Social Safety and Active Self-Compassion Matter: Temporal Interplay Between Momentary Identity-Salient Experiences, Self-Compassion, and Affective-Somatic Well-Being Among Sexual and Gender Diverse People

Social Safety and Active Self-Compassion Matter: Temporal Interplay Between Momentary Identity-Salient Experiences, Self-Compassion, and Affective-Somatic Well-Being Among Sexual and Gender Diverse People | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Social Safety and Active Self-Compassion Matter: Temporal Interplay Between Momentary Identity-Salient Experiences, Self-Compassion, and Affective-Somatic Well-Being Among Sexual and Gender Diverse People Eddie S. K. Chong, Han Chen, Shuk Kwan Po, Yiyang Zhang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7417381/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Despite growing research on resilience among sexual and gender diverse (SGD) individuals, significant gaps remain in understanding how health conducive experiences unfold over time amid cisheterosexism. Prior research has largely focused on concurrent associations between minority stressors and health outcomes when intraindividual variations are considered. Moreover, self-compassion—an adaptive mechanism showing promise in SGD health research—has been primarily studied as a trait-like construct rather than examining its dynamic, state-like fluctuations in concordance with identity-salient experiences (ISEs) as they unfold. To address these gaps, this intensive longitudinal study examined temporal relationships between momentary ISEs, self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being among 141 SGD adults in Hong Kong (M age = 28.32, SD = 7.09). Using experience sampling with three assessments daily over two weeks and dynamic structural equation modeling, the study tested two interrelated frameworks: Social safety (identity-affirming experiences promote self-compassion and subsequently well-being) and active self-compassion (self-compassion improves well-being and subsequently invite identity-affirming experiences). Results from two distinct models largely supported the perspectives. In the first model, affirming (but not invalidating) ISE predicted higher compassionate self-responding, which subsequently contributed to improved positive affect, reduced negative affect, and no change in somatic distress. In the second model, compassionate self-responding predicted higher likelihood of subsequent affirming (but not invalidating) ISE via improved positive affect and reduced negative affect, while accounting for uncompassionate self-responding. These findings suggest how momentary experiences of social safety and self-compassion may create mutually reinforcing cycles that can inform treatment approaches and community programs to promote SGD health. ecological momentary assessment resilience processes self-compassion LGBTQ + health prospective analysis Figures Figure 1 Public significance statement This study shows that identity-affirming experiences and self-compassion reinforce each other over short periods among sexual and gender diverse (SGD) individuals, while identity-invalidating experiences impede this process. Mental health professionals and community stakeholders can promote SGD health by creating multiple sources of social safety signals and facilitating practices of self-compassion. Introduction The study of resilience in mental health research of sexual and gender diverse (SGD) individuals has burgeoned over the past two decades (de Lira & de Morais, 2018 ; Meyer, 2015 ). While resilience can be defined as “an active dynamic adaptation to stressors rather than as an inert trait or predisposition” (Ong & Leger, 2022 , p. 1591), most studies focusing on SGD resilience have approached it as a trait-like variable rather than as a process amid cisheterosexism (Giraud et al., 2025 ; Goulet & Villatte, 2020 ). Meanwhile, a growing body of SGD health research has adopted intensive longitudinal designs, such as daily dairy and experience sampling, to understand the intraindividual dynamic interplay between identity-salient stressors and health indicators (e.g., Nicholas & Bresin, 2024 ). Yet, these studies predominantly tested minority stress theory, focusing on maladaptive mechanisms and psychopathology, which limits the understanding of resilience and adaptive psychological mechanisms, such as self-compassion (Helminen et al., 2023 ). To address these gaps, this study approached SGD resilience by examining the intraindividual temporal relationships between momentary identity-salient experiences (ISEs), self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being. Specifically, two interrelated perspectives have informed this investigation: Social safety and active self-compassion . Social safety perspective, rooted in evolutionary psychology, concerns how affirming ISEs at a given moment contribute to self-compassion in the next moment, which in turn promotes affective-somatic well-being (Diamond & Alley, 2022 ; Gilbert, 2024 ); whereas active self-compassion, rooted in Buddhist psychology and affective science, points to how momentary practice of self-compassion predicts affective-somatic well-being, which in turn increases subsequent likelihood of one perceiving positive events, such as affirming ISEs (Brach, 2019 ; Fredrickson, 2004; Lathren et al., 2021 ). Social Safety True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice – Martin Luther King Jr. Minority stress frameworks have been instrumental in explaining health disparities among SGD people by attributing distal minority stress, such as discrimination, as a source of mental and physical illness (Brooks, 1981 ; Hatzenbuehler, 2009 ; Meyer, 2003 ). More recently, scholars have proposed the social safety perspective that emphasizes the importance of fostering a felt sense of safeness to promote better SGD people’s health (Diamond & Alley, 2022 ; Gilbert, 2024 ). Signals of social safety consist of “events that communicate safety, connectedness, inclusion, and protection” to SGD people, such as “seeing SGD individuals and relationships portrayed realistically in… media” and “having one’s faith community make it clear that they welcome SGD individuals” (Diamond & Alley, 2022 , p. 11). Although both perspectives are significant in explaining SGD health disparities, Diamond and Alley argue that the promotion of safety cues maybe especially crucial. The mere absence of minority stressors would not reduce the default threat-vigilance state that many SGD people experience within the larger cisheteronormative and cisheterosexist environment. This perspective points to the importance of examining affirming ISEs besides discrimination experiences when understanding SGD health. Despite these theoretical advances, empirical research on SGD health adopting an intraindividual approach has largely focused on minority stress and invalidating ISE (Nicholas & Bresin, 2024 ). Robust evidence has been documented regarding the concurrent link between minority stressors and negative affect (Feinstein et al., 2022 ; Mereish et al., 2023 ; Morris et al., 2025 ; Smith et al., 2023 ). Findings for the link between minority stressors and positive affect were mixed (Chong et al., 2023 , Eldahan et al., 2016 ; Kiekens & Mereish, 2022 ; Mereish et al., 2023 ). Some evidence has also been gathered for a positive link between minority stressors and somatic symptoms (Doane, 2017 ; Smith et al., 2023 ). A few studies examined affirming ISEs. Specifically, affirming events are concurrently positively linked to positive affective states (Dyar et al., 2024 ; Jackson et al., 2020 ; Mohr & Sarno, 2016 ) and negatively linked to somatic symptoms (Legate et al., 2017 ). Findings for the link between affirming events and negative affect were mixed (Chong et al., 2023 ; Dyar et al., 2024 ; Morris et al., 2025 ; Salim et al., 2019 ). Nevertheless, few studies simultaneously considered both affirming and invalidating ISEs in the same analysis (Chong et al., 2023 ; Mohr & Sarno, 2016 ). Even fewer investigated psychological mechanisms that may link ISEs and affective well-being. Findings suggest the mediating roles of rumination, expressive suppression, savoring, and coping efficacy when analyzed concurrently with ISEs and affect (Dyar, 2024 ; Jackson et al., 2020 ). Evidence for temporal associations, however, remains mixed due to different intervals between assessments across studies. Affirming and invalidating ISEs serve as critical signals of social safety and threat, respectively, and contribute to individuals’ affective-somatic states via various psychological mechanisms. One adaptive mechanism that has gained increasing attention within SGD health research yet understudied is momentary self-compassion (Helminen et al., 2023 ), the quality of how individuals are motivated to treat and relate to themselves, especially during moments of suffering (Gilbert, 2009 ; Neff, 2003 ). Compassionate self-responding involves motivation to treat oneself with kindness, recognizing that suffering is a shared human experience, and maintaining mindful awareness of the moment-to-moment experience, which contrasts uncompassionate self-responding, characterized by self-judgment, isolation, and overidentification. Empirically, a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies has found that minority stressors are negatively linked to self-compassion and that self-compassion is negatively associated with psychological distress among SGD people (Helminen et al., 2023 ). A cross-sectional study among a sample of LGB people revealed that self-compassion mediated the link between perceived social support and subjective well-being (Toplu-Demirtaş et al., 2018 ). Notably, these studies have approached self-compassion as a trait-like construct although research suggests that self-compassion can fluctuate over short periods as a state-like variable (Neff et al., 2021 ). Studying momentary self-compassion as a psychological mechanism can benefit the understanding of the resilience process in SGD health because of its theoretical relevance to how individuals respond to social safety and threat signals. Specifically, initially proposed as two extremes of the same continuum, a growing body of scholarship conceptualizes compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding as two distinctive constructs, indicative of an activated affiliative-based soothing system and a threat-based risk management system, respectively (Chio et al., 2021 ; Gilbert, 2009 ; 2024 ; Mey et al., 2023 ). Despite the distinctive and independent functions of the two ways of self-responding, most research assumed them as two extremes of the same dimension. Gilbert ( 2024 ) argues that the presence of threat signals likely result in uncompassionate self-responding as a natural self-protective mechanism. Furthermore, like Diamond and Alley ( 2022 ), Gilbert also posits that the mere absence of threat signals will not engender compassionate self-responding, suggesting the vital role of safety signals. Thus, it remains a question whether compassionate self-responding would mediate the links between affirming ISE and affective-somatic well-being, and similarly, whether uncompassionate self-responding would mediate those between invalidating ISE and affective-somatic well-being. Active Self-Compassion Peace in oneself, peace in the world – Thích Nhất Hạnh SGD individuals are active agents in connecting to affirming relationships and creating identity-affirming experiences (Carvalho & Guiomar, 2022 ). Assuming that opportunities for SGD identity affirmation exist in society, what intraindividual factors might contribute to people reporting an affirming ISE? One such factor could be active self-compassion. Scholars argue that self-compassion can shape individuals’ social cognition and behaviors in their interactions with the environment (Brach, 2019 ; Lathren et al., 2021 ). Brach ( 2019 ) emphasized how compassionate self-responding with the practice of RAIN – recognizing, allowing, investigating, and nourishing – helps cultivate emotional resilience and invite support and affirmation. In fact, research has shown the beneficial effect of self-compassion on people’s capacity to attune to and assert one’s own needs, as well as to repair relational transgressions (Lathren et al., 2021 ). While studies that directly tested these relationships in the context of SGD people are limited, we were able to identify a few that support the notion that self-compassion lays a foundation for perceived support. For instance, research found that self-compassion predicts greater perceived social support among college samples (Akin, 2015 ; Lavin et al., 2020 ). Using cross-sectional data, Jang et al. ( 2020 ) tested a serial mediation model that involves self-compassion and perceived social support and found support for the proposed link among a sample of SGD college students. However, these studies used a cross-sectional design, which limits the understanding of temporal relationships across variables. Although not explicitly stated, the regulated positive affective-somatic states from the practice of self-compassion may, in part, play a role in promoting support and affirmation (Förster & Kanske, 2022 ; Fredrickson, 2001 ; 2004). For instance, research has found that positive affect can broaden one’s awareness and engage in behaviors that will likely generate positive affect whereas negative affect may narrow attention and reinforce negative affect (see Fredrickson & Joiner, 2018 ). Similarly, somatic symptoms can reduce one’s capacity to mentalize (Preis et al., 2017 ), which is necessary for identifying sources of support and affirmation. Given the regulatory function of self-compassion (Yip & Tong, 2021), self-compassion may increase positive affect and reduce negative internal states, thereby expanding SGD individuals’ thought-action repertoires and increasing their awareness of affirming ISEs and openness to potential sources of affirmation. Descriptive findings from prior research suggest that affirming ISEs are more likely to be generated voluntarily compared to invalidating ISEs (Mohr & Sarno, 2016 ; Morris et al., 2025 ). The likelihood of endorsing invalidating ISE is likely independent from earlier state of mind in the moment. The Present Study The majority of existing SGD health research has focused on the minority stress process, typically using cross-sectional designs or conducting concurrent analyses within intensive longitudinal studies. This literature has thus been limited in two key respects: first, in terms of the primary variables investigated—emphasizing minority stress over identity-affirming experiences; and second, in research design—privileging static or concurrent associations over dynamic, temporal processes. Moreover, questions remain regarding how resilience unfolds in real time, particularly in relation to momentary self-compassion as a self-regulatory capacity. To address both the conceptual and methodological gaps, the present study tested two interrelated perspectives—social safety and active self-compassion—to enhance the understanding of resilience processes in SGD health. The social safety perspective emphasizes the internalization of identity-affirming experiences, positing that affirming ISEs predict self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being. Meanwhile, from the active self-compassion perspective, self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being can theoretically serve as a predictor of likelihood of affirming ISE, which appears tenable based on existing evidence. In other words, the active self-compassion perspective highlights that affirming ISE may emerge as an outcome in response to one’s self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being. In sum, the overarching goal of this study is to examine the temporal associations between ISEs, self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being at the within-person level. We have the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 (Social safety): (a) Affirming ISE would predict subsequent increases in compassionate self-responding and decreases in uncompassionate self-responding, which in turn would correlate with subsequent increases in positive affect and decreases in negative affect and somatic distress, whereas (b) invalidating ISE would predict subsequent increases in uncompassionate self-responding only, which in turn would correlate with decreases in positive affect and increases in negative affect and somatic distress. Hypothesis 2 (Active self-compassion): (a) Compassionate self-responding would positively relate to subsequent likelihood of affirming (but not invalidating) ISE via increased positive affect and decreased negative affect and somatic distress, while (b) uncompassionate self-responding would negatively relate to subsequent likelihood of affirming (but not invalidating) ISE via decreased positive affect and increased negative affect and somatic distress. Method Participants The sample comprised 141 SGD participants living in Hong Kong ( M age = 28.32, SD = 7.09). Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling through local SGD-oriented community organizations and advertisements on social media platforms between February and September 2024. Eligibility criteria included: (a) age 18 years or above, (b) access to a smartphone with internet or Wi-Fi capabilities, and (c) ability to communicate in Chinese. Detailed demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table S1. Procedure The study received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the author’s affiliated university. This study was part of a broader project examining SGD well-being in real time. The procedures and measurements relevant to the present study are described below. Eligible participants provided informed consent and completed baseline measures (e.g., demographic information) prior to a two-week experience sampling period. Participants could select 14 consecutive days based on their availability for study participation. An orientation meeting with the research assistant was held to explain the study procedures, provide instructions on completing the survey prompts, and address any questions to ensure participants clearly understand the materials. Meanwhile, participants were instructed to install a mobile application, ExpiWell, on their smartphones. ExpiWell is a versatile platform widely used in experience sampling research that streamline data collection by providing easy access to surveys and sending scheduled reminders (e.g., Aggarwal et al., 2024 ; Lougheed et al., 2023 ). Participants completed three interval-contingent surveys each day, totaling 42 surveys over the two-week study period. To enhance ecological validity, participants selected one of two survey schedules based on their typical waking hours: Early wake schedule (n = 86) covered 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. on the next day (7 a.m.–1 p.m., 1 p.m.–7 p.m., 7 p.m.–1 a.m.), and late awake schedule (n = 55) covered 10 a.m. to 4 a.m. on the next day (10 a.m.–4 p.m., 4 p.m.–10 p.m., 10 p.m.–4 a.m.). At each prompt, participants reported their affective-somatic well-being and self-compassion in the moment and also indicated if any ISE (i.e., affirming or invalidating) had occurred since the previous survey. Each survey was accessible only within its scheduled window. Participants received a reminder three hours after each survey window opened if the survey remained incomplete. Surveys that were not completed within the designated window were coded as missing. Participants who missed more than two days of surveys were contacted to encourage reengagement. Overall, 5,499 surveys (92.9%) of the total 5922 possible surveys over the study period (i.e. 141 participants could provide tri-daily reports for 14 days) were completed and included in the analysis. To incentivize compliance, participants received HK $ 5 per completed survey and a HK $ 100 bonus for completing all surveys over seven consecutive days or at least 70% of all surveys throughout the 14-day study period. Measures The measures in the interval-contingent survey are presented in the following order. Affective and somatic well-being Positive and negative affect. We adapted items from the Chinese version of the affect subscale in the Body-Mind-Spirit Wellbeing Inventory (BMSWBI; Ng et al., 2005 ) and Positive and Negative Affect scale (Watson et al., 1988 ) to assess participants’ positive and negative emotional state. Each item contains three emotion indicators. Specifically, positive affect was assessed with 2 items (“grateful, happy, contented” and “confident, proud, at ease”), while negative affect was measured using 3 items (“nervous, fearful, worried,” “sad, lonely, helpless,” and “emotionally upset, irritable, angry”). Participants rated the extent to which they experience these emotions since the last survey on a 5-point scale from 1 ( not at all ) to 5 ( extremely ). Higher mean scores indicated greater momentary positive or negative affect. In the current sample, within-person internal consistencies were acceptable (McDonald’s ω = .77 for positive affect, and ω = .75 for negative affect); and higher between-person reliability (ω = .98 for positive affect, and ω = .93 for negative affect). Somatic distress. Somatic distress was assessed with a single item adapted from the Chinese version of physical distress subscale in the BMSWBI scale (Ng et al., 2005 ) and somatization subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory (Boulet & Boss, 1991 ). Participants indicated the extent to which they were experiencing physical discomfort (e.g., headache, dizziness, or palpitations) at that moment on a 5-point scale from 1 ( no distress at all ) to 5 ( extreme distress ). Higher scores indicate greater somatic distress experienced in the moment. Self-compassion Compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding. Compassionate self-responding (CSR) and uncompassionate self-responding (USR) were assessed using six items from the State Self-Compassion Scale (Short form; Neff et al., 2021 ) following forward and back-translation procedures to ensure content validity. Participants rated how well each statements described their feelings toward themselves when thinking about a painful or challenging situation, using a 5-point scale from 1 ( not at all true for me ) to 5 ( very true for me ). Separate mean scores were computed for compassionate self-responding (CSR; 3 items; e.g., “I’m giving myself the caring and tenderness I need”) and uncompassionate self-responding (USR; 3 items; e.g., “I’m obsessing and fixating on everything that’s wrong”). Higher mean scores indicated greater endorsement of compassionate self-responding or uncompassionate self-responding, respectively. In the current sample, within-person internal consistencies were moderate (McDonald’s ω = .51 for CSR and ω = .62 for USR), while between-person level were good (ω = .75 for CSR and ω = .86 for USR), consistent with prior studies (Mey et al., 2023 ; Zhao et al., 2025 ). Identity-Salient Experiences (ISEs). We adapted items asking participant to indicate the presence or absence of affirming and invalidating ISEs encountered since the last survey (Chong et al., 2023 ; Morhr & Sarno, 2016). Response options include yes (1) or no (0). Specifically, affirming and invalidating ISEs were prompted as follows, respectively: Since the last survey, have you experienced any positive or pleasant events and situations that related in some way to your LGBTQ identity? These events or situations can be everyday occurrences (e.g., having a great time with LGBTQ friends, encountering positive information about the LGBTQ community) or more significant events (e.g., participating in the wedding of LGBTQ friends). Since the last survey, have you experienced any negative or unpleasant events and situations that related in some way to your LGBTQ identity? These events or situations can be everyday occurrences (e.g., feeling that your LGBTQ identity is not being respected, encountering negative information about LGBTQ identity), or more significant events (e.g., being dismissed from employment due to your sexual orientation). Data Analyses All analyses were conducted using M plus (version 8.7, Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2017). Our data had a two-level nested structure, with momentary assessments (Level 1; within-person) nested within participants (Level 2; between-person). To investigate the temporal relationships between ISEs (i.e., affirming and invalidating ISEs), self-compassion (i.e., compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding) and affective-somatic well-being (i.e., positive affect, negative affect and somatic distress), dynamic structural equation modelling (DSEM) was employed. DSEM integrates time-series analysis, multilevel modeling, and structural equation modeling, making it ideally suited for analyzing intensive longitudinal data by disentangling the dynamic interplay among predictors and outcomes over time, and accurately capturing lagged mediation effects (Asparouhov et al., 2018 ; McNeish & Hamaker, 2020 ). Within the DSEM framework, effects were disaggregated into within-person and between-person components. Our primary focus is on within-person dynamics, with intercepts of the variables allowed to covary at the between-person level. To account for any missing assessments and to ensure equal spacing between measurements, the “tinterval” option was used to segment the data into consecutive four-hour bins based on the exact time of survey completion, thereby standardizing temporal spacing between each assessment. Two lagged mediation models were tested (i.e., social safety and active self-compassion perspectives). These mediation models specified autoregressive structure with a lag of one time point for all hypothesized predictors, mediators, and outcomes; and a lag of two time points for the predictors. Specifically, each variable in these models was predicted by itself at the previous moment. Additionally, in the model examining social safety perspective, affective-somatic well-being at Time t were predicted by ISEs at Time t -2, and self-compassion at Time t -1. As such, compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding were set to mediate the links between ISEs at the prior moment and affective-somatic well-being at the next moment. Similarly, in the model examining active self-compassion perspective, ISEs at Time t were predicted by self-compassion at Time t -2 and affective-somatic well-being at Time t -1. In other words, affect and somatic distress were set to mediate the links between self-compassion at the prior moment and ISEs at the next moment. In both models, we controlled for assessment type (weekend vs. weekday) at the within-person level. ISEs were treated as categorical variables in view of its binary response option. Bayesian estimation was employed to accommodate nonnormality and missing data. Statistical significance was determined by 95% Bayesian credible intervals (CIs), with effects considered significant if their CIs did not include zero (McNeish & Hamaker, 2020 ). Power analysis We employed a Monte Carlo simulation approach to power analysis in M plus , which provides a flexible and robust built-in stimulation framework for determining the sample size requirements tailored to specific DSEM model (Fang & Wang, 2024 ; Schultzberg & Muthen, 2018). Our simulations were based on the temporal mediation model used in the current study, with varying numbers of subjects (N = 80, 100, 120) and numbers of time points (T = 20, 30, 40). Results indicated that a minimum of 80 participants, each with at least 40 timepoints of check-in survey data, was sufficient to achieve a power of 0.80 to detect a small within-person indirect effect at a significant level of 0.05, with the coefficients of a and b paths set a 0.1 and 0.05, respectively. Our current sample size exceeds this recommendation, thereby providing adequate statistical power to detect the hypothesized mediating pathways. Convergence In DSEM, verifying model convergence is essential for obtaining stable and unbiased estimated parameters, and thus ensuring the validity and reliability of study findings. Convergence was evaluated using three established criteria (Geiser, 2020 ): (1) Gelman–Rubin Potential Scale Reduction Factor (PSRF) values close to 1; (2) trace plots (i.e., no upward or downward trend of parameters with two chains overlapping well) and (3) autocorrelation plots with values around or below 0.1. In the present study, two Bayesian Markov chain Mont Carlo (MCMC) chains were run with 10,000 iterations each to achieve convergence (McNeish & Hamaker, 2020 ). The DSEM models showed satisfactory convergence across all criteria, indicating reliable and stable parameter estimation. Specifically, all PSRF values were below 1.01; visual inspection of trace plots confirmed adequate mixing without irregularities, and autocorrelation values were consistently below 0.1. This study was not preregistered. Data and analysis code for this study are available by contacting the corresponding author. Results Preliminary Results In total, there were 5,499 surveys. Participants completed between 11 and 42 interval-contingent surveys ( M = 39.63, SD = 3.71). Descriptives and bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1 . The correlations at within- and between-person levels were in the expected directions. The mean affirming and invalidating ISEs scores across participants were 0.24 and 0.13, respectively. This indicates that, on average, the rate of experiencing affirming and invalidating ISE were 24% and 13%. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for main variables, indicating the proportions of variance explained by between-person differences. Correspondingly, the value of (1 – ICC) represents the proportions of variance due to within-participant differences plus error. As shown in Table 1 , the ICCs for ISEs, negative affect, and somatic distress range from .44 to .51, indicating considerable momentary fluctuations. Furthermore, the ICCs for positive affect and the two facets of self-compassion range from .58 to .70, suggesting relative consistency within persons. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate Correlations and ICCs Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Affirming ISE - .69 .09 − .04 .31 − .001 .09 2. Invalidating ISE .28 - − .06 .30 − .07 .33 .37 3. Compassionate self-responding .15 − .004 - − .03 .56 − .10 .01 4. Uncompassionate self-responding − .06 .18 .03 - − .41 .77 .60 5. Positive affect .24 − .11 .41 − .21 - − .33 − .24 6. Negative affect − .14 .18 − .11 .51 − .30 - .69 7. Somatic distress − .06 .05 − .05 .26 − .19 .40 - M .24 .13 2.98 2.40 2.73 1.94 2.01 SD .42 .34 .86 1.02 1.08 .92 1.06 ICCs .48 .44 .66 .70 .58 .51 .51 Note. ICCs = intraclass correlation coefficients. Within-person level correlations are below the diagonal; between-person level correlations are above the diagonal. All correlation coefficients are standardized. The significant correlation coefficients are in boldface according to 95% credible intervals, which do not contain zero. Prospective Mediation Effects Figure 1 presents DSEM results for two hypothesized prospective mediation models. Social Safety Perspective Affirming ISE at a given moment predicted higher subsequent compassionate self-responding but was not significantly associated with subsequent uncompassionate self-responding. Conversely, invalidating ISE predicted higher levels of uncompassionate self-responding but not compassionate self-responding at the next moment. As expected, compassionate self-responding was in turn significantly related to higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect at the subsequent moment. Nevertheless, no significant lagged association between compassionate self-responding and somatic distress was detected. Uncompassionate self-responding was prospectively associated with lower levels of positive affect and higher levels of negative affect and somatic distress. In addition, the direct links between ISE and outcomes show that affirming ISE was significantly linked to higher positive affect and lower negative affect at a lag of two time points. Conversely, invalidating ISE was prospectively associated with decreased positive affect and increased negative affect and somatic distress at a lag of two time points. In addition, although not presented in the Figure, all autoregressive paths from each variable at a given moment significantly predicted itself at the next moment. As for the within-level covariate (i.e., weekend), participants reported significantly higher levels of positive affect ( β = .04, 95% CI [.02, .06]) and lower levels of negative affect ( β = − .03, 95% CI [-.06, − .01]) on weekends. Indirect effects indicate that compassionate self-responding at t -1 significantly mediated the association between affirming ISE at t -2 and both positive ( B = .004, 95% CI [.002, .01]) and negative affect ( B = − .003, 95% CI [-.005, − .001]) at t . Meanwhile, uncompassionate self-responding at t -1 significantly mediated the lagged relationship between invalidating ISE at t − 2 and positive affect ( B = − .003, 95% CI [-.006, − .001]), negative affect ( B = .007, 95% CI [.004, .01]) and somatic distress ( B = .005, 95% CI [.003, .01]) at t . Active self-compassion Perspective Compassionate self-responding at a given moment was significantly associated with higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect at a subsequent moment but was unrelated to later somatic distress. Uncompassionate self-responding at the given moment significantly contributed to decreased positive affect and elevated negative affect and somatic distress at the subsequent moment. Furthermore, positive affect was then prospectively and significantly linked to greater likelihood of perceiving affirming ISE, whereas negative affect was significantly associated to lower likelihood of perceiving affirming ISE at the next moment. The direct links between two facets of self-compassion at t -2 were not significantly related to ISE at t . All the autoregressive links from each variable of the previous moment to itself at the current moment were significant. Regarding the within-level covariate, weekend could not significantly predict the likelihood of perceiving affirming or invalidating ISE. Indirect effects were identified as expected: Positive affect at t − 1 significantly mediated the lagged relationship between compassionate self-responding at t − 2 and affirming ISE at t ( B = .02, 95% CI [.004, .03]), and between uncompassionate self-responding at t − 2 and affirming ISE at time t ( B = − .01, 95% CI [-.02, − .003]). Negative affect at t − 1 was a significant mediator for the relationship between compassionate self-responding at t − 2 and affirming ISE at time t ( B = .02, 95% CI [.01, .03]), and the association between uncompassionate self-responding at t − 2 and affirming ISE at t ( B = − .03, 95% CI [-.05, − .01]). However, no evidence was found for the mediating role of somatic distress at t – 1 for the link between compassionate self-responding and affirming ISE ( B = .00, 95% CI [-.004, .004]) and between uncompassionate self-responding and affirming ISE ( B = .00, 95% CI [-.009, .009]). Discussion Resilience is a dynamic process, yet most studies have approached it as a static trait. Our study suggests the interconnected nature of identity-affirming experiences and self-compassion in the unfolding of resilience among SGD people in Hong Kong. Specifically, we examined the within-person temporal associations between