Research indicates complex relationships between personality traits and perceived stress. The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality includes five dimensions: neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience (Costa and McCrae, 1992; John and Srivastava, 1999; Soto and Jackson, 2013). These traits play a crucial role in how individuals perceive and cope with stress (McCrae and Costa, 1999). Neuroticism, associated with emotional instability and anxiety, is a consistent predictor of stress (Afshar et al., 2015; Kendler et al., 2006; Lahey, 2009; Ormel et al., 2013). Individuals with high neuroticism often experience higher stress levels and engage in maladaptive coping strategies like avoidance and rumination, which can exacerbate stress (Yoon et al., 2013). In contrast, agreeableness, which involves kindness and cooperation, is linked to lower perceived stress. Those high in agreeableness are more likely to use effective coping strategies, such as seeking social support and problem-solving, to manage stress (Graziano and Eisenberg, 1997; Saksvik and Hetland, 2011).

While neuroticism is generally viewed as a vulnerability factor for stress, other traits within the FFM framework—such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience—are often associated with protective effects that can enhance resilience to stress and promote adaptive coping (Oshio et al., 2018). Conscientiousness, involving self-discipline and goal-directed behavior, offers protection against stress. Individuals with high conscientiousness manage stress effectively through proactive coping and planning (Luo et al., 2023; Roberts et al., 2009). Extraversion, characterized by sociability and assertiveness, is associated with lower stress levels, as extraverts often engage in social activities that buffer against stress (Eysenck, 1990; Watson and Clark, 1997). Openness to experience, marked by a willingness to explore new ideas, contributes to adaptive stress responses through cognitive flexibility and creativity in problem-solving (DeYoung, 2015; McCrae, 1996).

Neuroticism is consistently identified as a vulnerability factor for high stress across various contexts (Kendler et al., 2006; Luo et al., 2023; Piekarska, 2020). In contrast, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness are generally linked to lower stress and more effective stress management (Baumann and Kuhl, 2005; Judge et al., 2002; Yan et al., 2024).

The protective nature of agreeableness is evident in its association with supportive social interactions and conflict resolution strategies that buffer against stress (Graziano and Eisenberg, 1997; Luo et al., 2023; McCrae and Sutin, 2009). Conscientious individuals often use proactive coping methods like time management and goal setting to mitigate stress (Roberts et al., 2009). Extraversion contributes to stress resilience through social engagement and positive affect, enhancing overall well-being (Sarubin et al., 2015; Watson and Clark, 1997). Openness fosters adaptive coping through cognitive flexibility and a readiness to explore alternative solutions (McCrae, 1996; Parker et al., 2015).

The relationship between personality traits and stress has been extensively studied, with research highlighting both protective and risk-enhancing roles that different traits play in stress responses (Connor-Smith and Flachsbart, 2007; Lecic-Tosevski et al., 2011; Luo et al., 2023). Neuroticism consistently emerges as a significant risk factor, closely tied to heightened emotional reactivity and tendencies toward negative affect and maladaptive coping strategies (Gashi et al., 2023; Leger et al., 2016). This trait predisposes individuals to experience greater stress, especially in situations perceived as challenging or uncontrollable, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, where neuroticism was linked to increased emotional distress and reliance on passive coping (Afshar et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2021). These findings underscore neuroticism’s role in amplifying stress responses and hindering effective coping (Byrne et al., 2015; Gashi et al., 2023).

Conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience, on the other hand, generally exhibit protective qualities against stress, promoting resilience and adaptive coping (Mammadov et al., 2024; Oshio et al., 2018). These traits are often associated with constructive stress management strategies, such as goal-directed behaviors, flexibility, and social engagement (Oshio et al., 2018; Hengartner et al., 2017). For instance, in academic and emergency settings, individuals high in conscientiousness and extraversion tend to demonstrate lower stress levels and more effective coping techniques, as they leverage planning, social support, and structured problem-solving to manage stress (Pollak et al., 2020; Saksvik and Hetland, 2011). Similarly, openness to experience, which fosters curiosity and cognitive flexibility, contributes to adaptive stress responses, enhancing resilience in dynamic or demanding contexts (Oshio et al., 2018).

