Mindfulness and Neuroticism: What Research Shows
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Mindfulness and neuroticism are strongly related in personality research, but the relationship is easier to overstate than the evidence allows. Across observational studies, people who report greater dispositional mindfulness generally report lower neuroticism. A large 2022 meta-analysis of 73,752 participants found a corrected correlation of ρ = −0.53 between trait mindfulness and neuroticism, making neuroticism the Big Five trait most strongly related to mindfulness in that synthesis (Banfi & Randall, 2022). That is a substantial association. It does not show that meditation causes a person’s Big Five neuroticism to fall.
Intervention research is more encouraging, and also more complicated. A 2025 preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 45 intervention studies, 39 of them randomized controlled trials, with 2,913 participants. It found decreases in neuroticism-related measures during mindfulness-based interventions, but only 10 included studies directly measured neuroticism; the remaining 35 used trait anxiety, worry, or negative affect as proxies. Active comparison treatments also showed substantial change. The most defensible conclusion is therefore that mindfulness-based programs can coincide with meaningful change in negative-emotionality-related measures, while the size, specificity, and mechanism of change in neuroticism itself remain less certain (Almenräder et al., 2025).
This distinction is central because neuroticism is a dimensional personality construct, not an illness. Mindfulness is also not one thing: researchers may mean a momentary state of present-centered awareness, a self-reported dispositional tendency, a meditation practice, or a structured intervention such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) or Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). Evidence about one of these cannot automatically be transferred to the others.
Mindfulness and neuroticism: the short answer
The research supports four conclusions. First, dispositional mindfulness and neuroticism are consistently inversely associated. Second, some randomized and longitudinal studies report lower neuroticism after structured mindfulness training. Third, broader psychotherapy research shows that emotional stability—the opposite pole of neuroticism—can change during intervention, so neuroticism should not be treated as permanently fixed. Fourth, current studies do not establish that mindfulness uniquely lowers neuroticism more than other effective psychological interventions, or that every reduction in anxiety, worry, negative affect, or psychiatric symptoms represents personality-trait change.
A 2024 scoping review identified 49 studies on mindfulness and neuroticism and found that most reported an inverse relationship, while also noting heavy reliance on self-report, substantial heterogeneity, observational designs, and limited active-control and long-term evidence (Angarita-Osorio et al., 2024). The current literature is therefore best read as a converging pattern with important measurement and causal limits.
What neuroticism means in this research
Neuroticism is one of the broad dimensions in the Big Five family of personality models. It describes relatively enduring individual differences in the tendency to experience negative emotions, distress, worry, irritability, self-consciousness, emotional volatility, and sensitivity to threat or frustration. For a full construct overview, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model.
The opposite pole is commonly called emotional stability. Some modern instruments use different labels for closely related domains. The BFI-2, for example, names the broad domain Negative Emotionality and organizes it around Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets. NEO inventories, IPIP measures, and Eysenck instruments operationalize neuroticism differently. A score from one instrument is not numerically interchangeable with a score from another.
High neuroticism by itself is not a psychiatric diagnosis, and a personality score cannot establish an anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, PTSD, ADHD, autism, a personality disorder, or another clinical condition. Neuroticism is associated with mental-health risk at the population level, which is why it is often studied as a transdiagnostic vulnerability. That relationship is covered separately in Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor.
What mindfulness means in this research
Mindfulness research uses the same word for several distinct targets. State mindfulness refers to the quality of awareness at a particular moment. Dispositional or trait mindfulness refers to a relatively stable tendency to attend to present experience in a particular way. Formal mindfulness practice includes exercises such as breath-focused attention, body-scan practice, open monitoring, or other meditation methods. Structured mindfulness-based interventions combine practices with instruction, psychoeducation, group processes, cognitive or behavioral components, and homework.
Two well-known programs illustrate why intervention labels matter. MBSR is a structured stress-reduction program centered on mindfulness practice. MBCT integrates mindfulness practices with elements of cognitive therapy and was developed in a clinical context. When an MBCT trial reports a change in neuroticism, the result cannot be attributed to meditation alone because the intervention is a package.
Self-report instruments also differ. The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) separates observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience. Other scales, including the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), emphasize different aspects. A “mindfulness score” therefore has meaning only in relation to the instrument, scoring method, population, and assessment context.
How strong is the mindfulness–neuroticism relationship?
