < .001,
b = 0.29, R2change = .06, and reduced the main effect of neuroticism
to t = 4.68, p < .001, b = 0.37. In the last step, the interaction of
neuroticism and the KIMS-Short mean score was entered, which
was, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (left panel), not significant, t = 1.06,
p = .293, b = 0.07, R2change = .01. These results did not support the
assumption that mindfulness moderates the effects of neuroticism
on SWB.
2.2.2. Mediation
The inclusion of mindfulness in the second step of the hierarchi-
cal linear regression testing for moderation reduced the effect of
neuroticism on SWB, indicating a possible mediation. To test for
this mediation, neuroticism was modeled to predict SWB either
directly or indirectly via mindfulness. Effect estimates and bias-
corrected 95% confidence intervals based on bootstrapping are
shown in Fig. 2. While neuroticism still yielded a significant nega-
tive effect on SWB, the indirect effect via the KIMS-Short mean
score was also significant. Thus, 29% of neuroticism’s effect on
SWB was mediated by dispositional mindfulness.
2.3. Discussion
In contrast to two other studies (Barnhofer et al., 2011; Feltman
et al., 2009) that found evidence for moderation of mindfulness on
the relationship of neuroticism and measures of SWB, the
interaction effect between mindfulness and neuroticism did not
reach statistical significance. We rather found that the influence
of neuroticism on SWB was partially mediated by mindfulness,
which provides evidence for the explanation that neurotic indi-
viduals experience lower SWB due to lower mindfulness. Since
these results revealed associations between individuals, we con-
ducted Study 2 in order to test whether these associations can also
be found within individuals.
3. Study 2
Research on the role of mindfulness in influencing the relation
between neuroticism and SWB focused on retrospective disposi-
tional measures only. One problem of dispositional measures com-
pared to ambulatory assessment strategies such as end-of-day
diaries is that they do not allow to separate within- and
between-person processes (Kubiak & Stone, 2012), which is
especially important when considering that mindfulness is often
conceptualized as a state that can be trained in order to increase
SWB measures such as lesser stress or better mood. Thus, it is cru-
cial to show that the relationship between mindfulness and SWB
can be found within individuals, in that individuals actually expe-
rience better mood in daily life when they feel more mindful than
usual (within-person process). Contrariwise, more mindful indi-
viduals in general may report better SWB on average than less
mindful individuals (between-person process) without necessarily
experiencing more SWB when feeling more mindful than usual.
Furthermore, there is evidence that trait and state measures of
mindfulness do not share large common variance (Thompson &
Waltz, 2007; Weinstein et al., 2009). Hence, variance decomposi-
tion can provide new insights in the relationship between
mindfulness, neuroticism, and SWB.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
A total of 108 individuals (87 female) participated for the
opportunity to win one out of two 50 EUR (approx. US$ 68) vouch-
ers for an online bookstore as compensation for participation. The
participants, aged 18–57 years (M = 25.2 years, SD = 6.6), were
recruited through social networks and e-mail newsletters, where
they received a weblink to access the standardized questionnaires
online. Out of 648 possible daily diary entries, 555 were completed
indicating good adherence of 82% to the study protocol, which is
consistent to other adherence rates reported in the end-of-day
diaries literature (Gunthert & Wenze, 2012). To test whether par-
ticipants completed fewer diary entries across the course of the
study, we computed a multilevel logistic regression with missing
a day as the criterion and day as the predictor, which did not yield
significance, b = 0.23, OR = 1.26, z = 1.79, p = .074. Consequently,
compliance did not significantly deteriorate over the 6 days of
the study.
3.1.2. Procedure
After completing the same set of trait questionnaires used in
Study 1 (see Table 2), the participants should complete end-of-
day diaries for six consecutive days.
3.1.3. Daily diary
Participants were reminded via e-mail to complete a diary entry
each day at 6 p.m. The following measures were covered.
3.1.3.1. Daily mindfulness. To measure mindfulness in daily life, we
used a short five-item scale by modifying the German version of
 M. Wenzel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75 71

Table 1
Range, means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations on WHO-5, BFI-K-neuroticism scale, and KIMS in Study 1.

