Received: 30 May 2022      Accepted: 18 August 2022

DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12596

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Reciprocal relationships between personality traits

and psychological well-being

Mohsen Joshanloo

Department of Psychology, Keimyung University,

Daegu, South Korea Abstract
This study used an American sample collected over a period
Correspondence of approximately 2 decades (at 3 time points) to examine
Mohsen Joshanloo, Department of Psychology, the temporal relationships between psychological well-being
Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea.
Email: mjoshanloo@gmail.com and personality traits (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, agree-
ableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience).
The random-intercept cross-lagged panel model was used
to separate between-person and within-person sources of
variation. Between-person correlations were comparable
to those of previous studies. New insights were gained at
the within-person level. There were reciprocal relationships
between psychological well-being and openness and extraver-
sion, suggesting the joint development of plasticity-related
traits and well-being over time. The relationships between
psychological well-being and conscientiousness and agree-
ableness were unidirectional, with psychological well-being
preceding these traits. Despite a strong between-person asso-
ciation between neuroticism and psychological well-being,
the two were not related at the within-person level.

KEYWORDS
big five, MIDUS, psychological well-being, RI-CLPM, temporal, traits,
within-person

BACKGROUND

Personality traits are stable patterns in the way people think, feel, and behave (Cervone & Pervin, 2015).
Traits remain fairly constant over time and across contexts, but this stability is not complete. There is
now ample evidence to suggest that traits change across the lifespan (Bleidorn et al., 2019). The scien-
tific community has now generally agreed on a taxonomy of personality traits: the “Big Five” dimen-
sions (John, 2021). These five traits are commonly referred to as neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The Big Five “represent a viable balance between concep-
tual breadth, descriptive fidelity, and generalizability across samples and measures and, to a certain degree,
also across cultures” (Bleidorn et al., 2019, p. 1508). Traits are reliably associated with important life
outcomes (Roberts et al., 2007), such as mental well-being (Anglim et al., 2020). Indeed, traits are among

54 © 2022 The British Psychological Society. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bjop Br J Psychol. 2023;114:54–69.

PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 55

the strongest predictors of various aspects of well-being (Diener, 1996; Joshanloo et al., 2012; Schmutte
& Ryff, 1997).
Eudaimonic well-being is an aspect of mental well-being that is usually contrasted with subjective/
hedonic well-being (Ryan et al., 2008). Rather than focusing on emotional experiences as the primary indi-
cator of well-being, models of eudaimonic well-being emphasize the importance of a life of contemplation
and virtue, the pursuit of human excellence, and the development of one's potential (Niemiec, 2014; Ryff
et al., 2021). The eudaimonic concept of well-being has evolved from models and theories in clinical,
developmental, existential/humanistic psychology, and Greek philosophy. In the language of modern
social science, eudaimonic well-being consists of the acquisition and practice of psychological and social
skills that facilitate coping with life's daily challenges (Joshanloo, 2018b). Based on points of convergence
among different psychological theories and models, Ryff (1989) developed a multidimensional model of
eudaimonic well-being, commonly referred to as psychological well-being. This integration resulted in six
dimensions that express what it takes to cope with life's common challenges: Being aware of one's weak-
nesses and still feeling good about oneself (self-acceptance); establishing and maintaining trusting and
warm interpersonal relationships (positive relationships with others) and improving one's environment to
meet one's goals and desires (environmental mastery); achieving a sense of self-determination and inde-
pendence (autonomy); finding a purpose in one's endeavours (meaning in life); making the most of one's
strengths and abilities and striving for improvement (personal growth). Psychological and eudaimonic
well-being are used interchangeably in this article.