The most informative quantitative estimate currently comes from Banfi and Randall’s meta-analysis. Across 280 effects and 73,752 participants, trait mindfulness correlated −0.53 with neuroticism, −0.50 with trait anxiety, and +0.42 with conscientiousness after correction. The Big Five together explained substantial variance in trait mindfulness. This means that the constructs overlap strongly at the level of individual differences, especially for negative emotionality, while remaining distinguishable in theory and measurement (Banfi & Randall, 2022).
Earlier work pointed in the same direction. Giluk’s meta-analysis found neuroticism among the strongest personality correlates of mindfulness (Giluk, 2009). The 2024 scoping review likewise found a broadly consistent inverse pattern across populations and measures (Angarita-Osorio et al., 2024).
Recent observational research continues to reproduce the association. A 2026 U.S. adult lifespan study of 129 adults found that dispositional mindfulness and neuroticism each contributed statistically to age differences in emotional well-being. Because that study was cross-sectional, it is useful for contemporary association evidence but cannot show that mindfulness causes neuroticism to decline or that lower neuroticism causes greater mindfulness (Lin et al., 2026).
Why correlation is not the same as personality change
Three causal stories are compatible with a negative correlation between mindfulness and neuroticism. Greater mindfulness could contribute to lower neuroticism over time. Lower neuroticism could make mindful attention, nonjudgment, or nonreactivity easier to report and sustain. Both could also be influenced by shared factors such as current distress, emotion-regulation habits, treatment participation, response style, or life circumstances. Cross-sectional data alone cannot separate these pathways.
The overlap is also partly psychometric. Many mindfulness items ask whether a person can notice thoughts and emotions without becoming absorbed, reactive, self-critical, or avoidant. Neuroticism and related scales ask about worry, emotional volatility, negative affect, stress sensitivity, or distress. A person whose distress improves may answer both families of items differently even if the underlying constructs are not identical. This is one reason modern reviews caution against treating self-reported trait mindfulness as a completely independent psychological quantity.
Randomized trials of mindfulness measurement support this caution. A meta-analysis of 69 published studies representing 55 unique samples and 4,743 participants found that self-reported mindfulness improved more after mindfulness interventions than after waitlist controls, but the advantage over bona fide active treatments was smaller at post-treatment and was not significant at follow-up. The authors concluded that the construct validity evidence for self-report mindfulness measures was partial rather than definitive (Goldberg et al., 2019). An earlier active-control trial similarly found that FFMQ facets could increase in a non-mindfulness health-enhancement program, raising discriminant-validity questions (Goldberg et al., 2016).
Can mindfulness practice actually reduce neuroticism?
There is evidence that structured mindfulness training can be followed by lower scores on direct neuroticism measures. The evidence is strongest when a study uses a randomized design, a validated personality instrument, an appropriate control group, and follow-up long enough to separate a durable trait shift from a short-lived state change. Even then, replication across populations and interventions matters.
A pilot randomized MBCT study in people selected for high neuroticism
Armstrong and Rimes randomized 34 participants with high neuroticism to a modified MBCT program or an online self-help intervention. Four weeks after the intervention, the MBCT group reported significantly lower neuroticism than the comparison group, along with lower rumination and greater self-compassion and decentering. In the MBCT group, increases in self-compassion and decentering correlated with reductions in neuroticism (Armstrong & Rimes, 2016).
This study is important because it directly targeted neuroticism and used random assignment. It is also a pilot trial with only 17 participants in each arm and a short follow-up. It supports feasibility and a possible effect; it does not establish a population-wide treatment effect or prove which MBCT component caused the personality change.
A six-year randomized follow-up in medical and psychology students
One of the most striking long-term findings comes from a Norwegian randomized study. A seven-week modified mindfulness program was compared with no intervention in 288 medical and psychology students. Over six years, the mindfulness-training group showed lower neuroticism and psychological distress trajectories, and decreases in neuroticism were associated with lower distress at follow-up (Hanley et al., 2019).
The long follow-up strengthens the claim that observed differences were not merely a post-session mood effect. Still, the study involved a specific student population, used a modified training program, and compared the intervention with no intervention rather than a structurally matched active treatment. Expectancy, group contact, self-selection into follow-up, and other nonspecific processes remain relevant when interpreting mechanism and specificity.
MBCT and long-term personality change in recurrent depression
Spinhoven and colleagues analyzed 278 people with recurrent depression in remission who were allocated to MBCT in the MOMENT study. Mindfulness skills were assessed with the FFMQ and personality with the NEO-PI-R. Among 138 participants with complete repeated assessments, greater improvement in mindfulness skills predicted lower neuroticism at 15-month follow-up, even after accounting for antidepressant maintenance use, baseline depression severity, and change in depression severity (Spinhoven et al., 2017).