Range M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 5
1. WHO-5 1.40–6.00 4.15 0.93 .84
2. BFI-K neuroticism 1.00–4.50 2.63 0.82 .77 .53***
3. KIMS observing 2.17–5.00 3.80 0.69 .80 .33*** .32***
4. KIMS describing 2.20–5.00 3.84 0.69 .83 .28*** .29*** .45***
5. KIMS acting with awareness 1.25–4.75 3.16 0.73 .83 .44*** .46*** .49*** .39***
6. KIMS accepting without judgment 1.40–5.00 3.86 0.88 .88 .38*** .47*** .26** .32*** .40***
7. KIMS mean score 2.15–4.80 3.69 0.55 .89 .48*** .52*** .76*** .72*** .74*** .71***

Note. WHO-5 = WHO-five Well-being Index; BFI-K-N = Big Five inventory – neuroticism scale; KIMS = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Fig. 1. Association between trait SWB (WHO-5) and trait neuroticism (BFI-K) for low ( 1 SD) and high KIMS-Short mindfulness (+1 SD) in Study 1 (left panel) and Study 2
(right panel). Error bars indicate standard errors.

Fig. 2. Path analysis for the effect of trait neuroticism on trait SWB via trait mindfulness in Study 1. Coefficients are standardized and the coefficient in brackets is the total
effect. 95% corr. CI = bias-corrected 95% confidence interval based on n = 1000 bootstrap samples.

Table 2
Range, means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations on WHO-5, BFI-K-neuroticism scale, and KIMS in Study 2.

Range M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 5
1. WHO-5 1.40–6.00 4.06 1.02 .78
2. BFI-K neuroticism 1.50–5.00 3.33 0.87 .75 .36***
3. KIMS observing 1.08–4.58 3.24 0.43 .81 .33*** .09
4. KIMS describing 1.25–5.00 3.39 0.68 .87 .26** .03 .34***
5. KIMS acting with awareness 1.60–4.80 2.91 0.58 .78 .24* .32*** .09 .23*
6. KIMS accepting without judgment 1.22–4.89 3.33 0.86 .89 .26** .46*** .19* .22* .28***
7. KIMS mean score 1.87–4.25 3.21 0.43 .87 .43*** .37*** .65*** .64*** .58*** .70***

Note. WHO-5 = WHO-five Well-being Index; BFI-K-N = Big Five inventory – neuroticism scale; KIMS = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
72 M. Wenzel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75
the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale2 (MAAS; Brown & Ryan,
2003; Michalak, Heidenreich, Ströhle, & Nachtigall, 2008). The
MAAS is a 15-item questionnaire that assesses lack of mindfulness
as a single factor on a scale ranging from 1 (all of the time) to 6 (at
no time). We shortened the MAAS in order to decrease the burden
for the participants due to the daily assessments. The MAAS-Short
scale consisted of item number 3 (‘‘I found it difficult today to stay
focused on what’s happening in the present.’’), 7 (‘‘It seems I was
‘‘running on automatic’’ without much awareness of what I’m doing
today.’’), 8 (‘‘I rushed through activities without being really atten-
tive to them.’’), 13 (‘‘I found myself preoccupied today with the
future or the past.’’), and 14 (‘‘Today, I found myself doing things
without paying attention.’’), which were rephrased to retrospectively
capture mindfulness during the current day. Mean scores of the five
items were computed, with higher scores representing higher levels
of mindfulness (M = 4.36, SD = 0.98). The between-person reliability
in this sample was good, RKRN = .82, whereas the within-person relia-
bility for day-to-day change (Shrout & Lane, 2012) was acceptable,
RCN = .74.
3.1.3.2. Affect. A validated short form (Wilhelm & Schoebi, 2007) of
the German Multidimensional Mood Questionnaire (MDMQ;
Steyer, Schwenkmezger, Notz, & Eid, 1997) was used to capture
retrospective daily affect as a measure of SWB. The short MDMQ
assesses mood on three dimensions: valence (items: good, bad),
energetic arousal (awake, tired), and tense arousal (calm, nervous)
on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Mean scores
were computed for each dimension with higher scores represent-
ing higher valence (M = 4.93, SD = 1.47), higher energetic arousal
(M = 3.50, SD = 1.43), and lower tense arousal (M = 4.76,
SD = 1.48). The between-person reliability and the within-person
reliability for day-to-day change for the valence (RKRN = .74,
RCN = .81), energetic arousal (RKRN = .73, RCN = .69), and tense arou-
sal scale (RKRN = .82 RCN = .76) were acceptable to good. Since all
three MDMQ scales shared association with SWB and correlated
significantly with each other (r = .35 to r = .76), we computed a
mean score of mood to ease analysis and interpretation of the
results. The reliability of this mean score (M = 4.40, SD = 1.17)
was acceptable to good (RKRN = .79, RCN = .78).
