Refining The Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being

Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 134, No. 1, 138 –161 0033-2909/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138
Refining the Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being
Piers Steel, Joseph Schmidt, and Jonas Shultz

University of Calgary
Understanding subjective well-being (SWB) has historically been a core human endeavor and presently
spans fields from management to mental health. Previous meta-analyses have indicated that personality
traits are one of the best predictors. Still, these past results indicate only a moderate relationship, weaker
than suggested by several lines of reasoning. This may be because of commensurability, where
researchers have grouped together substantively disparate measures in their analyses. In this article, the
authors review and address this problem directly, focusing on individual measures of personality (e.g.,
the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Personality Inventory; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) and
categories of SWB (e.g., life satisfaction). In addition, the authors take a multivariate approach, assessing
how much variance personality traits account for individually as well as together. Results indicate that
different personality and SWB scales can be substantively different and that the relationship between the
two is typically much larger (e.g., 4 times) than previous meta-analyses have indicated. Total SWB
variance accounted for by personality can reach as high as 39% or 63% disattenuated. These results also
speak to meta-analyses in general and the need to account for scale differences once a sufficient research
base has been generated.
Keywords: personality, subjective well-being, meta-analysis, commensurability
Subjective well-being (SWB) is a fundamental human concern. The major reason for this reanalysis is twofold. First, there has
Since at least the sixth century B.C., the Classic Greeks explored been an explosion of interest in “positive psychology” in the new
the issue under the rubric of eudaemonia, that is human flourishing millennia (e.g., Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), generating
or living well. This followed with the Hellenistic Greeks and the considerably more data since DeNeve and Cooper (1998) con-
Romans exploring ataraxia, a form of happiness within one’s own ducted their study. For example, their earlier investigation of the
control (Leahey, 2000). Similarly, interest in SWB has continued personality trait Psychoticism’s relationship with SWB was based
to the present day, also under a variety of terms and methodologies on five samples, whereas we were able to obtain over 43 samples
(e.g., Diener, Eunkook, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Lyubomirsky, for the present meta-analysis. This allowed us to refine our esti-
Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). More recently, the study of SWB has mates to a much greater degree. Second and more importantly,
focused on its relationship to personality, and sufficient research despite the frequent citations of DeNeve and Cooper’s meta-
has been conducted to permit several meta-analyses (Ozer & analysis, as well as other summaries indicating that personality is
Benet-Martı́nez, 2006). In particular, DeNeve and Cooper’s (1998) one of the strongest predictors of SWB, the previously established
work, which summarizes the correlations of SWB with 137 traits, associations are still weaker than expected. As DeNeve and Coo-
has been cited close to 200 times in fields ranging from economics per reported, “on average, personality variables were associated
(Frey & Stutzer, 2002) to gerontology (Isaacowitz & Smith, 2003). with [only] 4% of the variance for all indices of SWB” (p. 221).
They have shown that personality is one of the foremost predictors Specifically, the correlations of overall SWB with the Big Five
of SWB, which underscores the importance of using personality to traits are as follows: .17 (Extraversion), .17 (Agreeableness), .21
understand happiness. The focus of the current meta-analysis is to (Conscientiousness), ⫺.22 (Neuroticism), and .11 (Openness to
build on this innovative research base by reexamining the role Experience). We argue that these results are substantially smaller
personality has with SWB. than those that would be expected from theoretical analyses and
empirical studies, especially with regards to Extraversion, which
should be considerably stronger than Agreeableness and Consci-
Piers Steel, Human Resources and Organizational Dynamics, University entiousness.
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Joseph Schmidt and Jonas Shultz, We begin by considering four major reasons that the
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, University of Calgary. personality–SWB relationship should be particularly strong. After
Jonas Shultz in now at the Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, this, we review how the relationship between SWB and personality
Canada. could be better assessed. Because of the recent proliferation of
We would like to thank the International Well-Being Group as well as
SWB research, several improvements to the meta-analytic proce-
Richard Lucas, Robert Cummins, and Ruut Veenhoven specifically for
dure are now available. To begin with, previous research was
providing commentary and encouragement on a draft of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Piers primarily univariate, examining the relationship of individual traits
Steel, 444 Scurfield Hall, 2500 University Drive NW, University with SWB. We examine the multivariate impact of all major
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. E-mail: personality traits simultaneously. More important, we review how
Piers.Steel@Haskayne.UCalgary.ca past meta-analyses aggregated dissimilar operational definitions of
138
PERSONALITY AND SWB 139
personality and SWB constructs, likely affecting the summary Of particular note is a pair of meta-analyses, one which directly
estimates. We argue that a multivariate analytic approach that connects the neurotransmitter serotonin to the Neuroticism scale of
controls for measurement differences should yield the most appro- the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Personality Inventory
priate and accurate meta-analytic effect sizes. (NEO; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Schnika, Busch, & Robichaux-
Keene, 2004) and the other that connects it to depression and
Why the SWB–Personality Relationship Is Likely affective disorders (Lasky-Su, Faraone, Glatt, & Tsuang, 2005).
Similarly, Depue and Collins (1999) reviewed considerable evi-
Underestimated
dence that dopamine is involved in Extraversion, whereas Rolls
In the following sections, we review four arguments that suggest (2000) reviewed how it facilitates the experience of rewards (see
a far greater connection between SWB and personality than what also Pickering & Gray, 2001). Additional parallels can be drawn
is presently found. We first note that there are strong theoretical using Davidson’s (2005) recent review of neural substrates of
linkages between personality and SWB. Second, at a definitional well-being. Davidson proposed that the amygdala, the prefrontal
or conceptual level, there are impressive similarities between spe- cortex, the hippocampus, and the anterior cingulated cortex can
cific personality traits and SWB components. Third, we examine explain well-being and affective style, and others have used these
research regarding genetic determinants of SWB. This literature same mechanisms to explain personality, in particular Extraversion
indicates that long-term SWB is largely determined by personality (Cloninger, 2000; Depue & Collins, 1999). All in all, the overlap
traits. Fourth, we note that the situational strength does not affect is considerable (Zuckerman, 2005).
the results as would be expected. In particular, life satisfaction Moving to indirect mechanisms, personality may help create life
should be more closely connected to SWB than job satisfaction; events that influence SWB. The most replicated finding in this area
however, the opposite effect has been observed. is the link between Sociability, a facet of Extraversion, and posi-
tive affect (Eid, Riemann, Angleitner, & Borkenau, 2003). This
Theoretical Linkages link can operate in two fashions. First, people tend to be happier in
social situations (Pavot, Diener, & Fujita, 1990), and because
There are a wide variety of theoretical linkages between per- extraverts spend more time socially (Watson, Clark, McIntyre, &
sonality traits and SWB, prompting Diener and Lucas (1999) to Hamaker, 1992), they should be happier. Second, Extraversion
conclude, “it appears a substantial portion of stable SWB is due to generally has a positive impact on peer, family, and romantic
personality” (p. 214). To briefly review, we focus on the major relationships, whereas Neuroticism is often a negative predictor
direct and indirect paths, also known as the temperamental, inter- (C. Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Belsky, Jaffee, Caspi,
nal or top-down, and instrumental, external or bottom-up perspec- Moffit, & Silva, 2003; Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, & Conger, 2005;
tives (Diener & Emmons, 1984; McCrae & Costa, 1991). At a Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000a). Consequently, it has been
direct level, we can determine whether SWB and personality are suggested that extraverts have more fulfilling social interactions,
related by showing that they involve common biological mecha- which also leads to greater levels of happiness (Argyle & Lu,
nisms or neural substrates. At the indirect level, we can determine 1990a; Hills, Argyle, & Reeves, 2000).
whether behaviors indicative of personality traits are also seen to Other research has gone beyond personal relationships. In par-
create SWB. ticular, the personality trait of Impulsiveness/Conscientiousness is
Though there are several theories that indicate personality has related to delay of gratification, with impulsive people choosing
biological components (e.g., Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przbeck, 1993; the smaller short-term gain only to suffer the larger long-term pain.
H. J. Eysenck, 1967), Gray’s (1987) reinforcement sensitivity Consequently, it is associated with a host of harms, ranging from
theory is particularly relevant. It indicates that two systems, a procrastination (Steel, 2007) to poor health (Bogg & Roberts,
behavioral activation system (BAS) and a behavioral inhibition 2004) to financial debt (Angeletos, Laibson, Repetto, Tobacman,
system (BIS), are connected to both personality and SWB (Elliot & Weinberg, 2001; Versplanken & Herabadi, 2001). Similarly,
& Thrash, 2002). The BAS is linked to Extraversion and regulates Extraversion predisposes people to experience more positive life
approach behavior by signaling the presence of rewards through events, whereas Neuroticism predisposes people to experience
the promotion of positive affect. The BIS is linked to Neuroticism more negative life events (Headey & Wearing, 1989; Magnus,
and regulates avoidance behavior by signaling the presence of Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993). Finally, Ozer and Benet-Martı́nez
punishers through the promotion of negative affect. Consequently, (2006) noted that personality predicts a wide variety of other
extraverts are more likely to attend to rewards and find them more SWB-relevant behaviors and outcomes, including occupational
positive, whereas neurotic individuals are more likely to attend to choice, achievement, and community involvement.
punishers and find them more negative.
Though there is evidence to support Gray’s (1987) theory, much Construct Similarities
of it has been relatively circumstantial and not entirely definitive.
For example, there is some evidence to suggest that personality One basic reason why the relationship between personality and
traits are related to mood induction and that extraverts attend more SWB should be much stronger is that the two constructs are very
to rewards (Carver, 2004; Matthews & Gilliland, 1999; Smits & similar. In particular, Neuroticism and Extraversion are nearly
Boeck, 2006). However, in recent years, considerable advances identical to two elements of SWB, negative and positive affect,
have been made in the psychobiology of both SWB and person- respectively. Neurotic individuals tend to be anxious, easily upset,
ality. We can now make a much more direct argument demon- and moody or depressed, whereas extraverts tend to be sociable,
strating that the two constructs share common physical underpin- optimistic, outgoing, energetic, expressive, active, assertive, and
nings. exciting. As Yik and Russell (2001) noted, many of these very
140 STEEL, SCHMIDT, AND SHULTZ
terms used to describe Neuroticism and Extraversion appear in criterion contamination, the regression equation would account for
measures of negative and positive affect, and “even when the terms 42% of the variance. Notably, this figure is much larger than the
are not exactly the same, similar ideas are found on both the 20% of the variance that construct overlap alone would suggest.
personality and affect scales” (p. 251). Consequently, the strength and nature of personality’s relation-
Further underscoring their similarity, Watson and Clark (1992) ship with SWB are relevant. A strong association supports hypoth-
found that negative affect facets load onto the same factor as esized direct and indirect relationships, such as common biological
Neuroticism and, as their later work has indicated, that positive sources (e.g., dopamine) or tight causal relationships between trait
affect is at the center of the broad trait of Extraversion (Watson & behaviors or attitudes (e.g., gregariousness) and SWB. Also, a
Clark, 1997). Other empirical studies support that the constructs strong personality relationship with SWB reinforces that SWB is
overlap considerably (e.g., Lucas & Fujita, 2000; Suh, Diener, & also largely stable, which itself is significant. This issue of SWB
Fujita, 1996). For example, Burger and Caldwell (2000) noted that stability is addressed more directly in the next section.
“the results from several investigations indicate that the PANAS
[Positive and Negative Affect Schedule] trait positive affect scale Stability and Heritability of SWB
and the NEO Extraversion appear to be measure highly overlap-
ping, if not the same, constructs” (p. 54). It is not surprising, then, As Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) have reviewed, there appears to be
that Tellegen and Waller (1992) have gone so far as to suggest that a happiness “set point,” that is, SWB over the long-term tends to
Neuroticism should be relabeled negative affect, whereas Extra- be stable. Adoption and twin research studies by Lykken and
version should be relabeled positive affect. Tellegen (1996) and more recently by Nes, Røysamb, Tambs,
Given this extreme conceptual overlap, we would expect corre- Harris, and Reichborn-Kjennerud (2006) have indicated that genes
lations much higher than what is presently reported (John & account for about 80% of this stability. Environmental influences
Srivastava, 1999). For example, the NEO has six facet scales for are still important, but they primarily affect only present mood,
Extraversion. If just one facet, Positive Emotions, is basically having little lasting impact in the long term. After excluding other
identical to SWB and correlates with it at .70, it alone should cause individual characteristics, such as demographics, the predominant
the entire Extraversion scale to correlate with SWB at .45, ac- conclusion is that “it appears a substantial portion of stable SWB
counting for 20% of the variance. DeNeve and Cooper (1998) is due to personality” (Diener & Lucas, 1999, p. 214). Similarly,
actually did test for the effects of conceptual overlap by specifi- Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) noted “the set point probably reflects
cally examining affective variables that “can be considered as relatively immutable intrapersonal, temperamental, and affective
types of SWB” (p. 216). Given the past exposition, we expect that personality traits, such as extraversion, arousability, and negative
these SWB/affective personality variables would show higher cor- affectivity, that are rooted in neurobiology” (p. 117). Also, Nes et
relations with other measures of SWB. What is surprising is that al. (2006) indicated that the long-term stability of SWB may
DeNeve and Cooper reported the opposite, “that the affectivity “reflect stable and heritable personality traits, such as neuroticism
variables obtained a significantly weaker association with SWB” and extraversion” (pp. 1038 –1039). Finally, Eid et al. (2003), on
(p. 216). These results are strongly counterintuitive and further the basis of their own twin research study, concluded “that it is
suggest that this topic could benefit from further meta-analytic reasonable to consider sociability, energy, and positive affect as
reexamination. different facets of one multidimensional personality trait called
Finally, it must be stressed that conceptual overlap between extraversion or positive emotionality” (p. 338).
SWB and personality traits should not be dismissed as simple Given that genes appear to account for 80% of the variance in
criterion contamination. Criterion contamination is a form of com- long-term SWB and that these genes appear to be primarily ex-
mon method variance where the predictor and criterion both share pressed in terms of personality traits, the expected correlation
a few very similar items, making at least some relationship be- between traits and SWB should be much higher than DeNeve and
tween them certain (e.g., Pincus & Callahan, 1993). However, Cooper (1998) reported. Consider Ilies and Judge’s (2003) re-
some overlap is inevitable because the five-factor model is based search, which estimates up to 45% of genetic influences on job
on the statistical technique of factor analysis. By design, this satisfaction, an element of overall SWB, are expressed through
profoundly atheoretical procedure will draw any individual differ- personality traits. As the subsequent section on situational strength
ence that shows strong correlations with other personality vari- indicates, we would expect that traits mediate even more of the
ables into the factor dimensions (Block, 2001). Thus, conceptual relationship between genes and long-term SWB than it does for
overlap does not so much create correlations with personality traits genes and job satisfaction. Still, if about half of the genetic sources
as reflect legitimate relationships. For example, we suggest that the of long-term SWB can also be attributed to major personality
Positive Emotion facet from the NEO Extraversion scale likely traits, we then we would expect to see individual correlations
reflects SWB, possibly generating sizeable SWB correlations approaching at least .50.
purely because of criterion contamination. However, factor anal-
ysis ensures that Positive Emotions correlates well with the other Situational Strength and SWB
Extraversion facets (e.g., Activity, Gregariousness, Assertiveness).
Necessarily then, the non-SWB Extraversion facets must correlate Though long-term SWB is largely determined by genetic influ-
well with SWB because SWB is akin to Positive Emotions (i.e., ences, the environment may at times mediate the relationship. Also
transitive property). We can assess this using the facet intercorre- described as “nature via nurture,” this instrumental perspective
lations provided in the NEO Professional Manual (Costa & Mc- suggests an indirect link between traits and SWB in which indi-
Crae, 1992). If we predicted Positive Emotion from just these other viduals who possess high levels of Extraversion or low levels of
non-SWB Extraversion facets, essentially eliminating the issue of Neuroticism are more likely to position themselves in positive life
situations (McCrae & Costa, 1991). For example, extraverts are correlations among personality elements as well, we can conduct
genetically disposed to have more energy, which in turn may help multivariate analyses and determine how much total variance can
them engage in recreational activities that produce pleasure. Con- be accounted for by personality. However, the major benefit of
sequently, constrained environments that preclude or reduce situ- significantly more data is the ability to tackle the commensurabil-
ational choice should diminish the personality–SWB relationship. ity or “apples and oranges” problem (e.g., Sharpe, 1997).
More generally, the phenomenon is known as situational strength, Commensurability is a classic difficulty in meta-analysis, re-
which indicates the degree that the environment, rather than dis- flecting that we often must merge dissimilar studies together to
positions, influences a person’s attitudes and behaviors (Mischel, achieve a sufficient sample. This practice creates method variance
1977; Withey, Gellatly, & Annett, 2005). (Kenny & Zautra, 2001), as inevitably no two studies are truly
Given the concept of situational strength, previous meta-analytic identical (e.g., even if you limit yourself to “apples” alone, they
SWB research results are counterintuitive. It has indicated that job themselves come in a wide variety ranging from Fuji to Macin-
satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) is better predicted by tosh). Though a strong case can be made for aggregating slightly
personality traits than general levels of SWB (DeNeve & Cooper, different studies, at some point the differences no longer remain
1998). For the Big Five personality traits, all except for Openness trivial and become substantive. There is no definite point at which
to Experience correlate more strongly with job satisfaction than this happens, but when we start grouping extremely diverse studies
overall SWB. We would expect the opposite. As Staw and Cohen- together, H. J. Eysenck’s (1978) criticism of meta-analysis as
Charash (2005) have reviewed, organizations often represent “mega-silliness” (p. 517) becomes understandable. Indeed, the
strong situations, especially in the common circumstance “where effects of commensurability are typically large (Cortina, 2003).
the organization controls key outcomes for the individual, such as For example, meta-analytic research by Doty and Glick (1998)
incomes, status, and social identification” (p. 63). Though the found that 32% of variance in scores was attributed to methods of
degree of situational strength will vary among organizations, sit- measurement. Also, as Hunter and Schmidt (1990) concluded, it
uations within the work context should typically be more powerful can create meta-analyses that “are difficult or impossible to inter-
relative to most life domains. For example, job satisfaction is more pret” (p. 481).
environmentally determined than life or marital satisfaction (Ilies In exploring this issue, we consider construct variation with
& Judge, 2003; Spotts et al., 2005; Stubbe, Posthuma, Boomsma, personality and SWB separately. For both personality and SWB,
& De Geus, 2005). Consequently, situational strength should mit- we first establish that there is considerable variability regarding
igate the personality–job satisfaction association to a greater de- how they are measured and that these differences are substantive.
gree than personality–SWB relationships. Following this, we discuss how past research has only partially
Other research also indicates that situations should strongly dealt with the problems of construct variation.