Personality traits as predictors of psychological well-being

Previous studies have primarily used personality traits as predictors of well-being rather than vice versa.
McCrae and Costa (1991) argued that personality traits play an important role in creating conditions that
promote or impair well-being. For example, conscientious people are more likely to be competent and
hardworking, which leads to better performance on work and life tasks, which in turn contributes to higher
well-being. This notion has been supported by empirical research concerning psychological well-being.
A recent meta-analysis (Anglim et al., 2020) showed that neuroticism was negatively and the other traits
were positively associated with psychological well-being, with effect sizes ranging from weak to strong.
However, cross-sectional studies do not provide information on temporal relationships between variables.
Should we also expect personality traits to predict psychological well-being over time? Given that traits are
not static (Bleidorn et al., 2022), it may be that changes in traits may also lead to changes in people's life-
style and performance, which in turn may affect well-being. In fact, a few longitudinal studies have found
that traits do predict future well-being (e.g., Abbott et al., 2008; Martin & Keyes, 2015; Osafo Hounkpatin
et al., 2014).
Making a distinction between two categories of traits is useful for hypothesizing about which traits
might have a greater impact on future eudaimonic well-being. The three traits of conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and (low) neuroticism form the meta-trait called stability, which is a person's ability and
tendency to avoid interruptions to ongoing goal-directed activity (i.e., distraction avoidance). Extraversion
and openness, on the other hand, form a meta-trait called plasticity (DeYoung, 2010, 2015), reflecting
the tendency to actively engage with the potential of the environment by both producing and attending
to new aspects of ongoing experience. Plastic exploration is driven by a desire for positivity, novelty, and
pleasure rather than an aversion to pain and threat. Plasticity can be described as the extent to which
the personality system tends to develop new goals, new interpretations of the current state, and new
strategies for pursuing existing goals (DeYoung, 2010). It appears that changes in plasticity traits are
more likely to affect future changes in eudaimonic well-being. The reason for this expectation is that the
concept of eudaimonic well-being differs from other types of well-being essentially in that it focuses on
the exploration and realization of one's potential rather than on the maintenance of psychological equi-
librium. Vittersø's (2016) argues that while the function of subjective/hedonic well-being is to maintain
homeostatic stability, eudaimonic well-being has a non-homeostatic function that focuses on developing
56 JOSHANLOO

one's ability to cope with an ever-changing environment, planning, and potentially altering the environ-
ment. Elements of eudaimonic well-being (e.g., environmental mastery, continuous personal growth, and
creating meaning in life) are skills that need to be continually practiced and refined in the face of new
information and challenges, and across context and time. Therefore, a curious, open, and plastic approach
will foster the development and maintenance of these skills. Accordingly, increases in plasticity traits
(extraversion and openness) are more likely than increases in stability traits to pave the way for an increase
in psychological well-being.

Psychological well-being as a predictor of personality traits

Psychological well-being has hardly been studied as a predictor of personality traits. Can changes in
psychological well-being predict future changes in personality traits? No previous study has directly exam-
ined this question. However, studies of other aspects of well-being have shown that changes in well-being
may precede changes in personality traits or that personality and well-being change together over time.
For example, social well-being reflects how well individuals function in society, how well they cope with
the social challenges of daily life, and how well they interact with their neighbours, colleagues, and fellow
citizens (Cicognani, 2014; Keyes, 1998). Social well-being is typically recognized as the social aspect of
eudaimonic well-being. Joshanloo (2022) found that higher-than-usual social well-being was associated
with higher future extraversion and conscientiousness. Soto (2015) found significant correlations between
baseline levels and rates of change in subjective/hedonic well-being and rates of change in personality
traits. Thus, there is evidence that changes in well-being, in general, can lead to trait change over time.
Given that all aspects of mental well-being are interrelated (Joshanloo, 2021), eudaimonic well-being
could also have the same effect on personality trait change. As models of trait change emphasize changes
in behavioural patterns (Hudson et al., 2019), and eudaimonic well-being promotes certain stable behav-
ioural patterns, changes in the levels of eudaimonic well-being likely contribute to trait change. For
example, individuals with high eudaimonic well-being exhibit a range of adaptive behaviours across life
domains, including relationships, work, and health (Ryff, 2013), suggesting that eudaimonic well-being
facilitates successful engagement in important social roles, which is recognized as a driver of personality
maturation in adulthood (Roberts & Nickel, 2021).
Hennecke et al. (2014) describe three conditions that enable people to change their personality traits
through self-regulating efforts. First, individuals must want to change their trait-related behaviours. Second,
individuals must be convinced that changing their behaviour is possible and that they are able to make the
necessary adjustments. Finally, the behaviour change must become a habit to develop a stable trait. A close
examination of the elements of eudaimonic well-being reveals that eudaimonic well-being contributes to
all these conditions. For example, personal growth promotes a willingness to change; autonomy, environ-
mental mastery, and purpose in life contribute to the belief that change is possible; and environmental
mastery and purpose in life contribute to sustained efforts to achieve life goals. Thus, another mechanism
by which eudaimonic well-being may lead to subsequent trait change is by strengthening motivation to
change and facilitating self-regulation and the pursuit of meaningful goals.