episodic ISEs (affirmative and invalidating), momentary self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being using an experience sampling design. Support was found for the social safety and active self-compassion perspectives. Compassionate self-responding is not only predicted by earlier affirming ISE, but it also predicts increased likelihood of subsequent affirming experiences via greater positive affect and reduced negative affect. Uncompassionate self-responding is predicted by earlier invalidating ISE and also predicts decreased likelihood of subsequent affirming experiences via affect. Social Safety While understanding SGD well-being, recent scholarships (Diamond & Alley, 2022 ; Gilbert, 2024 ) equivocally point to the notion that social safety signals are not only crucial for mitigating the threat-based protective state SGD individuals typically experience in a cisheterosexist society but also for activating the affiliative-based soothing system. The present study integrated theories of compassion science into SGD resilience research to show that momentary compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding as critical psychological mechanisms that fluctuate over time in accordance with earlier episodic ISEs (Gilbert, 2009 ; 2024 ; Helminen et al., 2023 ). Previous studies in SGD health research mainly examined self-compassion as a unidimensional construct despite growing body of work that argues for its bidimensional property (i.e., compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding) that theoretically maps onto Gilbert’s ( 2009 ) soothing and defense systems in his model of emotion regulation (Chio et al., 2021 ). Given the distinctive functions of the two systems, differentiating them in this study enables researchers to understand how affirming and invalidating ISEs may contribute to subsequent affective-somatic well-being via two distinctive pathways. Specifically, momentary affirming ISE predicted higher compassionate self-responding, which subsequently contributed to improved positive affect, reduced negative affect, and no change in somatic distress. Conversely, invalidating ISEs predicted heightened uncompassionate self-responding, which in turn lead to diminished positive affect, elevated negative affect, and increased somatic distress. Notably, affirming ISE was not associated with reduced subsequent uncompassionate self-responding as hypothesized, despite their significant negative associations based on concurrent bivariate correlations. Taken together, these findings support Gilbert’s ( 2009 ) notion that compassionate self-responding functions as an affiliative-based soothing system rooted in the presence of social safety cues, whereas uncompassionate self-responding operates as a threat-based self-protective system elicited by the presence of threats. In other words, the mere absence of invalidating experiences is insufficient, as compassionate self-responding is unchanged when the threat-based defense system stays activated in the absence of social safety signals. In contrast, the presence of social safety cues may temporarily suspend the default defensive system and allow for changes in compassionate self-responding. Active self-compassion Scholars propose that self-compassion has the potential to influence how individuals perceive and interact with their social environment (Brach, 2019 ; Lathren et al., 2021 ). Specifically, compassionate self-responding, an affiliation-based soothing system can facilitate care from self and others via emotion regulation whereas uncompassionate self-responding, a threat-based protective system can discourage such processes. As hypothesized, compassionate self-responding was prospectively associated with increased positive affect and reduced negative affect, which in turn was linked to greater likelihood of affirming ISE (but not invalidating ISE) at a subsequent moment. A reverse pattern of association was observed for uncompassionate self-responding when predicting the subsequent likelihood of affirming ISE via affect. Taken together, these findings show the active agency SGD people embody by means of compassionate self-responding in promoting the subsequent likelihood of accessing identity-affirming experiences. Self-compassion may promote emotion regulation, whereby positive emotions may facilitate the broadening of thought-action repertoires. In turn, this may heighten SGD people’s awareness of affirming ISEs and foster greater openness to available sources of support. In contrast, negative affect can narrow attention, add barriers to identifying potential sources of affirmation or increase the chance of a person engaging in actions that reduce the likelihood of encountering affirming experiences (e.g., social withdrawal) (Förster & Kanske, 2022 ; Fredrickson, 2001 ; 2004). Unexpectedly, somatic distress was not linked to lower subsequent likelihood of affirmative ISE. One possible explanation is that negative affect may have already accounted for the variance explained by somatic symptoms. Another is that it may take time for affective experiences to manifest as somatic symptoms that are detectable. While the measure captures momentary affective changes, not all such changes necessarily translate into somatic symptoms. As hypothesized, no variables significantly predicted the likelihood of invalidating ISE. The likelihood of endorsing invalidating ISE appears to be independent of earlier momentary self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being, suggesting that invalidating ISE can occur regardless of individuals’ state of mind and may depend on external factors (Mohr et al., 2016; Morris et al., 2025 ). Implications This study offers important theoretical and practical implications for SGD health. First, this study advances theory by examining directionality and specific prospective relationships among key variables, enabling tests of the interrelated perspectives of social safety and active self-compassion. This approach extends existent evidence, which predominantly focuses on concurrent relationships (see Nicholas & Bresin, 2024 for review). The findings suggest the possibility of a positive resilience cycle . Affirming ISE contribute to affective well-being through compassionate self-responding, while compassionate self-responding increases the likelihood of subsequent affirming ISE via enhanced affective well-being across successive moments. It is plausible that momentary affirming ISEs initiate the broaden-and-build process (Fredrickson, 2001 ) by fostering compassionate self-responding and positive affect. This, in turn, may heighten individuals’ awareness of affirming experiences or encourage behaviors that invite such experiences. Conversely, momentary invalidating ISEs appear to impede this adaptive process by activating the threat-defense system, manifesting as uncompassionate self-responding. These distinct effects of momentary affirming versus invalidating ISEs help illuminate SGD health disparities. While addressing invalidating ISEs remains critical, as these experiences primarily drive uncompassionate self-responding, the promotion of identity-affirming cues across multiple social-ecological levels—from enacting affirmative policies and laws to interpersonal expressions of respect for SGD dignity—offers a hopeful pathway for reducing such disparities in the long term (Diamond & Alley, 2022 ). In addition, most SGD health research assumed self-compassion to be trait-like and relatively stable, resulting in investigations that often focus on its stress-buffering role in the resilience process (Frost & Meyer, 2023 ). This study extends past evidence by examining self-compassion as a state-like variable and shows its fluctuations in accordance with ISEs in individuals’ natural environment as they occur in real-time even after accounting for the autoregressive pathways. This approach emphasizes the mutability of both compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding within individuals, thereby presenting opportunities for intervention. This study highlighted the value of active momentary self-compassion in fostering opportunities for identity-affirming experiences. In fact, some SGD individuals may be less ready to access affirming resources due to early adverse experiences rooted in cisheterosexism (Masked paper). Easy-to-use momentary interventions can be designed to support individuals to cultivate compassionate self-responding and minimize uncompassionate self-responding, thereby facilitating individuals to notice and seek out positive, identity-affirming experiences (Rauschenberg et al., 2021 ). Prevention and intervention efforts can start with reducing uncompassionate self-responding to increase the chances of experiencing affirmative ISEs. Limitations and Future Directions Although this study has advanced SGD health research in several important ways, certain limitations must be acknowledged. First, generalizability of the current findings is restricted to younger, educated Chinese SGD individuals residing in Hong Kong. This demographic scope may not reflect the full diversity of experiences within the broader SGD community, especially among with multiple marginalized identities. Moreover, the applicability of our results may be limited to social contexts and historical periods characterized by rising SGD inclusion (Wong et al., 2025 ). To strengthen future research, broader sampling strategies are needed to capture a wider array of participants. Doing so would enhance understanding of how intersecting identities and varying sociocultural contexts shape psychological processes and outcomes in SGD population. Next, this study primarily focused on affect and somatic distress as indicators of SGD health. Although our findings suggest potential benefits of momentary affirming ISE and self-compassion, a recent daily diary study conducted in the U.S. indicates that social support and identity-affirming experiences do not only enhance affective well-being but also paradoxically promote substance use, including nicotine and alcohol consumption (Parnes et al., 2024 ). These findings suggest that the subjective appraisal of safety and affirming experiences can involve health risk behaviors. Future investigations may consider broadening the scope of health indicators to include both self-reported measures (e.g., sleep quality, substance use, eating behavior) and biomarkers (e.g., heart rate variability). This approach could provide insight into the complexity of the resilience processes, including the conscious and unconscious aspects of safety experience. Finally, the present study operated under the assumption that the resilience processes remain invariant across individuals and over time. However, between-person differences may influence these processes—such as volatility in self-compassion, reactivity to invalidating ISE, and responsiveness to affirming ISE. Identifying individual-level factors that contribute to such variability is critical for advancing our understanding of resilience. For instance, more frequent identity-affirming experiences may predict greater stability in self-compassion, while exposure to invalidating ISE could prompt heightened subsequent compassionate self-responding, particularly among individuals with a strong safety schema fostered through regular compassion-based practices or consistent access to social safety cues. Future research should integrate both within- and between-person perspectives to elucidate the sources of variability in key psychosocial constructs and their interrelationships, thereby informing the development of person-centered interventions. References Aggarwal, A., Chen, S. T., Lee, J., Tracy, A., Qiao, S., Li, X., & Yang, C. H. (2024). Time‐lagged associations of mindfulness and self‐regulation with affect and cognition: An ecological momentary assessment study. Mental Health Science , 2 (2), e55. https://doi.org/10.1002/mhs2.55 Akin, A., & Akin, U. (2015). Self-compassion as a predictor of social safeness in Turkish university students. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología , 47 (1), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0120-0534(15)30005-4 Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 25 (3), 359-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803 Boulet, J., & Boss, M. W. (1991). Reliability and validity of the Brief Symptom Inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 3 (3), 433-437. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.3.3.433 Brach, T. (2019). Radical compassion: Learning to love yourself and your world with the practice of RAIN . Penguin. Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women . Lexington Books. Carvalho, S. A., & Guiomar, R. (2022). Self-compassion and mental health in sexual and gender minority people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. LGBT Health, 9 (5), 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2021.0434 Chio, F. H., Mak, W. W., & Ben, C. L. (2021). Meta-analytic review on the differential effects of self-compassion components on well-being and psychological distress: The moderating role of dialecticism on self-compassion. Clinical Psychology Review , 85 , 101986. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101986 Chong, E. S. K., Mohr, J. J., & Chui, H. (2023). Examining the protective role of self-compassion in the links between daily sexual orientation salient experiences and affect. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 70 (5), 522-534. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000690 de Lira, A. N., & de Morais, N. A. (2018). Resilience in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations: An integrative literature review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy , 15 (3), 272-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0285-x Diamond, L. M., & Alley, J. C. (2022). Rethinking minority stress: A social safety perspective on the health effects of stigma in sexually-diverse and gender-diverse populations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 138 , 104720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104720 Doane, M. J. (2017). The role of stigma visibility on stigma-related stress, coping, and health: An exploration among gay men and lesbians (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno). Dyar, C. (2024). Prospective examination of mechanisms linking minority stress and anxious/depressed affect at the event level: The roles of emotion regulation strategies and proximal minority stressors. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, 133 (2), 178-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000882 Dyar, C., Curtis, J., & Herry, E. (2024). Positive sexual and gender identity experiences: Prospective associations with affect, internalized stigma, and perceived coping efficacy among sexual minority women and gender diverse young adults. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000784 Eldahan, A. I., Pachankis, J. E., Rendina, H. J., Ventuneac, A., Grov, C., & Parsons, J. T. (2016). Daily minority stress and affect among gay and bisexual men: A 30-day diary study. Journal of Affective Disorders , 190 , 828-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.066 Fang, Y., & Wang, L. (2024). Dynamic structural equation models with missing data: Data requirements on N and T. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 31 (5), 891-908. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2287967 Feinstein, B. A., Dyar, C., Poon, J. A., Goodman, F. R., & Davila, J. (2022). The affective consequences of minority stress among bisexual, pansexual, and queer (Bi+) adults: A daily diary study. Behavior Therapy , 53 (4), 571-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2022.01.013 Förster, K., & Kanske, P. (2022). Upregulating positive affect through compassion: Psychological and physiological evidence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 176 , 100-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.03.009 Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 Fredrickson, B. L., Huppert, F. A., Baylis, N., & Keverne, B. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences , 359 (1449), 1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512 Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2018). Reflections on positive emotions and upward spirals. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13 (2), 194-199. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617692106 Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2023). Minority stress theory: Application, critique, and continued relevance. Current Opinion in Psychology , 51 , 101579. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101579 Geiser, C. (2020). Longitudinal structural equation modeling with Mplus: A latent state-trait perspective . Guilford publications. Gilbert, P. (2009). The nature and basis for compassion focused therapy. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 6 (3), 273-291. Gilbert, P. (2024). Threat, safety, safeness and social safeness 30 years on: Fundamental dimensions and distinctions for mental health and well-being. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63 (3), 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12466 Giraud, C., Newcomb, M. E., & Whitton, S. W. (2025). An evaluation of resilience as a protective factor for mental health among sexual and gender minority young people. LGBT Health , 12 (4), 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2024.0135 Goulet, M., & Villatte, A. (2020). Understanding risk and resilience for sexual minority emerging adults: A longitudinal outlook on minority stress, mental health, and academic perseverance. Sexuality Research and Social Policy , 17 (3), 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-00412-1 Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135 (5), 707-730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016441 Helminen, E. C., Ducar, D. M., Scheer, J. R., Parke, K. L., Morton, M. L., & Felver, J. C. (2023). Self-compassion, minority stress, and mental health in sexual and gender minority populations: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 30 (1), 26-39. https://doi.org/10.1037/cps0000104 Jackson, S. D., Mohr, J. J., Sarno, E. L., Kindahl, A. M., & Jones, I. L. (2020). Intersectional experiences, stigma-related stress, and psychological health among Black LGBQ individuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88 (5), 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000489 Jang, H., Woo, H., & Lee, I. (2020). Effects of self‐compassion and social support on lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students' positive identity and career decision‐making. Journal of Counseling & Development, 98 (4), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12342 Kiekens, W. J., & Mereish, E. H. (2022). The association between daily concealment and affect among sexual and gender minority adolescents: The moderating role of family and peer support. Journal of Adolescent Health , 70 (4), 650-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.11.019 Lathren, C. R., Rao, S. S., Park, J., & Bluth, K. (2021). Self-compassion and current close interpersonal relationships: A scoping literature review. Mindfulness , 12 (5), 1078-1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01566-5 Lavin, A. E., Brodar, K. E., & McClain, S. N. (2020). The role of self-compassion in college students’ perceived social support, stress, and well-being. Journal of Psychological Research, 25 (1), 41-48. Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Rogge, R. D. (2017). Daily autonomy support and sexual identity disclosure predicts daily mental and physical health outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 43 (6), 860-873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217700399 Lougheed, J. P., Keskin, G., & Morgan, S. (2023). The hazards of daily stressors: Comparing the experiences of sexual and gender minority young adults to cisgender heterosexual young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Collabra: Psychology , 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.73649 McNeish, D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods , 25 (5), 610-635. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000250 Mereish, E. H., Peters, J. R., Brick, L. A., Killam, M. A., & Yen, S. (2023). A daily diary study of minority stressors, suicidal ideation, nonsuicidal self-injury ideation, and affective mechanisms among sexual and gender minority youth. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science , 132 (4), 372-384. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000813 Mey, L. K., Wenzel, M., Morello, K., Rowland, Z., Kubiak, T., & Tüscher, O. (2023). Be kind to yourself: The implications of momentary self-compassion for affective dynamics and well-being in daily life. Mindfulness , 14 (3), 622-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-02050-y Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (5), 674-697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Meyer, I. H. (2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2 (3), 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000132 Mohr, J. J., & Sarno, E. L. (2016). The ups and downs of being lesbian, gay, and bisexual: A daily experience perspective on minority stress and support processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 63 (1), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000125 Morris, T. R., Kase, C. A., Mohr, J. J., Okuno, H., & Wang, R. J. (2025). Daily identity-salient experiences and mental health among transgender women: Minority supports and stressors. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000845 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2 (2), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032 Neff, K. D., Tóth-Király, I., Knox, M. C., Kuchar, A., & Davidson, O. (2021). The development and validation of the state self-compassion scale (long-and short form). Mindfulness , 12 (1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01505-4 Ng, S. M., Yau, J. K., Chan, C. L., Chan, C. H., & Ho, D. Y. (2005). The measurement of body-mind-spirit well-being: Toward multidimensionality and transcultural applicability. Social Work in Health Care, 41 (1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v41n01_03 Nicholas, J., & Bresin, K. (2024). Everyday sexual and gender minority stress and health: A systematic review of experience sampling studies. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 53 (4), 1221-1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02779-0 Ong, A. D., & Leger, K. A. (2022). Advancing the study of resilience to daily stressors. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 17 (6), 1591-1603. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211071092 Parnes, J. E., Le, T. P., Mereish, E. H., & Miranda, R., Jr. (2024). Daily associations between resilience factors, substance use, and affect among sexual minority youth. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 38 (7), 805-817. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000998 Preis, M. A., Golm, D., Kröner-Herwig, B., & Barke, A. (2017). Examining differences in cognitive and affective theory of mind between persons with high and low extent of somatic symptoms: an experimental study. BMC Psychiatry , 17 (1), Article 200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1360-9 Rauschenberg, C., Boecking, B., Paetzold, I., Schruers, K., Schick, A., van Amelsvoort, T., & Reininghaus, U. (2021). A compassion-focused ecological momentary intervention for enhancing resilience in help-seeking youth: Uncontrolled pilot study. JMIR Mental Health , 8 (8), e25650. https://doi.org/10.2196/25650 Salim, S., Robinson, M., & Flanders, C. E. (2019). Bisexual women’s experiences of microaggressions and microaffirmations and their relation to mental health. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity , 6 (3), 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000329 Schultzberg, M., & Muthén, B. (2018). Number of subjects and time points needed for multilevel time-series analysis: A simulation study of dynamic structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 25 (4), 495-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392862 Smith, A. U., Bostwick, W. B., Burke, L., Hequembourg, A. L., Santuzzi, A., & Hughes, T. L. (2023). How deep is the cut? The influence of daily microaggressions on bisexual women’s health. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity , 10 (4), 535-548. http://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000556 Toplu-Demirtaş, E., Kemer, G., Pope, A. L., & Moe, J. L. (2018). Self-compassion matters: The relationships between perceived social support, self-compassion, and subjective well-being among LGB individuals in Turkey. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 65 (3), 372-382. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000261 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 (6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 Wong, E. M. Y., Suen, Y. T., Chan, R. C., Tepjan, S., & Newman, P. A. (2025). Inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in Hong Kong: A scoping review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy , 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01003-5 Yip, V. T., & Tong, E. M. W. (2020). Self-compassion and attention: Self-compassion facilitates disengagement from negative stimuli. Journal of Positive Psychology, 16 (5), 593-609. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1778060 Zhao, N., Vogel, D. L., Kubiak, T., Mey, L. K., Morello, K., & Tüscher, O. (2025). Self-compassion in the moment: Dynamic changes of compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding in daily life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 72 (4), 380-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000798 Supplementary Table Table S1 is not available with this version. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7417381","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":503117799,"identity":"fb49da55-41f4-4956-880b-6aa4ca10fc74","order_by":0,"name":"Eddie S. K. Chong","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9601-4372","institution":"The University of Hong Kong","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eddie","middleName":"S. K.","lastName":"Chong","suffix":""},{"id":503117800,"identity":"d00026cb-0844-48b9-8a2d-8a13fa289278","order_by":1,"name":"Han Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Hong Kong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Han","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":503117801,"identity":"f5e058b4-e0d8-4cad-906b-a627c749a019","order_by":2,"name":"Shuk Kwan Po","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Hong Kong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shuk","middleName":"Kwan","lastName":"Po","suffix":""},{"id":503117802,"identity":"2d42df78-55f2-4305-be60-b14cb4f2ca77","order_by":3,"name":"Yiyang Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Hong Kong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yiyang","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-20 12:14:57","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7417381/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7417381/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89603433,"identity":"4706cb42-93c7-47c1-b140-2708e73b4818","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 19:05:49","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":880260,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7417381/v1/72bd59b2c0c10c26263ad5df.png"},{"id":89604145,"identity":"10eefaae-7057-4512-bcf2-18bda7d4aa08","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 19:21:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1760907,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7417381/v1/dfc9e0dc-58e6-466a-8826-a59cffe6d536.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Safety and Active Self-Compassion Matter: Temporal Interplay Between Momentary Identity-Salient Experiences, Self-Compassion, and Affective-Somatic Well-Being Among Sexual and Gender Diverse People\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Public significance statement","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study shows that identity-affirming experiences and self-compassion reinforce each other over short periods among sexual and gender diverse (SGD) individuals, while identity-invalidating experiences impede this process. Mental health professionals and community stakeholders can promote SGD health by creating multiple sources of social safety signals and facilitating practices of self-compassion.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study of resilience in mental health research of sexual and gender diverse (SGD) individuals has burgeoned over the past two decades (de Lira \u0026amp; de Morais, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Meyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). While resilience can be defined as “an active dynamic adaptation to stressors rather than as an inert trait or predisposition” (Ong \u0026amp; Leger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, p. 1591), most studies focusing on SGD resilience have approached it as a trait-like variable rather than as a process amid cisheterosexism (Giraud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Goulet \u0026amp; Villatte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Meanwhile, a growing body of SGD health research has adopted intensive longitudinal designs, such as daily dairy and experience sampling, to understand the intraindividual dynamic interplay between identity-salient stressors and health indicators (e.g., Nicholas \u0026amp; Bresin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, these studies predominantly tested minority stress theory, focusing on maladaptive mechanisms and psychopathology, which limits the understanding of resilience and adaptive psychological mechanisms, such as self-compassion (Helminen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). To address these gaps, this study approached SGD resilience by examining the intraindividual temporal relationships between momentary identity-salient experiences (ISEs), self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being. Specifically, two interrelated perspectives have informed this investigation: \u003cb\u003eSocial safety\u003c/b\u003e and \u003cb\u003eactive self-compassion\u003c/b\u003e. Social safety perspective, rooted in evolutionary psychology, concerns how affirming ISEs at a given moment contribute to self-compassion in the next moment, which in turn promotes affective-somatic well-being (Diamond \u0026amp; Alley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Gilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); whereas active self-compassion, rooted in Buddhist psychology and affective science, points to how momentary practice of self-compassion predicts affective-somatic well-being, which in turn increases subsequent likelihood of one perceiving positive events, such as affirming ISEs (Brach, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Fredrickson, 2004; Lathren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSocial Safety\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrue peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash; Martin Luther King Jr.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMinority stress frameworks have been instrumental in explaining health disparities among SGD people by attributing distal minority stress, such as discrimination, as a source of mental and physical illness (Brooks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e; Hatzenbuehler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Meyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). More recently, scholars have proposed the social safety perspective that emphasizes the importance of fostering a felt sense of safeness to promote better SGD people\u0026rsquo;s health (Diamond \u0026amp; Alley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Gilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Signals of social safety consist of \u0026ldquo;events that communicate safety, connectedness, inclusion, and protection\u0026rdquo; to SGD people, such as \u0026ldquo;seeing SGD individuals and relationships portrayed realistically in\u0026hellip; media\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;having one\u0026rsquo;s faith community make it clear that they welcome SGD individuals\u0026rdquo; (Diamond \u0026amp; Alley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, p. 11). Although both perspectives are significant in explaining SGD health disparities, Diamond and Alley argue that the promotion of safety cues maybe especially crucial. The mere absence of minority stressors would not reduce the default threat-vigilance state that many SGD people experience within the larger cisheteronormative and cisheterosexist environment. This perspective points to the importance of examining affirming ISEs besides discrimination experiences when understanding SGD health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these theoretical advances, empirical research on SGD health adopting an intraindividual approach has largely focused on minority stress and invalidating ISE (Nicholas \u0026amp; Bresin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Robust evidence has been documented regarding the concurrent link between minority stressors and negative affect (Feinstein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Mereish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Morris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Findings for the link between minority stressors and positive affect were mixed (Chong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, Eldahan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kiekens \u0026amp; Mereish, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Mereish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Some evidence has also been gathered for a positive link between minority stressors and somatic symptoms (Doane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA few studies examined affirming ISEs. Specifically, affirming events are concurrently positively linked to positive affective states (Dyar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Jackson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mohr \u0026amp; Sarno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and negatively linked to somatic symptoms (Legate et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Findings for the link between affirming events and negative affect were mixed (Chong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Dyar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Morris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Salim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, few studies simultaneously considered both affirming and invalidating ISEs in the same analysis (Chong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mohr \u0026amp; Sarno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Even fewer investigated psychological mechanisms that may link ISEs and affective well-being. Findings suggest the mediating roles of rumination, expressive suppression, savoring, and coping efficacy when analyzed concurrently with ISEs and affect (Dyar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Jackson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Evidence