affect job satisfaction. Heller, Watson, and Ilies (2004) conducted
research that examined the associations between personality traits
and a number of satisfaction domains. The authors initially per- Construct Variation in Personality
formed a meta-analysis that investigated the relationship between
the Big Five personality constructs and life, health, marital, and There are a variety of different perspectives in the field of
social satisfaction. On the basis of their analyses and the previous personality, including psychoanalytic and cognitive interpreta-
meta-analysis conducted by Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002), the tions. However, the most commonly used and accepted is the
authors suggested that life satisfaction is more proximally related five-factor descriptive model. Consistent with previous reviews
to personality constructs than other satisfaction domains. Further- (e.g., DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt,
more, Schjoedt, Balkin, and Baron (2005) examined the role of 2002; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), its popularity provides a
dispositional and situational variables in predicting job satisfac- sufficient research base to permit meta-analytic study. Because the
tion. Their results have demonstrated that situational variables five-factor model is primarily descriptive rather than explanatory,
account for more variance than dispositional variables in job it should not be taken as the definitive lens with which to examine
satisfaction. personality. On the other hand, as Funder (2001) stressed, being
As such, it appears that job satisfaction is more specific to the descriptive should not be taken as a pejorative. Similarly, Mischel
situation than other forms of SWB, and previous meta-analytic (1999) argued that descriptive and explanatory personality per-
findings could better portray the relative relationship between spectives, despite being “increasingly separated and warring” (p.
personality and job and life satisfaction domains. We should 56) should be viewed as complementary efforts.
expect that general indices of SWB are more closely linked to Initially, the issue of commensurability does not appear to be a
personality than what is presently summarized. pressing issue when we consider just the five-factor model. For
over 20 years, it has been commonly accepted (L. R. Goldberg,
1990; Lee & Ashton, 2004). Even earlier models, such as the
Improving Estimation: The Issue of Commensurability
three-factor structure seen in the Eysenck Personality Question-
Given that the SWB–personality relationship appears to be naire (EPQ; H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) can be largely
underestimated, we are presently in a position to address this issue. understood in terms of five factors. For example, the Psychoticism
Simply, many more studies are now available. A larger sample will factor of H. J. Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1975) inventory consists of
improve the precision of any estimate, but it will also enable other low levels of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness (Brand, 1997;
meta-analytic techniques. For example, previous meta-analytic John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Despite these commonalities,
research primarily collected and provided only univariate correla- many scales possess unique properties, and there are compelling
tions between SWB and personality traits. By collecting the inter- reasons to believe they should only be cautiously aggregated.
Even among personality scales with similar or identical nomen- methodology was adopted by Lucas and Fujita (2000), who ad-
clature, there are substantive differences. For example, the NEO dressed commensurability in a focused SWB meta-analysis, ex-
Openness scale correlates with the comparable Hogan Personality amining the univariate relationship of Extraversion with pleasant
Inventory Intellectance scale at .67, whereas the same Hogan affect. They limited their meta-analysis to three popular scales: the
Personality Inventory scale correlates with the Interpersonal Ad- NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the EPQ (H. J. Eysenck &
jective Scales–Big 5 Openness scale only at .44 (Widiger & Trull, Eysenck, 1975), and the EPI (H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964).
1997). Especially problematic, however, to SWB research is the
Impulsivity facet and its “wandering” nature (Revelle, 1997).
Impulsivity has been nested under Extraversion for the Eysenck Construct Variation in SWB
Personality Inventory (EPI; H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964),
under Psychoticism for the EPQ, and under Neuroticism for the SWB is far from a unitary concept, and its definition and
Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Personality Inventory— measurement can vary greatly across research studies. Diener and
Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Aluja, Garcı́a, and Lucas (1999) defined SWB as people’s evaluation of their lives.
Garcı́a (2004) factor analyzed several personality inventories, in- These evaluations include “both cognitive judgments of ones’ life
cluding the NEO-PI-R and the Eysenck Personality Question- satisfaction in addition to affective evaluations of mood and emo-
naire—Revised (EPQ-R), short form (EPQ-RS). Interestingly, the tions” (p. 213). Facets within SWB differ through varying levels of
results suggest that that the Impulsiveness scale, a facet of NEO’s affective, temporal, and cognitive dimensions (Okun, Stock, &
Neuroticism dimension, actually had the strongest loadings with Covey, 1982), suggesting that these SWB categories are not en-
the Conscientiousness and Psychoticism dimensions from both the tirely equivalent. In particular, several researchers have found
NEO and EPQ inventories respectively. Also, they and others significant differences between affect and happiness or satisfaction
found that the specific measure of impulsivity and the nationality (Diener & Diener, 1996; Steel & Ones, 2002; Veenhoven, 1994;
of the sample will strongly influence whether it loads on Neurot- H. M. Weiss, 2002), and within affect itself there are substantive
icism, Extraversion, or Conscientiousness (Konstabel, Realo, & differences between its positive and negative form (e.g., Arthaud-
Kallasmaa, 2002; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). The concern is that Day, Rode, Mooney, & Near, 2005; Connolly & Viswesvaran,
Impulsiveness should be relevant in the prediction of SWB (Em- 2000).
mons & Diener, 1986) and is positively associated with negative Though the field has yet to come to a consensus regarding the
affect. Depending on where it is placed then, it has the capacity to domains of SWB (e.g., happiness is considered at times to repre-
affect correlations, such as diminishing the Extraversion relation- sent either affect or satisfaction), a few prominent divisions reoc-
ship with SWB. Consequently, the combination of diverse person- cur with regularity: life satisfaction, happiness, affect (overall,
ality measures has the potential to underestimate correlations in positive and negative), and quality of life. As Kim-Prieto, Diener,
SWB meta-analytic research. Tamir, Scollon, and Diener (2005) have reviewed, none of these
conceptions of SWB should be considered definitive, each poten-
tially providing unique and important information. The differences
Past Practices and Research Implications among these four categories will now be discussed.
Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts (1996) suggested that combining First, life satisfaction has been defined as the “global evaluation
nonequivalent scales is a major problem that all personality re- by the person of his or her life” (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik,
searchers face when conducting meta-analyses. Other researchers 1991, p. 150). Consequently, this includes studies that incorporate
agree. Post hoc classification threatens the construct validity of Big scales assessing participants’ cognitive appraisal of overall life
Five personality dimensions, simply because there are an ex- circumstances. Second, happiness normally refers to a consistent,
tremely large number of traits, many of which do not fit cleanly optimistic mood state that “is itself the highest good, the summon
into the Big Five framework (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, bonum of classical theory” (Averill & More, 1993, p. 617). Third,
1997), a framework that itself can be debated (Block, 2001). positive and negative affect are measures that gauge the propensity
Consequently, it is very easy to make dubious or mistaken classi- for an individual to assess life events in either a positive or a
fications. For example, consider the meta-analysis of the Big Five negative manner, respectively. Overall affect or hedonic balance
and job performance conducted by Barrick and Mount (1991), two examines the equilibrium between positive and negative affect,
extremely capable and experienced researchers whose methodol- often operationalized as the difference score between the positive
ogy is likely one of the “best case” scenarios. As Hogan et al. and negative affect scales. Of note, life satisfaction and happiness
(1996) noted, they made a few misclassification errors, and Hurtz typically assess SWB over considerable duration, such as a life-
and Donovan (2000) raised concerns regarding their rater agree- time. Affect, on the other hand, can be assessed at either a state or
ment, as it reached “only 83% or better rater agreement on 68% of a trait level. State affect involves emotional experience over a short
the classifications” (p. 872). period in time (e.g., today, this week, this month), whereas trait
Given the challenge in sorting a diverse array of personality affect spans across a long duration of time (e.g., years). The fourth
measures with no clear guidelines for equivalency, researchers SWB category is quality of life. Though there is little consensus
have suggested that the best approach to control for variation in regarding the exact meaning of quality of life or how it should be
construct validity, and reduce the level of subjective judgments, is measured, it follows a predictable methodology (K. L. Anderson &
to examine evidence associated with a single scale (e.g., Hogan et Burckhardt, 1999; Felce & Perry, 1995). It is a global measure
al., 1996; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). By doing so, interrater agree- based on an aggregation of well-being across several life domains
ment will not be sacrificed, and more importantly, there will be no (e.g., recreational, social activities, finances), usually assessed
comparison made between noncommensurate measures. This using a combination of objective and subjective indicators.
Past Practices and Research Implications the intent of this scale is to detect faking of respondents when
completing the EPQ. Findings suggest that the Defensiveness scale
For the most part, researchers have been fairly rigorous in is related to real individual differences, including Neuroticism and
separating different categories of SWB during analysis. DeNeve Conscientiousness (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996), and argu-
and Cooper (1998) sorted their measures into four groups: life ments have been made to include social desirability as a measure
satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and negative affect. Simi- of personality (see Furnham, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1983).
larly, Lucas, Diener, and Suh (1996) categorized SWB measures For the SWB measures, the same degree of consensus was not
into four dimensions, which include life satisfaction, optimism, available. Consequently, we could not focus on single measures as
self-esteem, and affect. Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, and de we did for personality. Instead, we attempted to reduce commen-
Chermont (2003) focused on affect alone. Finally, Connolly and surability problems by broadening the number of SWB categories
Viswesvaran (2000) considered both positive and negative affect as compared with previous research. We considered life satisfac-
but evaluated the overall affective disposition as well. However, tion, happiness, affect (overall, positive and negative), and quality
two problematic issues arise with the classification of SWB. of life. Furthermore, as we discuss in the following Method sec-
To begin with, affect is a bridge concept, as it can be considered tion, we excluded SWB measures that were not unanimously
both a personality trait (a predictor) and a measure of SWB (a sorted into the same category by the coders.
criterion) simultaneously. This generates a situation in which the Analyzing this data, we formally tested our central hypothesis,
focus of many studies is to use affect, one measure of SWB, to that our findings are statistically stronger than DeNeve and Coo-
predict another (e.g., Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Thoresen et per’s (1998) findings. After this, we examined the consistency of
al., 2003). DeNeve and Cooper (1998) dealt with this confusion by these results by examining demographic variables (i.e., age, gen-
considering only state affect as representing SWB. This choice, der), confirming that they have minor moderating effects at best
though, is at odds with life satisfaction, which deals with judg- (Ozer & Benet-Martı́nez, 2006). To assess the commensurability
ments regarding one’s entire life. This means that though we have among our measures, we tested between as well as within differ-
long-term measures of cognitive SWB, we asymmetrically have no ences. For between, we determined whether the NEO, EPQ, and
corresponding affective ones. If SWB is our criterion of interest, EPI all had the same relationship with SWB. For within, we
we should examine both long- and short-term affect using moder- determined whether there were detectable differences among ver-
ator analyses to assess whether personality is differentially related sions of the same personality scales as well as state versus trait
to the two levels. effects for affect. Finally, we assessed common method variance,
The second issue directly pertains to commensurability. Re- that is the extent to which our results can be attributed to meth-
searchers have appeared to be fairly inclusive in regards to what is odology rather than relationships among the underlying constructs.
considered SWB. Connolly and Viswesvaran (2000) as well as
Thoresen et al. (2003) used a wide variety of measures to describe
affect: from anxiety (e.g., State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; Spiel- Method
berger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and optimism (e.g., Life Ori-
Literature Search
entation Test; Scheier & Carver, 1985) to Extraversion and Neu-
roticism (e.g., the EPQ). Similarly, H. M. Weiss (2002) concluded Our literature search procedure was designed to include all
that the job satisfaction literature has not been careful in differen- relevant articles on the topic, including foreign language and
tiating between cognitive and affective forms of SWB, meaning unpublished works. The first strategy was to conduct searches in
that it can be very difficult to determine whether to group different the PsycInfo, Medline, and Proquest (unpublished dissertations)
measures together. databases using keywords for articles that included both SWB and
personality measures. Searches combined 36 keywords related to
The Present Meta-Analysis happiness, life satisfaction, affect, or quality of life with 15 key-
words related to either the EPI or the NEO. The personality
To better examine personality’s relationship with SWB, we keywords included NEO Personality Inventory, NEO personality,
controlled scale differences during our meta-analysis. For the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, NEO-FFI, NEO-PI, NEO-PI-R,
personality measures, we independently derived an identical ap- Eysenck Personality Inventory, Eysenck Personality Question-
proach to commensurability as Lucas and Fujita (2000), focusing naire, EPI, EPQ, EPQ-J, EPQ-R-S, and EPQ-R-X. Second, the
our meta-analysis also on the NEO, the EPQ, and the EPI. They are Social Sciences Citation Index (i.e., Web of Science) was searched
popular enough to provide sufficient sample for summary and for all publications that cited articles providing various measures
reflect what Hogan et al. (1996) described as “good personality of the above listed keywords. Meta-analyses (e.g., DeNeve &
measures” (p. 470). They provide scores that are temporally stable Cooper, 1998; Judge, Heller, and Mount, 2002; Steel & Ones,
and relate to meaningful nontest behaviors (e.g., Kirkhart, Morgan, 2002) and websites (e.g., World Database of Happiness) were
& Sincavage, 1991; Murray, Rawlings, Allen, & Trinder, 2003). examined to identify many of the major measures. In total, the
Furthermore, the measures have favorable psychometric proper- citations of more than 80 articles were searched. Third, authors
ties. For instance, internal-consistency reliabilities for the scales who published more than one study within our initial search were
are typically around .80 (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; S. B. G. contacted to secure any unpublished research in attempt to address
Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985; John, Donahue, & Kentle, the “file drawer” problem. In total, 1,177 published articles, mas-
1991). ter’s and doctoral dissertations, book chapters, and conference
Also, we included the Defensiveness scale of the EPQ in our proceedings have been identified in various languages. We in-
meta-analysis. Also known as Social Desirability or the Lie scale, cluded six different revised NEO measures, in part to accommo-
date language translations between 1985 and 1992. There were ten deviations from the mean). If the sample had to be reduced to 300,
different EPQ scales, mostly from translations into various lan- smaller than the average sample size, it was removed from the
guages. Lastly, there were four EPI measures. analysis. Any other discrepancies were resolved via a consultation
process that included all three authors (Piers Steel, Joseph
Eligibility Criteria and Data Coding Procedures Schmidt, and Jonas Shultz).
Interestingly enough, the issues of commensurability still ex-
Of the 1,177 identified articles, 249 contained potentially usable tends to our specific personality scales, which come in several
data. Usable data included effect sizes expressed as a correlation, varieties as the literature search indicates. For example, there is the
t score, d score, or F score. All articles were double coded by two NEO (180 items), the NEO-PI-R (240 items), and the NEO Five-
authors (Piers Steel, Joseph Schmidt, or Jonas Shultz), and all Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992; 60 items).
entered correlations were compared to identify and correct any Also, the EPQ comes in the EPQ (90 items), the EPQ-R (100
data entry errors. The interrater reliability of the coding was items), and the EPQ-R-S (48 items). Fortunately, the issue of
96.4%. Any inconsistencies were resolved by reexamining the commensurability at this level of detail was minimal. We kept the
articles. SWB scales were sorted on the basis of the input of all analysis at the domain or factor level, which Costa and McCrae
three authors (Piers Steel, Joseph Schmidt, and Jonas Shultz), (1992) reported is largely equivalent among these versions. The
excluding anywhere clear consensus could not be achieved. Affect correlations between the NEO-PI-R and the NEO are around .94,
was considered to be measured at a state level if the time period and between the NEO-PI-R and the NEO-FFI are .90 or above,
was 1 month or less. Table 1 depicts the major scales associated with the exception of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. For
with each category. However, between 14 and 19 scales were the EPQ, the results almost completely parallel that of the NEO.
identified measuring each construct of SWB. The EPQ-R is almost identical to the original EPQ, except with
Outliers were defined as individual correlations that were four regards to Psychoticism, the Agreeableness/Conscientiousness
standard deviations above or below the mean of the correlations in construct (Caruso, Witkiewitz, Belcourt-Dittloff, & Gottlieb,
the sample (as per Huffcutt & Arthur, 1995). The existence of 2001). The long versus short form of the EPQ-R correlated to-
outliers was addressed by further examining the original article to gether at above .92, with the exception of Psychoticism (Barrett &
ensure that data entry errors did not occur. If the outlier did not Eysenck, 1992). During our moderator analyses, we explored
result from an entry error, we reduced its impact (as per Tabach- whether any of these versions provided different results, and we
nick & Fidell, 1989). The sample size of the outlying correlation failed to find any significant effects.
was reduced until it was not significant (i.e., below four standard
Statistical Analysis
Table 1
Top Three Scales Measuring Each Category of Subjective We employed the meta-analysis procedures proposed by Hunter
Well-Being and Schmidt (1990) to conduct this research. Correlations were
weighted according to sample size and then corrected for unreli-
Category Scale name ability and sampling error in the measures at the aggregate level.
Other corrections, specifically for dichotomizing a continuous
Happiness 1. Oxford Happiness Inventory (Argyle et al., 1989) variable, uneven splits, range restriction, and standard deviation
2. Self-Description Inventory (Fordyce, 1977)
3. Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of
splits, were conducted at the individual sample level. Consistent
Happiness (Kozma & Stones, 1980) with the procedures of Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002), we
inserted the internal consistency reliability figure as averaged
Life satisfaction 1. Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985). within each SWB facet in the analysis when the alpha was not
2. Life 3 Scale (Andrews & Withey, 1976)
3. Life satisfaction item of the Index of Well-Being
reported. Correlations were deemed significant if the confidence
(Campbell et al., 1976) interval did not include zero. When multiple measures were used
within one facet of SWB (i.e., two measures of affect) in a primary
Positive affect 1. PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) study, they were averaged to avoid overweighting these studies.
2. Bradburn Balanced Affect Scale (Bradburn, 1969)
3. Profile of Mood States—Vigor/Activity (McNair
Moderator analysis used weighted least squares regression, as
et al., 1971) per Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2002). The information used for
the moderator variables was explicitly labeled in the individual
Negative affect 1. PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) studies; consequently, the analysis consisted of coding the requi-
2. Bradburn Balanced Affect Scale (Bradburn, 1969)
3. Adjective List (Emmons & Diener, 1985)
site information and separately analyzing the correlations for each
moderator variable. Moderator variables that were examined in-
Overall affect 1. Bradburn Balanced Affect Scale (Bradburn, 1969) cluded the following: gender, average age of the sample, and self-
2. PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) versus other-ratings of personality.
3. Affectometer 2 (Kammann & Flett, 1983)
Quality of life 1. Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989) Results