A within-person approach
The longitudinal studies that have directly examined the relationship between psychological well-being
and the Big Five traits have generally not separated the within-person level from the between-person level.
Instead, methods have been used that do not allow clear inferences about the direction of the temporal
relationships. Kokko et al. (2013) used a method to separate between-person and within-person associa-
tions between traits and psychological well-being. However, because there were no individual differences
in the rate of change of psychological well-being in their sample, the authors were unable to examine
the associations between trajectories of psychological well-being and personality traits. Thus, studies are
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 57

lacking, and not much is known about the strength and direction of temporal within-person associations
between psychological well-being and personality traits. The present study aimed to fill this gap.
The Cross-Lagged Panel Model (CLPM) is a popular and powerful tool for analysing panel data.
The CLPM is used for examining temporal relationships between two variables, while accounting for
the prior values of each variable (Newsom, 2015). However, some critics argue that the CLPM ignores
the fact that people change around their personal means over time, i.e., the CLPM ignores within-person
changes (Mund & Nestler, 2019). In other words, the CLPM is designed to assess only changes around the
group mean and not intraindividual variations around the personal mean. Therefore, the CLPM cannot
distinguish between within-person and between-person sources of variation (Falkenström et al., 2020).
To overcome the limitations of CLPM, the Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM)
has been proposed (Hamaker et al., 2015). This model separates between- and within-person sources of
variation and estimates the association between two variables at both levels. The RI-CLPM partitions
the variance of variables into time-invariant trait components and time-varying state components. The
estimated associations between trait components show the associations between two variables at the
between-person level, which are not temporal. The estimated associations between state components, on
the other hand, are temporal. The direction of the temporal relationship between two variables can only
be inferred from the estimated cross-lagged effects between the state components (Hamaker et al., 2015;
Mund & Nestler, 2019).
The focus of the present study is on within-person associations. The within-person cross-lagged
effects determine whether a change in one variable is associated with a future change in the other variable.
A change is defined here as an increase or decrease relative to the typical level of a variable (i.e., an indi-
vidual's longitudinal mean). Accordingly, this study used the RI-CLPM (rather than the traditional CLPM)
to estimate within-person associations in addition to between-person associations.

METHODS

Participants

Data from Wave 1 (collected 1995–1996, mean age = 46.827, SD = 12.929, females = 52.5%), Wave
2 (2004–2006, mean age = 55.628, SD = 12.426, females = 53.7%), and Wave 3 (2013–2014, mean
age = 63.696, SD = 11.344, females = 55.1%) from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) project
(midus.wisc.edu) were used. Six hundred fifty-six individuals (9.2%) were excluded from the analyses
because they did not respond to any of the psychological well-being and personality variables in any of
the study waves. The final sample included 6452 individuals who had data for at least one variable across
all waves (age at wave 1, mean = 46.83, SD = 12.929, female = 52.5%). Of these, 2648 individuals (41.0%)
participated in all three waves, 1514 (23.5%) participated in two waves, and 2290 (35.5%) participated in
one wave. In total, 3804 individuals (59%) missed at least one wave.

Measures

Internal consistencies and descriptive information are reported in Table 1.

Personality traits

The Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI) personality scale (Lachman & Weaver, 1997) was used to
measure personality traits (for statistical characteristics, see Joshanloo, 2018a). Respondents indicated how
well 25 adjectives described them on a scale of 1 (a lot) to 4 (not at all). Items were reverse-coded, with
higher scores indicating greater levels of the traits.
58 JOSHANLOO