3.1.4. Statistical analyses
For associations on the trait level, we followed the same analy-
tical approach that we used in Study 1. For the daily diaries, we
computed multilevel models with random intercepts in Stata 13,
with daily diary observations (level 1) nested within participants
(level 2). Neuroticism was grand-mean centered and daily mind-
fulness and daily mood were group-mean centered (Enders &
Tofighi, 2007). Group-mean centered level-1 variables were
entered into the model together with their group means to correct-
ly separate the within- and between-subject processes (Bolger &
Laurenceau, 2013).
3.2. Results
Neuroticism, KIMS-Short, and WHO-5 did not significantly devi-
ate from the normal distribution. There were no gender differences
for KIMS-Short, t(106) = 0.24, p = .811, d = 0.06, nor WHO-5,
t(106) = 0.23, p = .823, d = 0.06, but for neuroticism,
t(106) = 2.29, p = .024, d = 0.56, with women (M = 3.43, SD = 0.87)
2
We opted for the MAAS-Short instead of the KIMS-Short because, first, it has been
used for ambulatory assessment before with good internal consistency of a = .92
(Brown & Ryan, 2003). Second, since the KIMS and the MAAS offer different
advantages and disadvantages in capturing mindfulness (Bergomi, Tschacher, &
Kupper, 2013), we selected another questionnaire to demonstrate that the results do
not depend on the chosen questionnaire.
reporting higher levels of neuroticism than men (M = 2.95,
SD = 0.77). However, this difference did not influence the
moderation and mediation results presented below. Zero-order
correlations demonstrated a similar pattern as in Study 1 (Table 2).
3.2.1. Trait level
3.2.1.1. Moderation. Again, neuroticism was a significant predictor
in the first step, t = 3.97, p < .001, b = 0.36, R2 = .13. When the
KIMS-Short mean score was entered into the model, it yielded a
significant effect on SWB, t = 3.70, p < .001, b = 0.34, R2change = .10,
and reduced the effect of neuroticism, t = 2.55, p = .012,
b = 0.24. In contrast to Study 1, including the interaction in step
three increased the explained variance, t = 2.28, p = .024, b = 0.19,
R2change = .04. As illustrated in Fig. 1 (right panel), higher levels of
neuroticism were negatively associated with lower levels of SWB
for low levels of mindfulness only ( 1 SD below the mean of the
KIMS-Short mean score), t = 3.46, p = .001, b = 0.44, but not for
high levels (+1 SD above the mean), t = 0.62, p = .535, b = 0.07.
3.2.1.2. Mediation. To test for meditation, we analyzed a path mod-
el with bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals based on boot-
strapping. The observed pattern reflects the result of Study 1, in
that both the direct, b = 0.27, SE = 0.08, 95% corr. CI [ 0.43,
0.13], and indirect effect, b = 0.13, SE = 0.06, 95% corr. CI
[ 0.28, 0.04], of neuroticism on SWB were significant. 33% of
the total effect was mediated, indicating a partial mediation of dis-
positional mindfulness.
3.2.1.3. Moderated mediation. Since both the moderation and med-
iation were significant, we tested for moderated mediation using a
single path model (Preacher et al., 2007). Effect estimates and bias-
corrected 95% confidence intervals based on bootstrapping of this
model are presented in Fig. 3. We found evidence for a moderated
mediation, in that levels of neuroticism moderated the indirect
effect over dispositional mindfulness. Whereas the indirect effect
was significant for high levels of neuroticism (+1 SD above the
mean), t = 2.66, p = .008, b = 0.19, 95% corr. CI [ 0.37, .07], it
was not for low levels ( 1 SD below the mean), t = 0.93,
p = .351, b = 0.05, 95% corr. CI [ 0.16, .05]. Thus, the mediation
effect via mindfulness increases with increasing levels of
neuroticism.