2. Perceived Quality of Life Scale (Andrews &
Withey, 1976) In total 2,142 correlation coefficients were examined to deter-
3. Lancashire Quality of Life Profile (Oliver et al.,
1996)
mine the relationship among SWB and personality, as measured by
the NEO, EPQ, and EPI personality inventories. The coefficients
Note. PANAS ⫽ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. were derived from 347 samples. The total number of participants
across all studies was 122,588, with a median of 179 and a mean facets. Openness to Experience was significantly related to happi-
of 354 participants per sample. The mean age of the samples was ness, positive affect, and quality of life, but it was not significantly
37.24 years (SD ⫽ 7.64), 45% of which were men. The research related to life satisfaction, negative affect, and overall affect.
methodology was almost exclusively self-report, with 3% using Neuroticism is clearly the strongest predictor of SWB, particularly
other-report. The majority of the samples were from North Amer- for negative affect (␳ ⫽ .64, k ⫽ 73), happiness (␳ ⫽ ⫺.51, k ⫽
ica (k ⫽ 167), followed by the United Kingdom (k ⫽ 45), whereas 6), overall affect (␳ ⫽ ⫺.59, k ⫽ 15), and quality of life (␳ ⫽ ⫺.72,
the remaining of the studies originated from various countries in k ⫽ 5). Similarly, Extraversion is a strong predictor of positive
Europe, Asia, Australia, or unknown. Most of the research was affect (␳ ⫽ .54, k ⫽ 53), happiness (␳ ⫽ .57, k ⫽ 6), overall affect
conducted in field samples, which incorporated convenience- (␳ ⫽ .44, k ⫽ 11), and quality of life (␳ ⫽ .54, k ⫽ 4). Consci-
sampling techniques. entiousness is a strong predictor of quality of life (␳ ⫽ .51, k ⫽ 4).
To examine the relationship between personality and SWB, we Analyses specific to the EPQ are reported in Table 3. Neuroti-
calculated the weighted correlation for each facet of SWB with cism and Extraversion are significantly related to all SWB mea-
each dimension of personality. The number of independent sam- sures. Psychoticism is also related to all SWB measures except
ples included in each analysis ranged from 1 to 73. Statistical quality of life. Defensiveness is significantly related to happiness
significance is reached only when the 95% confidence interval and life satisfaction, but not positive affect, negative affect, and
does not include zero. However, the results are deemed practically overall affect. There was only one study investigating the relation-
significant when the 95% credibility range does not include zero. ship between Defensiveness and quality of life precluding any
As expected, many of the relationships were both statistically and meta-analytic significance testing (i.e., a single study cannot be
practically significant. meta-analyzed). Consistent with the findings from the NEO inven-
Analyses specific to the NEO inventories are reported in Table tories, Neuroticism is the best predictor evident by numerous
2. The findings suggest that Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeable- strong relationships, including negative affect (␳ ⫽ .69, k ⫽ 33),
ness, and Conscientiousness are significantly related to all SWB overall affect (␳ ⫽ ⫺.63, k ⫽ 12), quality of life (␳ ⫽ ⫺.64, k ⫽
Table 2
Meta-Analytic Subjective Well-Being Results for the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Inventory
r៮ 95% interval ␳ 95% interval
Construct K n r៮ Confidence Credibility Q statistic ␳ Confidence Credibility Q statistic
Neuroticism
Happiness 6 621 ⫺.46 ⫺.40, ⫺.51 ⫺.46, ⫺.46 p ⫽ .4145 ⫺.51 ⫺.44, ⫺.57 ⫺.51, ⫺.51 p ⫽ .4029
Life satisfaction 36 9,277 ⫺.38 ⫺.35, ⫺.42 ⫺.21, ⫺.55 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.45 ⫺.41, ⫺.49 ⫺.25, ⫺.66 p ⬍ .0001
Positive affect 57 11,788 ⫺.30 ⫺.27, ⫺.33 ⫺.13, ⫺.47 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.35 ⫺.32, ⫺.39 ⫺.16, ⫺.55 p ⬍ .0001
Negative affect 73 16,764 .54 .51, .57 .32, .77 p ⬍ .0001 .64 .60, .67 .37, .91 p ⬍ .0001
Overall affect 15 3,859 ⫺.50 ⫺.46, ⫺.54 ⫺.37, ⫺.63 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.59 ⫺.55, ⫺.64 ⫺.38, ⫺.80 p ⬍ .0001
Quality of life 5 967 ⫺.53 ⫺.49, ⫺.56 ⫺.53, ⫺.53 p ⫽ .4634 ⫺.72 ⫺.67, ⫺.77 ⫺.61, ⫺.82 p ⫽ .1033
Extraversion
Happiness 6 829 .49 .40, .58 .31, .67 p ⫽ .0041 .57 .47, .68 .37, .78 p ⫽ .0048
Life satisfaction 35 10,528 .28 .24, .31 .11, .44 p ⬍ .0001 .35 .30, .39 .14, .55 p ⬍ .0001
Positive affect 53 12,898 .44 .41, .47 .24, .65 p ⬍ .0001 .54 .50, .58 .28, .80 p ⬍ .0001
Negative affect 49 11,569 ⫺.18 ⫺.16, ⫺.21 ⫺.04, ⫺.33 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.23 ⫺.19, ⫺.26 ⫺.05, ⫺.40 p ⬍ .0001
Overall affect 11 2,410 .34 .27, .40 .17, .51 p ⫽ .0002 .44 .36, .53 .21, .68 p ⬍ .0001
Quality of life 4 767 .40 .35, .45 .40, .40 p ⫽ .3834 .54 .47, .61 .54, .54 p ⫽ .5175
Openness to Experience
Happiness 5 779 .13 .03, .23 ⫺.04, .29 p ⫽ .0267 .14 .03, .26 ⫺.05, .33 p ⫽ .0258
Life satisfaction 26 9,075 .03 .01, .06 ⫺.03, .10 p ⫽ .0629 .04 .01, .07 ⫺.04, .12 p ⫽ .0778
Negative affect 26 8,008 ⫺.02 ⫺.06, .01 ⫺.17, .13 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.03 ⫺.08, .02 ⫺.23, .16 p ⬍ .0001
Overall affect 7 1,373 .04 ⫺.10, .18 ⫺.08, .18 p ⫽ .0257 .07 ⫺.05, .16 ⫺.13, .26 p ⫽ .0370
Quality of life 6 1,305 .16 .07, .25 ⫺.02, .34 p ⫽ .0027 .23 .09, .35 .03, .43 p ⫽ .0178
Agreeableness
Happiness 4 441 .30 .22, .38 .31, .31 p ⫽ .2736 .36 .26, .47 .36, .36 p ⫽ .2737
Life satisfaction 22 7,459 .14 .11, .17 .06, .23 p ⫽ .0188 .19 .15, .22 .10, .28 p ⫽ .0712
Positive affect 23 6,040 .12 .09, .16 .02, .23 p ⫽ .0087 .15 .11, .19 .02, .28 p ⫽ .0061
Negative affect 27 7,306 ⫺.20 ⫺.17, ⫺.23 ⫺.11, ⫺.29 p ⫽ .0187 ⫺.26 ⫺.22, ⫺.29 ⫺.18, ⫺.34 p ⫽ .1095
Overall affect 6 1,035 .14 .09, .19 .14, .14 p ⫽ .5818 .20 .13, .26 .20, .20 p ⫽ .5632
Conscientiousness
Happiness 4 441 .25 .17, .33 .25, .25 p ⫽ .3804 .27 .19, .36 .28, .28 p ⫽ .3804
Negative affect 28 7,749 ⫺.20 ⫺.17, ⫺.24 ⫺.03, ⫺.38 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.26 ⫺.20, ⫺.30 ⫺.06, ⫺.45 p ⬍ .0001
Overall affect 5 829 .22 .12, .32 .04, .39 p ⫽ .014 .29 .15, .42 ⫺.06, .52 p ⫽ .0139
Table 3
Meta-Analytic Subjective Well-Being Results for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
Neuroticism
Happiness 32 8,298 ⫺.44 ⫺.41, ⫺.47 ⫺.31, ⫺.57 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.52 ⫺.49, ⫺.56 ⫺.36, ⫺.68 p ⬍ .0001
Life satisfaction 23 6,043 ⫺.41 ⫺.38, ⫺.45 ⫺.29, ⫺.54 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.49 ⫺.45, ⫺.53 ⫺.34, ⫺.64 p ⬍ .0001
Positive affect 33 7,902 ⫺.27 ⫺.24, ⫺.30 ⫺.15, ⫺.38 p ⫽ .0007 ⫺.33 ⫺.30, ⫺.37 ⫺.19, ⫺.47 p ⫽ .0006
Overall affect 12 2,198 ⫺.50 ⫺.46, ⫺.53 ⫺.46, ⫺.53 p ⫽ .1519 ⫺.63 ⫺.58, ⫺.68 ⫺.63, ⫺.63 p ⫽ .4536
Quality of life 10 3,864 ⫺.55 ⫺.51, ⫺.59 ⫺.41, ⫺.68 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.64 ⫺.59, ⫺.71 ⫺.49, ⫺.80 p ⬍ .0001
Extraversion
Happiness 37 9,289 .41 .39, .44 .30, .53 p ⬍ .0001 .48 .45, .51 .34, .61 p ⬍ .0001
Negative affect 35 14,528 ⫺.15 ⫺.11, ⫺.17 ⫺.05, ⫺.24 p ⫽ .0003 ⫺.18 ⫺.15, ⫺.20 ⫺.07, ⫺.29 p ⫽ .0004
Overall affect 7 894 .32 .26, .39 .24, .41 p ⫽ .0903 .45 .36, .55 .28, .63 p ⫽ .1732
Psychoticism
Happiness 23 5,499 ⫺.10 ⫺.05, ⫺.14 .06, ⫺.26 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.14 ⫺.08, ⫺.20 .09, ⫺.37 p ⬍ .0001
Life satisfaction 12 1,964 ⫺.24 ⫺.18, ⫺.29 ⫺.10, ⫺.37 p ⫽ .0237 ⫺.35 ⫺.26, ⫺.44 ⫺.15, ⫺.55 p ⫽ .0244
Positive affect 11 8,929 .00 .02, ⫺.03 .04, ⫺.04 p ⫽ .1434 .00 .03, ⫺.04 .06, ⫺.06 p ⫽ .1433
Negative affect 10 8,867 .03 .00, .06 ⫺.04, .10 p ⫽ .0144 .04 .00, .09 ⫺.06, .14 p ⫽ .0151
Overall affect 4 408 ⫺.11 ⫺.07, ⫺.15 ⫺.11, ⫺.11 p ⫽ .8538 ⫺.20 ⫺.12, ⫺.26 ⫺.20, ⫺.20 p ⫽ .9223
Quality of life 4 585 ⫺.02 .20, ⫺.24 .39, ⫺.43 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.02 .30, ⫺.35 .58, ⫺.63 p ⬍ .0001
Defensiveness
Happiness 19 4,625 .12 .09, .16 .03, .21 p ⫽ .0432 .16 .11, .20 .04, .27 p ⫽ .0506
Positive affect 7 1,081 ⫺.04 .01, ⫺.10 ⫺.04, ⫺.04 p ⫽ .4604 ⫺.07 .02, ⫺.16 ⫺.07, ⫺.07 p ⫽ .4513
Negative affect 7 1,438 ⫺.05 .02, ⫺.12 .08, ⫺.18 p ⫽ .0376 ⫺.09 .03, ⫺.20 .13, ⫺.30 p ⫽ .1497
Overall affect 4 408 .07 ⫺.03, .17 .07, .07 p ⫽ .9718 .11 ⫺.05, .27 .11, .11 p ⫽ .9877
Quality of life 2 185 ⫺.06 .13, ⫺.25 .11, ⫺.23 p ⫽ .0646 ⫺.07 .15, ⫺.29 .13, ⫺.27 p ⫽ .0646
10), and happiness (␳ ⫽ ⫺.52, k ⫽ 32). SWB measures that are only one study reporting this relationship. Neuroticism best predicts
best predicted by Extraversion include happiness (␳ ⫽ .48, k ⫽ negative affect (␳ ⫽ .54, k ⫽ 23), life satisfaction (␳ ⫽ ⫺.42, k ⫽ 12),
37), positive affect (␳ ⫽ .43, k ⫽ 40), overall affect (␳ ⫽ .45, k ⫽ overall affect (␳ ⫽ ⫺.51, k ⫽ 7), and happiness (␳ ⫽ ⫺.40, k ⫽ 5).
7), and quality of life (␳ ⫽ .39, k ⫽ 5). Extraversion best predicts positive affect (␳ ⫽ .31, k ⫽ 24) and life
Analyses specific to the EPI are reported in Table 4. Neuroticism satisfaction (␳ ⫽ .29, k ⫽ 7).
and Extraversion are significantly related to all SWB measures. How- Independent sample t tests were conducted to compare the
ever, meta-analytic significance testing of the relationship between findings of the present investigation with previous meta-analytic
Neuroticism and quality of life was not possible because there was findings. Undoubtedly, some of the samples included in our anal-
Table 4
Meta-Analytic Subjective Well-Being Results for the Eysenck Personality Inventory
Neuroticism
Happiness 5 1,157 ⫺.34 ⫺.26, ⫺.43 ⫺.20, ⫺.49 p ⫽ .0095 ⫺.40 ⫺.30, ⫺.49 ⫺.24, ⫺.56 p ⫽ .0111
Life satisfaction 12 2,414 ⫺.33 ⫺.27, ⫺.39 ⫺.17, ⫺.50 p ⫽ .0003 ⫺.42 ⫺.35, ⫺.50 ⫺.22, ⫺.63 p ⫽ .0005
Positive affect 22 4,332 ⫺.15 ⫺.10, ⫺.19 ⫺.01, ⫺.29 p ⫽ .001 ⫺.19 ⫺.13, ⫺.23 ⫺.03, ⫺.34 p ⫽ .007
Overall affect 7 1,176 ⫺.44 ⫺.33, ⫺.55 ⫺.18, ⫺.70 p ⬍ .0001 ⫺.51 ⫺.38, ⫺.63 ⫺.21, ⫺.80 p ⬍ .0001
Quality of life 1 246 ⫺.26 ⫺.40
Extraversion
Happiness 4 1,242 .18 .06, .30 ⫺.04, .39 p ⫽ .0001 .21 .07, .36 ⫺.04, .47 p ⫽ .0001
Negative affect 20 4,576 ⫺.09 ⫺.05, ⫺.13 .03, ⫺.22 p ⫽ .0031 ⫺.11 ⫺.06, ⫺.16 .04, ⫺.27 p ⫽ .003
Overall affect 6 1,864 .17 .11, .24 .05, .29 p ⫽ .021 .20 .12, .28 .06, .34 p ⫽ .0214
ysis were also included in the previous meta-analyses; however, tions. The observed residual variance (i.e., the variance after taking
independent sample tests were conducted for two reasons. First, into account sampling error) among the meta-analytic correlations
most of the samples did not overlap between analyses. Second, should be largely resistant to demographic differences among the
using independent rather than dependent sample t tests results in studies. To this end, age and sex were available for analysis. To
more conservative findings. Specifically, the happiness, life satis- ensure adequate sample size and enough statistical power, we
faction, positive affect, and negative affect uncorrected correla- conducted analyses across all personality scales. Consequently,
tions were compared with those produced by DeNeve and Cooper moderator searches focused on Extraversion and Neuroticism,
(1998), estimating 285 participants per study (i.e., on the basis of which were common across all scales, and these traits represented
their total sample size of 42,171 and 148 studies). All comparative the two strongest correlates. All analyses were weighted by sample
analyses are reported in Table 5. In short, 26 out of the possible 36 size, and we controlled for differences among personality scales
comparisons with DeNeve and Cooper’s findings were signifi- (e.g., the NEO vs. the EPQ) by dummy coding and entering them
cantly greater in magnitude, 3 were smaller, and 7 were essentially into the regression analyses first. The moderators specific to each
equivalent. SWB conceptualization are reported next. As expected, different
The intercorrelations between the personality dimensions are SWB constructs typically appear to be only marginally susceptible
reported in Table 6, which are needed to conduct the multiple to moderator effects.
regression analyses (i.e., Tables 7, 8, and 9). Correlations are To begin with, age may affect the Neuroticism and positive
below the diagonal, whereas the number of studies per estimate is affect relationship. Slightly stronger correlations may exist when
above in parentheses. On average, the sample size is 472 partici- participants are younger in age (⌬R2 ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .05). Sex showed
pants per study. Internal consistency reliability is along the diag- similar weak effects. For life satisfaction, the relationship in-
onal. Most of the substantive intercorrelations were between the creased for women relative to men for both Extraversion (⌬R2 ⫽
NEO and the EPQ. The EPI appears to be overshadowed by the .09, p ⬍ .05) and Neuroticism (⌬R2 ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .05). Also, the
development of the EPQ, in which researchers, understandably findings suggest that stronger correlations between Neuroticism
given the choice, have preferred to use the newer EPQ exclusively. and negative affect are reported for men compared with women
Consistent with Saucier’s (2002) research, these findings suggest (⌬R2 ⫽ .05, p ⫽ .01).
that the dimensions are not completely orthogonal for the NEO,
EPQ, or EPI inventories. Commensurability Analyses
We conducted multivariate analyses using LISREL 8.54 to
determine the combined and incremental contribution of the per- We assessed commensurability in two ways. To confirm that
sonality traits to the prediction of SWB. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide there are significant difference among the NEO, EPQ, and EPI, we
the results of the multiple regression analyses for the NEO, EPQ, compared the amount of variance that the different personality
and EPI, respectively. Beta weights for each personality dimension models account for in SWB. If these models are equivalent, they
are reported as well as total variance accounted for, both attenuated should account for the same amount of variance in SWB. Second,
(i.e., R2) and disattenuated (i.e., ␳2). Results range from R2 ⫽ .39 to confirm that we are operating at the correct level of commen-
(␳2 ⫽ .63) for the NEO and quality of life to R2 ⫽ .10 (␳2 ⫽ .10) surability, we used a moderator search to determine whether dif-
for the EPI and quality of life. ferences among versions of the measures significantly impacted
the results.
When examining the amount of variance that the personality
Consistency Analysis
dimensions account for among the SWB constructs (see Tables 7,
Moderator searches were conducted to determine the consis- 8, and 9), we found important differences. Quality of life typically
tency of the results between personality and SWB conceptualiza- had the most variance accounted for, with an R2 of .39 for the NEO
Table 5
Significance Testing of Our Findings in Comparison to Previous Meta-Analyses
Happiness Life satisfaction Positive affect Negative affect
Construct z p z p z p z p
NEO
Neuroticism 5.68a .00 11.34a .00 12.66a .00 ⫺28.14a .00
Extraversion ⫺6.82a .00 ⫺9.17a .00 ⫺20.82a .00 7.99a .00
Openness ⫺1.81 .07 7.16b .00 ⫺2.90a .00 3.09a .00
Agreeableness ⫺2.33a .02 1.43 .15 2.79b .01 3.82a .00
Conscientiousness ⫺1.87 .06 0.00 1.00 ⫺7.68a .00 5.59a .00
EPQ
Neuroticism 12.20a .00 12.20a .00 9.19a .00 ⫺29.36a .00
Extraversion ⫺8.59a .00 ⫺2.10a .04 ⫺13.05a .00 6.06a .00
EPI
Neuroticism 3.03a .00 4.41a .00 0.57 .57 ⫺14.56a .00
Extraversion 2.94b .00 ⫺1.45 .15 ⫺3.09a .00 1.11 .27
Note. NEO ⫽ Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Inventory; EPQ ⫽ Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; EPI ⫽ Eysenck Personality Inventory.
a
Our correlation is significantly greater in magnitude. b Our correlation is significantly lower in magnitude.
Table 6
Correlations Among NEO, EPQ, and EPI Dimensions
NEO traits EPQ traits EPI traits
Construct N E O A C N E P D N E
NEO
Neuroticism .83 (57) (33) (34) (37) (11) (9) (7) (5) (2) (2)
Extraversion ⫺.33 .77 (28) (28) (31) (9) (11) (6) (5) (2) (2)
Openness ⫺.09 .24 .73 (28) (28) (7) (8) (8) (4)
Agreeableness ⫺.23 .19 .10 .71 (27) (7) (3) (6) (5)
Conscientiousness ⫺.33 .28 .01 .18 .79 (7) (6) (4) (4)
EPQ
Neuroticism .72 ⫺.19 .00 ⫺.16 ⫺.12 .82 (41) (18) (15)
Extraversion ⫺.23 .71 .25 .16 .05 ⫺.25 .84 (20) (14)
Psychoticism .11 ⫺.06 .07 ⫺.29 ⫺.21 .08 .07 .64 (13)
Defensiveness ⫺.13 ⫺.10 ⫺.21 .16 .37 ⫺.12 ⫺.10 ⫺.22 .70
EPI
Neuroticism .81 ⫺.24 .84 (16)
Extraversion ⫺.19 .65 ⫺.14 .79
Note. Correlations are reported below the diagonal, whereas the number of studies used in the analyses is reported in the parentheses above the diagonal.
Reliability is reported in italics along the diagonal. NEO ⫽ Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Inventory; EPQ ⫽ Eysenck Personality Questionnaire;
EPI ⫽ Eysenck Personality Inventory; N ⫽ Neuroticism; E ⫽ Extraversion; O ⫽ Openness; A ⫽ Agreeableness; C ⫽ Conscientiousness; P ⫽
Psychoticism; D ⫽ Defensiveness.
and an R2 of .36 for the EPQ. On the other hand, life satisfaction significant (e.g., ⌬R2 ⫽ .02 is typically significant here at well
typically had the least amount accounted for, ranging from an R2 below p ⬍ .001). As per Table 6, all the intercorrelations between
of .13 for the EPI to an R2 of .23 for the EPQ. Consequently, the the EPQ and the NEO are estimated, allowing a full comparison
different measures of SWB are not interchangeable. between both models. Hierarchical regression reveals that, on
Furthermore, the amount of variance accounted for differs accord- average, the EPQ incrementally predicts above the NEO by 7%,
ing to which personality scale is used. The EPI, on average, predicts ranging from 3% for positive affect to 14% for quality of life.
about 14% of the variance, whereas both the NEO and the EPQ Alternatively, the NEO incrementally predicts above the EPQ by
predict about double that or 28%. It is clear that the choice of which 9% on average, ranging from 3% for life satisfaction to 17% for
scale is used will substantively affect the overall results. Still, there are quality of life. For the EPI, the only cross-correlations are with the
consistencies. Neuroticism always presents the largest beta weights NEO, and then only for Neuroticism and Extraversion. Limiting
except for positive affect, in which Extraversion is the largest, and for ourselves to this subset, on average the EPI predicts above the
happiness, in which the results are mixed. NEO by 2%, ranging from 0% for negative and overall affect to
We can also examine the variance accounted for to assess 8% for quality of life. Conversely, the NEO typically predicts
commensurability from another direction. If the measures are above the EPI by 15%, ranging from 4% for life satisfaction to
functionally equivalent, they should not account for incremental 32% for quality of life. Clearly, the measures are not wholly
variance above one another. To evaluate this, we focus on practical interchangeable.
significance, not statistical, given that the large sample sizes as- Finally, we used moderator analysis to determine the commen-
sociated with meta-analysis make almost any increase statistically surability within the different forms of SWB categories and per-
Table 7
Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis With the NEO Personality Dimensions
Beta weights
Life Positive Negative Overall Quality