TA B L E 1 Descriptive statistics and alphas

Wave Variable M SD α
1 Autonomy 16.42 3.31 .48
Mastery 16.14 3.45 .52
Growth 17.88 3.12 .55
Relations 16.19 4.08 .58
Purpose 16.51 3.62 .36
Acceptance 16.6 3.49 .59
Neuroticism 2.24 0.66 .74
Extraversion 3.20 0.56 .78
Agreeableness 3.49 0.49 .80
Conscientiousness 3.42 0.44 .58
Openness 3.02 0.53 .77
2 Autonomy 16.53 3.09 .45
Mastery 16.77 3.26 .54
Growth 17.17 3.22 .54
Relations 16.81 3.81 .63
Purpose 16.21 3.42 .29
Acceptance 16.31 3.80 .66
Neuroticism 2.07 0.63 .74
Extraversion 3.11 0.57 .76
Agreeableness 3.45 0.50 .80
Conscientiousness 3.46 0.45 .58
Openness 2.90 0.54 .77
3 Autonomy 16.41 3.00 .42
Mastery 16.91 3.23 .55
Growth 17.31 3.09 .53
Relations 16.81 3.72 .61
Purpose 16.05 3.43 .32
Acceptance 16.32 3.78 .67
Neuroticism 2.06 0.63 .71
Extraversion 3.09 0.58 .76
Agreeableness 3.43 0.50 .77
Conscientiousness 3.45 0.46 .56
Openness 2.90 0.54 .77

Psychological well-being

The 18-item version of Ryff's (1989) psychological well-being scale was used. Items are rated on a 7-point
scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The six dimensions are autonomy, environmental
mastery, personal growth, positive relations, purpose in life, and self-acceptance, each measured by three
items.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 59

Statistical analysis

Model estimation and fit evaluation

Models were estimated under missing data theory using Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) in Mplus
version 8.7. Adequate fit thresholds used in this study were a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of .90, a Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of .07, and a Standard Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR) of .08 (e.g., Kline, 2015).

RI-CLPM
For each personality trait, a RI-CLPM was tested. The five personality traits were included as observed
variables, while psychological well-being was included as a first-order latent variable indicated by its six
subscales (i.e., autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations, purpose in life, and
self-acceptance). Baseline age and gender were included as time-invariant predictors of the observed
personality variables and the latent factors of psychological well-being in waves 2 and 3 in all models.
Predictive paths between state variables were held equal over time.

Measurement invariance

Whereas the traits were used as observed variables, psychological well-being was modelled as a latent
variable indicated by six observed variables. This allows the investigation of the temporal invariance of
the measurement model for psychological well-being. Longitudinal measurement invariance is critical
to ensure that the latent variables retain the same meaning over time. Because the focus of the study is
on regressive effects, which only concern the covariance structure and not the mean structure, metric
invariance was considered necessary, while item intercept invariance was not (Newsom, 2015). Metric
invariance means that factor loadings do not change across time points. The models with and without
equality constraints on item loadings are compared to determine whether or not the addition of equality
constraints across time significantly deteriorates fit. If the fit of the baseline model and the model with
equality constraints are similar, it can be assumed that metric invariance holds.

Missing data handling

Only those who did not respond to any of the variables in the three waves were excluded from this study.
All other participants were retained. Of the sample, 41% participated in all three waves, and approxi-
mately 59% of participants missed at least one wave. The results of the t-tests reported in the supplemen-
tary material (Tables S1–S3) show that these two groups are significantly different on many of the study
variables, with effect sizes ranging from .004 to .317. To account for this pattern of group differences, an
auxiliary variable was added to all models in this study (a dummy variable, 0 = individuals with no missing
wave, and 1 = individuals with at least one missing wave). Auxiliary variables are not central variables in
the analysis. They are included because they are related to the values of variables with missing data. Their
use can reduce parameter biases that might otherwise occur due to missing data, thereby improving the
accuracy of parameter estimates (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2008; Kline, 2015; Newsom, 2015).

RESULTS

Measurement invariance of psychological well-being

The measurement invariance of psychological well-being was assessed in a longitudinal factor analysis
model with three first-order factors indicated by six subscales of psychological well-being at three time
60 JOSHANLOO

points. The model fitted the data well (Table 2). Factor loadings were above .390 and were considered
acceptable (Table S4). In a second model (metric invariance model), equality constraints were imposed on
factor loadings over time. With identical RMSEA values and a decrease of only .003 in the CFI (Table 2),
the second model fitted the data almost as well as the configural model; thus, temporal metric invariance
can be assumed (Schmitt & Kuljanin, 2008). The equality constraints on factor loadings were retained in
the RI-CLPMs.