The finding is compatible with a relationship between improved mindfulness skills and later personality change. For this specific analysis, however, all included participants received MBCT and only about half had complete repeated data. The design therefore cannot by itself establish that MBCT caused the neuroticism change or that mindfulness-skill change was the causal mechanism.
Smaller intervention studies point in the same direction
Other trials have reported lower neuroticism after mindfulness training, including a study of female schoolteachers in which a mindfulness-oriented meditation group showed lower neuroticism, stress, and burnout than a waiting-list group (Fabbro et al., 2020). Such studies add convergence, although small and specialized samples limit how broadly the results can be generalized.
What the 2025 meta-analysis changes
The 2025 preregistered meta-analysis by Almenräder and colleagues is crucial because it places individual positive trials into a larger intervention framework. Across 45 studies and 2,913 participants, the authors examined changes in neuroticism or neuroticism-related proxy measures alongside changes in self-reported trait mindfulness and mental health. Thirty-nine studies were randomized trials.
The headline result requires careful reading. Only 10 studies directly measured neuroticism. The other 35 measured trait anxiety, worry, negative affect, or combinations of these and treated them as proxies because direct neuroticism data were sparse. Those constructs overlap with neuroticism, but they are not interchangeable. A decline in Penn State Worry Questionnaire scores or State-Trait Anxiety Inventory trait-anxiety scores is not automatically a decline in a Big Five neuroticism score.
The pooled within-arm change estimate for neuroticism or its proxies was d = 0.67 across mindfulness-based intervention arms. Yet active control treatments showed a similar pooled change estimate of d = 0.62, while treatment-as-usual and waitlist arms combined showed d = 0.25 (Almenräder et al., 2025). This pattern matters: improvement in negative-emotionality-related measures was not unique to mindfulness interventions.
The meta-analysis also reported between-study mediation patterns linking change in neuroticism, trait mindfulness, and mental health. Between-study mediation does not demonstrate that an individual person first becomes less neurotic, then more mindful, and then mentally healthier. It identifies covariance among study-level changes. The authors themselves emphasize measurement overlap and the need to sharpen the distinction between trait mindfulness and established personality constructs.
Mindfulness may change processes associated with neuroticism without changing the whole trait
Neuroticism is broad. A practice can alter one process associated with the trait while leaving the person’s overall rank relative to peers largely unchanged. For example, someone may become better at noticing worry without immediately elaborating it, recover faster after a stressful interaction, or respond less judgmentally to bodily tension. These changes can be psychologically meaningful even if a broad personality inventory changes only modestly.
This process-level view fits evidence on neuroticism and emotion regulation. Higher neuroticism is associated with greater negative emotional reactivity and with characteristic differences in regulation strategies, but no single regulation strategy defines the trait. Mindfulness practice may train attention, acceptance, nonreactivity, or decentering—processes that can influence how negative emotion unfolds.
It also fits research on neuroticism and stress. Higher neuroticism is associated with greater perceived stress and stronger average negative-affect reactivity. Mindfulness-based programs may reduce perceived stress or modify reactions to stressors. A reduction in stress reactivity can improve daily functioning even when it does not amount to a global personality transformation.
Possible mechanisms: what is plausible and what is proven
Several mechanisms are plausible. Mindful attention may make early signs of emotional escalation easier to notice. Nonjudgment may reduce secondary self-criticism about having an unpleasant emotion. Nonreactivity may create more time between an internal event and an habitual response. Decentering may weaken the sense that a distressing thought is an objective fact. Repeated practice may also change the situations people enter, the coping strategies they choose, and the meaning they assign to stressors.
These ideas are supported by associations, small mediation analyses, and experimental work, but the causal chain is not settled. In the Armstrong and Rimes pilot trial, gains in self-compassion and decentering correlated with reductions in neuroticism. That makes them candidates for mechanism, not demonstrated mediators. The broader mindfulness literature also contains substantial heterogeneity in definitions, practices, control conditions, teacher expertise, dose, adherence, and measurement, which makes simple mechanistic claims premature (Van Dam et al., 2018).
Which mindfulness facets are most related to neuroticism?
Facet-level studies suggest that the relationship is not evenly distributed across every aspect of mindfulness. Nonjudging, nonreactivity, and acting with awareness often show particularly relevant associations with negative emotionality. In a study of 211 adults, different mindfulness facets were differentially related to aspects of neuroticism and psychological well-being, illustrating that a total mindfulness score can hide important structure (Iani et al., 2017).