NEO variable Happiness satisfaction affect affect affect of life
Neuroticism ⫺.30* ⫺.30* ⫺.14* .52* ⫺.43* ⫺.38*

Extraversion .35* .17* .33* .00 .20* .19*
Openness .01 ⫺.04* .11* .03* ⫺.05* .07*
Agreeableness .13* .03* ⫺.01 ⫺.08* ⫺.04 .06*
Conscientiousness .03 .07* .13* ⫺.02* .02 .21*
Error variance .64* .82* .76* .70* .71* .62*
R2 .36* .18* .24* .30* .29* .39*
␳2 .43* .24* .34* .42* .40* .63*
Note. NEO ⫽ Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Inventory.

*
p ⬍ .05.
Table 8
Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis With the EPQ Personality Dimensions
Beta weights
Life Positive Negative Overall Quality

EPQ variable Happiness satisfaction affect affect affect of life
Neuroticism ⫺.34* ⫺.36* ⫺.20* .56* ⫺.44* ⫺.51*

Extraversion .34* .13* .30* ⫺.01 .22* .21*
Psychoticism ⫺.08* ⫺.21* ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.09* ⫺.02
Defensiveness .10* .04* ⫺.04* .01 .02 ⫺.10*
Error variance .69* .77* .84* .69* .70* .64*
R2 .31* .23* .16* .31* .30* .36*
␳2 .42* .35* .23* .48* .50* .47*
Note. EPQ ⫽ Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.

*
p ⬍ .05.
sonality measures. To determine whether we should display state viduals have in judging other people’s traits (Funder & Colvin,
and trait affect measures separately, we ran a stepwise WLS 1997). Fortunately, in these cases interpretation was straightfor-
multivariate regression. In the first step, we entered variables ward, as the results were typically unaffected by using dissimilar
pertaining to the type of measure (e.g., NEO vs. EPQ) and type of sources; the exception perhaps being Extraversion, where in two
affect (i.e., positive vs. negative). For the second step, we entered studies of approximately equal size, the magnitude of correlations
whether it was a state or a trait. The second step added no decreased in one (McCrae & Costa, 1991) and was unaffected in
incremental variance, F(1, 660) ⫽ 0.935, ns, and consequently the the other (Lucas & Fujita, 2000). In all, it appears that the threat of
relationship of affect to personality appears to be functionally common method bias is at most minimal, consistent with Watson,
uniform at both a state and trait level. This finding is not entirely Hubbard, and Wiese’s (2000b) conclusion that “most affective
unexpected.1 It is consistent with two other meta-analyses: De- traits tend to show moderate to strong levels of self-other agree-
Neve and Cooper’s (1998) results with positive affect as well as ment” (p. 552).
Lucas and Fujita’s (2000) finding regarding the effects of sampling Second, we used data from Tables 2, 3, 4, and 6 to apply the
duration on daily or moment ratings of affect. In a similar manner, multi-trait multi-method approach for differentiating among con-
we examined the effects of long versus short forms as well as structs. Ideally, correlations among the same construct should
revised versions for the NEO, the EPQ, and the EPI. No significant show the strongest relationships even if assessed with different
effects were found, supporting that this meta-analysis is operating measures. Table 6 reveals that the average correlations among the
at the correct level of commensurability. different measures of Neuroticism and Extraversion are .77 and
.68, respectively. Notably, these figures are approaching that of
Common Method Bias Analysis “alternative forms,” as the average internal reliability is .83 for
There is a possibility of a common method bias affecting our Neuroticism and .80 for Extraversion. We can contrast this with
results, in which the relationship is due simply to the method of the average correlation with affect. For Neuroticism and negative
measurement rather than the underlying construct. We were able to affect, the correlation is .52, whereas the correlation between
assess this in three different ways. First, we examined the differ- Extraversion and positive affect is .35. As can be seen, though
ence between self- versus other-reports. Second, we used the factor models of personality may incorporate affective compo-
multi-trait multi-method approach to examine differences and nents, they are not equivalent to them. Neuroticism and Extraver-
commonalties among measures of personality and SWB con- sion are broader constructs.
structs. Third, we examined Extraversion and Neuroticism as a Finally, we directly assessed criterion contamination. As men-
facet level, controlling for areas of potential overlap. tioned, there can be significant overlap between personality and
To begin with, McCrae and Costa (1991) noted that self-report SWB constructs. However, it was argued that this is inherently due
relationships may be criticized as “artifactual, attributable to to the nature of personality taxonomies generated with factor
shared method variance in self-reported personality scales and analysis. They would necessarily incorporate SWB elements if
self-reported well-being” (p. 230). Three major studies that used other facets of personality already had a strong relationship with
our target measures examined this (Lucas & Fujita, 2000; McCrae them. To test this, we examined the key traits of Extraversion and
& Costa, 1991; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000b), testing other–
other as well as self– other assessments. Other– other relationships, 1
State versus trait is a continuous dimension, in which state can reflect
in which another assesses both your SWB and personality, actually
how one feels right now or over the last week or several months. Although
generate much stronger correlations, on average .18 larger in state measures were not significantly related to the results obtained here,
magnitude. More directly relevant are self– other relationships, as we expect that state measures that exclusively focus on very recent feelings
their distinct source design largely eliminates the threat of shared (e.g., “how do you feel today?” instead of “this week” or “month”) should
error, though results can be hard to interpret as any drop in the show a diminished correlation with personality traits, as per Steyer, Fer-
magnitude of correlations can also be due to the difficulty indi- ring, and Schmitt (1992).
Table 9
Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis With the EPI Personality Dimensions
Beta weights
EPI variable Happiness Life satisfaction Positive affect Negative affect Overall affect Quality of life
Neuroticism ⫺.32* ⫺.31* ⫺.12* .46* ⫺.42* ⫺.24*

Extraversion .14* .16* .23* ⫺.03* .11* .18*
Error variance .87* .87* .92* .79* .79* .90*
R2 .13* .13* .08* .21* .21* .10*
␳2 .18* .23* .12* .29* .27* .23*
Note. EPI ⫽ Eysenck Personality Inventory.