RI-CLPMs

The temporal relationships between psychological well-being and personality traits were assessed in five
RI-CLPMs, one for each personality trait. The fit of the six models to the data was adequate (Table 2).
The between-person correlations between psychological well-being and each trait are shown in Table 3
and range from moderate to strong. Neuroticism had the strongest and agreeableness the weakest corre-
lations with psychological well-being. These correlations exist between stable traits and therefore do not
provide information about directionality and temporality. The R 2 values for the within-person level (for
state variables) are also shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the autoregressive effects, all of which are signifi-
cant. That is, higher or lower than usual values for the psychological well-being or personality variables are
associated with higher or lower values for the same variable at the next time point. In other words, devi-
ations from a person's typical levels are likely to persist to the next time point, indicating within-person
stability beyond what is captured by the stable traits.

TA B L E 2 Fit indices

Model X2 df p RMSEA [90% CI] CFI SRMR

Invariance (PWB)
Configural 1068.748 114 .000 .036 [0.034–0.038] .964 .036
Metric 1136.978 124 .000 .036 [0.034–0.037] .961 .042
RI-CLPM
Neuroticism 2620.541 209 .000 .042 [0.041–0.044] .930 .054
Extraversion 2527.689 209 .000 .041 [0.040–0.043] .934 .051
Agreeableness 3254.833 209 .000 .048 [0.046–0.049] .909 .061
Conscientiousness 2561.253 209 .000 .042 [0.040–0.043] .928 .051
Openness 2950.951 209 .000 .045 [0.044–0.047] .920 .056
Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval, PWB, psychological well-being.

TA B L E 3 R 2 values, between-person correlations, and within-person correlations

Model R2
Within-person correlations
PWB Personality with PWB
Between-person correlation with
W2 W3 W2 W3 PWB W1 W2 W3
Neuroticism .057 .103 .031 .026 −.612 −.475 −.380 −.361
Extraversion .053 .118 .054 .091 .506 .356 .522 .456
Agreeableness .049 .104 .032 .048 .309 .261 .373 .316
Conscientiousness .047 .097 .042 .054 .580 .272 .339 .327
Openness .059 .125 .074 .112 .457 .316 .459 .367
Note: R 2 values are only reported for the structural part of the RI-CLPMs. Between-person and within-person correlations are standardized
covariances, all significant at p < .001. Within-person correlations are concurrent correlations between state components of PWB and the big five
within each wave. Between-person correlations are between the trait components of PWB and the big five.
Abbreviations: PWB, psychological well-being; W, wave.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 61

TA B L E 4 Auto-regressive coefficients

95% CI
Standardized
Predictor Outcome Unstandardized coefficient p Low Up coefficient
Neuroticism
N1 N2 .120 .001 0.046 0.194 .207
N2 N3 .296
PWB1 PWB2 .253 .000 0.141 0.365 .140
PWB2 PWB3 .119
Extraversion
E1 E2 .113 .008 0.030 0.196 .103
E2 E3 .115
PWB1 PWB2 .248 .000 0.141 0.355 .199
PWB2 PWB3 .289
Agreeableness
A1 A2 .094 .022 0.014 0.174 .095
A2 A3 .095
PWB1 PWB2 .253 .000 0.146 0.359 .203
PWB2 PWB3 .295
Conscientiousness
C1 C2 .178 .000 0.092 0.263 .164
C2 C3 .175
PWB1 PWB2 .243 .000 0.140 0.346 .197
PWB2 PWB3 .284
Openness
O1 O2 .182 .000 0.094 0.270 .167
O2 O3 .181
PWB1 PWB2 .225 .000 0.118 0.332 .181
PWB2 PWB3 .260
Abbreviation: PWB, psychological well-being.

The primary focus of this study is on cross-lagged effects, which show the direction and strength of
temporal within-person associations between the variables. A significant cross-lagged effect suggests that
higher or lower than usual values on one variable are associated with higher or lower than usual values on
the other variable at the next time point. These estimates are presented in Table 5 for the five models of
the study. Neuroticism was not significantly associated with psychological well-being at the within-person
level. However, some cross-lagged effects in models for the other four traits were significant. Extraver-
sion and openness significantly and positively predicted future psychological well-being. Extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness were significantly and positively predicted by psychologi-
cal well-being. Thus, increases in extraversion and openness precede increases in psychological well-being,
and increases in psychological well-being precede increases in four of the traits. According to the guide-
lines provided by Orth et al. (2022), the cross-lagged effects observed in this study are medium to large.