for temporal associations, however, remains mixed due to different intervals between assessments across studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAffirming and invalidating ISEs serve as critical signals of social safety and threat, respectively, and contribute to individuals\u0026rsquo; affective-somatic states via various psychological mechanisms. One adaptive mechanism that has gained increasing attention within SGD health research yet understudied is momentary self-compassion (Helminen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), the quality of how individuals are motivated to treat and relate to themselves, especially during moments of suffering (Gilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Neff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Compassionate self-responding involves motivation to treat oneself with kindness, recognizing that suffering is a shared human experience, and maintaining mindful awareness of the moment-to-moment experience, which contrasts uncompassionate self-responding, characterized by self-judgment, isolation, and overidentification. Empirically, a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies has found that minority stressors are negatively linked to self-compassion and that self-compassion is negatively associated with psychological distress among SGD people (Helminen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). A cross-sectional study among a sample of LGB people revealed that self-compassion mediated the link between perceived social support and subjective well-being (Toplu-Demirtaş et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, these studies have approached self-compassion as a trait-like construct although research suggests that self-compassion can fluctuate over short periods as a state-like variable (Neff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudying momentary self-compassion as a psychological mechanism can benefit the understanding of the resilience process in SGD health because of its theoretical relevance to how individuals respond to social safety and threat signals. Specifically, initially proposed as two extremes of the same continuum, a growing body of scholarship conceptualizes compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding as two distinctive constructs, indicative of an activated affiliative-based soothing system and a threat-based risk management system, respectively (Chio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Despite the distinctive and independent functions of the two ways of self-responding, most research assumed them as two extremes of the same dimension. Gilbert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) argues that the presence of threat signals likely result in uncompassionate self-responding as a natural self-protective mechanism. Furthermore, like Diamond and Alley (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Gilbert also posits that the mere absence of threat signals will not engender compassionate self-responding, suggesting the vital role of safety signals. Thus, it remains a question whether compassionate self-responding would mediate the links between affirming ISE and affective-somatic well-being, and similarly, whether uncompassionate self-responding would mediate those between invalidating ISE and affective-somatic well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eActive Self-Compassion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePeace in oneself, peace in the world\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash; Th\u0026iacute;ch Nhất Hạnh\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSGD individuals are active agents in connecting to affirming relationships and creating identity-affirming experiences (Carvalho \u0026amp; Guiomar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Assuming that opportunities for SGD identity affirmation exist in society, what intraindividual factors might contribute to people reporting an affirming ISE? One such factor could be active self-compassion. Scholars argue that self-compassion can shape individuals\u0026rsquo; social cognition and behaviors in their interactions with the environment (Brach, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lathren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Brach (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized how compassionate self-responding with the practice of RAIN \u0026ndash; recognizing, allowing, investigating, and nourishing \u0026ndash; helps cultivate emotional resilience and invite support and affirmation. In fact, research has shown the beneficial effect of self-compassion on people\u0026rsquo;s capacity to attune to and assert one\u0026rsquo;s own needs, as well as to repair relational transgressions (Lathren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). While studies that directly tested these relationships in the context of SGD people are limited, we were able to identify a few that support the notion that self-compassion lays a foundation for perceived support. For instance, research found that self-compassion predicts greater perceived social support among college samples (Akin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Lavin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Using cross-sectional data, Jang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) tested a serial mediation model that involves self-compassion and perceived social support and found support for the proposed link among a sample of SGD college students. However, these studies used a cross-sectional design, which limits the understanding of temporal relationships across variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough not explicitly stated, the regulated positive affective-somatic states from the practice of self-compassion may, in part, play a role in promoting support and affirmation (F\u0026ouml;rster \u0026amp; Kanske, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fredrickson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; 2004). For instance, research has found that positive affect can broaden one\u0026rsquo;s awareness and engage in behaviors that will likely generate positive affect whereas negative affect may narrow attention and reinforce negative affect (see Fredrickson \u0026amp; Joiner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, somatic symptoms can reduce one\u0026rsquo;s capacity to mentalize (Preis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), which is necessary for identifying sources of support and affirmation. Given the regulatory function of self-compassion (Yip \u0026amp; Tong, 2021), self-compassion may increase positive affect and reduce negative internal states, thereby expanding SGD individuals\u0026rsquo; thought-action repertoires and increasing their awareness of affirming ISEs and openness to potential sources of affirmation. Descriptive findings from prior research suggest that affirming ISEs are more likely to be generated voluntarily compared to invalidating ISEs (Mohr \u0026amp; Sarno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Morris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The likelihood of endorsing invalidating ISE is likely independent from earlier state of mind in the moment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Present Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority of existing SGD health research has focused on the minority stress process, typically using cross-sectional designs or conducting concurrent analyses within intensive longitudinal studies. This literature has thus been limited in two key respects: first, in terms of the primary variables investigated\u0026mdash;emphasizing minority stress over identity-affirming experiences; and second, in research design\u0026mdash;privileging static or concurrent associations over dynamic, temporal processes. Moreover, questions remain regarding how resilience unfolds in real time, particularly in relation to momentary self-compassion as a self-regulatory capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address both the conceptual and methodological gaps, the present study tested two interrelated perspectives\u0026mdash;social safety and active self-compassion\u0026mdash;to enhance the understanding of resilience processes in SGD health. The social safety perspective emphasizes the internalization of identity-affirming experiences, positing that affirming ISEs predict self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being. Meanwhile, from the active self-compassion perspective, self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being can theoretically serve as a predictor of likelihood of affirming ISE, which appears tenable based on existing evidence. In other words, the active self-compassion perspective highlights that affirming ISE may emerge as an outcome in response to one\u0026rsquo;s self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the overarching goal of this study is to examine the temporal associations between ISEs, self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being at the within-person level. We have the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Social safety): (a) Affirming ISE would predict subsequent increases in compassionate self-responding and decreases in uncompassionate self-responding, which in turn would correlate with subsequent increases in positive affect and decreases in negative affect and somatic distress, whereas (b) invalidating ISE would predict subsequent increases in uncompassionate self-responding only, which in turn would correlate with decreases in positive affect and increases in negative affect and somatic distress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Active self-compassion): (a) Compassionate self-responding would positively relate to subsequent likelihood of affirming (but not invalidating) ISE via increased positive affect and decreased negative affect and somatic distress, while (b) uncompassionate self-responding would negatively relate to subsequent likelihood of affirming (but not invalidating) ISE via decreased positive affect and increased negative affect and somatic distress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe sample comprised 141 SGD participants living in Hong Kong (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 28.32, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.09). Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling through local SGD-oriented community organizations and advertisements on social media platforms between February and September 2024. Eligibility criteria included: (a) age 18 years or above, (b) access to a smartphone with internet or Wi-Fi capabilities, and (c) ability to communicate in Chinese. Detailed demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table S1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the author\u0026rsquo;s affiliated university. This study was part of a broader project examining SGD well-being in real time. The procedures and measurements relevant to the present study are described below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEligible participants provided informed consent and completed baseline measures (e.g., demographic information) prior to a two-week experience sampling period. Participants could select 14 consecutive days based on their availability for study participation. An orientation meeting with the research assistant was held to explain the study procedures, provide instructions on completing the survey prompts, and address any questions to ensure participants clearly understand the materials. Meanwhile, participants were instructed to install a mobile application, ExpiWell, on their smartphones. ExpiWell is a versatile platform widely used in experience sampling research that streamline data collection by providing easy access to surveys and sending scheduled reminders (e.g., Aggarwal et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Lougheed et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants completed three interval-contingent surveys each day, totaling 42 surveys over the two-week study period. To enhance ecological validity, participants selected one of two survey schedules based on their typical waking hours: Early wake schedule (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;86) covered 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. on the next day (7 a.m.\u0026ndash;1 p.m., 1 p.m.\u0026ndash;7 p.m., 7 p.m.\u0026ndash;1 a.m.), and late awake schedule (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;55) covered 10 a.m. to 4 a.m. on the next day (10 a.m.\u0026ndash;4 p.m., 4 p.m.\u0026ndash;10 p.m., 10 p.m.\u0026ndash;4 a.m.). At each prompt, participants reported their affective-somatic well-being and self-compassion in the moment and also indicated if any ISE (i.e., affirming or invalidating) had occurred since the previous survey. Each survey was accessible only within its scheduled window. Participants received a reminder three hours after each survey window opened if the survey remained incomplete. Surveys that were not completed within the designated window were coded as missing. Participants who missed more than two days of surveys were contacted to encourage reengagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, 5,499 surveys (92.9%) of the total 5922 possible surveys over the study period (i.e. 141 participants could provide tri-daily reports for 14 days) were completed and included in the analysis. To incentivize compliance, participants received HK\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e5 per completed survey and a HK\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e100 bonus for completing all surveys over seven consecutive days or at least 70% of all surveys throughout the 14-day study period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe measures in the interval-contingent survey are presented in the following order.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAffective and somatic well-being\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive and negative affect.\u003c/strong\u003e We adapted items from the Chinese version of the affect subscale in the Body-Mind-Spirit Wellbeing Inventory (BMSWBI; Ng et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and Positive and Negative Affect scale (Watson et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) to assess participants\u0026rsquo; positive and negative emotional state. Each item contains three emotion indicators. Specifically, positive affect was assessed with 2 items (\u0026ldquo;grateful, happy, contented\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;confident, proud, at ease\u0026rdquo;), while negative affect was measured using 3 items (\u0026ldquo;nervous, fearful, worried,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;sad, lonely, helpless,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;emotionally upset, irritable, angry\u0026rdquo;). Participants rated the extent to which they experience these emotions since the last survey on a 5-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003enot at all\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003eextremely\u003c/em\u003e). Higher mean scores indicated greater momentary positive or negative affect. In the current sample, within-person internal consistencies were acceptable (McDonald\u0026rsquo;s \u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.77 for positive affect, and \u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75 for negative affect); and higher between-person reliability (\u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98 for positive affect, and \u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93 for negative affect).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSomatic distress.\u003c/strong\u003e Somatic distress was assessed with a single item adapted from the Chinese version of physical distress subscale in the BMSWBI scale (Ng et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and somatization subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory (Boulet \u0026amp; Boss, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Participants indicated the extent to which they were experiencing physical discomfort (e.g., headache, dizziness, or palpitations) at that moment on a 5-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003eno distress at all\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003eextreme distress\u003c/em\u003e). Higher scores indicate greater somatic distress experienced in the moment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSelf-compassion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompassionate and uncompassionate self-responding.\u003c/strong\u003e Compassionate self-responding (CSR) and uncompassionate self-responding (USR) were assessed using six items from the State Self-Compassion Scale (Short form; Neff et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) following forward and back-translation procedures to ensure content validity. Participants rated how well each statements described their feelings toward themselves when thinking about a painful or challenging situation, using a 5-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003enot at all true for me\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003every true for me\u003c/em\u003e). Separate mean scores were computed for compassionate self-responding (CSR; 3 items; e.g., \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m giving myself the caring and tenderness I need\u0026rdquo;) and uncompassionate self-responding (USR; 3 items; e.g., \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m obsessing and fixating on everything that\u0026rsquo;s wrong\u0026rdquo;). Higher mean scores indicated greater endorsement of compassionate self-responding or uncompassionate self-responding, respectively. In the current sample, within-person internal consistencies were moderate (McDonald\u0026rsquo;s \u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.51 for CSR and \u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.62 for USR), while between-person level were good (\u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75 for CSR and \u0026omega;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.86 for USR), consistent with prior studies (Mey et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhao et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIdentity-Salient Experiences (ISEs).