Research further emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in shaping how personality traits influence stress perceptions and coping. In workplace and educational settings, traits like conscientiousness may interact with environmental demands, either buffering or intensifying stress responses depending on the context (Pollak et al., 2020). For example, conscientiousness promotes effective stress management in structured academic tasks requiring persistence and organization (Zhou et al., 2017). Conversely, neuroticism’s association with heightened stress can be particularly pronounced in high-pressure scenarios, where individuals may struggle with decision-making under stress, as observed by Byrne et al. (2015).

In summary, the Big Five personality traits influence stress management and coping differentially, depending on both the trait itself and the specific environmental context. Neuroticism heightens vulnerability to stress and maladaptive coping, while traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness foster resilience and adaptive strategies. These insights highlight the necessity of developing stress management interventions that consider both individual personality profiles and situational demands to bolster stress resilience effectively.

Mindfulness, with origins in ancient Buddhist practices, has gained prominence in psychological research for its role in improving mental health and well-being (Goldberg et al., 2018; Hathaisaard et al., 2022). As defined by Kabat-Zinn (2003), mindfulness involves purposeful and nonjudgmental attention to the present moment. It includes facets such as observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging, and non-reactivity (Baer et al., 2006; Zoogman et al., 2015). Observing involves noticing internal and external experiences like thoughts and sensations, while describing involves putting these experiences into words. Acting with awareness contrasts with automatic behavior, emphasizing focused engagement in activities. Non-judging involves adopting a neutral stance toward thoughts and feelings, and non-reactivity means allowing experiences to pass without being carried away by them (Baer et al., 2006; Bishop et al., 2004; Khoury et al., 2015).

Mindfulness practices aid in stress reduction and emotional regulation by fostering awareness and acceptance of the present moment (Fazia et al., 2020; Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Williams and Kabat-Zinn, 2013). By promoting observation of thoughts and emotions without judgment, mindfulness helps lessen the impact of stressors and encourages adaptive coping (Chiesa and Serretti, 2009; Sharma and Rush, 2014). Techniques like mindful breathing, body scans, and mindful movement (e.g., yoga) help individuals stay grounded during stressful situations (Rogers and Maytan, 2019; Zeidan et al., 2010). These practices may reduce physiological stress by lowering cortisol levels and enhancing parasympathetic nervous system activity (Pascoe et al., 2017). Mindfulness also plays a key role in emotional regulation by increasing awareness of emotional triggers and habitual reactions, allowing for more thoughtful responses rather than impulsive reactions (Guendelman et al., 2017; Hölzel et al., 2011; Teper et al., 2013; Zhang and Fathi, 2024). This process involves recognizing and accepting emotions as they arise, which can prevent the escalation of negative feelings and reduce the frequency of stress-related responses (Garland et al., 2017; Mohammad Hosseini et al., 2024).

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), particularly mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), are widely recognized for their effectiveness in managing stress and enhancing psychological well-being (Zhang et al., 2021). Developed by Kabat-Zinn (1990), MBSR integrates meditation, body scanning, and yoga as structured techniques for alleviating stress, anxiety, and pain (Grossman et al., 2004). Studies consistently show that MBSR reduces perceived stress, anxiety, and depression while enhancing overall mental health through cognitive flexibility and diminished negative thought patterns (Chiesa and Serretti, 2009; De Vibe et al., 2013; Fathi et al., 2023). Neuroimaging research further supports the impact of mindfulness on the brain, linking MBSR with changes in regions associated with attention, emotional regulation, and self-referential processing, including the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and insula, which contribute to heightened resilience and emotional stability (Hölzel et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2015). Meta-analyses confirm MBSR’s broad applicability, showing it to be effective across clinical, educational, and occupational settings for reducing burnout, enhancing well-being, and supporting productivity (De Vibe et al., 2012; Grossman et al., 2004).