*
p ⬍ .05.
Neuroticism at a facet level, controlling for any potential criterion A multiple regression of Extraversion’s facets on life satis-
contamination. If common method variance is not a problem, faction generated an improbably high R2 of .97, indicating that
results should remain strong or at least drop minimally after some correlates are likely not well estimated with just two
eliminating any facets that possibly overlap with SWB. samples. Still, if we drop Positive Emotions from equation, we
Using the NEO, we show in Table 10 the correlations among the generate an R2 of .20, which is considerably stronger than the
facets of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and SWB. On average, each R2 of .08 seen between Extraversion and life satisfaction at the
SWB correlation was based on 256 participants, and each facet trait level (see Table 2). Similarly, a multiple regression of life
intercorrelation was based on 407 participants. There were three satisfaction and Neuroticism’s facets also generated an ex-
SWB constructs that had two or more samples with which to tremely strong R2 of .69, dropping to .24 when controlling for
estimate: life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect. For Anxiety and Depression. Again, at the trait level, the R2 be-
each of these SWB constructs, we examined the percentage of tween the two is just .14 (see Table 2).
variance explained with and without any potentially overlapping Positive and negative affect had more samples with which to
facets. That is, Extraversion is comprised of the following: estimate and consequently proved to be better behaved. Positive
Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement affect’s R2 with Extraversion’s facets was .50, dropping to .44 after
Seeking, and Positive Emotions. We controlled for Positive Emo- controlling for Positive Emotions. Its relationship with Neuroti-
tions. Neuroticism is comprised of the following: Anxiety, Anger, cism’s facets was .26, dropping to .21 after controlling for Anxiety
Depression, Self Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability. and Depression. For negative affect, Extraversion’s R2 was .10,
We controlled for both Anxiety and Depression. which was unaffected by dropping Positive Emotions. For Neu-
Table 10
Correlations Among Facet Scales and SWB Dimensions
Neuroticism Extraversion SWB
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Neuroticism
1. Anxiety .78 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (4)
2. Anger .58 .75 (3) (3) (3) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3)
3. Depression .80 .66 .81 (3) (3) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (4)
4. Self-consciousness .76 .5 .81 .69 (3) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3)
5. Impulsiveness .45 .57 .52 .44 .70 (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (4) (3)
6. Vulnerability .78 .58 .80 .76 .50 .77 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3)
Extraversion
7. Warmth ⫺.09 ⫺.34 ⫺.25 ⫺.29 .03 ⫺.23 .74 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
8. Gregariousness ⫺.08 ⫺.2 ⫺.24 ⫺.3 .07 ⫺.12 .69 .73 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
9. Assertiveness ⫺.32 ⫺.05 ⫺.39 ⫺.58 ⫺.04 ⫺.52 .42 .34 .77 (3) (3) (3) (3) (4) (3)
10. Activity ⫺.07 .12 ⫺.18 ⫺.15 .09 ⫺.31 .34 .45 .63 .63 (3) (3) (3) (4) (3)
11. Excitement seeking 0 .16 ⫺.01 ⫺.15 .38 ⫺.09 .26 .53 .32 .55 .65 (3) (3) (4) (3)
12. Positive emotions ⫺.10 ⫺.16 ⫺.24 ⫺.16 .24 ⫺.25 .73 .48 .32 .63 .51 .74 (3) (4) (3)
SWB
13. Life satisfaction ⫺.31 ⫺.35 ⫺.49 ⫺.43 ⫺.12 ⫺.39 .26 .29 .37 .17 .23 .46 .84
14. Positive affect ⫺.29 ⫺.09 ⫺.39 ⫺.33 ⫺.13 ⫺.42 .44 .36 .46 .65 .32 .59 .82
15. Negative affect .64 .58 .64 .55 .44 .63 ⫺.23 ⫺.10 ⫺.20 ⫺.23 ⫺.06 ⫺.27 .85
Note. Correlations are reported below the diagonal, whereas the number of studies used in the analyses is reported in parentheses above the diagonal.
Reliability is reported in italics along the diagonal. SWB ⫽ subjective well-being.
roticism, negative affect’s R2 was .50, dropping to .47 when five SWB studies examining Psychoticism, a fraction of what is
controlling for criterion contamination. presently available. Similarly, Lucas and Fujita (2000) found 17
These results strongly indicate that criterion contamination is samples to examine the relationship that the NEO Extraversion
not a significant issue. First, typically the decrease in the relation- scale has with positive/pleasant affect, compared with the 52
ship was minor, with the exception of life satisfaction, which samples in the present meta-analysis.
generated improbably large initial figures. Second, regardless of These results mean that personality is extremely important for
the SWB construct examined, the relationship remained strong understanding SWB. Notably, it helps explain the happiness par-
after dropping potentially overlapping facets. In other words, the adox, that as countries or people become very wealthy, SWB fails
relationship between SWB and personality appears to be “genu- to improve or even declines (e.g., Duncan, 2005; Easterlin, 2001).
ine,” with any enhancement due to common method bias being These findings are a particular challenge to economists, who
slight and nonsubstantive. equate wealth with increased options and consequently increased
utility (i.e., satisfaction). However, it is consistent with the find-
Discussion ings here regarding direct and indirect effects of personality on
SWB. Specifically, wealth is going to have little effect on biolog-
There are several lines of inquiry that indicates SWB and ical processes and may even adversely affect other SWB pathways,
personality should be strongly related. To begin with, there is such as interpersonal relations (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Güliz,
support for numerous strong direct and indirect relationships be- 1997; Scitovsky, 1976). Consequently, there is much untapped
tween SWB and personality, such as common biological mecha- potential in psychology for informing public policy, especially
nisms. Second, the two constructs are often operationalized simi- because personality appears to have a stronger relationship with
larly, and twin studies have indicated that a substantial portion of SWB at a national level than individual (Lynn & Steel, 2006; Steel
stable SWB is likely due to traits. Finally, theory indicates that & Ones, 2002). Specifically, by taking into account the effects of
personality should have stronger associations with SWB in less personality, both direct and indirect, we could significantly in-
powerful situations; thus, job satisfaction, rather than life satisfac- crease societal well-being (Diener, 2000). If, for example, desir-
tion, should demonstrate lower correlations with personality traits. able personality traits are malleable during early developmental
Our findings are now consistent with each of these notions. years (e.g., Schore, 2001), extended maternity/paternity leave
The results of the present investigation indicate that personality could help parents take advantage of these critical periods. Alter-
traits play a much greater role in determining an individual’s natively, if impulsiveness (i.e., self-control) problems are at the
general level of SWB than previously thought. Almost every root of unhappiness, many of them can be mitigated at a national
comparable analysis produced correlations of a greater magnitude level (Elster, 2000; Thaler & Sunstein, 2003), and indeed some
relative to DeNeve and Cooper’s (1998) meta-analytic findings. presently are (i.e., retirement savings programs; DiCenzo, 2007).
The size of the difference is clearly evident when examining On the other hand, that long-term happiness is largely contin-
Extraversion and Neuroticism, in which the observed relationships gent on internal characteristics does have sinister societal impli-
often doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled. For example, DeNeve cations. As Frederick and Loewenstein (1999) discussed, one
and Cooper found that Extraversion accounted for approximately consequence of hedonic adaptation is that moral offense erodes
4% of the variance for positive affect, whereas the present analysis over time. Though we may immediately rage against outrages to
indicates it is as high as 19% (i.e., with the NEO) or 28% others, if they can be perpetuated for a few years, we typically will
disattenuated. Similarly, the NEO Neuroticism scale accounted for just adapt and habituate. Consequently, our humanity is more
29% of the variance in negative affect, or 41% disattenuated, fragile and malleable than we might care to believe. For example,
whereas previous findings suggested 5%. Furthermore, we have as Simone de Beauvoir noted—a passionate opponent of torture
also considered the combined relationship of personality to SWB during France’s war in Algeria—at first “the burns in the face, on
using multivariate meta-analytic regression. For this analysis, find- the sexual organs, the nails torn out, the impalements, the shrieks,
ings reached as high as 39% of the variance or 63% disattenuated, the convulsions, outraged me,” but a few years later in 1961 “like
between the NEO and quality of life measures. many of my fellow man, I suffer from a kind of tetanus of the
The primary reason for the difference in findings appears to be imagination . . . One gets used to it” (Talbott, 1980, p. 93).
commensurability. Though there is a wide assortment of potential To further our understanding of SWB, we now need to return to
moderator effects, from demographics to research design, consis- a more detailed examination of personality. The benefits of further
tently one of the largest factors is scale differences. In other words, SWB analysis with the five-factor model will invariably show
scales or measures that nominally appear identical may actually diminishing returns. Also, as Diener (1996) discussed, it provides
possess quite different properties. This appears to be especially some but limited insight into etiology. Exactly how are personality
true for personality. As shown here, the SWB relationships for the traits related to SWB? As an intervening step toward explanatory
EPI and the EPQ, despite both being developed by Eysenck and research, it would be fruitful to consider more research between
the latter being based on the former, are substantially different. SWB and personality at a facet level. We located only a few
Unfortunately, though these findings indicate that aggregating studies investigating SWB at this level of precision, but the results
various personality measures considerably reduces precision, test- are extremely promising. A facet level analysis accounted for
ing the equivalence of scales is very sporadic (Cortina, 2003; Doty approximately double the amount of variance than at a trait level.
& Glick, 1998). Still, such “clumping” may be necessary for any This is consistent with Schimmack, Oishi, Furr, and Funder’s
early investigation, as there simply may not be enough studies to (2004) position. Mathematically, three events could occur at the
properly pursue the matter. As previously mentioned, DeNeve and facet level that would affect the total variance accounted for at an
Cooper’s (1998) groundbreaking meta-analysis contained only aggregated trait level. First, only a few variables may be related to
SWB, meaning the other irrelevant facets are essentially adding tionship is typically much stronger than previously thought. Im-
“error” in this context. Second, even if all the facets were relevant, portantly, these results do not appear to be due to measurement
they are equally weighted, which is unlikely to be favorable. error, such as using self-report data or criterion contamination. On
Studying SWB at a facet level with multiple regression gives the other hand, the findings do suggest that commensurability is
optimal weights. Third, individual facets, though positively corre- indeed a potential problem that researchers need to acknowledge.
lated with each other, may have correlations with SWB in the Clearly, careful decisions need to be made with respect to the
opposite direction (e.g., Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003). aggregation of measures to ensure meta-analysis does not degrade
In addition, estimates could be further refined by exploring into H. J. Eysenck’s (1978, p. 517) “mega-silliness.”
possible interaction effects. Though Extraversion and Neuroticism
both have main effects upon SWB, it is possible that being both References
introverted and neurotic further decreases one’s happiness (Hotard, References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
McFatter, McWhirter, & Stegall, 1989; Pavot et al., 1990). More meta-analysis; those marked with a dagger indicate studies included in the
recently, Yik and Russell (2001) indicated that this interaction Table 5 and Table 6 analyses.
incrementally explains approximately 3% of the variance, whereas *
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Urrows, S., & Higgins, P. (1992). Neuroticism
Lynn and Steel (2006) found it to be as high as 14%–19% using and the pain mood relation in rheumatoid arthritis: Insights from a
national-level data. As our research base expands, we should seek prospective daily study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
to meta-analytically summarize and incorporate this effect in our 60, 119 –126.
estimates. *
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Urrows, S., & Higgins, P. (1994). Person and
Also, as our research base expands, we should attempt to control contextual features of daily stress reactivity: Individual differences in
and test for scale and measurement differences whenever possible. relations of undesirable daily events with mood disturbance and chronic
Even in this study, in which commensurability was a focal issue, pain intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 329 –
we collapsed scales into SWB categories using theoretically based 340.
*†
dimensions. Because of the sheer number of scales used to mea- Allik, J., & Realo, A. (1997). Emotional experience and its relation to the
five-factor model in Estonian. Journal of Personality, 65, 625– 647.
sure SWB, and that none have dominated the literature, we cannot
Aluja, A., Garcı́a, O., & Garcı́a, L. F. (2004). Replicability of the three,
use the same highly focused strategy that was employed for four and five Zuckerman’s personality super-factors: Exploratory and
personality. For this reason, we used many categories of SWB to confirmatory factor analysis of the EPQ-RS, ZKPQ and NEO-PI-R.
keep the constructs as precise as possible while also keeping the Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1093–1108.
sample size sufficient to obtain meaningful results. Moreover, Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains
careful judgments were used to both include and exclude particular social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social
measures. For example, certain measures—such as the General groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116 –132.
Health Questionnaire (D. Goldberg, 1978) and the Goldberg scales Anderson, K. L., & Burckhardt, C. S. (1999). Conceptualization and
(D. Goldberg, Bridges, Duncan-Jones, & Grayson, 1988)—were measurement of quality of life as an outcome variable for health care
excluded because they tap more into the clinical depression con- intervention and research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 298 –306.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being:
struct than to facets of SWB. The relationship between personality
Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Platenum Press.
and depression or anxiety is interesting but beyond the scope of Angeletos, G.-M., Laibson, D., Repetto, A., Tobacman, J., & Weinberg, S.
this investigation. (2001). The hyperbolic consumption model: Calibration, simulation, and
This indicates that there is still much to be done in determining empirical evaluation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 47– 68.
whether there are more significant differences for SWB and other *
Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990a). The happiness of extraverts. Personality
personality and attitudinal measures (e.g., self-esteem, optimism, and Individual Differences, 11, 1011–1017.
*
and anxiety), though some work has already been conducted. If we Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990b). Happiness and social skills. Personality
consider SWB specifically, Lucas and Fujita (2000) found, con- and Individual Differences, 11, 1255–1261.
sistent with our results, that EPI Extraversion produces lower Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of
correlations with pleasant affect than the NEO or EPQ scales as personality and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.),
Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective
well as method of measurement effects (e.g., self- vs. other-ratings,
(pp.189 –203). North-Holland, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
daily diary vs. global). Thoresen et al. (2003) found that using *
Arrindell, W. A., Meeuwesen, L., & Huyse, F. J. (1991). The Satisfaction
Extraversion and Neuroticism as proxies for positive and negative With Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties in a nonpsychiatric
affect generated significantly different results. Similarly, Connolly medical outpatients sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,
and Viswesvaran (2000) observed a significant difference among 117–123.
the job satisfaction measures, specifically for the Job Descriptive Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., & Near, J. P. (2005). The
Index (Balzer et al., 1997) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Ques- subjective well-being construct: A test of its convergent, discriminant,
tionnaire (D. J. Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). Also, and factorial validity. Social Indicators Research, 74, 445– 476.
Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002) located several significant dif- Averill, J. R., & More, T. A. (1993). Happiness. In L. Michael & J. M.
ferences among the gamut of job satisfaction measures included in Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 617– 629). New York:
Guilford Press.
their analysis. Finally, the relationship of job facet scales to global *†
Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., Sanchezbernardos, M. L., Martinezarias, M. R.,
job satisfaction is tenuous, even if all of the facets are used in the Silva, F., & Grana, J. L. (1995). Relations of the NEO-PI with other
estimation (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989; Jack- personality variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 81–97.
son & Corr, 2002; H. M. Weiss, 2002). *†
Bachorowski, J. A., & Braaten, E. B. (1994). Emotional intensity: Mea-
In summary, the results of this review not only indicate that surement and theoretical implications. Personality and Individual Dif-
personality is substantially related to SWB but also that the rela- ferences, 17, 191–199.
*
Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Burger, J. M., & Caldwell, D. F. (2000). Personality, social activities,
Robie, C., et al. (1997). User’s manual for the Job Descriptive Index and job-search behavior and interview success: Distinguishing between PA-
the Job in General scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State NAS trait positive affect and NEO extraversion. Motivation and Emo-
University. tion, 24, 51– 62.
*
Barrett, P. T., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1992). Predicting EPQR full scale Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A
scores from the short form version. Personality and Individual Differ- conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348 –
ences, 13, 851– 853. 370.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York:
1–26. Russell Sage Foundation.
†
Barton, J., Spelten, E., Totterdell, P., Smith, L., Folkard, S., & Costa, G. Caruso, J. C., Witkiewitz, K., Belcourt-Dittloff, A., & Gottlieb, J. D.
(1995). The Standard Shiftwork Index: A battery of questionnaires for (2001). Reliability of scores from the Eysenck Personality Question-
assessing shiftwork-related problems. Work and Stress, 9, 4 –30. naire: A reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for Measurement, 61, 675– 689.
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho- Carver, C. S. (2004). Negative affects deriving from the behavioral ap-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. proach system. Emotion, 4, 3–22.
*
Belsky, J., Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., & Silva, P. A. (2003). Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral-inhibition, behavioral
Intergenerational relationships in young adulthood and their life course, activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
mental health, and personality correlates. Journal of Family Psychology, The Bis Bas scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
17, 460 – 471. 319 –333.
* †
Bettencourt, B. A., & Dorr, N. (1997). Collective self-esteem as a medi- Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W.
ator of the relationship between allocentrism and subjective well-being. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 955–964. U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.
* *
Bianchi, G. N., & Fergusson, D. M. (1977). The effect of mental state on Chambers, B. J. (2004). Adjustment to career termination in professional
EPI scores. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 306 –309. hockey players. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser Uni-
*†
Blatny, M. (2001). Personality determinants of self-esteem and life versity, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
*†
satisfaction: Gender differences. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 45, 385– Chan, R., & Joseph, S. (2000). Dimensions of personality, domains of
392. aspiration, and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differ-
Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five-factor approach to ences, 28, 347–354.
*
personality description 5 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, Chang, E. C. (1997). Positive and negative affectivity for academic and
35, 98 –107. interpersonal domains: Relations to general affectivity, extraversion, and
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 929 –932.
*†
behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to Chay, Y. W. (1993). Social support, individual differences and well-
mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887–919. being: A study of small business entrepreneurs and employees. Journal
*†
Boudreau, J. W., & Boswell, W. R. (2001). Effects of personality on of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 285–302.
*
executive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality, self-esteem, and demo-
Vocational Behavior, 58, 53– 81. graphic predictions of happiness and depression. Personality and Indi-
†
Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (2001). vidual Differences, 34, 921–942.
Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of job search among Cloninger, C. R. (2000). Biology of personality dimensions. Current Opin-
employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 54, 25–50. ion in Psychiatry, 13, 611– 616.
*†
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobi-
incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. ological model of temperament and character. Archives of General
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158. Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.
*
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chi- Cohen, S., Gwaltney, J. M., Doyle, W. J., Skoner, D. P., Fireman, P., &
cago: Aldine. Newsom, J. T. (1995). State and trait negative affect as predictors of
*†
Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (1994). Mood and personality in recall of objective and subjective symptoms of respiratory viral infections. Jour-
positive and negative information. Behavior Research and Therapy, 32, nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 159 –169.
*
137–141. Compton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A., & Qualls, D. L. (1996).
Brand, C. R. (1997). Hans Eysenck’s personality dimensions: Their num- Factor structure of mental health measures. Journal of Personality and
ber and nature. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: Social Psychology, 71, 406 – 413.
Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at Eighty (pp. 17–35). Oxford, England: Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job
Pergamon/Elsevier Science. satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,
*
Brebner, J. (1998). Happiness and personality. Personality and Individual 29, 265–281.
*
Differences, 25, 279 –296. Cooper, H., Okamura, L., & Gurka, V. (1992). Social activity and sub-
*
Brebner, J., Donaldson, J., Kirby, N., & Ward, L. (1995). Relationships jective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 573–583.
*
between happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differ- Cooper, H., Okamura, L., & McNeil, P. (1995). Situation and personality
ences, 19, 251–258. correlates of psychological well-being: Social activity and personal
*†
Brebner, J., & Martin, M. (Eds.). (1995). Testing for stress and happi- control. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 395– 417.
ness: The role of personality factors (Vol. 15). Philadelphia: Taylor & Cortina, J. M. (2003). Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): The search
Francis. for moderators in meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 6,
*
Brown, K. W., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1997). Does unhappiness make you 415– 439.
*†
sick? The role of affect and neuroticism in the experience of common Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and
physical symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Jour-
907–917. nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668 – 678.
†
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory tive well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
(NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. 276 –302.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. R. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being.
*†
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysenck P-E-N In E. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The
system—3-factor and 5-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). New York: Russell
Social Psychology, 69, 308 –317. Sage Foundation.
*†
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality,
agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships.
Personality-Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887– Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562–576.
*†
898. Donofrio, A. (2005). The relationship between the five-factor model of
*
Cote, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between personality and relationally-based measures of Judeo-Christian spiritu-
interpersonal behavior and affect: Prediction from neuroticism, extra- ality: A correlational analysis between NEO-PI-R facet scores and
version, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- subscales of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory and Faith Maturity
ogy, 75, 1032–1046. Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, OH.
*† *
Courneya, K. S., Bobick, T. M., Rhodes, R. E., Jones, L. W., Frieden- Dorn, L., & Matthews, G. (1995). Prediction of mood and risk appraisals
reich, C. M., & Arthur, K. (2000). Personality correlates of patients’ from trait measures—2 studies of simulated driving. European Journal
subjective well-being after surgery for colorectal cancer: An application of Personality, 9, 25– 42.
of the five-factor model. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 18, 61–72. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common
*
Daniels, K. (1999). Coping and the job demands-control-support model: methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods,