\u003c/strong\u003e We adapted items asking participant to indicate the presence or absence of affirming and invalidating ISEs encountered since the last survey (Chong et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Morhr \u0026amp; Sarno, 2016). Response options include \u003cem\u003eyes\u003c/em\u003e (1) or \u003cem\u003eno\u003c/em\u003e (0). Specifically, affirming and invalidating ISEs were prompted as follows, respectively:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSince the last survey, have you experienced any positive or pleasant events and situations that related in some way to your LGBTQ identity? These events or situations can be everyday occurrences (e.g., having a great time with LGBTQ friends, encountering positive information about the LGBTQ community) or more significant events (e.g., participating in the wedding of LGBTQ friends).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSince the last survey, have you experienced any negative or unpleasant events and \u003cem\u003esituations that related in some way to your LGBTQ identity? These events or situations can be everyday occurrences (e.g., feeling that your LGBTQ identity is not being respected, encountering negative information about LGBTQ identity), or more significant events (e.g., being dismissed from employment due to your sexual orientation).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted using M\u003cem\u003eplus\u003c/em\u003e (version 8.7, Muthen \u0026amp; Muthen, 1998\u0026ndash;2017). Our data had a two-level nested structure, with momentary assessments (Level 1; within-person) nested within participants (Level 2; between-person). To investigate the temporal relationships between ISEs (i.e., affirming and invalidating ISEs), self-compassion (i.e., compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding) and affective-somatic well-being (i.e., positive affect, negative affect and somatic distress), dynamic structural equation modelling (DSEM) was employed. DSEM integrates time-series analysis, multilevel modeling, and structural equation modeling, making it ideally suited for analyzing intensive longitudinal data by disentangling the dynamic interplay among predictors and outcomes over time, and accurately capturing lagged mediation effects (Asparouhov et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; McNeish \u0026amp; Hamaker, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Within the DSEM framework, effects were disaggregated into within-person and between-person components. Our primary focus is on within-person dynamics, with intercepts of the variables allowed to covary at the between-person level. To account for any missing assessments and to ensure equal spacing between measurements, the \u0026ldquo;tinterval\u0026rdquo; option was used to segment the data into consecutive four-hour bins based on the exact time of survey completion, thereby standardizing temporal spacing between each assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo lagged mediation models were tested (i.e., social safety and active self-compassion perspectives). These mediation models specified autoregressive structure with a lag of one time point for all hypothesized predictors, mediators, and outcomes; and a lag of two time points for the predictors. Specifically, each variable in these models was predicted by itself at the previous moment. Additionally, in the model examining social safety perspective, affective-somatic well-being at Time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e were predicted by ISEs at Time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-2, and self-compassion at Time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-1. As such, compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding were set to mediate the links between ISEs at the prior moment and affective-somatic well-being at the next moment. Similarly, in the model examining active self-compassion perspective, ISEs at Time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e were predicted by self-compassion at Time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-2 and affective-somatic well-being at Time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-1. In other words, affect and somatic distress were set to mediate the links between self-compassion at the prior moment and ISEs at the next moment. In both models, we controlled for assessment type (weekend vs. weekday) at the within-person level. ISEs were treated as categorical variables in view of its binary response option. Bayesian estimation was employed to accommodate nonnormality and missing data. Statistical significance was determined by 95% Bayesian credible intervals (CIs), with effects considered significant if their CIs did not include zero (McNeish \u0026amp; Hamaker, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePower analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe employed a Monte Carlo simulation approach to power analysis in M\u003cem\u003eplus\u003c/em\u003e, which provides a flexible and robust built-in stimulation framework for determining the sample size requirements tailored to specific DSEM model (Fang \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Schultzberg \u0026amp; Muthen, 2018). Our simulations were based on the temporal mediation model used in the current study, with varying numbers of subjects (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80, 100, 120) and numbers of time points (T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20, 30, 40). Results indicated that a minimum of 80 participants, each with at least 40 timepoints of check-in survey data, was sufficient to achieve a power of 0.80 to detect a small within-person indirect effect at a significant level of 0.05, with the coefficients of \u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e paths set a 0.1 and 0.05, respectively. Our current sample size exceeds this recommendation, thereby providing adequate statistical power to detect the hypothesized mediating pathways.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eConvergence\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn DSEM, verifying model convergence is essential for obtaining stable and unbiased estimated parameters, and thus ensuring the validity and reliability of study findings. Convergence was evaluated using three established criteria (Geiser, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e): (1) Gelman\u0026ndash;Rubin Potential Scale Reduction Factor (PSRF) values close to 1; (2) trace plots (i.e., no upward or downward trend of parameters with two chains overlapping well) and (3) autocorrelation plots with values around or below 0.1. In the present study, two Bayesian Markov chain Mont Carlo (MCMC) chains were run with 10,000 iterations each to achieve convergence (McNeish \u0026amp; Hamaker, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The DSEM models showed satisfactory convergence across all criteria, indicating reliable and stable parameter estimation. Specifically, all PSRF values were below 1.01; visual inspection of trace plots confirmed adequate mixing without irregularities, and autocorrelation values were consistently below 0.1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study was not preregistered. Data and analysis code for this study are available by contacting the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePreliminary Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn total, there were 5,499 surveys. Participants completed between 11 and 42 interval-contingent surveys (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39.63, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.71). Descriptives and bivariate correlations are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The correlations at within- and between-person levels were in the expected directions. The mean affirming and invalidating ISEs scores across participants were 0.24 and 0.13, respectively. This indicates that, on average, the rate of experiencing affirming and invalidating ISE were 24% and 13%. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for main variables, indicating the proportions of variance explained by between-person differences. Correspondingly, the value of (1 \u0026ndash; ICC) represents the proportions of variance due to within-participant differences plus error. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the ICCs for ISEs, negative affect, and somatic distress range from .44 to .51, indicating considerable momentary fluctuations. Furthermore, the ICCs for positive affect and the two facets of self-compassion range from .58 to .70, suggesting relative consistency within persons.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics, Bivariate Correlations and ICCs\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Affirming ISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.69\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.31\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Invalidating ISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.28\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.30\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.33\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.37\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Compassionate self-responding\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.15\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.56\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Uncompassionate self-responding\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.18\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.03\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.77\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.60\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. Positive affect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.24\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.41\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.33\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Negative affect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.18\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.51\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.30\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.69\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Somatic distress\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.05\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.26\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.19\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.40\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eICCs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e ICCs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;intraclass correlation coefficients. Within-person level correlations are below the diagonal; between-person level correlations are above the diagonal. All correlation coefficients are standardized. The significant correlation coefficients are in boldface according to 95% credible intervals, which do not contain zero.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProspective Mediation Effects\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents DSEM results for two hypothesized prospective mediation models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSocial Safety Perspective\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAffirming ISE at a given moment predicted higher subsequent compassionate self-responding but was not significantly associated with subsequent uncompassionate self-responding. Conversely, invalidating ISE predicted higher levels of uncompassionate self-responding but not compassionate self-responding at the next moment. As expected, compassionate self-responding was in turn significantly related to higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect at the subsequent moment. Nevertheless, no significant lagged association between compassionate self-responding and somatic distress was detected. Uncompassionate self-responding was prospectively associated with lower levels of positive affect and higher levels of negative affect and somatic distress. In addition, the direct links between ISE and outcomes show that affirming ISE was significantly linked to higher positive affect and lower negative affect at a lag of two time points. Conversely, invalidating ISE was prospectively associated with decreased positive affect and increased negative affect and somatic distress at a lag of two time points. In addition, although not presented in the Figure, all autoregressive paths from each variable at a given moment significantly predicted itself at the next moment. As for the within-level covariate (i.e., weekend), participants reported significantly higher levels of positive affect (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, 95% CI [.02, .06]) and lower levels of negative affect (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03, 95% CI [-.06, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01]) on weekends.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndirect effects indicate that compassionate self-responding at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e -1 significantly mediated the association between affirming ISE at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e -2 and both positive (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004, 95% CI [.002, .01]) and negative affect (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.003, 95% CI [-.005, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.001]) at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e. Meanwhile, uncompassionate self-responding at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-1 significantly mediated the lagged relationship between invalidating ISE at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2 and positive affect (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.003, 95% CI [-.006, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.001]), negative affect (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007, 95% CI [.004, .01]) and somatic distress (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, 95% CI [.003, .01]) at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eActive self-compassion Perspective\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompassionate self-responding at a given moment was significantly associated with higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect at a subsequent moment but was unrelated to later somatic distress. Uncompassionate self-responding at the given moment significantly contributed to decreased positive affect and elevated negative affect and somatic distress at the subsequent moment. Furthermore, positive affect was then prospectively and significantly linked to greater likelihood of perceiving affirming ISE, whereas negative affect was significantly associated to lower likelihood of perceiving affirming ISE at the next moment. The direct links between two facets of self-compassion at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e -2 were not significantly related to ISE at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e. All the autoregressive links from each variable of the previous moment to itself at the current moment were significant. Regarding the within-level covariate, weekend could not significantly predict the likelihood of perceiving affirming or invalidating ISE.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndirect effects were identified as expected: Positive affect at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 significantly mediated the lagged relationship between compassionate self-responding at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2 and affirming ISE at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, 95% CI [.004, .03]), and between uncompassionate self-responding at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2 and affirming ISE at time t (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01, 95% CI [-.02, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.003]). Negative affect at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 was a significant mediator for the relationship between compassionate self-responding at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2 and affirming ISE at time t (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, 95% CI [.01, .03]), and the association between uncompassionate self-responding at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2 and affirming ISE at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03, 95% CI [-.05, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01]). However, no evidence was found for the mediating role of somatic distress at \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; 1 for the link between compassionate self-responding and affirming ISE (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.00, 95% CI [-.004, .004]) and between uncompassionate self-responding and affirming ISE (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.00, 95% CI [-.009, .009]).