3.2.2. Daily level
In a second set of the analyses, we tested if the results found on
the trait level were also reflected on the daily level. Although daily
diaries may also be biased due to the use of episodic memory (e.g.,
peak-and-end effects), they differ in regard to trait self-reports, in
that they capture what individuals actually experience rather than
what they believe they often experience (Conner & Barrett, 2012).
3.2.2.1. Moderation. To test for moderation, we first fitted an
unconditional (null) model on daily mood, which revealed that
60.0% of the total variance in daily mood was attributable to
within-person variability. We, then, included neuroticism and the
person-mean centered and averaged daily MAAS-Short to correctly
separate the within- and between-subject process in level-1
independent variables. In the third step, we included two-way
interactions of neuroticism and both within- and between-subject
measures of mindfulness, which improved the model fit
significantly, v2(2) = 17.93, p < . 001. Modelling the person-mean
centered daily MAAS-Short as a random effect did not improve
fit, v2(1) = 0.90, p = . 342, and, thus, it was not included in the final
model. The final model accounted for 36.5% of the variance in daily
mood, in which the proportion of level-1 variance explained by the
predictors was 59.0% and the proportion of level-2 variance
explained was 21.4%.
 M. Wenzel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75
Fig. 3. Moderated mediation analysis for the effect of trait neuroticism on trait SWB via trait mindfulness in Study 2. Coefficients are standardized and the coefficient in
brackets is the total effect. 95% corr. CI = bias-corrected 95% confidence interval based on an n = 1000 bootstrap.
The model without the interactions revealed that neuroticism
was significantly negatively associated with daily mood,
z = 3.95, p < .001, b = .29. Moreover, the within-subject fixed
effect of the daily MAAS-Short was also significant, which indicates
that daily mood increased when individuals reported higher levels
of daily mindfulness than usual (i.e., than their respective mean),
z = 10.53, p < .001, b = .56. The between-subject association of daily
MAAS-short and daily mood revealed a similar pattern, z = 7.00,
p < .001, b = .62, indicating that individuals who were more
mindful in general across the 6 days reported better daily mood
on average. More importantly, when entered into in the model,
the two-way interactions of neuroticism and mindfulness were
significant for the within-subject effect of mindfulness, z = 2.92,
p = .004, b = .19, as well as for the between-subject effect,
z = 3.15, p = .002, b = .56. Simple slope analysis (Cohen et al.,
2002) for day-to-day changes of mindfulness revealed that indi-
viduals with high levels of daily mindfulness (+1 SD above the
mean) demonstrated a stronger association between neuroticism
and daily mood, z = 5.18, p < .001, b = .43, than individuals with
low levels of mindfulness ( 1 SD below the mean), z = 2.23,
p = .026, b = .18, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The same pattern was
revealed for associations between the persons, with z = 5.16,
p < .001, b = .53 for high levels and z = 0.93, p = .354, b = .09
for low levels of averaged daily mindfulness. These results indicate
that the moderating process of mindfulness exists both within
subjects as well as between subjects. To further illustrate this, an
individual that is less mindful in general and, thus, reports worse
daily mood on average than more mindful individuals, still tends
to report a better mood when it feels more mindful than
usually. Taken together, the results replicate the findings found
in the trait associations between neuroticism, mindfulness, and
SWB in Study 2.
Fig. 4. Association between daily mood (MDMQ) and trait neuroticism (BFI-K) for
low ( 1 SD) and high daily MAAS mindfulness (+1 SD) in Study 2. Error bars
indicate standard errors.
73
3.2.3. Moderated mediation
Since both the within- and between-subject processes revealed
similar patterns, we did not separate them for the moderated
mediation analyses to ease interpretation. We averaged the daily
measures of mindfulness and daily mood to perform the same ana-
lysis as for the trait measures. As indicated in Fig. 5, both the direct
and indirect effect of neuroticism on daily mood were significant,
while 23% of the total effect were mediated. Moreover, neuroticism
again moderated the mediation over mindfulness, in that the med-
iation was more pronounced at high levels of neuroticism (+1 SD
above the mean), z = 2.24, p = .025, b = 0.16, 95% corr. CI
[ 0.32, .04], compared to low levels ( 1 SD below the mean),
z = 1.40, p = .161, b = 0.06, 95% corr. CI [ 0.17, .00]. Thus, the
moderated mediation via mindfulness by neuroticism was found
for trait as well as averaged daily measures of mindfulness and
SWB.