In healthcare settings, where professionals often face high stress and burnout, MBSR has demonstrated particular benefits. Studies indicate that MBSR significantly enhances mental health and lowers stress among healthcare providers, underscoring its relevance in demanding work environments (Bamber and Schneider, 2016; Irving et al., 2009). A systematic review by Kriakous et al. (2021) highlighted MBSR’s positive impact on healthcare workers by significantly improving psychological functioning and reducing symptoms of stress, anxiety, and burnout. The COVID-19 pandemic further illustrated MBSR’s utility; Marotta et al. (2022) found that MBSR effectively mitigated stress and burnout among Italian healthcare workers, suggesting it could enhance resilience during crises. Other research similarly supports MBSR’s role in preventing burnout and promoting well-being in high-stress professions, demonstrating its value as a mental health intervention for healthcare and related occupations (Molek-Winiarska and Żołnierczyk-Zreda, 2018; Zhang et al., 2024).

Beyond healthcare, MBSR has shown significant benefits in nonclinical settings, extending to students and athletes. Querstret et al. (2020) found in their meta-analysis that MBSR and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) enhance psychological health and well-being in general populations, supporting the broader applicability of mindfulness interventions. In athletic contexts, MBSR also contributes to mental resilience. For example, Jones et al. (2020) observed that MBSR improved psychological well-being, sleep quality, and performance among female collegiate rowers, suggesting its value in high-performance and physically demanding environments.

The reach of MBSR has been further extended through digital platforms, making mindfulness interventions more accessible (Sanilevici et al., 2021). Recent studies confirm the effectiveness of internet-based MBSR programs, especially in circumstances where in-person sessions are challenging, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Zhang et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis showed that online mindfulness interventions significantly reduced stress levels, suggesting that digital formats are scalable options for diverse populations. Sanilevici et al. (2021) also demonstrated the adaptability of MBSR to online formats, finding that a synchronous online MBSR program improved mental well-being and emotion regulation during the pandemic’s early stages. Likewise, research by Beer et al. (2020) and Yang et al. (2018) confirmed that mobile and online MBSR interventions reduced stress and enhanced health outcomes across various settings, emphasizing the flexibility of digital mindfulness approaches for stress management.

Taken together, these findings highlight MBSR as a highly effective, versatile intervention for stress management, capable of adapting to different populations and contexts. Its success across diverse settings and delivery methods reinforces its value as an accessible, adaptable approach to resilience-building, well-being enhancement, and stress reduction.

Moderation involves a third variable that influences the strength or direction of the relationship between two variables. In this study, we hypothesize that mindfulness can modify the effect of personality traits on stress, potentially buffering the negative impact of traits like neuroticism. People high in neuroticism often experience higher stress levels due to tendencies toward negative emotions and poor stress management (Lahey, 2009; Metts et al., 2021). Mindfulness practices can reduce this effect by promoting better emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility (Garland et al., 2017). Feltman et al. (2009) found that mindfulness moderated the relationship between neuroticism and stress; individuals high in neuroticism reported lower stress levels when they had developed mindfulness skills.

Mindfulness can also enhance the positive effects of traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness (Banfi and Randall, 2022; Winning and Boag, 2015). Conscientious individuals already use effective coping strategies and self-regulation (Roberts et al., 2009), but mindfulness can further improve their focus on the present moment and self-discipline, reducing stress (Shapiro et al., 2006). Those high in agreeableness, who often use social support to cope, may find that mindfulness practices enhance their ability to engage empathetically and maintain harmonious relationships, thereby reducing stress (Baer et al., 2006; Graziano and Eisenberg, 1997; Nelson, 2014; Özer, 2022).

In addition, we propose that mindfulness may serve as a mediator in the relationship between personality traits and stress, explaining how personality traits influence stress levels. Mindfulness could mediate the impact of personality on stress by fostering adaptive coping mechanisms and enhancing emotional resilience (Hölzel et al., 2011; Keng et al., 2011). Neuroticism, for example, is often linked to heightened stress due to emotional instability (Ormel et al., 2013). Mindfulness may help mitigate this by enabling individuals to observe their thoughts and emotions without judgment, reducing stress escalation (Brown and Ryan, 2003). Bränström et al. (2011) found that mindfulness mediated the relationship between neuroticism and psychological distress, suggesting that mindfulness practices could help neurotic individuals manage stress more effectively.