This is another reason not to say that a person is simply “more mindful” or “less neurotic” based on one total score. An intervention might improve nonreactivity while producing little change in observing. A person might score high on awareness but still experience frequent anxiety or emotional volatility. Facet-level findings can guide hypotheses, but they are not clinical diagnoses.
Does high neuroticism make mindfulness work better or worse?
There is no universal answer. In a randomized trial of 288 medical and psychology students, higher baseline neuroticism was associated with larger intervention benefits for some outcomes, including mental distress and subjective well-being (de Vibe et al., 2015). That result suggests that people with greater negative-emotionality vulnerability may sometimes have more room to benefit from structured mindfulness training.
A moderation effect on distress is not the same as evidence that high neuroticism is an indication for mindfulness treatment, and it does not mean mindfulness is always easier or more effective for people high in neuroticism. Baseline distress, motivation, expectations, practice adherence, comorbid symptoms, intervention quality, and context can all influence outcomes. Current research does not support a simple personality rule such as “mindfulness works best for neurotic people.”
Trait change, state fluctuation, and symptom relief are different outcomes
A central problem in this literature is that personality, states, and symptoms can move together. Neuroticism refers to a relatively enduring trait. State anxiety is temporary. Trait anxiety is an enduring anxiety propensity measured by an anxiety instrument. Negative affect can be measured as a momentary state or a trait-like tendency. Worry is a cognitive process. Depressive and anxiety symptoms belong to symptom domains. None of these is automatically equivalent to neuroticism.
Suppose a participant enters an eight-week program during a highly stressful period and later reports less worry, lower anxiety, better sleep, and lower neuroticism. Several interpretations are possible. A genuine personality change may have occurred. Reduced symptoms may have altered responses to neuroticism items. Regression toward the mean may contribute. The stressful episode may have resolved. Practice may have changed appraisal or regulation without changing the entire trait. Strong research designs try to distinguish these possibilities with control groups, repeated assessment, long follow-up, direct personality measures, and analysis of measurement properties.
Measurement matters more than the phrase “high neuroticism” suggests
A neuroticism score must be interpreted within its instrument. The NEO PI-R has a broad Neuroticism domain with six facets and its own normative framework. The NEO-FFI uses a shorter domain measure. The BFI-2 uses the label Negative Emotionality and three facets. IPIP instruments vary in length and item content. Eysenck measures are based on a related but different personality model. Raw scores, standardized scores, percentiles, and cut points cannot be transferred automatically between instruments.
The same rule applies to intervention studies. If a paper reports change on the NEO-PI-R, it has directly measured a neuroticism construct. If it reports change on the STAI trait-anxiety scale, the outcome is trait anxiety. If it reports worry on the PSWQ or negative affect on the PANAS, those are related constructs. The 2025 meta-analysis explicitly pooled many such proxies because the direct neuroticism literature was too small. Readers should keep that limitation visible rather than mentally converting every proxy into a Big Five score.
For a fuller explanation of instrument-specific interpretation, see Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results. A percentile or “high score” is meaningful only with the scale, scoring direction, normative sample, and population specified.
Can mindfulness “treat” or “cure” neuroticism?
Neuroticism is not a disease, so cure language is conceptually wrong. A person does not need treatment simply because a Big Five measure places them high on neuroticism. Clinical care is based on symptoms, distress, functional impairment, safety, goals, context, and diagnosis where appropriate.
Psychological interventions can nevertheless change personality-trait measures. A major systematic review of 207 intervention studies found average personality-trait change of about d = 0.37 over roughly 24 weeks, with emotional stability showing the largest domain-level change. Changes persisted beyond treatment in follow-up studies, and the amount of change was not strongly tied to one specific therapy type (Roberts et al., 2017). This broader literature makes neuroticism malleability plausible while arguing against the idea that mindfulness has a special monopoly on personality change.
When someone has an anxiety disorder, major depression, OCD, PTSD, or another condition, the treatment question belongs to the evidence base for that condition. Mindfulness may be used as a component or adjunct in some contexts, but improvement in a clinical disorder and change in neuroticism are separate outcomes. An article about mindfulness and neuroticism cannot substitute for diagnosis- or disorder-specific guidance.
What mindfulness-based programs can reasonably aim to change
For a person who chooses mindfulness practice, a useful target is not “becoming a different personality.” More concrete targets are noticing emotional activation earlier, reducing automatic elaboration of worry, increasing tolerance of unpleasant internal experience, improving attentional control, responding less judgmentally to thoughts and feelings, recovering more effectively after stress, or choosing actions that fit long-term goals.