DISCUSSION

The between-person associations found in this study are consistent with previous studies. The temporal
within-person results of the study, however, provided new insights. There were reciprocal within-person
62 JOSHANLOO

TA B L E 5 Cross-lagged coefficients

95% CI
Standardized
Predictor Outcome Unstandardized coefficient p Low Up coefficient
Neuroticism
PWB1 N2 −.031 .085 −0.066 0.004 −.060
PWB2 N3 −.073
N1 PWB2 −.112 .119 −0.252 0.029 −.055
N2 PWB3 −.055
Extraversion
PWB1 E2 .084 .000 0.052 0.115 .175
PWB2 E3 .222
E1 PWB2 .192 .033 0.015 0.369 .067
E2 PWB3 .086
Agreeableness
PWB1 A2 .057 .000 0.029 0.084 .131
PWB2 A3 .164
A1 PWB2 .144 .108 −0.032 0.320 .051
A2 PWB3 .059
Conscientiousness
PWB1 C2 .036 .013 0.008 0.064 .086
PWB2 C3 .104
C1 PWB2 .158 .117 −0.040 0.357 .049
C2 PWB3 .063
Openness
PWB1 O2 .076 .000 0.047 0.105 .168
PWB2 O3 .207
O1 PWB2 .340 .001 0.146 0.535 .114
O2 PWB3 .143
Abbreviation: PWB, psychological well-being.

relationships between psychological well-being and openness and extraversion. However, the relation-
ships between psychological well-being and conscientiousness and agreeableness were unidirectional,
running from psychological well-being to the traits. Neuroticism and psychological well-being were unre-
lated at the within-person level. Thus, there are significant temporal within-person associations between
psychological well-being and personality traits, suggesting that changes in psychological well-being are
associated with future changes in personality traits and vice versa.

Traits precede psychological well-being

The present between-person results were consistent with the previous results (Anglim et al., 2020), show-
ing positive relationships between psychological well-being and extraversion and openness. These two
variables were also significant predictors of future psychological well-being at the within-person level.
In other words, higher than usual levels of extraversion and openness predicted higher than usual levels
of psychological well-being in the future. Extraversion and openness together form the meta-trait plas-
ticity (DeYoung, 2010). Plasticity promotes a growth and approach orientation. The tendencies to be
gregarious, adventurous, expressive, active, creative, and open to change are the driving forces behind
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 63

this orientation (Digman, 1997). As expected, the present findings suggest that plasticity prospectively
predicts psychological well-being, whereas stability (the shared variance in the other three traits) does not.
Eudaimonic well-being and plasticity are conceptually linked. The development of personal potential
is the hallmark of eudaimonic well-being, resulting from enabling and pursuing growth and expansion
(Vittersø, 2013). Openness and extraversion urge new inner and outer experiences that challenge one's
understanding of life and broaden one's horizons of experience, paving the way for the development of
greater psychological well-being. Thus, an increase in plasticity can help diversify one's life experiences,
leading to a greater realization of one's best abilities, on which psychological well-being depends.