Mindfulness can also mediate the relationship between other personality traits and stress. For example, extraverted individuals often experience lower stress due to their positive outlook and social engagement (Harris et al., 2017; Watson and Clark, 1997). Mindfulness can enhance these benefits by fostering present-moment awareness and reducing ruminative thinking, further decreasing stress (Tang et al., 2015; Zeidan et al., 2010). Ciesla et al. (2012) found that mindfulness mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and stress, indicating that mindfulness practices help conscientious individuals manage tasks with less stress. Similarly, Bowlin and Baer (2012) showed that mindfulness mediated the relationship between agreeableness and stress, highlighting how mindfulness enhances the stress-buffering effects of social support and empathy.

In summary, this study hypothesizes that mindfulness may both moderate and mediate the relationship between personality traits and perceived stress. By enhancing emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and present-moment awareness, mindfulness could buffer the adverse effects of neuroticism and reinforce the positive influences of traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness. This dual role of mindfulness—moderating stress vulnerability and mediating stress-reducing processes—suggests that mindfulness-based interventions may improve resilience and well-being across different personality profiles.

Although research on personality traits, mindfulness, and stress is extensive, gaps remain in understanding their combined effects. The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality is widely recognized for its role in predicting stress responses. Research suggests that mindfulness practices can reduce stress and improve emotional regulation (Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Grossman et al., 2004). However, it remains unclear how specific facets of mindfulness, such as mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance, may interact uniquely with different personality traits to influence perceived stress (Baer et al., 2006; Hölzel et al., 2011).

Most studies have examined personality traits and mindfulness separately rather than exploring their potential synergistic effects (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Garland et al., 2017). Furthermore, while some research has looked at the moderating role of mindfulness in the relationship between personality traits and stress, comprehensive studies examining both the moderating and mediating roles of specific mindfulness facets are scarce (Bränström et al., 2011; Feltman et al., 2009). This lack of exploration limits our understanding of how mindfulness can affect the stress process in more nuanced ways.

This study addresses these gaps by investigating the independent, moderating, and mediating roles of mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance in the relationships between FFM personality traits and perceived stress. Mindfulness-attention involves maintaining focus on present experiences, while mindfulness-acceptance refers to an open, non-judgmental attitude toward these experiences (Bishop et al., 2004; Cavanagh et al., 2014; Garland and 2017).

Focusing on these specific facets allows for a more detailed understanding of how mindfulness influences stress. The study will explore how mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance individually contribute to reducing perceived stress. It will also examine whether these mindfulness facets modify the relationship between personality traits and stress, potentially buffering negative effects associated with traits like neuroticism (Garland et al., 2017; Shapiro et al., 2006). Finally, it will investigate whether mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance explain how personality traits influence stress, offering insights into underlying mechanisms (Hölzel et al., 2011; Keng et al., 2011).

The study aims to integrate perspectives on personality and mindfulness to provide a more comprehensive understanding of stress management. The findings could guide the development of targeted mindfulness-based interventions tailored to individual personality profiles, potentially enhancing their effectiveness in reducing stress and improving well-being (Ciesla et al., 2012; Khoury et al., 2015).

To guide this exploration, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling methods. Convenience sampling involved sharing study information through online platforms (e.g., social media, online forums, university websites) and offline methods (e.g., flyers in community centers, libraries, and university campuses). Snowball sampling encouraged participants to share the study information with their networks. Inclusion criteria were: (a) ages 18 to 65, (b) fluency in Mandarin Chinese, and (c) ability to complete an online survey. Exclusion criteria were: (a) a history of severe mental health conditions (e.g., psychosis, bipolar disorder) and (b) current participation in a psychological intervention. Out of 850 individuals who showed interest, 637 met the criteria and completed the survey, resulting in a 75% response rate.

The final sample included 412 females (64.7%) and 225 males (35.3%), with an average age of 38.5 years (SD = 11.8). Efforts were made to ensure diversity in educational background, employment status, marital status, income, and geographic location within China.