Some of these changes may eventually be reflected in lower neuroticism scores. Others may improve quality of life without moving a broad trait measure much. That distinction matters because broad personality scales are designed to summarize tendencies across many situations; they are not optimized as week-to-week treatment dashboards.
How long would personality change take?
There is no validated timetable for lowering neuroticism through mindfulness. Studies range from brief programs with post-treatment assessments to long-term follow-up over months or years. Short-term changes can reflect practice effects, expectancy, symptom relief, or state change. Evidence becomes more persuasive as a trait-change claim when differences persist, appear on direct neuroticism measures, replicate across assessments, and survive comparison with an active control.
The six-year Norwegian follow-up shows that durable differences are possible in at least one randomized cohort, while the 15-month MBCT study shows that mindfulness-skill improvement can predict later neuroticism differences in a recurrent-depression sample. Neither study yields a universal number of weeks after which neuroticism “changes.”
What the newest evidence adds—and what it does not
The literature has become more sophisticated in two ways. First, recent reviews separate direct neuroticism measures from nearby constructs rather than assuming that worry, anxiety, negative affect, and neuroticism are the same. Second, newer work treats mindfulness measurement itself as a scientific problem rather than a transparent window into an inner trait.
The 2025 personality-change meta-analysis is especially important because it shows that the apparent story “mindfulness increases, neuroticism decreases, mental health improves” can also be observed in non-mindfulness active treatments. The 2026 lifespan study adds fresh evidence that mindfulness and neuroticism make distinct statistical contributions to emotional well-being, but because it is observational it does not resolve the intervention question (Almenräder et al., 2025; Lin et al., 2026).
What research still needs to establish
The next generation of studies needs larger preregistered randomized trials that measure neuroticism directly with validated personality instruments, use credible active comparison conditions, follow participants long enough to test persistence, and report adherence and intervention integrity. Repeated state measures can help separate daily emotional fluctuation from trait change. Informant reports or behavioral indicators can reduce exclusive reliance on self-report.
Researchers also need to test measurement invariance: whether the same neuroticism and mindfulness items mean the same thing before and after training. If mindfulness practice changes how a person understands words such as “aware,” “reactive,” or “judgmental,” questionnaire scores can shift partly because the respondent’s frame of reference changed. This is scientifically interesting, but it complicates interpretation.
Finally, mechanisms should be tested within individuals rather than inferred from correlations between study-level averages. If decentering is proposed as a mechanism, a strong design should show that intervention changes decentering, that those changes temporally precede and predict later neuroticism change, and that the relationship remains when alternative mechanisms and symptom change are considered.
Practical interpretation
For someone who scores high on neuroticism and is interested in mindfulness, the evidence supports a realistic goal: mindfulness practice may help change how distressing thoughts, emotions, and stressors are noticed and handled, and structured programs may sometimes be followed by lower neuroticism scores. The evidence does not support promising a cure, a guaranteed personality transformation, or a particular score reduction.
It is more informative to track concrete outcomes such as rumination, perceived stress, emotional recovery, sleep, daily functioning, relationship behavior, and the severity of any specific symptoms. If distress is persistent, severe, or impairing, clinical assessment should focus on the symptoms and possible disorder rather than on a personality label.
Frequently asked questions
Are mindful people less neurotic?
On average, yes in self-report research: dispositional mindfulness and neuroticism show a substantial inverse association. The 2022 meta-analysis estimated a corrected correlation of −0.53. That association does not mean every mindful person is low in neuroticism or that mindfulness caused the personality difference.
Can meditation lower neuroticism?
Some randomized and longitudinal studies report lower neuroticism after structured mindfulness training, including a small MBCT pilot and a six-year randomized follow-up. The broader meta-analytic evidence is promising but complicated by proxy outcomes and improvements in active control treatments. “Can” is supported; “reliably and specifically does so for everyone” is not.
Is mindfulness just the opposite of neuroticism?
No. The constructs overlap strongly in self-report data, especially around reactivity, distress, nonjudgment, and emotional regulation, but they are defined and measured differently. Mindfulness includes attentional and awareness-related processes that are not simply reverse-scored neuroticism, while current measures may share enough content to blur their empirical separation.
Is low neuroticism the same as emotional stability?
In Big Five terminology, emotional stability usually refers to the opposite pole of neuroticism. That does not make emotional stability a diagnosis or a treatment outcome by default; it is a personality dimension.