Psychological well-being precedes traits

Higher than usual psychological well-being was associated with higher than usual future levels of extra-
version, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, suggesting that higher psychological well-being
predicts development toward personality maturity. What might be the mechanisms for these tempo-
ral relationships? Two broad causes of personality trait change have been proposed: changes in daily
behaviour (patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours) and commitment to new identities (Hudson
& Fraley, 2015). For example, one may become more conscientious by behaving more conscientiously
in daily life and/or by adopting a more conscientious identity (e.g., seeing oneself as a more punctual
and diligent worker). Psychological well-being promotes a variety of adaptive behavioural patterns and
identities. It is related to adaptive beliefs, such as the belief that one has control over one's well-being
(Joshanloo, 2019b), behaviours, such as volunteering and donating to charity (Choi & Kim, 2010),
emotion regulation strategies (e.g., Balzarotti et al., 2014), and adaptive identity styles (e.g., Lilgendahl &
McAdams, 2011). Psychological well-being thus promotes behavioural patterns and identities that can
potentially contribute to personality trait change.
Furthermore, Bauer (2016) and Ryan et al. (2008) emphasize a process-oriented conceptualization of
eudaimonic well-being: “eudaimonic conceptions focus on the content of one's life and the processes
involved in living well, whereas hedonic conceptions of well-being focus on a specific outcome, namely
the attainment of positive effect and an absence of pain” (Ryan et al., 2008, p. 140). This view implies that
psychological well-being is essentially related to activity and process. Research shows that psychological
well-being is strongly associated with active and conscious engagement in the growth process (Robitschek
& Keyes, 2009). People who have high levels of psychological well-being tend to emphasize personal
growth in their life stories (Bauer et al., 2006). With components such as personal growth, meaning in
life, autonomy, and environmental mastery, psychological well-being also facilitates a growth and change
orientation and increases the chances of adaptive change rather than stagnation or decline. Thus, psycho-
logical well-being not only promotes adaptive behaviours, perceptions, and identities, but also increases
motivation to change. Moreover, people with high psychological well-being (e.g., environmental mastery,
autonomy) also tend to see themselves as capable of change, i.e., believing that change is feasible and
that one can implement the desired changes (Vittersø et al., 2007). In summary, higher psychological
well-being may increase motivation to change and facilitate reflective processes and activities that help the
process of change.
Research has shown that the effects of major life events on personality changes tend to be “small,
scattered, and sometimes difficult to understand” (Costa et al., 2019, p. 436). Given that levels of eudai-
monic well-being have been shown to have consequences for how people interact with life events (i.e.,
high psychological well-being facilitates an adaptive approach and better performance in coping with life
challenges), the present findings suggest that how people interact with life events may be more important
for personality trait change than the mere occurrence of life events per se. Reflective and transformative
interaction with life events has been highlighted as important for trait change in several frameworks.
Allemand and Flückiger (2017), for example, underscore the importance of these cognitive processes for
trait change. They point out that personality traits change in response to certain life experiences, circum-
stances, and events, as well as how people perceive and understand these events. The ecological approach
64 JOSHANLOO

to personality by Satchell et al. (2021) also emphasizes the importance of alterations in sensemaking
processes and outcomes (i.e., perceptual shifts) for trait change. Psychological well-being has impor-
tant implications for how people perceive and understand life events. People with high psychological
well-being tend to view difficult life events as transformative experiences in which they gain new insights
into life and themselves (Bauer et al., 2006; Ruini et al., 2012). For example, self-acceptance is a critical
component of post-traumatic growth (Zhao et al., 2020). All six components of psychological well-being
are associated with higher reliance on reappraisal and lower reliance on suppression as emotion regulation
strategies (Gross & John, 2003).
It is also noteworthy that Joshanloo (2022), in a recent study using the MIDUS data and the RI-CLPM,
examined the temporal within-person relationship between the Big Five and social well-being, the social
aspect of eudaimonic well-being. Results showed that personality traits did not predict subsequent
increases or decreases in social well-being. However, higher social well-being was associated with higher
extraversion and conscientiousness over time. Two conclusions can be drawn from comparing the results
of the present study with the results on social well-being. First, psychological well-being has temporal
associations with more traits than social well-being. This may be because both traits and psychologi-
cal well-being essentially capture private phenomena, whereas social well-being concerns broader social
perceptions and behaviours. Second, none of the traits predicted future social well-being, whereas the
plasticity traits predicted future levels of psychological well-being. This suggests that trait change has
more influence on the private aspects of eudaimonic well-being and less on social well-being.
Although this is not an interventional or experimental study and it is not possible to draw causal
conclusions from the present study, the results suggest that higher than usual levels of psychological
well-being are associated with changes in traits toward maturity. It can be speculated that producing higher
levels of psychological well-being through intervention may have the same effect. There is some evidence
that interventions related to well-being may contribute to trait change. For example, Dweck (2021)
provided a review of recent studies showing that interventions designed to promote a growth mindset can
change specific actions and experiences that typically pertain to or characterize certain personality traits.
Thus, the present findings could contribute to the development of trait change interventions.
Research on normative change in personality traits across the life course has shown that openness and
extraversion tend to decline in adulthood, particularly at older ages (Bleidorn & Hopwood, 2019; Graham
et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2006), suggesting a growing decline in plasticity across the life course. This
decline reflects continued disengagement from social and occupational roles, social and physical activities,
and new relationships (Bleidorn & Hopwood, 2019). Although this decline reflects normative changes in
expectations and experiences associated with aging, it may have some undesirable side effects as people age.
Involvement in various activities is essential for mental and physical health in aging adults (World Health
Organization, 2015). Extraversion is associated with more physical (Wilson & Rhodes, 2021) and social
activity (Hirsh et al., 2009), which are per se protective against cognitive and physical decline in old age
(James et al., 2011). Openness is associated with more diverse personal interests and exploratory tendencies
(Matz, 2021) and cognitively stimulating activities (Schwaba et al., 2018) that facilitate better cognitive func-
tion (Stephan et al., 2020). Moreover, the present results suggest that a decline in plasticity traits may be
associated with a future decline in psychological well-being. Overall, engagement in behaviours promoted
by plasticity traits has far-reaching implications for the quality of life of older adults. This is an area in
which the present findings can be applied. The results suggest that increases in psychological well-being are
associated with future increases in plasticity traits. Therefore, participation in well-being-related activities
and interventions could help individuals maintain or even increase their levels of extraversion and open-
ness as they age. This possibility needs to be explored in future interventional studies.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism is strongly associated with psychological well-being (Anglim et al., 2020). Consistent with
these findings, the between-person correlation between neuroticism and psychological well-being in this
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 65