After the quantitative analysis, a purposive sample of 26 participants was selected for the qualitative phase. This selection was based on specific criteria, such as high or low scores on perceived stress, mindfulness, or distinct personality traits. This approach aimed to capture a range of experiences related to the key variables from the quantitative analysis. The qualitative subset was chosen to ensure variation in demographics, including age, gender, and socioeconomic status, offering a more comprehensive understanding of how these factors manifest in daily life and coping strategies.

This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Guizhou University of Finance and Economics. Prior to participation, individuals reviewed a Participant Information Sheet detailing the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw. Informed consent was obtained electronically, and participants were required to answer comprehension questions to ensure understanding. All data were anonymized and stored securely on a password-protected server. No personally identifiable information was collected. Data will be retained for 5 years and then securely destroyed. Participants were informed of the potential use of de-identified data for future research or publication.

Mindfulness was assessed with the Chinese version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire–Short Form (FFMQ-SF; Baer et al., 2006; Deng et al., 2011), a 15-item scale measuring observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging, and non-reactivity. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (never or very rarely true) to 5 (very often or always true). Following prior research (Baer et al., 2006; Hölzel et al., 2011), we focused on two core facets: mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance. Mindfulness-attention was derived from the ‘observing’ and ‘acting with awareness’ subscales, while mindfulness-acceptance combined the ‘non-judging’ and ‘non-reactivity’ subscales. The ‘describing’ subscale was excluded, as it does not align with our study’s focus on attention and acceptance. The mindfulness-attention composite (6 items) showed good internal consistency (α = 0.81), and the mindfulness-acceptance composite (6 items) demonstrated similarly high reliability (α = 0.84). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported construct validity for the five-factor structure (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI [0.04, 0.06], SRMR = 0.05). The overall FFMQ-SF also showed acceptable reliability (α = 0.83), with subscale alphas ranging from 0.76 to 0.85.

Perceived stress was assessed using the Chinese version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10; Cohen et al., 1983; Leung et al., 2010). The scale includes 10 items on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = very often), with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress. The PSS-10 measures perceptions of life as unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded, with items such as feeling unable to control important things and feeling nervous and stressed. The PSS-10 has established reliability and validity, including in Chinese samples (Leung et al., 2010). In this study, CFA indicated a strong model fit (CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.04, 90% CI [0.03, 0.06], SRMR = 0.03), affirming its reliability and validity. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86.

To supplement the quantitative findings, semi-structured interviews were conducted. An interview guide was developed to explore participants’ perceptions and experiences related to personality traits, mindfulness practices, and stress levels. Open-ended questions such as “Can you describe how you typically manage stress in your daily life?” and “How do you incorporate mindfulness into your routine, if at all?” were used to delve into the underlying mechanisms and contexts that could explain the quantitative results. The guide was pilot-tested to ensure clarity and relevance, with minor revisions made based on feedback. Interviews were conducted via video call, lasting 45–60 min, and were audio-recorded with consent for transcription and analysis. These interviews provided detailed insights into how personality and mindfulness influence stress experiences, offering a deeper understanding of the quantitative data.

The study was conducted from August 13 to October 12, 2023, using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. The participants were recruited through online platforms (WeChat, Weibo, mental health websites) and offline methods (flyers and posters in community centers and universities) with support from local mental health organizations. The eligible participants accessed a secure university-hosted survey platform, completed informed consent, and then answered a demographic questionnaire along with three measures: the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-Short Form (FFMQ-SF), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), presented in randomized order. Data security was maintained through encryption and restricted access. Following the quantitative phase, 26 participants participated in video-call interviews exploring stress management, mindfulness practices, and personality’s influence on coping.

Data analysis for the quantitative phase was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28) and Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 4; Hayes, 2013). Preliminary analyses involved data screening to ensure quality and adherence to statistical assumptions. Missing data, which constituted less than 2% for any individual variable and were randomly distributed (Little’s MCAR test, χ² = 25.63, df = 22, p = 0.27), were handled using pairwise deletion to maximize statistical power. This approach is deemed appropriate when the proportion of missing data is small and missingness is not systematically related to study variables (Enders, 2010).