An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management, 6, 1, 374 – 406.
*
125–144. Doxsee, D. J. (1999). Hindering events in group counseling and psycho-
*
David, J. P., Green, P. J., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). Differential roles therapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Co-
of neuroticism, extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily lumbia.
life: An integrative model of top-down and bottom-up, influences. Duncan, G. (2005). What do we mean by “happiness”? The relevance of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 149 –159. subjective well-being to social policy. Social Policy Journal of New
Davidson, R. J. (2005). Well-being and affective style: Neural substrates Zealand, 25, 16 –31.
and biobehavioral correlates. In F. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne Easterlin, R. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory.
(Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 107–139). Oxford, England: Economic Journal, 111, 465– 484.
Oxford University Press. Eid, M., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Borkenau, P. (2003). Sociability
*†
de Frias, C. M., Dixon, R. A., & Backman, L. (2003). Use of memory and positive emotionality: Genetic and environmental contributions to
compensation strategies is related to psychosocial and health indicators. the covariation between different facets of extraversion. Journal of
Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Personality, 71, 319 –346.
†
Sciences, 58, 12–22. Elfering, A., Semmer, N. K., & Kalin, W. (2000). Stability and change in
*†
Deluga, R. J., & Masson, S. (2000). Relationship of resident assistant job satisfaction at the transition from vocational training into “real
conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect with rated perfor- work”. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 59, 256 –271.
*
mance. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 225–235. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation in
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta- personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal
analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psycholog- of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804 – 818.
ical Bulletin, 124, 197–229. Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment,
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of and constraints. New York: Cambridge University Press.
*
personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extra- Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1985). Personality correlates of subjective
version. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569. well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 89 –97.
*† *†
DeRenzo, E. G. (1987). The relationship of the personality traits neu- Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1986). Influence of impulsivity and
roticism, extraversion and openness to experience, and age, education, sociability on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
health and social support to well-being in a group of wives of retired Psychology, 50, 1211–1215.
*
military officers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mary- Emmons, R. A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1986). Choice and avoidance
land, College Park. of everyday situations and affect congruence—2 models of reciprocal
DiCenzo, J. (2007). Behavioral finance and retirement plan contributions: interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 815–
How participants behave, and prescriptive solutions. EBRI Issue Brief, 826.
301, 1–19. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL:
Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons Charles C. Thomas.
from subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, Eysenck, H. J. (1978). An exercise in mega-silliness. American Psychol-
389 –399. ogist, 33, 517.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck
proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34 – 43. Personality Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Test-
Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological ing Service.
Science, 7, 181–185. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck
*
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and Personality Questionnaire (Junior and Adult). London: Hodder &
negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, Stoughton.
1105–1117. Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version
*
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The of the Psychoticism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6,
Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 21–29.
71–75. Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measure-
Diener, E., Eunkook, M. S., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjec- ment. Research in developmental disabilities, 16, 51–74.
*
Ferrario, S. R., Cardillo, V., Vicario, F., Balzarini, E., & Zotti, A. M. courses: An exploration. Personality and Individual Differences, 24,
(2004). Advanced cancer at home: Caregiving and bereavement. Pallia- 649 – 659.
*†
tive Medicine, 18, 129 –136. Fullana, M. A., Caseras, X., & Torrubia, R. (2003). Psychometric prop-
*
Ferrario, S. R., Zotti, A. M., Baroni, A., Cavagnino, A., & Fornara, R. erties of the Personal State Questionnaire in a Catalan sample. Person-
(2002). Emotional reactions and practical problems of the caregivers of ality and Individual Differences, 34, 605– 611.
hemodialysed patients. Journal of Nephrology, 15, 54 – 60. Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
* 197–221.
Ferrario, S. R., Zotti, A. M., Massara, G., & Nuvolone, G. (2003). A
comparative assessment of psychological and psychosocial characteris- Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1997). Congruence of others’ and self-
tics of cancer patients and their caregivers. Psycho-Oncology, 12, 1–7. judgments of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),
*†
Fierro, A., & Cardenal, V. (1996). Dimensions of personality and per- Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617– 647). San Diego, CA:
sonal satisfaction and personality. Revista de Psicologia General y Academic Press.
Aplicada, 49, 65– 81. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability, and dissimulation.
*†
Finch, J. F., Okun, M. A., Barrera, M., Zautra, A. J., & Reich, J. W. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385– 400.
*
(1989). Positive and negative social ties among older adults: Measure- Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (1997). Personality and happiness. Psycholog-
ment models and the prediction of psychological distress and well-being. ical Reports, 80, 761–762.
*
American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 585– 605. Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (1999). Personality as predictor of mental
Fordyce, M. W. (1977). The happiness measures: A thirty second index of health and happiness in the East and West. Personality and Individual
emotional well-being and mental health. Unpublished manuscript, Edi- Differences, 27, 395– 403.
*
son Community College, Fort Myers, FL. Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and
*†
Fortunato, V. J., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1999). Taking the strain out of happiness. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 815– 823.
*†
negative affectivity: Development and initial validation of scores on a Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (1998). A multimodal analysis of personal
strain-free measure of negative affectivity. Educational and Psycholog- negativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1580 –
ical Measurement, 59, 77–97. 1591.
*†
*†
Fossum, T. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). Distinguishing evaluation from Garcia, L. F., Aluja, A., Garcia, O., & Cuevas, L. (2005). Is openness to
experience an independent personality dimension? Convergent and dis-
description in the personality– emotion relationship. Personality and
criminant validity of the openness domain and its NEO-PI-R facets.
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 669 – 678.
*† Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 132–138.
Francis, L. J. (1999). Happiness is a thing called stable extraversion: A *†
Garrity, R. D., & Demick, J. (2001). Relations among personality traits,
further examination of the relationship between the Oxford Happiness
mood states, and driving behaviors. Journal of Adult Development, 8,
Inventory and Eysenck’s dimensional model of personality and gender.
109 –118.
Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 5–11. *
* Ge, X. J., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Adjustment problems and emerging
Francis, L. J. (2000). Religion and happiness: A study in empirical
personality characteristics from early to late adolescence. American
theology. Transpersonal Psychology Review, 4, 17–22.
*† Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 429 – 459.
Francis, L. J., & Bolger, J. (1997). Personality and psychological well- *†
Geary, B. (2003). The contribution of spirituality to well-being in sex
being in later life. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 444 – 447.
* offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola College, Baltimore,
Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., Lester, D., & Philipchalk, R. (1998). Hap-
MD.
piness as stable extraversion: A cross-cultural examination of the reli- *
Geist, R. L., & Gilbert, D. G. (1996). Correlates of expressed and felt
ability and validity of the Oxford Happiness Inventory among students
emotion during marital conflict: Satisfaction, personality, process, and
in the UK, USA, Australia, and Canada. Personality and Individual
outcome. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 49 – 60.
Differences, 24, 167–171. *
Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2002). Developing a short affect
*
Francis, L. J., & Katz, Y. J. (2000). Internal consistency reliability and intensity scale. Psychological Reports, 91, 657– 670.
validity of the Hebrew translation of the Oxford Happiness Inventory. *
Gilboa, D., Bisk, L., Montag, I., & Tsur, H. (1999). Personality traits and
Psychological Reports, 87, 193–196. psychosocial adjustment of patients with burns. Journal of Burn Care
*†
Francis, L. J., Katz, Y. J., Yablon, Y., & Robbins, M. (2004). Religiosity, and Rehabilitation, 20, 340 –346.
personality, and happiness: A study among Israeli male undergraduates. †
Girodo, M. (1991). Personality, job stress, and mental health in under-
Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 315–333. cover agents: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Social Behavior
*†
Francis, L. J., & Kay, W. K. (1996). Are religious people happier? A and Personality, 6, 375–390.
study among undergraduates. In L. J. Francis, W. K. Kay, & W. S. Goldberg, D. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Wind-
Campbell (Eds.), Research in religious education (pp. 207–217). Le- sor, United Kingdom: NFER-Nelson Publishing Company.
ominster, England: Gracewing. Goldberg, D., Bridges, K., Duncan-Jones, P. & Grayson, D. (1988). De-
Frederick, S., & Lowenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In E. Kah- tecting anxiety and depression in general medical settings. British Med-
neman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of ical Journal, 297, 897– 899.
hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The
*
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization, and Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
compensation as strategies of life management: Correlations with sub- 59, 1216 –1229.
jective indicators of successful aging. Psychology and Aging, 13, 531– *†
Gomez, R., Gomez, A., & Cooper, A. (2002). Neuroticism and extraver-
543. sion as predictors of negative and positive emotional information pro-
Frey, S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness cessing: Comparing Eysenck’s, Gray’s, and Newman’s theories. Euro-
research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402– 435. pean Journal of Personality, 16, 333–350.
*† †
Froehlich, J. P. (2005). Spirituality and fraternity: Spiritual maturity and Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s
social support in a national study of a male religious order. Unpublished “IPIP” Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent
doctoral dissertation, Loyola College, Baltimore, MD. validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317–
*
Fry, S. K., & Heubeck, B. G. (1998). The effects of personality and 329.
situational variables on mood states during outward bound wilderness Gray, J. A. (1987). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In
*
S. M. Stahl, S. D. Iverson, & E. C. Goodman (Eds.), Cognitive neuro- Hilleras, P. K., Jorm, A. F., Herlitz, A., & Winblad, B. (2001). Life
chemistry (pp. 171–190). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. satisfaction among the very old: A survey on a cognitively intact sample
*†
Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between affect aged 90 years or above. International Journal of Aging and Human
and personality: Support for the affect-level and affective-reactivity Development, 52, 71–90.
*
views. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 279 –288. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001a). Emotional stability as a major dimension
Güliz, G. (1997). Human development and human consumption: Well- of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1357–1364.
*
being beyond the good life. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16, Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001b). Happiness, introversion– extraversion,
110 –125. and happy introverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 595–
†
Gustafson, S. A. (1997). Cognitive processes as dispositional factors in 608.
*
job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mis- Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A
sissippi, Oxford. compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Per-
*
Gustavsson, J., Weinryb, R., Goransson, S., Pedersen, N., & Asberg, M. sonality and Individual Differences, 33, 1073–1082.
(1997). Stability and predictive ability of personality traits across 9 Hills, P., Argyle, M., & Reeves, R. (2000). Individual differences in leisure
years. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 783–791. satisfactions: An investigation of four theories of leisure motivation.
*†
Hagemann, D., Naumann, E., Lurken, A., Becker, G., Maier, S., & Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 763–779.
Bartussek, D. (1999). EEG asymmetry, dispositional mood, and person- Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement
ality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 541–568. and employment decisions. American Psychologist, 51, 469 – 477.
*† *
Halamandaris, K., & Power, K. (1997). Individual differences, dysfunc- Hooker, K., Monahan, D., Shifren, K., & Hutchinson, C. (1992). Mental
tional attitudes, and social support: A study of the psychosocial adjust- and physical health of spouse caregivers: The role of personality. Psy-
ment to university life of home students. Personality and Individual chology and Aging, 7, 367–375.
*†
Differences, 22, 93–104. Horner, K. L. (1998). Individuality in vulnerability: Influences on phys-
*
Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, S. T. (1996). The development and validation of ical health. Journal of Health Psychology, 3, 71– 85.
*†
an index of emotional disposition and mood state: The Chinese Affect Hossack, R. C. (1997). Salutogenic and pathogenic orientations to life:
Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 995–1014. Attachment, personality, sense of coherence and well-being in late
*
Hamlin, M. E. (2002). A measure of positive and negative affect using adolescence: A structural equation model. Unpublished doctoral disser-
cartoon facial expressions of emotion. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
tion, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City. Hotard, S. R., McFatter, R. M., McWhirter, R. M., & Stegall, M. E. (1989).
*
Hart, P. M. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent Interactive effects of extraversion, neuroticism, and social relationships
model of personality, work and nonwork experiences, and domain on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 564 –584. 57, 321–331.
* *†
Headey, B., Kelley, J., & Wearing, A. (1993). Dimensions of mental Howell Rolston, C. D. (2003). Attachment styles and the concepts of self
health: Life satisfaction, positive affect, anxiety, and depression. Social and of others. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, Ath-
Indicators Research, 29, 63– 82. ens.
*†
Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjec- Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1995). Development of a new outlier
tive well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Per- statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
sonality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. 327–334.
*
Heaven, P. C. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism, and satisfaction with life Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury
among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 489 – Park, CA: Sage.
492. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
*
Heisel, M. J., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Purpose in life, satisfaction with life, The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869 – 879.
*†
and suicide ideation in a clinical sample. Journal of Psychopathology Hyland, M. E., Bott, J., Singh, S., & Kenyon, C. A. P. (1994). Domains,
and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 127–135. constructs, and the development of the Breathing Problems Question-
*†
Heller, D., Judge, T. A., & Watson, D. (2002). The confounding role of naire. Quality of Life Research, 3, 245–256.
*†
personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships
satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815– 835. among personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience sam-
Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus pling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bul- 89, 1119 –1139.
letin, 130, 574 – 600. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The
*†
Hemenover, S. H. (2001). Self-reported processing bias and naturally mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750 –
occurring mood: Mediators between personality and stress appraisals. 759.
†
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 387–394. Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Sheppard, K. E. (2004). Personality and
*
Hemenover, S. H. (2003). Individual differences in rate of affect change: self-determination of exercise behavior. Personality and Individual Dif-
Studies in affective chronometry. Journal of Personality and Social ferences, 36, 1921–1932.
Psychology, 85, 121–131. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B.
*†
Hepburn, L., & Eysenck, M. W. (1989). Personality, average mood, and (1989). Construction of a “Job in General” scale: A comparison of
mood variability. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 975–983. global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychol-
*†
Herringer, L. G. (1998). Facets of extraversion related to life satisfaction. ogy, 74, 193–200.
*†
Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 731–733. Isaacowitz, D. M., & Smith, J. (2003). Positive and negative affect in
*†
Heubeck, B. G., Wilkinson, R. B., & Cologon, J. (1998). A second look very old age. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences
at Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individ- and Social Sciences, 58, 143–152.
ual Differences, 25, 785– 800. Jackson, C. J., & Corr, P. J. (2002). Global job satisfaction and facet
*
Hilleras, P. K., Jorm, A. F., Herlitz, A., & Winblad, B. (1998). Negative description: The moderating role of facet importance. European Journal
and positive affect among the very old: A survey on a sample age 90 of Psychological Assessment, 18, 1– 8.
years or older. Research on Aging, 20, 593– 610. John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of
personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In P. A. population in a Japanese rural area. Psychiatry and Clinical Neuro-
Lawrence (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. sciences, 56, 431– 441.
*†
66 –100). New York: Guilford Press. Klumb, P. L. (2004). Benefits from productive and consumptive activi-
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five ties: Results from the Berlin Aging Study. Social Indicators Research,
Inventory—Version 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 67, 107–127.
†
Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. Knussen, C., & Niven, C. A. (1999). Neuroticism and work-related stress
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, in a sample of health care workers. Psychology and Health, 14, 897–911.
*†
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John Kokkonen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001a). Examination of the paths
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. between personality, current mood, its evaluation, and emotion regula-
102–139). New York: Guilford Press tion. European Journal of Personality, 15, 83–104.
* †
Jones, R. S. (2001). A correlational examination of personality, self- Kokkonen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001b). Extraversion and neuroticism as
concept, social roles, and life satisfaction in working adult women antecedents of emotion regulation and dysregulation in adulthood. Eu-
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington Uni- ropean Journal of Personality, 15, 407– 424.
versity, Columbia. Konstabel, K., Realo, A., & Kallasmaa, T. (2002). Exploring the sources of
*
Jorm, A., & Duncan-Jones, P. (1990). Neurotic symptoms and subjective variations in the structure of personality traits across cultures. In R. R.
well-being in a community sample: Different sides of the same coin? McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across
Psychological Medicine, 20, 647– 654. cultures (pp. 29 –52). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
† *
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (2004). The five-factor model of person-
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751– ality: Strengths and limitations in predicting health status, sick-role, and
765. illness behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 187–199.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1980). The measurement of happiness:
and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Development of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of
Psychology, 87, 765–780. Happiness (MUNSH). Journal of Gerontology, 35, 906 –912.
*† *
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are Kreitler, S., Aronson, M., Berliner, S., Kreitler, H., Weissler, K., & Arber,
measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized N. (1995). Life events and personal problems: Their physiological and
self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Person- emotional effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 101–116.
*
ality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710. Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2003). Wisdom-related knowledge:
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of Affective, motivational, and interpersonal correlates. Personality and
personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1104 –1119.
*†
Psychology, 87, 530 –541. Kurdek, L. A. (1997). Relation between neuroticism and dimensions of
*
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). relationship commitment: Evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual
Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspec- couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 109 –124.
*†
tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122. Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural
*†
Kahn, J. H., & Hessling, R. M. (2001). Measuring the tendency to explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-
conceal versus disclose psychological distress. Journal of Social and esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038 –1051.
Clinical Psychology, 20, 41– 65. Lasky-Su, J. A., Faraone, S. V., Glatt, S. J., & Tsuang, M. T. (2005).
*
Kammann, R., Farry, M., & Herbison, P. (1984). The analysis and Meta-Analysis of the association between two polymorphisms in the
measurement of happiness as a sense of well-being. Social Indicators serotonin transporter gene and affective disorders. American Journal of
Research, 15, 91–115. Medical Genetics, 133, 110 –115.
*†
Kammann, R., & Flett, R. (1983). Affectometer 2: A scale to measure Lay, C. H. (1997). Explaining lower-order traits through higher-order
current level of general happiness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, factors: The case of trait procrastination, conscientiousness, and the
259 –265. specificity dilemma. European Journal of Personality, 11, 267–278.
*†
Katz, D. M. (2001). Reactivity theory and the prediction of positive and Leahey, T. H. (2000). A history of psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
negative affect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, Prentice Hall.
New York. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO
*
Kempen, G., Jelicic, M., & Ormel, J. (1997). Personality, chronic medical personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329 –358.
*
morbidity, and health-related quality of life among older persons. Health Lent, R. W., Singley, D., Sheu, H. B., Gainer, K. A., Brenner, B. R.,
Psychology, 16, 539 –546. Treistman, D., et al. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of domain and
Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (2001). Trait-state models for longitudinal data. life satisfaction: Exploring the theoretical precursors of subjective well-
In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 429 – 442.
*†
change: Decade of behavior (pp. 243–263). Washington, DC: American Leong, Y.-M. (2003). Personality in obsessive compulsive disorder and
Psychological Association. other proposed obsessive compulsive spectrum disorders using the five-
*†
Kentle, R. L. (2002). Adjectives, phrases, and sentences: Intracorrelation factor model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of
of three five-factor personality inventories. Psychological Reports, 91, America, Washington, DC.
*†
1151–1154. Lewis, C. A., Francis, L. J., & Ziebertz, H.-G. (2002). The internal
Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Tamir, M., Scollon, C., & Diener, M. (2005). consistency reliability and construct validity of the German translation
Integrating the diverse definitions of happiness: A time-sequential of the Oxford Happiness Inventory. North American Journal of Psychol-
framework of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, ogy, 4, 211–220.
*
261–300. Libran, E. C. (2000). Emotional intensity and its relationship with extra-
Kirkhart, K. E., Morgan, R. O., & Sincavage, J. (1991). Assessing evalu- version and neuroticism. Psicothema, 12, 568 –573.
†
ation performance and use: Test retest reliability of standardized instru- Libran, E. C. (2006). Personality dimensions and subjective well-being.
ments. Evaluation Review, 15, 482–502. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 9, 38 – 44.
* *
Kitamura, T., Kawakami, N., Sakamoto, S., Tanigawa, T., Ono, Y., & Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of
Fujihara, S. (2002). Quality of life and its correlates in a community distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others:
*†
Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psy- McConville, C., & Cooper, C. (1999). Personality correlates of variable
chology Bulletin, 22, 666 – 677. moods. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 65–78.