4. Discussion
Two studies investigated the interplay of mindfulness, neuroti-
cism, and SWB. Specifically, we set out to test if mindfulness acts as
a mediator of the relationship between neuroticism and SWB. In
both studies, we found evidence for this assumption, in that path
models revealed a significant indirect effect of neuroticism on
SWB through mindfulness, both on a trait level and on a daily level.
Although the indirect effect in both studies were only small in size,
around one quarter of the large total effect of neuroticism on SWB
could be explained by differences in mindfulness. This mediating
effect was found for trait measures as well as within-subjects daily
measures, that is on days when individuals felt more mindful than
they usually indicated, which demonstrate the ecological validity
of the mediating effect.
These results can be explained by the neurotic cascade (Suls &
Martin, 2005), in that mindfulness is associated with cognitive–af-
fective processes such as stress appraisals or mood spillover
effects. However, Feltman et al. (2009) proposed an alternative
explanation from a self-regulatory perspective how mindfulness
could account for the negative association of neuroticism and
SWB. The authors built on cybernetic theories of self-regulation
where awareness of one’s own states and standards is needed in
order to minimize discrepancies in a negative feedback loop
between these standards and environmental inputs (Carver &
Scheier, 1998). Since mindfulness is characterized by a present-fo-
cused attention towards one’s own thoughts and feelings, it could
facilitate monitoring the negative feedback loop and, thus, improve
self-regulation, leading to increases in SWB (Hofmann, Luhmann,
Fisher, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2014). This assumption was supported
by a large correlation of r > .50 for mindfulness and dispositional
self-control (Feltman et al., 2009). Given that self-regulation is
associated with SWB (Elliot, Thrash, & Murayama, 2011;
Hofmann et al., 2014) and given the associations between
74 M. Wenzel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75
Fig. 5. Moderated mediation analysis for the effect of trait neuroticism on daily mood via daily mindfulness in Study 2. Coefficients are standardized and the coefficient in
brackets depicts the total effect. 95% corr. CI = bias-corrected 95% confidence interval based on an.
mindfulness and neuroticism (Brown & Ryan, 2003), this self-
control model also offers a plausible explanation why neuroticism
is associated with lower SWB. Thus, given our evidence, future
research could test both assumptions more directly, e.g. by using
the experimental paradigms of appraisal and self-control research
(e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Besides mediating effects, we found partial evidence for
moderation reported in previous research (Barnhofer et al., 2011;
Feltman et al., 2009). Whereas the moderation between
mindfulness and neuroticism did not reach significance in Study
1, neurotic individuals in Study 2 reported higher SWB than less
neurotic individuals but only when mindfulness was low. Thus,
Study 2 provided evidence for a moderated mediation, in that
mindfulness could partially explain why individuals high in
neuroticism reported lower SWB but not why individuals low in
neuroticism tended to report higher SWB. This holds important
implications for mindfulness training since fostering mindfulness
to improve SWB may only be effective in highly neurotic
individuals.
In contrast to prior research (Barnhofer et al., 2011; Feltman
et al., 2009), we found inconsistent evidence for the moderating
effect of mindfulness. Although both Study 1 and 2 consisted of
the same measures, they differed with regard to their sample
composition: The sample in Study 1 consisted of university
students, whereas Study 2 contained a more mixed sample that
was older on average. However, the sample in the study by
Barnhofer, Duggan, and Griffith (2011) was also not limited to
undergraduate students like the sample in Feltman et al.
(2009), but both studies revealed similar effect sizes. Moreover,
age did not moderate the interaction between neuroticism and
mindfulness in either of Study 1 or 2. Thus, since the significant
effects found in previous research and in Study 2 were rather
small, our sample size may have been too low to detect the
effect in Study 1.