Does MBCT reduce neuroticism?
A pilot randomized study in people selected for high neuroticism found lower post-treatment neuroticism after modified MBCT than after online self-help. A separate MBCT study in recurrent depression found that improved mindfulness skills predicted lower neuroticism 15 months later. These are supportive findings, but larger direct-replication trials are still needed.
Does MBSR reduce neuroticism?
Some MBSR or MBSR-derived studies report reductions in neuroticism, including long-term follow-up evidence. Effects depend on the specific program, population, control condition, and instrument. MBSR evidence should not be generalized to every meditation app, brief exercise, or informal mindfulness practice.
Does a lower anxiety or worry score mean neuroticism changed?
No. Trait anxiety and worry are related to neuroticism but are distinct constructs measured by different instruments. This is particularly important in the mindfulness literature because many intervention studies used anxiety, worry, or negative affect as proxies for neuroticism.
Can a mindfulness or neuroticism test diagnose a mental disorder?
No. Self-report personality and mindfulness scales measure constructs defined by their instruments. They do not diagnose anxiety disorders, depression, OCD, PTSD, personality disorders, or other clinical conditions.
Does high neuroticism mean mindfulness is especially suitable for me?
Not automatically. One randomized student study found larger benefits on some well-being and distress outcomes among people higher in neuroticism, but moderation results are not universal treatment-selection rules. Choice of intervention should depend on goals, symptoms, preferences, access, and clinical context when relevant.
Related Articles
References
Almenräder, F., Heßmann, G. S., Voracek, M., & Tran, U. S. (2025). Personality change through mindfulness-based interventions: A preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 39(4), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241289160
Angarita-Osorio, N., Escorihuela, R. M., & Cañete, T. (2024). The relationship between neuroticism as a personality trait and mindfulness skills: a scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1401969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1401969
Armstrong, L., & Rimes, K. A. (2016). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Neuroticism (Stress Vulnerability): A Pilot Randomized Study. Behavior Therapy, 47(3), 287–298. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27157024/
Banfi, J. T., & Randall, J. G. (2022). A meta-analysis of trait mindfulness: Relationships with the Big Five personality traits, intelligence, and anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 101, 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104307
de Vibe, M., Solhaug, I., Tyssen, R., Friborg, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., Sørlie, T., Halland, E., & Bjørndal, A. (2015). Does Personality Moderate the Effects of Mindfulness Training for Medical and Psychology Students? Mindfulness, 6(2), 281–289. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25798208/
Fabbro, A., Fabbro, F., Capurso, V., D’Antoni, F., & Crescentini, C. (2020). Effects of Mindfulness Training on School Teachers’ Self-Reported Personality Traits As Well As Stress and Burnout Levels. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 127(3), 515–532. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32122249/
Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.026
Goldberg, S. B., Tucker, R. P., Greene, P. A., Simpson, T. L., Hoyt, W. T., Kearney, D. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2019). What can we learn from randomized clinical trials about the construct validity of self-report measures of mindfulness? A meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 10(5), 775–785. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31263511/
Goldberg, S. B., Wielgosz, J., Dahl, C., Schuyler, B., MacCoon, D. S., Rosenkranz, M., Lutz, A., Sebranek, C. A., & Davidson, R. J. (2016). Does the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire measure what we think it does? Construct validity evidence from an active controlled randomized clinical trial. Psychological Assessment, 28(8), 1009–1014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26460893/
Hanley, A. W., de Vibe, M., Solhaug, I., Gonzalez-Pons, K., & Garland, E. L. (2019). Mindfulness training reduces neuroticism over a 6-year longitudinal randomized control trial in Norwegian medical and psychology students. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103859
Iani, L., Lauriola, M., Cafaro, V., & Didonna, F. (2017). Dimensions of mindfulness and their relations with psychological well-being and neuroticism. Mindfulness, 8, 664–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0645-2
Lin, M., Ramírez-Esparza, N., & Shook, N. J. (2026). Dispositional mindfulness and neuroticism are associated with age differences in emotional well-being in a U.S. adult lifespan sample. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-66024-z
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117–141. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28054797/
Spinhoven, P., Huijbers, M. J., Ormel, J., & Speckens, A. E. M. (2017). Improvement of mindfulness skills during Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy predicts long-term reductions of neuroticism in persons with recurrent depression in remission. Journal of Affective Disorders, 213, 112–117. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28213122/
Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., et al. (2018). Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29016274/