Outliers were identified as cases with standardized z-scores on any continuous variable exceeding ±3.29. These extreme values were winsorized, meaning they were replaced with the next highest or lowest non-outlying value, to mitigate their undue influence on the analyses while preserving valuable data points (Field, 2013). Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and ranges, were calculated for all study variables. Bivariate Pearson correlations were computed to examine the interrelationships between personality traits, mindfulness facets, and perceived stress.

Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were employed to evaluate the independent and combined effects of personality traits and mindfulness on perceived stress. The initial model (Model 1) included the five personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness) as predictors. In the second model (Model 2), mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance were added to assess their incremental contribution to explaining variance in perceived stress beyond personality traits.

To investigate potential moderation effects, Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 1) was used to test the interactions between each personality trait and each mindfulness facet in predicting perceived stress. When significant interactions were detected, simple slopes analyses were performed to probe the effect of the focal predictor (personality trait) on perceived stress at high (+1SD) and low (−1 SD) levels of the moderator (mindfulness facet). The Johnson-Neyman technique was employed to identify regions of significance, indicating the range of moderator values for which the conditional effects of the predictor on the outcome were statistically significant (Preacher et al., 2006). Mediation effects were also explored using PROCESS macro (Model 4) to assess whether mindfulness facets mediated the relationship between personality traits and perceived stress.

The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework to identify key themes and patterns complementing the quantitative findings. Analysis began with a thorough reading of transcripts for data familiarization, which informed the initial coding based on recurring words, phrases, and ideas (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017). Coding combined inductive methods for new insights with deductive approaches guided by themes identified in the quantitative phase (Boyatzis, 1998; Saldaña, 2016).

Following coding, these codes were organized into broader themes, visualized through a thematic map to illustrate their relationships (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Themes were then reviewed and refined, with comparisons made to coded extracts and the entire dataset for coherence and accuracy (Terry et al., 2017). Each theme was clearly defined and named to capture its essence (Clarke and Braun, 2018). NVivo software supported data organization and retrieval, aiding in the generation of a comprehensive report of identified themes (QSR International, 2020). The qualitative findings were integrated with quantitative results to deepen understanding of interactions between personality traits, mindfulness, and perceived stress, providing contextual insights into participants’ experiences (Frost et al., 2019; Vasileiou et al., 2018).

The qualitative phase of the study aimed to provide a deeper understanding of the quantitative findings by exploring participants’ lived experiences and perspectives regarding the relationship between their personality traits, mindfulness practices, and perceived stress. Through thematic analysis, three primary themes emerged from the semi-structured interviews: (1) Personality-Driven Stress Responses, (2) Mindfulness as a Moderating Mechanism, and (3) The Dynamic Interaction between Personality and Mindfulness.

Hypothesis 1, which posited that neuroticism would be positively associated with perceived stress and that conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness would be negatively associated with stress, was partially supported. Neuroticism was a strong predictor of perceived stress, consistent with prior research identifying it as a vulnerability factor (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Lahey, 2009; Ormel et al., 2013). Individuals high in neuroticism are predisposed to negative emotionality and anxiety, which makes them more likely to interpret situations as threatening, thus engaging in maladaptive coping mechanisms that reinforce a cycle of stress (Barlow et al., 2021; Eysenck, 1990; Kendler et al., 2006; Paulus et al., 2016). This pattern was also reflected in the qualitative findings, where participants with high neuroticism reported a persistent sensitivity to daily stressors. For instance, minor setbacks often triggered a cascade of worry, underscoring the association between neuroticism, heightened physiological reactivity, and a chronic sense of unease (Lahey, 2009; Ormel et al., 2013). These insights provide a more nuanced view of how neurotic individuals perceive and experience stress as an almost constant aspect of their lives.