Moreover, there is considerable discourse about the assessment
of mindfulness in psychological research (e.g., Grossman, 2011). For
example, Grossman (2011) states that commonly used self-report
questionnaires such as the MAAS or the KIMS lack convergent valid-
ity to each other and criteria validity to actual experiences and
behavior. Whereas the KIMS views mindfulness as a multidimen-
sional construct with four subscales, the unidimensional MAAS
defines mindfulness as a lack of mindfulness, resulting in lapses
of attention in everyday situations. However, our data show that
both the KIMS and the MAAS measure of mindfulness mediated
the neuroticism – SWB link. Moreover, we could show that the
mediating effect was not only found on a trait but also on a daily
level, demonstrating increased ecological validity of our results.
However, since research has shown that experienced meditators
and nonmeditators understand mindfulness items differently
(Grossman, 2008), future research should aim to test whether the
mediating and moderating effects of mindfulness can be found in
a sample with experienced meditators as well and whether the
ambiguous evidence for moderation in Study 1 and 2 can be
explained by differences in mindfulness practice.
There are a number of limitations of the present research that
warrant attention. First, we did not manipulate mindfulness, for
instance by providing mindfulness training for one part of the
sample. Thus, it is unclear whether mindfulness mediates the rela-
tionship between neuroticism and SWB or whether neuroticism is
the mediator. Future research could involve manipulations of
mindfulness, for instance training, to clarify the relationships and
to provide a better understanding of the underlying causal process-
es (Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005). Second, the daily diary study
comprised a relatively short period (6 days). Future research
should build on longer study periods with daily diaries (Gunthert
& Wenze, 2012) or ecological momentary assessment with several
observations per day (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2006)
to better capture processes within individuals.
Taken together, the findings provide further evidence for the
role of mindfulness in explaining the negative association between
neuroticism and SW: Mindfulness mediates the effect of high
levels of neuroticism both between and within individuals and,
thus, indicates an interesting facet of neuroticism in explaining
associations with SWB. Fostering it by mindfulness training repre-
sents a promising avenue in counteracting the negative association
between neuroticism and SWB.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank their students for their work in
developing this study.
References
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-
report: The Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11, 191–206.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., & Sauer, S. (2008).
Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and
non-meditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329–342.
Barnhofer, T., Duggan, D. S., & Griffith, J. W. (2011). Dispositional mindfulness
moderates the relation between neuroticism and depressive symptoms.
Personality Individ. Differ., 51, 958–962.
Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment of mindfulness with
self-report measures: Existing scales and open Issues. Mindfulness, 4, 191–202.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al.
(2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 11, 230–241.
Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to
stress: Experimental evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 92, 458–475.
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction
to diary and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford.
Boksem, M. A. S., Tops, M., Wester, A. E., Mejman, T. F., & Lorist, M. L. (2006). Error-
related ERP components and individual differences in punishment and reward
sensitivity. Brain Res., 1101, 92–101.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and
its role in psychological wellbeing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 84, 822–848.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge,
GB: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the Behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: LEA.
 M. Wenzel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 68–75
Conner, T., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). Trend in ambulatory self-report: Understanding
the utility of momentary experiences, memories and beliefs. Psychosomatoc
Medicine, 74, 327–337.
Deyo, M., Wilson, K. A., Ong, J., & Koopman, C. (2009). Mindfulness and rumination:
Does mindfulness training lead to reductions in the ruminative thinking
associate with depression? Explore, 5, 265–271.
Elliot, A. J., Thrash, T. M., & Murayama, K. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of self-
regulation and well-being: Avoidance personal goals, avoidance coping, stress
generation, and subjective well-being. J. Pers., 79, 643–674.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychol. Methods, 12, 121–138.
Feltman, R., Robinson, M. D., & Ode, S. (2009). Mindfulness as a moderator of
neuroticism-outcome relations: A self-regulation perspective. J. Res. Pers., 43,
953–961.
Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis.
Personality Individ. Differ., 47, 805–811.
Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between affect and
personality: Support for the affect-level and affective-reactivity views. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. B, 24, 279–288.
Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and
psychological research. J. Psychosom. Res, 64, 405–408.
Grossman, P. (2011). Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention
during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s
(re)invention of mindfulness: Comment on Brown et al. (2011). Psychological
Assessment, 23, 1034–1040.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily
stress and coping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 77, 1087–1100.
Gunthert, K. C., & Wenze, S. J. (2012). Daily diary methods. In M. R. Mehl & T. S.
Conner (Eds.). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (Vol. 1,
pp. 144–159). New York: Guilford.