* *
Liu, R., & Gong, Y. (2000). Subjective well-being of the elderly and its McCrae, R. R. (1986). Well-being scales do not measure social desirabil-
influential factors. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8, 73–78. ity. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 390 –392.
*
Lu, L. (1995). The relationship between subjective well-being and psy- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More
chosocial variables in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 351– substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51,
357. 882– 888.
*†
Lu, L. (1999). Personal or environmental causes of happiness: A longi- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoti-
tudinal analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 79 –90. cism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality.
*
Lu, L. (2000). Gender and conjugal differences in happiness. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597.
*
Social Psychology, 140, 132–141. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full
*
Lu, L., & Argyle, M. (1991). Happiness and cooperation. Personality and five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology
Individual Differences, 12, 1019 –1030. Bulletin, 17, 227–232.
* †
Lu, L., & Lin, Y. Y. (1998). Family roles and happiness in adulthood. McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures:
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 195–207. Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
*†
Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Personality and happiness: Is mental health ogy, 89, 407– 425.
†
a mediator? Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 249 –256. McKelvie, S. J. (2004). Is the Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Person-
*
Lu, L., Shih, J., Lin, Y., & Ju, L. (1997). Personal and environmental ality Inventory contaminated by response bias? Personality and Individ-
correlates of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, ual Differences, 36, 743–755.
*†
453– 462. McKnight, C. G., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. (2002). Relationships
*
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of among stressful life events, temperament, problem behavior, and global
social situations: The importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality life satisfaction in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 677– 687.
*†
and Social Psychology, 81, 343–356. McLennan, J., & Bates, G. W. (1993). Vulnerability to psychological
*
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). distress: Empirical and conceptual distinctions between measures of
Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. neuroticism and negative affect. Psychological Reports, 73, 1315–1323.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452– 468. McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). Profile of mood
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
*†
well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, Meyer, G. J., & Shack, J. R. (1989). Structural convergence of mood and
616 – 628. personality: Evidence for old and new directions. Journal of Personality
*
Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation between and Social Psychology, 57, 691–706.
extraversion and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Mag-
Psychology, 79, 1039 –1056. nusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current
Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
Psychological Science, 7, 186 –189. baum.
Lynn, M., & Steel, P. (2006). National differences in subjective well-being: Mischel, W. (1999). Personality coherence and dispositions in a cognitive-
The interactive effects of extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of affective personality system (CAPS) approach. In D. Cervone & Y.
Happiness Studies, 7, 155–165. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of
*
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 37– 60). New York: Guil-
happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indi- ford Press.
*†
cators Research, 46, 137–155. Morrison, K. A. (1997). Personality correlates of the five-factor model
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happi- for a sample of business owners/managers: Associations with scores on
ness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psy- self-monitoring, Type A behavior, locus of control, and subjective
chology, 9, 111–131. well-being. Psychological Reports, 80, 255–272.
*
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and Moyle, P. (1995). The role of negative affectivity in the stress process:
neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal anal- Tests of alternative models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16,
ysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046 –1053. 647– 668.
*† *†
Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Kusulas, J. W., Hervig, L. K., & Moyle, P., & Parkes, K. (1999). The effects of transition stress: A
Vickers, R. R. (1992). Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: Rela- relocation study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 625– 646.
*
tions to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. Journal of Murberg, T. A., Bru, E., Svebak, S., Aarsland, T., & Dickstein, K. (1997).
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1067–1074. The role of objective health indicators and neuroticism in perceived
*
Martin, R., & Watson, D. (1997). Style of anger expression and its relation health and psychological well-being among patients with chronic heart
to daily experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 867– 875.
285–294. Murray, G., Rawlings, D., Allen, N. B., & Trinder, J. (2003). NEO
Matthews, G., & Gilliland, K. (1999). The personality theories of H. J. Five-Factor Inventory scores: Psychometric properties in a community
Eysenck and J. A. Gray: A comparative review. Personality and Indi- sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
vidual Differences, 26, 583– 626. 36, 140 –149.
*† *
Maybery, D. J. (2003). Including interpersonal events on hassle and uplift Negoescu-Bodor, V., Corduban, C., & Popa, S. (1991). Factorial dimen-
scales: Verification employing global and molecular events. Stress and sions of psychosocial adjustment in a group of heavy industry workers.
Health, 19, 289 –296. Revista de Psihologie, 37, 157–166.
* *†
Mayo, P. R. (1983). Personality traits and the retrieval of positive and Nemanick, R. C., Jr., & Munz, D. C. (1997). Extraversion and neuroti-
negative memories. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 465– 471. cism, trait mood, and state affect: A hierarchical relationship? Journal of
*
McConville, C., & Cooper, C. (1992). Mood variability and personality. Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 1079 –1092.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1213–1221. Nes, R. B., Røysamb, E., Tambs, K., Harris, J. R., & Reichborn-Kjennerud,
T. (2006). Subjective well-being: Genetic and environmental contribu- and the five-factor model of personality. Psychological Reports, 80,
tions to stability and change. Psychological Medicine, 36, 1033–1042. 1208 –1210.
†
Nietfeld, J., & Bosma, A. (2003). Examining the self-regulation of im- Revelle, W. (1997). Extraversion and impulsivity: The lost dimension? In
pulsive and reflective response styles on academic tasks. Journal of H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: Tribute to Hans
Research in Personality, 37, 118 –140. J. Eysenck at eighty (pp. 189 –212). Amsterdam: Pergamon/Elsevier
*† Science.
Noor, N. M. (1996). Some demographic, personality, and role variables
*
as correlates of women’s well-being. Sex Roles, 34, 603– 620. Roberts, J. E., Kassel, J. D., & Gotlib, I. H. (1995). Level and stability of
*
O’Connor, K., Belanger, L., Marchand, A., Dupuis, G., Elie, R., & Boyer, self-esteem as predictors of depressive symptoms. Personality and In-
R. (1999). Psychological distress and adaptational problems associated dividual Differences, 19, 217–224.
*
with discontinuation of benzodiazepines. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 537– Rolland, J. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). The validity of FFM personality
541. dimensions and maladaptive traits to predict negative affects at work: A
Okun, M. A., Stock, W. A., & Covey, R. E. (1982). Assessing the effects six month prospective study in a military sample. European Journal of
of older adult education on subjective well-being. Educational Geron- Personality, 17, 101–121.
tology, 8, 523–526. Rolls, E. T. (2000). Précis of the brain and emotion. Behavioral and Brain
Oliver, J. P. J., Huxley, P. J., Bridges, K., & Mohammed, H. (1996). Sciences, 23, 177–234.
*†
Quality of life and mental health services. London: Routledge. Romero, E., Luengo, M. A., Gomez-Fraguela, J. A., & Sobral, J. (2002).
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social The structure of personality traits in adolescents: The five-factor model
desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red her- and the alternative five. Psicothema, 14, 134 –143.
*†
ring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660 – 679. Rosenman, S., & Rodgers, B. (2006). Childhood adversity and adult
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martı́nez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of personality. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40,
consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401– 412. 482– 490.
*
*
Pallant, J. F. (2000). Development and validation of a scale to measure Ruehlman, L. S., Lanyon, R. I., & Karoly, P. (1999). Development and
perceived control of internal states. Journal of Personality Assessment, validation of the multidimensional health profile: I. Psychosocial func-
75, 308 –337. tioning. Psychological Assessment, 11, 166 –176.
*
* Ruggeri, M., Pacati, P., & Goldberg, D. (2003). Neurotics are dissatisfied
Park, C. L., Armeli, S., & Tennen, H. (2004a). Appraisal-coping goodness
with life, but not with services: The South Verona Outcome Project 7.
of fit: A daily Internet study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
General Hospital Psychiatry, 25, 338 –344.
tin, 30, 558 –569. *
* Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1995). Moods as sources of stimulation:
Park, C. L., Armeli, S., & Tennen, H. (2004b). The daily stress and coping
Relationships between personality and desired mood states. Personality
process and alcohol use among college students. Journal of Studies on
and Individual Differences, 18, 321–329.
Alcohol, 65, 126 –135. *†
* Ryan, E. L. (1999). False memory and personality integration. Unpub-
Pasupathi, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Age and emotional experience
lished doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology,
during mutual reminiscing. Psychology and Aging, 18, 430 – 442.
* Palo Alto, CA.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). The affective and cognitive context of *†
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health:
self-reported measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Re-
Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of
search, 28, 1–20.
Personality, 65, 529 –565.
Pavot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the
validation of the Satisfaction With Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-
meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality
Psychology, 57, 1069 –1081.
Assessment, 57, 149 –161. *†
Sale, C., Guppy, A., & El-Sayed, M. (2000). Individual differences,
*
Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extroversion and happiness. exercise, and leisure activity in predicting affective well-being in young
Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1299 –1306. adults. Ergonomics, 43, 1689 –1697.
†
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five, Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job perfor-
emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and mance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228. 30 – 43.
*
Persson, L. O., & Sahlberg, D. (2002). The influence of negative illness *
Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The
cognitions and neuroticism on subjective symptoms and mood in rheu- convergence and stability of self-report and nonself-report measures.
matoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 61, 1000 –1006. Journal of Personality, 61, 318 –342.
Pickering, A. D., & Gray, J. A. (2001). Dopamine, appetitive reinforce- †
Sarris, A. (2006). Personality, culture fit, and job outcomes on Australian
ment, and the neuropsychology of human learning: An individual dif- Antarctic stations. Environment and Behavior, 38, 356 –372.
ferences approach. In A. Eliasz & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Advances in Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of
individual differences research (pp. 113–149). Lengerich, Germany: the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 1–31.
PABST Science Publishers. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:
Pincus, T., & Callahan, L. F. (1993). Depression scales in rheumatoid Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
arthritis: Criterion contamination in interpretation of patient responses. Health Psychology, 4, 219 –247.
Patient Education and Counseling, 20, 33–143. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Personality
*
Potter, P. T., Smith, B. W., Strobel, K. R., & Zautra, A. J. (2002). and life satisfaction. A facet-level analysis. Personality and Social
Interpersonal workplace stressors and well-being: A multi-wave study of Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062–1075.
employees with and without arthritis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, *†
Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S.
789 –796. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating pro-
*
Pychyl, T. A., & Little, B. R. (1998). Dimensional specificity in the cess models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
prediction of subjective well-being: Personal projects in pursuit of the Psychology, 82, 582–593.
PHD. Social Indicators Research, 45, 423– 473. Schjoedt, L., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2005, August). Job satisfac-
*
Ramanaiah, N. V., Detwiler, F. R., & Byravan, A. (1997). Life satisfaction tion: Comparing the effects of the situational, dispositional, and inter-
actional approaches. Paper presented at the Academy of Management sense of coherence scale related to negative and positive affectivity.
Conference, Honolulu, HI. European Journal of Personality, 12, 457– 480.
*†
Schmidtke, J. I. (2000). Personality, affect, and EEG: An integration of Stubbe, J. H., Posthuma, D., Boomsma, D. I., & De Geus, E. J. C. (2005).
three models to predict neural patterns of activity. Unpublished doctoral Heritability of life satisfaction in adults: A twin-family study. Psycho-
dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. logical Medicine, 35, 1– 8.
*† *†
Schmidtke, J. I., & Heller, W. (2004). Personality, affect, and EEG: Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-
Predicting patterns of regional brain activity related to extraversion and being: Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social
neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 717–732. Psychology, 70, 1091–1102.
* *†
Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: Suls, J., Green, P., & Hills, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday
Reexamining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social problems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 549 –559. Psychology Bulletin, 24, 127–136.
*
Schnika, J. A., Busch, R. M., & Robichaux-Keene, N. (2004). A meta- Svebak, S., Sondenaa, K., Hausken, T., Soreide, O., Hammar, A., &
analysis of the association between the serotonin transporter gene poly- Berstad, A. (2000). The significance of personality in pain from gall-
morphism (5-HTTLPR) and trait anxiety. Molecular Psychiatry, 9, 197– bladder stones. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 35, 759 –
202. 764.
*
Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right Swickert, R., Hittner, J. B., Kitos, N., & Cox-Fuenzalida, L. E. (2004).
brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Direct or indirect, that is the question: A re-evaluation of extraversion’s
Mental Health Journal, 22, 7– 66. influence on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
Scitovsky, T. (1976). The joyless economy. Oxford, England: Oxford 207–217.
University Press. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, F. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publisher.
introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Talbott, J. (1980). The war without a name: France in Algeria, 1954 –1962.
*
Shadish, W. R. (1985). Transitory emotional states and encounter group New York: Knopf.
training. Small Group Behavior, 16, 477– 486. Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1992). Exploring personality through test
*
Sham, P. C., Sterne, A., Purcell, S., Cherny, S., Webster, M., Rijsdijk, F., construction: Development of the Multi-dimensional Personality Ques-
et al. (2000). GENESiS: Creating a composite index of the vulnerability tionnaire (MPQ). Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota,
to anxiety and depression in a community-based sample of siblings. Twin Cities.
*†
Twin Research, 3, 316 –322. Terracciano, A. (2003). The Italian version of the NEO PI-R: Conceptual
Sharpe, D. (1997). Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: Why and empirical support for the use of targeted rotation. Personality and
validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clinical Psychology Individual Differences, 35, 1859 –1872.
*
Review, 17, 881–901. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Factorial and
*
Sloan, J. M. (1995). A structural model of neuroendocrine arousal, construct validity of the Italian Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
personality, and affect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 131–
Nebraska, Lincoln. 141.
Smits, D. J. M., & Boeck, P. D. (2006). From BIS/BAS to the Big Five. Tett, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow
European Journal of Personality, 20, 255–270. measures on both sides of the personality–job performance relationship.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. C., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335–356.
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. The
gists Press. American Economic Review, 93, 175–179.
Spotts, E., Lichtenstein, P., Pedersen, N., Neiderhiser, J., Hansson, K., Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de
Cederblad, M., et al. (2005). Personality and marital satisfaction: A Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions
behavioral genetic analysis. European Journal of Personality, 19, 205– and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological
227. Bulletin, 129, 914 –945.
*
Staw, B. M., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2005). The dispositional approach to Todd, M., Armeli, S., Tennen, H., Carney, M. A., & Affleck, G. (2003).
job satisfaction: More than a mirage but not yet an oasis. Journal of A daily diary validity test of drinking to cope measures. Psychology of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 59 –78. Addictive Behaviors, 17, 303–311.
†
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination. Psychological Bulletin, Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. M. (1997). Relative contributions of congru-
133(1), 65–94. ence and personality dimensions to job satisfaction. Journal of Voca-
Steel, P., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic tional Behavior, 50, 482– 491.
†
moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of VanKampen, D. (1997). Orderliness as a major dimension of personality:
Applied Psychology, 87, 96 –111. From 3DPT to 4DPT. European Journal of Personality, 11, 211–242.
Steel, P., & Ones, D. (2002). Personality and happiness: A national level of Veenhoven, R. (1994). World Database of Happiness: Correlates of hap-
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 767–781. piness: 7,837 findings from 603 studies in 69 nations 1911–1994 (Vols.
†
Sterns, L., Alexander, R. A., Barrett, G. V., & Dambrot, F. H. (1983). The 1–3). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
*
relationship of extraversion and neuroticism with job preferences and Velting, D. M., & Liebert, R. M. (1997). Predicting three mood phenom-
job satisfaction for clerical employees. Journal of Occupational Psy- ena from factors and facets of the NEO-PI. Journal of Personality
chology, 56, 145–153. Assessment, 68, 165–172.
*†
Stewart, M. E., Ebmeier, K. P., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Personality Versplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. (2001). Individual differences in impulse
correlates of happiness and sadness: EPQ-R and TPQ compared. Per- buying tendency: Feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 38, 1085–1096. sonality, 15, 71– 83.
*
Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and traits in Walsh, J. M. (2002). Spirituality and recovery from pathological gam-
psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assess- bling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola College, Baltimore,
ment, 8, 79 –98. Maryland.
* *†
Strumpfer, D. J. W., Gouws, J. F., & Viviers, M. R. (1998). Antonovsky’s Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and
*
outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Williams, D. (1990). Effects of psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroti-
Psychology, 85, 373–385. cism in current mood: A statistical review of six studies. Personality and
#Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and Individual Differences, 11, 615– 630.
*†
outcomes of networking intensity among unemployed job seekers. Jour- Williams, D. G. (1993). Are personality effects upon average mood due
nal of Applied Psychology, 85, 491–503. to personality effects upon mood variation? Personality and Individual
*†
Warr, P. B., Barter, J., & Brownbridge, G. (1983). On the independence Differences, 14, 199 –208.
*
of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Williams, P. G., Colder, C. R., Lane, J. D., McCaskill, C. C., Feinglos,
chology, 44, 644 – 651. M. N., & Surwit, R. S. (2002). Examination of the neuroticism-symptom
*†
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament—General reporting relationship in individuals with Type-2 diabetes. Personality
and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1015–1025.
*†
five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441– 476. Williams, P. G., Surwit, R. S., Babyak, M. A., & McCaskill, C. C.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional (1998). Personality predictors of mood related to dieting. Journal of
core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of per- Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 994 –1004.
*
sonality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Williams, P. G., & Wiebe, D. J. (2000). Individual differences in self-
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Affect, assessed health: Gender, neuroticism, and physical symptom reports.
personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 823– 835.
*
chology, 63, 1011–1025. Wilson, K., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between personality
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali- and affect over the lifespan. Personality and Individual Differences, 27,
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS 1141–1156.
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Withey, M. J., Gellatly, I. R., & Annett, M. (2005). The moderating effect
*
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000a). General traits of person- of situation strength on the relationship between personality and provi-
ality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: sion of effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1587–1608.
*†
Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68, Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower
413– 449. emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory
*
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000b). Self-other agreement in study. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274.
*
personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, Wood, C., Magnello, M. E., & Jewell, T. (1990). Measuring vitality.
and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 83, 486 – 489.
†
78, 546 –558. Wuthrich, V., & Bates, T. C. (2001). Schizotypy and latent inhibition:
*†
Watson, D., Suls, J., & Haig, J. (2002). Global self-esteem in relation to Non-linear linkage between psychometric and cognitive markers. Per-
structural models of personality and affectivity. Journal of Personality sonality and Individual Differences, 30, 783–798.
*
and Social Psychology, 83, 185–197. Xue, Z., Liu, Z., Yao, G., Chen, F., Zhu, Y., & Liu, S. (2000). A
†
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of preliminary study of the role of psychosocial factors in patients with
personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the Big Five impotence. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 14, 236 –238.
*†
to work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Yeung, R. R., & Hemsley, D. R. (1997). Personality, exercise, and
64, 108 –130. psychological well-being: Static relationships in the community. Per-
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). sonality and Individual Differences, 22, 47–53.
Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Twin Cities, MN: Yik, M. S. M., & Russell, J. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of affect
Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. from the Big Five of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35,
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evalua- 247–277.
*
tions, beliefs, and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Yoo, H. G., Kim, J. C., Eremenco, S., & Han, O. S. (2005). Quality of life
Review, 12, 173–194. on colorectal cancer patients with colectomy and the validation of the
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. (2001). The five-factor model and impul- functional assessment of cancer therapy colorectal, Version 4. Journal of
sivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Pain and Symptom Management, 30, 24 –32.
*
Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669 – 689. Zhang, S. J., Huangf, L. H., Wen, Y. L., Hu, Z. H., Jin, J., Shen, L. H., et
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1997). Assessment of the five-factor model al. (2005). Impact of personality and coping mechanisms on health
of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 228 –250. related quality of life in liver transplant recipients. Hepatobiliary &
*†
Wiese, B. S., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2000). Selection, optimi- Pancreatic Diseases International, 4, 356 –359.
*†
zation, and compensation: An action-related approach to work and Zhu, D. T., Jin, L. J., Xie, G. J., & Xiao, B. (1998). Quality of life and
partnership. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 273–300. personality in adults with epilepsy. Epilepsia, 39, 1208 –1212.
*
Wilkinson, R. B., & Walford, W. A. (2001). Attachment and personality Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cam-
in the psychological health of adolescents. Personality and Individual bridge University Press.
Differences, 31, 473– 484.
*†
Williams, D. (1981). Personality and mood: State-trait relationships.
Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 303–309. Received July 28, 2006
*†
Williams, D. G. (1989). Personality effects in current mood: Pervasive or Revision received August 20, 2007
reactive. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 941–948. Accepted August 29, 2007 䡲