The positive correlation between conscientiousness and perceived stress deviates from some existing literature, necessitating a closer examination of how this trait influences stress perception (Judge et al., 2002; Soto and John, 2017). While conscientiousness is typically linked to effective stress management through proactive coping and organizational skills (Bogg and Roberts, 2004; Roberts et al., 2009), the current findings suggest a more complex relationship. Highly conscientious individuals might experience stress due to perfectionistic tendencies and a propensity for overcommitment (Besser and Shackelford, 2007; Stoeber and Otto, 2006). Qualitative data further clarified this dynamic, indicating that while conscientious participants used their organizational skills as a stress management strategy, they also felt significant internal pressure. The desire for perfection and the struggle to meet high personal standards contributed to their stress, particularly when time and resources were limited (Hill et al., 2010; Rice and Richardson, 2014). This pattern aligns with findings from Lin et al. (2015), who describe conscientiousness as a “double-edged sword” that can enhance both performance and stress reactions in high-stress contexts. Such results highlight that conscientiousness may heighten stress responses, particularly in individuals driven by achievement-oriented perfectionism, thereby intensifying the stress reaction when facing pressure or deadlines.

This nuanced view of conscientiousness and stress aligns with Murphy et al. (2013), who found that conscientiousness, while generally protective, could increase stress reactivity when individuals experience high levels of interpersonal stress. Furthermore, the work by Chen et al. (2022) suggests that conscientious individuals often benefit from a “stress-is-a-challenge” mindset that promotes adaptive coping; however, when they perceive stress as a threat, this mindset may fail, potentially leading to increased stress perception in perfectionistic or high-demand settings.

The absence of significant findings for extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience suggests the need for further investigation. Extraversion is generally associated with stress-buffering effects through social engagement and positive affect; however, this relationship may depend on specific contextual factors that were not fully captured in this study (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Eysenck, 1990; Watson and Clark, 1997). The qualitative data offered additional context, revealing that while extraverted participants often relied on social networks for stress relief, a lack of social opportunities, such as during periods of isolation, diminished their usual resilience. This indicates that the protective role of extraversion against stress may vary depending on the availability of social interactions (John and Srivastava, 1999; Soto and Jackson, 2013). Similarly, although agreeableness is often linked to lower stress through supportive social interactions, the qualitative findings indicated that agreeable individuals might experience internal conflict when managing interpersonal stress. In challenging social situations, the desire to maintain harmony often became a source of stress, especially when it conflicted with their own needs or expectations (Graziano and Eisenberg, 1997; McCrae and Sutin, 2009; Roberts et al., 2009).

Openness to experience and its relationship with stress perception present a complex picture. Openness, characterized by cognitive flexibility and a willingness to explore new experiences, can facilitate adaptive coping and effective problem-solving in stressful situations (DeYoung, 2015; McCrae, 1996; Zeidan et al., 2010). However, qualitative findings suggested that high openness could also lead to stress in environments that restrict creativity and exploration. For example, individuals with high openness reported feeling stressed in rigid or monotonous settings where they were unable to express their ideas freely. This underscores the importance of environmental fit in moderating the impact of openness on stress perception, suggesting that while individuals high in openness may thrive in dynamic and stimulating contexts, they may struggle in more restrictive environments (Kaufman et al., 2016; Silvia et al., 2011). This notion is also supported by Luo et al. (2023), who highlight the complex role of openness in different stress contexts, with openness potentially increasing stress perception in situations where flexibility and innovation are constrained.

Hypothesis 2 posited that both mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance would correlate negatively with perceived stress, a hypothesis that was strongly supported by our findings. Both facets of mindfulness, attention and acceptance, showed significant negative correlations with perceived stress, indicating the role of mindfulness in reducing stress levels (Baer et al., 2006; Brown and Ryan, 2003; Garland et al., 2017). However, the regression analyses identified mindfulness-acceptance as the more significant predictor. This suggests that the ability to accept and engage non-judgmentally with present experiences plays a more crucial role in mitigating stress than simply paying attention to the present moment (Hölzel et al., 2011; Keng et al., 2011). The qualitative data provided additional context, as participants described using mindfulness-acceptance in daily situations to manage overwhelming emotions. They emphasized the importance of acceptance over resistance, indicating that this approach made a noticeable difference in how they coped with stress. This aligns with research suggesting that mindfulness-acceptance facilitates emotional regulation and adaptive coping strategies (Garland et al., 2017; Hölzel et al., 2011). Neuroimaging studies reinforce these findings by showing increased activity in brain regions associated with emotion regulation and decreased activity in areas linked to stress and anxiety when engaging in mindfulness practices (Tang et al., 2015; Zeidan et al., 2010).