Hamill, T. S., Pickett, S. M., Amsbaugh, H. M., & Aho, K. M. (2015). Mindfulness and
acceptance in relation to behavioral Inhibition System sensitivity and
psychological distress. Personality Individ. Differ., 72, 24–29.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Experience sampling
method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Höfling, V., Ströhle, G., Michalak, J., & Heidenreich, T. (2011). A short version of the
Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. J. Clin. Psychol., 67, 639–645.
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Yes,
but are they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life
satisfaction. J. Pers., 82, 265–277.
John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct
validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of
research methods in social psychology (pp. 339–369). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The ‘‘Big Five’’ Inventory – Versions
4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality
and Social Research.
Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V., et al. (2013).
Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology
Review, 33, 763–771.
Kubiak, T., & Stone, A. A. (2012). Ambulatory monitoring of biobehavioral processes
in health and disease (Editorial to the Special Issue on Ambulatory Monitoring).
Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 325–326.
Leiner, D. J. (2014). SoSciSurvey, oFb – der online Fragebogen. Retrieved from
https://www.soscisurvey.de/.
Michalak, J., Heidenreich, T., Ströhle, G., & Nachtigall, C. (2008). Die deutsche Version
der Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS): Psychometrische Befunde zu
einem Achtsamkeitsfragebogen. [German version of the Mindful Attention an
Awareness Scale (MAAS) – Psychometric features of a mindfulness
questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 37,
200–208.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and
mediation is moderated. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 89, 852–863.
75
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400–424.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of
consequential outcomes. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 401–421.
Pepping, C. A., O’Donovan, A., & Davis, P. J. (2013). The positive effects of
mindfulness on self-esteem. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 376–386.
Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social
network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-
analysis. Psychol. Aging, 15, 187–224.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res., 42,
185–227.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K):
Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der
fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit. [Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-
K)]. Diagnostica, 51, 195–206.
Shrout, P. E., & Lane, S. P. (2012). Psychometrics. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.),
Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 302–320). New York:
Guilford.
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why
experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining
psychological processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 89, 845–851.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between
personality and subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull., 134, 138–161.
Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Notz, P., & Eid, M. (1997). Der Mehrdimensionale
Befindlichkeitsfragebogen (MDMQ). Handanweisung [The multidimensional mood
questionnaire – Manual]. Göttingen/Germany: Hogrefe.
Ströhle, G., Nachtigall, C., Michalak, J., & Heidenreich, T. (2010). Die Erfassung von
Achtsamkeit als mehrdimensionales Konstruckt: Die deutsche Version des
Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS-D). [Assessing mindfulness as a
multidimensional construct: The German version of the Kentucky Inventory of
Mindfulness Skills (KIMS-D)]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und
Psychotherapie, 39, 1–12.
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity,
stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. J. Pers., 73, 1–25.
Swickert, R. (2009). Personality and social support. In P. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.),
Cambridge handbook of personality (pp. 524–540). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Swickert, R., Hittner, J. B., & Foster, A. (2010). Big Five traits interact to predict
perceived social support. Personality Individ. Differ., 48, 736–741.
Thake, J., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). Neuroticism, BIS, and reactivity to discrete
negative mood inductions. Personality Individ. Differ., 54, 208–213.
Thompson, B. L., & Waltz, J. (2007). Everyday mindfulness and mindfulness
meditation: Overlapping constructs or not? Personality and Individual
Difference, 43, 1875–1885.
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method examination of
the effects of mindfulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-
being. J. Res. Pers., 43, 374–385.
Weiss, A., Bates, T. C., & Luciano, M. (2008). Happiness is a personal(ity) thing: The
genetics of personality and well-being in a representative sample. Psychol. Sci.,
19, 205–210.
Wilhelm, P., & Schoebi, D. (2007). Assessing mood in daily life. Structural validity,
sensitivity to change, and reliability of a short scale to measure three basic
dimensions of mood. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 258–267.
World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1998). Well-being measures
in primary health care: The DepCare Project. Consensus Meeting, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Zautra, A. J., Affleck, G. G., Tennen, H., Reich, J. W., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Dynamic
approaches to emotions and stress in everyday life: Bolger and Zuckerman
reloaded with positive as well as negative affects. J. Pers., 73, 1511–1538.