Refining The Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Refining The Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Refining The Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 134, No. 1, 138 –161 0033-2909/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138

Refining the Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being

Piers Steel, Joseph Schmidt, and Jonas Shultz

Keywords: personality, subjective well-being, meta-analysis, commensurability

Quality of life 1. Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989) Results

r៮ 95% interval ␳ 95% interval

Construct K n r៮ Confidence Credibility Q statistic ␳ Confidence Credibility Q statistic

r៮ 95% interval ␳ 95% interval

Construct K n r៮ Confidence Credibility Q statistic ␳ Confidence Credibility Q statistic

r៮ 95% interval ␳ 95% interval

Construct K n r៮ Confidence Credibility Q statistic ␳ Confidence Credibility Q statistic

Happiness Life satisfaction Positive affect Negative affect

NEO traits EPQ traits EPI traits

Life Positive Negative Overall Quality

Neuroticism ⫺.30* ⫺.30* ⫺.14* .52* ⫺.43* ⫺.38*

Note. NEO ⫽ Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Inventory.

Life Positive Negative Overall Quality

Neuroticism ⫺.34* ⫺.36* ⫺.20* .56* ⫺.44* ⫺.51*

Note. EPQ ⫽ Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.

Neuroticism ⫺.32* ⫺.31* ⫺.12* .46* ⫺.42* ⫺.24*

Note. EPI ⫽ Eysenck Personality Inventory.

Neuroticism Extraversion SWB

You might also like