Key references
The papers this study is in conversation with.
Full citations are in the preprint. These are the ones a reader of this companion needs in order to place the result.
- Monnot, M. J. (2026). Buffer or baseline? Trait self-compassion and employee well-being across disruption, telework, and digital demands in a national probability panel. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7622018 The paper this site accompanies.
- Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. The resource claim the three tests were written to evaluate: a held resource should mark level and attenuate loss.
- Yap, S. C. Y., Anusic, I., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Does personality moderate reaction and adaptation to major life events? Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 477–488. The levels-versus-change dissociation this study extends from the Big Five and personal events.
- Anusic, I., Yap, S. C. Y., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Does personality moderate reaction and adaptation to major life events? Analysis of life satisfaction and affect in an Australian national sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 69–77. Replication of that null in a second national panel.
- Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101. The construct: self-kindness versus self-judgment, common humanity versus isolation, mindfulness versus over-identification.
- Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250–255. The short form administered in the panel.
- Muris, P., & Petrocchi, N. (2017). Protection or vulnerability? A meta-analysis of the relations between the positive and negative components of self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24(2), 373–383. Why the total score can inflate associations: the negative components carry more of the covariance. This panel finds the same split for loneliness and digital overwhelm.
- Wanberg, C. R., Csillag, B., Douglass, R. P., Zhou, L., & Pollard, M. S. (2020). Socioeconomic status and well-being during COVID-19: A resource-based examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1382–1396. A U.S. probability panel in the same period: more education did not buffer the decline.
- GESIS. (2026). GESIS Panel.pop Standard Edition (ZA5665, Version 62.0.0) [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14772 The archive. Microdata are not redistributed here.