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eResilience is a dynamic process, yet most studies have approached it as a static trait. Our study suggests the interconnected nature of identity-affirming experiences and self-compassion in the unfolding of resilience among SGD people in Hong Kong. Specifically, we examined the within-person temporal associations between episodic ISEs (affirmative and invalidating), momentary self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being using an experience sampling design. Support was found for the social safety and active self-compassion perspectives. Compassionate self-responding is not only predicted by earlier affirming ISE, but it also predicts increased likelihood of subsequent affirming experiences via greater positive affect and reduced negative affect. Uncompassionate self-responding is predicted by earlier invalidating ISE and also predicts decreased likelihood of subsequent affirming experiences via affect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSocial Safety\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile understanding SGD well-being, recent scholarships (Diamond \u0026amp; Alley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Gilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) equivocally point to the notion that social safety signals are not only crucial for mitigating the threat-based protective state SGD individuals typically experience in a cisheterosexist society but also for activating the affiliative-based soothing system. The present study integrated theories of compassion science into SGD resilience research to show that momentary compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding as critical psychological mechanisms that fluctuate over time in accordance with earlier episodic ISEs (Gilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Helminen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Previous studies in SGD health research mainly examined self-compassion as a unidimensional construct despite growing body of work that argues for its bidimensional property (i.e., compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding) that theoretically maps onto Gilbert\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) soothing and defense systems in his model of emotion regulation (Chio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Given the distinctive functions of the two systems, differentiating them in this study enables researchers to understand how affirming and invalidating ISEs may contribute to subsequent affective-somatic well-being via two distinctive pathways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, momentary affirming ISE predicted higher compassionate self-responding, which subsequently contributed to improved positive affect, reduced negative affect, and no change in somatic distress. Conversely, invalidating ISEs predicted heightened uncompassionate self-responding, which in turn lead to diminished positive affect, elevated negative affect, and increased somatic distress. Notably, affirming ISE was not associated with reduced subsequent uncompassionate self-responding as hypothesized, despite their significant negative associations based on concurrent bivariate correlations. Taken together, these findings support Gilbert\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) notion that compassionate self-responding functions as an affiliative-based soothing system rooted in the presence of social safety cues, whereas uncompassionate self-responding operates as a threat-based self-protective system elicited by the presence of threats. In other words, the mere absence of invalidating experiences is insufficient, as compassionate self-responding is unchanged when the threat-based defense system stays activated in the absence of social safety signals. In contrast, the presence of social safety cues may temporarily suspend the default defensive system and allow for changes in compassionate self-responding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eActive self-compassion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eScholars propose that self-compassion has the potential to influence how individuals perceive and interact with their social environment (Brach, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lathren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, compassionate self-responding, an affiliation-based soothing system can facilitate care from self and others via emotion regulation whereas uncompassionate self-responding, a threat-based protective system can discourage such processes. As hypothesized, compassionate self-responding was prospectively associated with increased positive affect and reduced negative affect, which in turn was linked to greater likelihood of affirming ISE (but not invalidating ISE) at a subsequent moment. A reverse pattern of association was observed for uncompassionate self-responding when predicting the subsequent likelihood of affirming ISE via affect. Taken together, these findings show the active agency SGD people embody by means of compassionate self-responding in promoting the subsequent likelihood of accessing identity-affirming experiences. Self-compassion may promote emotion regulation, whereby positive emotions may facilitate the broadening of thought-action repertoires. In turn, this may heighten SGD people\u0026rsquo;s awareness of affirming ISEs and foster greater openness to available sources of support. In contrast, negative affect can narrow attention, add barriers to identifying potential sources of affirmation or increase the chance of a person engaging in actions that reduce the likelihood of encountering affirming experiences (e.g., social withdrawal) (F\u0026ouml;rster \u0026amp; Kanske, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fredrickson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnexpectedly, somatic distress was not linked to lower subsequent likelihood of affirmative ISE. One possible explanation is that negative affect may have already accounted for the variance explained by somatic symptoms. Another is that it may take time for affective experiences to manifest as somatic symptoms that are detectable. While the measure captures momentary affective changes, not all such changes necessarily translate into somatic symptoms. As hypothesized, no variables significantly predicted the likelihood of invalidating ISE. The likelihood of endorsing invalidating ISE appears to be independent of earlier momentary self-compassion and affective-somatic well-being, suggesting that invalidating ISE can occur regardless of individuals\u0026rsquo; state of mind and may depend on external factors (Mohr et al., 2016; Morris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study offers important theoretical and practical implications for SGD health. First, this study advances theory by examining directionality and specific prospective relationships among key variables, enabling tests of the interrelated perspectives of social safety and active self-compassion. This approach extends existent evidence, which predominantly focuses on concurrent relationships (see Nicholas \u0026amp; Bresin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e for review).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest the possibility of a \u003cem\u003epositive resilience cycle\u003c/em\u003e. Affirming ISE contribute to affective well-being through compassionate self-responding, while compassionate self-responding increases the likelihood of subsequent affirming ISE via enhanced affective well-being across successive moments. It is plausible that momentary affirming ISEs initiate the broaden-and-build process (Fredrickson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) by fostering compassionate self-responding and positive affect. This, in turn, may heighten individuals\u0026rsquo; awareness of affirming experiences or encourage behaviors that invite such experiences. Conversely, momentary invalidating ISEs appear to impede this adaptive process by activating the threat-defense system, manifesting as uncompassionate self-responding. These distinct effects of momentary affirming versus invalidating ISEs help illuminate SGD health disparities. While addressing invalidating ISEs remains critical, as these experiences primarily drive uncompassionate self-responding, the promotion of identity-affirming cues across multiple social-ecological levels\u0026mdash;from enacting affirmative policies and laws to interpersonal expressions of respect for SGD dignity\u0026mdash;offers a hopeful pathway for reducing such disparities in the long term (Diamond \u0026amp; Alley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, most SGD health research assumed self-compassion to be trait-like and relatively stable, resulting in investigations that often focus on its stress-buffering role in the resilience process (Frost \u0026amp; Meyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This study extends past evidence by examining self-compassion as a state-like variable and shows its fluctuations in accordance with ISEs in individuals\u0026rsquo; natural environment as they occur in real-time even after accounting for the autoregressive pathways. This approach emphasizes the mutability of both compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding within individuals, thereby presenting opportunities for intervention. This study highlighted the value of active momentary self-compassion in fostering opportunities for identity-affirming experiences. In fact, some SGD individuals may be less ready to access affirming resources due to early adverse experiences rooted in cisheterosexism (Masked paper). Easy-to-use momentary interventions can be designed to support individuals to cultivate compassionate self-responding and minimize uncompassionate self-responding, thereby facilitating individuals to notice and seek out positive, identity-affirming experiences (Rauschenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Prevention and intervention efforts can start with reducing uncompassionate self-responding to increase the chances of experiencing affirmative ISEs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study has advanced SGD health research in several important ways, certain limitations must be acknowledged. First, generalizability of the current findings is restricted to younger, educated Chinese SGD individuals residing in Hong Kong. This demographic scope may not reflect the full diversity of experiences within the broader SGD community, especially among with multiple marginalized identities. Moreover, the applicability of our results may be limited to social contexts and historical periods characterized by rising SGD inclusion (Wong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). To strengthen future research, broader sampling strategies are needed to capture a wider array of participants. Doing so would enhance understanding of how intersecting identities and varying sociocultural contexts shape psychological processes and outcomes in SGD population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext, this study primarily focused on affect and somatic distress as indicators of SGD health. Although our findings suggest potential benefits of momentary affirming ISE and self-compassion, a recent daily diary study conducted in the U.S. indicates that social support and identity-affirming experiences do not only enhance affective well-being but also paradoxically promote substance use, including nicotine and alcohol consumption (Parnes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest that the subjective appraisal of safety and affirming experiences can involve health risk behaviors. Future investigations may consider broadening the scope of health indicators to include both self-reported measures (e.g., sleep quality, substance use, eating behavior) and biomarkers (e.g., heart rate variability). This approach could provide insight into the complexity of the resilience processes, including the conscious and unconscious aspects of safety experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the present study operated under the assumption that the resilience processes remain invariant across individuals and over time. However, between-person differences may influence these processes\u0026mdash;such as volatility in self-compassion, reactivity to invalidating ISE, and responsiveness to affirming ISE. Identifying individual-level factors that contribute to such variability is critical for advancing our understanding of resilience. For instance, more frequent identity-affirming experiences may predict greater stability in self-compassion, while exposure to invalidating ISE could prompt heightened subsequent compassionate self-responding, particularly among individuals with a strong safety schema fostered through regular compassion-based practices or consistent access to social safety cues. Future research should integrate both within- and between-person perspectives to elucidate the sources of variability in key psychosocial constructs and their interrelationships, thereby informing the development of person-centered interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAggarwal, A., Chen, S. T., Lee, J., Tracy, A., Qiao, S., Li, X., \u0026amp; Yang, C. H. (2024). Time‐lagged associations of mindfulness and self‐regulation with affect and cognition: An ecological momentary assessment study. \u003cem\u003eMental Health Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), e55. https://doi.org/10.1002/mhs2.55\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkin, A., \u0026amp; Akin, U. (2015). Self-compassion as a predictor of social safeness in Turkish university students. \u003cem\u003eRevista Latinoamericana de Psicolog\u0026iacute;a\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(1), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0120-0534(15)30005-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 359-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoulet, J., \u0026amp; Boss, M. W. (1991). Reliability and validity of the Brief Symptom Inventory. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 433-437. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.3.3.433\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrach, T. (2019). \u003cem\u003eRadical compassion: Learning to love yourself and your world with the practice of RAIN\u003c/em\u003e. Penguin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooks, V. R. (1981). \u003cem\u003eMinority stress and lesbian women\u003c/em\u003e. Lexington Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarvalho, S. A., \u0026amp; Guiomar, R. (2022). Self-compassion and mental health in sexual and gender minority people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eLGBT Health, 9\u003c/em\u003e(5), 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2021.0434\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChio, F. H., Mak, W. W., \u0026amp; Ben, C. L. (2021). Meta-analytic review on the differential effects of self-compassion components on well-being and psychological distress: The moderating role of dialecticism on self-compassion. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e, 101986. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101986 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChong, E. S. K., Mohr, J. J., \u0026amp; Chui, H. (2023). Examining the protective role of self-compassion in the links between daily sexual orientation salient experiences and affect. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counseling Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 70\u003c/em\u003e(5), 522-534. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000690\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Lira, A. N., \u0026amp; de Morais, N. A. (2018). Resilience in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations: An integrative literature review. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 272-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0285-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiamond, L. M., \u0026amp; Alley, J. C. (2022). Rethinking minority stress: A social safety perspective on the health effects of stigma in sexually-diverse and gender-diverse populations. \u003cem\u003eNeuroscience \u0026amp; Biobehavioral Reviews, 138\u003c/em\u003e, 104720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104720\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoane, M. J. (2017). \u003cem\u003eThe role of stigma visibility on stigma-related stress, coping, and health: An exploration among gay men and lesbians\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDyar, C. (2024). Prospective examination of mechanisms linking minority stress and anxious/depressed affect at the event level: The roles of emotion regulation strategies and proximal minority stressors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, 133\u003c/em\u003e(2), 178-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000882\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDyar, C., Curtis, J., \u0026amp; Herry, E. (2024). Positive sexual and gender identity experiences: Prospective associations with affect, internalized stigma, and perceived coping efficacy among sexual minority women and gender diverse young adults. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity\u003c/em\u003e. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000784\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEldahan, A. I., Pachankis, J. E., Rendina, H. J., Ventuneac, A., Grov, C., \u0026amp; Parsons, J. T. (2016). Daily minority stress and affect among gay and bisexual men: A 30-day diary study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 190\u003c/em\u003e, 828-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.066\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, Y., \u0026amp; Wang, L. (2024). Dynamic structural equation models with missing data: Data requirements on N and T. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(5), 891-908. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2287967\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeinstein, B. A., Dyar, C., Poon, J. A., Goodman, F. R., \u0026amp; Davila, J. (2022). The affective consequences of minority stress among bisexual, pansexual, and queer (Bi+) adults: A daily diary study. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(4), 571-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2022.01.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eF\u0026ouml;rster, K., \u0026amp; Kanske, P. (2022). Upregulating positive affect through compassion: Psychological and physiological evidence. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychophysiology, 176\u003c/em\u003e, 100-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.03.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist, 56\u003c/em\u003e(3), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFredrickson, B. L., Huppert, F. A., Baylis, N., \u0026amp; Keverne, B. (2004). The broaden\u0026ndash;and\u0026ndash;build theory of positive emotions. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e359\u003c/em\u003e(1449), 1367\u0026ndash;1377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFredrickson, B. L., \u0026amp; Joiner, T. (2018). Reflections on positive emotions and upward spirals. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 194-199. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617692106\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrost, D. M., \u0026amp; Meyer, I. H. (2023). Minority stress theory: Application, critique, and continued relevance. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e, 101579. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101579\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeiser, C. (2020). \u003cem\u003eLongitudinal structural equation modeling with Mplus: A latent state-trait perspective\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilbert, P. (2009). The nature and basis for compassion focused therapy. \u003cem\u003eHellenic Journal of Psychology, 6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 273-291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilbert, P. (2024). Threat, safety, safeness and social safeness 30 years on: Fundamental dimensions and distinctions for mental health and well-being. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63\u003c/em\u003e(3), 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12466\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiraud, C., Newcomb, M. E., \u0026amp; Whitton, S. W. (2025). An evaluation of resilience as \u003cbr\u003ea protective factor for mental health among sexual and gender minority young people. \u003cem\u003eLGBT Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e(4), 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2024.0135\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoulet, M., \u0026amp; Villatte, A. (2020). Understanding risk and resilience for sexual minority emerging adults: A longitudinal outlook on minority stress, mental health, and academic perseverance. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-00412-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma \u0026ldquo;get under the skin\u0026rdquo;? A psychological mediation framework. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 135\u003c/em\u003e(5), 707-730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016441\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelminen, E. C., Ducar, D. M., Scheer, J. R., Parke, K. L., Morton, M. L., \u0026amp; Felver, J. C. (2023). Self-compassion, minority stress, and mental health in sexual and gender minority populations: A meta-analysis and systematic review. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 26-39. https://doi.org/10.1037/cps0000104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, S. D., Mohr, J. J., Sarno, E. L., Kindahl, A. M., \u0026amp; Jones, I. L. (2020). Intersectional experiences, stigma-related stress, and psychological health among Black LGBQ individuals. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88\u003c/em\u003e(5), 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000489\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJang, H., Woo, H., \u0026amp; Lee, I. (2020). Effects of self‐compassion and social support on lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students\u0026apos; positive identity and career decision‐making. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counseling \u0026amp; Development, 98\u003c/em\u003e(4), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12342\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKiekens, W. J., \u0026amp; Mereish, E. H. (2022). The association between daily concealment and affect among sexual and gender minority adolescents: The moderating role of family and peer support. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescent Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 70\u003c/em\u003e(4), 650-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.11.019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLathren, C. R., Rao, S. S., Park, J., \u0026amp; Bluth, K. (2021). Self-compassion and current close interpersonal relationships: A scoping literature review. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1078-1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01566-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLavin, A. E., Brodar, K. E., \u0026amp; McClain, S. N. (2020). The role of self-compassion in college students\u0026rsquo; perceived social support, stress, and well-being.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Psychological Research, 25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLegate, N., Ryan, R. M., \u0026amp; Rogge, R. D. (2017). Daily autonomy support and sexual identity disclosure predicts daily mental and physical health outcomes. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 43\u003c/em\u003e(6), 860-873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217700399\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLougheed, J. P., Keskin, G., \u0026amp; Morgan, S. (2023). The hazards of daily stressors: Comparing the experiences of sexual and gender minority young adults to cisgender heterosexual young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eCollabra: Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.73649\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcNeish, D., \u0026amp; Hamaker, E. L. (2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(5), 610-635. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000250\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMereish, E. H., Peters, J. R., Brick, L. A., Killam, M. A., \u0026amp; Yen, S. (2023). A daily diary study of minority stressors, suicidal ideation, nonsuicidal self-injury ideation, and affective mechanisms among sexual and gender minority youth. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e132\u003c/em\u003e(4), 372-384. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000813\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMey, L. K., Wenzel, M., Morello, K., Rowland, Z., Kubiak, T., \u0026amp; T\u0026uuml;scher, O. (2023). Be kind to yourself: The implications of momentary self-compassion for affective dynamics and well-being in daily life. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 622-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-02050-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 129\u003c/em\u003e(5), 674-697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer, I. H. (2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000132\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohr, J. J., \u0026amp; Sarno, E. L. (2016). The ups and downs of being lesbian, gay, and bisexual: A daily experience perspective on minority stress and support processes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counseling Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(1), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000125\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorris, T. R., Kase, C. A., Mohr, J. J., Okuno, H., \u0026amp; Wang, R. J. (2025). Daily identity-salient experiences and mental health among transgender women: Minority supports and stressors. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity\u003c/em\u003e. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000845\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuth\u0026eacute;n, L. K., \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n, B. O. (1998\u0026ndash;2017). \u003cem\u003eMplus user\u0026rsquo;s guide\u003c/em\u003e (8th ed.).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. \u003cem\u003eSelf and Identity, 2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeff, K. D., T\u0026oacute;th-Kir\u0026aacute;ly, I., Knox, M. C., Kuchar, A., \u0026amp; Davidson, O. (2021). The development and validation of the state self-compassion scale (long-and short form). \u003cem\u003eMindfulness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01505-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg, S. M., Yau, J. K., Chan, C. L., Chan, C. H., \u0026amp; Ho, D. Y. (2005). The measurement of body-mind-spirit well-being: Toward multidimensionality and transcultural applicability. \u003cem\u003eSocial Work in Health Care, 41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v41n01_03\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNicholas, J., \u0026amp; Bresin, K. (2024). Everyday sexual and gender minority stress and health: A systematic review of experience sampling studies. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1221-1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02779-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOng, A. D., \u0026amp; Leger, K. A. (2022). Advancing the study of resilience to daily \u003cbr\u003estressors.\u003cem\u003e Perspectives on Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1591-1603. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211071092\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParnes, J. E., Le, T. P., Mereish, E. H., \u0026amp; Miranda, R., Jr. (2024). Daily associations between resilience factors, substance use, and affect among sexual minority youth. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Addictive Behaviors, 38\u003c/em\u003e(7), 805-817. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000998\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreis, M. A., Golm, D., Kr\u0026ouml;ner-Herwig, B., \u0026amp; Barke, A. (2017). Examining differences in cognitive and affective theory of mind between persons with high and low extent of somatic symptoms: an experimental study. \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1360-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRauschenberg, C., Boecking, B., Paetzold, I., Schruers, K., Schick, A., van Amelsvoort, T., \u0026amp; Reininghaus, U. (2021). A compassion-focused ecological momentary intervention for enhancing resilience in help-seeking youth: Uncontrolled pilot study. \u003cem\u003eJMIR Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 8\u003c/em\u003e(8), e25650. https://doi.org/10.2196/25650\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalim, S., Robinson, M., \u0026amp; Flanders, C. E. (2019). Bisexual women\u0026rsquo;s experiences of microaggressions and microaffirmations and their relation to mental health. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000329\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchultzberg, M., \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n, B. (2018). Number of subjects and time points needed for multilevel time-series analysis: A simulation study of dynamic structural equation modeling. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(4), 495-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392862\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, A. U., Bostwick, W. B., Burke, L., Hequembourg, A. L., Santuzzi, A., \u0026amp; Hughes, T. L. (2023). How deep is the cut? The influence of daily microaggressions on bisexual women\u0026rsquo;s health. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 535-548. http://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000556\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToplu-Demirtaş, E., Kemer, G., Pope, A. L., \u0026amp; Moe, J. L. (2018). Self-compassion matters: The relationships between perceived social support, self-compassion, and subjective well-being among LGB individuals in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counseling Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(3), 372-382. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000261\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatson, D., Clark, L. A., \u0026amp; Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong, E. M. Y., Suen, Y. T., Chan, R. C., Tepjan, S., \u0026amp; Newman, P. A. (2025). Inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in Hong Kong: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01003-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYip, V. T., \u0026amp; Tong, E. M. W. (2020). Self-compassion and attention: Self-compassion facilitates disengagement from negative stimuli. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Positive Psychology, 16\u003c/em\u003e(5), 593-609. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1778060\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, N., Vogel, D. L., Kubiak, T., Mey, L. K., Morello, K., \u0026amp; T\u0026uuml;scher, O. (2025). Self-compassion in the moment: Dynamic changes of compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding in daily life. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counseling Psychology, 72\u003c/em\u003e(4), 380-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000798\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Supplementary Table","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable S1 is not available with this version.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"d29ad852-649a-4009-a34c-2a87bd00769f","identifier":"10.13039/501100002920","name":"Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee","awardNumber":"276006522","order_by":0}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"The University of Hong Kong","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"ecological momentary assessment, resilience processes, self-compassion, LGBTQ + health, prospective analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7417381/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7417381/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDespite growing research on resilience among sexual and gender diverse (SGD) individuals, significant gaps remain in understanding how health conducive experiences unfold over time amid cisheterosexism. Prior research has largely focused on concurrent associations between minority stressors and health outcomes when intraindividual variations are considered. Moreover, self-compassion—an adaptive mechanism showing promise in SGD health research—has been primarily studied as a trait-like construct rather than examining its dynamic, state-like fluctuations in concordance with identity-salient experiences (ISEs) as they unfold. To address these gaps, this intensive longitudinal study examined temporal relationships between momentary ISEs, self-compassion, and affective-somatic well-being among 141 SGD adults in Hong Kong (M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 28.32, SD = 7.09). Using experience sampling with three assessments daily over two weeks and dynamic structural equation modeling, the study tested two interrelated frameworks: Social safety (identity-affirming experiences promote self-compassion and subsequently well-being) and active self-compassion (self-compassion improves well-being and subsequently invite identity-affirming experiences). Results from two distinct models largely supported the perspectives. In the first model, affirming (but not invalidating) ISE predicted higher compassionate self-responding, which subsequently contributed to improved positive affect, reduced negative affect, and no change in somatic distress. In the second model, compassionate self-responding predicted higher likelihood of subsequent affirming (but not invalidating) ISE via improved positive affect and reduced negative affect, while accounting for uncompassionate self-responding. These findings suggest how momentary experiences of social safety and self-compassion may create mutually reinforcing cycles that can inform treatment approaches and community programs to promote SGD health.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Social Safety and Active Self-Compassion Matter: Temporal Interplay Between Momentary Identity-Salient Experiences, Self-Compassion, and Affective-Somatic Well-Being Among Sexual and Gender Diverse People","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-21 18:57:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7417381/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7cb60b5f-f81f-413b-9cc7-92e535914502","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 21st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-21T18:57:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-21 18:57:44","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7417381","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7417381","identity":"rs-7417381","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}