The qualitative data also highlighted distinct roles for each mindfulness facet. Participants frequently mentioned mindfulness-acceptance as a key strategy for managing stress, while the role of mindfulness-attention appeared more complex. Some participants indicated that focusing solely on the present moment without an attitude of acceptance could amplify their awareness of stressors, leading to heightened stress levels. This suggests that attention alone may not be as effective in reducing stress unless paired with an accepting mindset (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Hölzel et al., 2011). These observations underscore the importance of a balanced approach to mindfulness practice, where cultivating both attention and acceptance can enhance stress resilience (Baer et al., 2006; Garland et al., 2017).

Regarding hypothesis 3, which proposed that mindfulness facets would moderate the relationship between personality traits and stress, results indicated limited moderation effects. Specifically, mindfulness-attention moderated the relationship between agreeableness and perceived stress. This suggests that the stress-buffering effect of agreeableness is more pronounced when individuals are less attentive to their immediate experiences (Ciesla et al., 2012; Feltman et al., 2009). The qualitative data added depth to this finding, as agreeable participants reported that mindfulness practices helped them set healthier boundaries and manage interpersonal stress more effectively. They expressed that mindfulness enhanced their self-awareness, enabling them to recognize when they were overextending themselves and allowing them to set limits without experiencing guilt. This indicates that mindfulness contributes to emotional regulation in social interactions, reinforcing the stress-buffering effects associated with agreeableness (Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Shapiro et al., 2006).

Finally, hypothesis 4 suggested that mindfulness-attention and mindfulness-acceptance would mediate the relationship between personality traits and stress. Our mediation analyses revealed that mindfulness-acceptance partially mediated the relationship between agreeableness and stress, supporting the notion that acceptance facilitates adaptive coping. Individuals higher in agreeableness likely benefit from acceptance-based practices, which reduce their reactivity to stressors and foster emotional resilience (Grossman et al., 2004; Khoury et al., 2015).Individuals with higher levels of agreeableness might naturally gravitate towards acceptance-based coping strategies, and mindfulness practices can enhance this tendency. The qualitative data indicated that participants who were typically inclined to avoid conflict found mindfulness helpful in accepting situations that were not ideal. They recognized that it was not always necessary to please everyone, which aligns with the notion that acceptance helps reduce reactivity to stressors, thereby lowering overall stress perception (Garland et al., 2017; Keng et al., 2011).

The qualitative data provided rich insights into the dynamic interaction between personality and mindfulness, revealing that the effectiveness of mindfulness practices may depend on an individual’s personality profile (DeYoung, 2015; McCrae and Costa, 1999). Individuals high in openness to experience displayed a greater inclination to explore and integrate diverse mindfulness practices, reflecting their inherent curiosity and willingness to embrace new experiences (McCrae, 1996; John and Srivastava, 1999). This suggests that tailoring mindfulness interventions to individual preferences and personality styles may enhance engagement and effectiveness, as openness is associated with a greater flexibility in coping strategies (Williams and Kabat-Zinn, 2013; Zeidan et al., 2010).

Conversely, individuals with lower conscientiousness reported challenges in maintaining consistent mindfulness practices, highlighting the potential influence of personality on adherence to mindfulness training (Roberts et al., 2009; Soto and Jackson, 2013). This underscores the importance of considering individual differences in self-discipline and motivation when designing and implementing mindfulness interventions (Baumann and Kuhl, 2005; van den Hurk et al., 2011). Future research could explore strategies to enhance engagement and adherence among individuals with varying personality profiles, potentially through personalized interventions that account for differences in motivation and self-regulation (Teper et al., 2013; Winning and Boag, 2015).