study was stronger than for other traits. The present study revealed, however, that there is no temporal
within-person association between neuroticism and psychological well-being. This means that a higher or
lower level of one of these variables does not predict deviations from typical levels of the other variable
over time. These results imply that people with high neuroticism scores tend to have low psychological
well-being on the between-individual level, yet neither variable precedes the other on the within-person
level. This relationship is most likely caused by several common stable factors (environmental, psycholog-
ical, or genetic) that influence both variables. This finding underscores the importance of separating the
between and within levels of analysis.
Other studies found that neuroticism is associated with lower subjective well-being at the within-person
level (Fetvadjiev & He, 2019; Soto, 2015; Specht et al., 2012). Accordingly, this trait, along with extraversion,
has been the focus of research on subjective well-being (Tauber et al., 2016). However, no within-person
relationship was found between neuroticism and psychological well-being (this study) and social well-being
(Joshanloo, 2022). This demonstrates the discriminant validity of dimensions of well-being and urges
caution in generalizing results related to one dimension of well-being to other dimensions. Moreover,
these results collectively imply that affective traits (neuroticism and extraversion) are of great importance
for the development of subjective well-being, maybe because subjective well-being is essentially affective.
Psychological well-being, on the other hand, is essentially functional (Vittersø, 2016), and this may explain
why affective personality traits are less consequential for the development of psychological well-being.
The fact that extraversion is a significant prospective predictor of psychological well-being appears to be
primarily because it promotes more activity and engagement with the environment, rather than its associ-
ation with more frequent positive affect. Indeed, subjective/hedonic well-being (including positive effect)
does not prospectively predict psychological well-being (Joshanloo, 2019a).

Limitations and future directions

Some limitations of the study should be noted. The study used brief measures of psychological well-being
and personality traits, which prevents a complete and multidimensional examination of the constructs.
Internal consistencies were not satisfactory for some of the variables. The moderate alpha coefficients
reflect, to some extent, the small number of items per scale (to account for the time and cost constraints
of a national survey) and the fact that the items were selected to optimize conceptual breadth within
each construct rather than to maximize reliability (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). In any case, longer and more
reliable and valid measures should be used in future studies to overcome this drawback. In addition, trait
stability and change vary across cultures (e.g., Kitayama et al., 2020), and traits are differently associated
with aspects of well-being in different cultures (e.g., Vazsonyi et al., 2015). Therefore, the current findings
cannot be generalized to other cultural groups.
Another limitation is that the sample covered life stages beyond childhood, adolescence, and emerg-
ing adulthood. Although changes in stability levels over the life course are small, rank-order stability of
personality traits is lower in childhood and adolescence than in adulthood (Bleidorn & Hopwood, 2019;
Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). There are also differences in mean-level change in personality traits at
different life stages. For example, neuroticism tends to increase during adolescence, whereas it tends
to decrease during young and middle adulthood (Bleidorn & Hopwood, 2019). Given these differences
across life stages, the current findings cannot be generalized to the early life stages, including adolescence
and emerging adulthood.
The interval of approximately 10 years between measurements is appropriate for this study, which
aimed to examine long-term changes in well-being and traits. However, would the results be replicable
with shorter intervals? Costa et al. (2019) note that the retest interval is important for rank-order stability
of personality traits, but most of the decline in stability occurs within 3 years and the retest interval has
little significance for the degree of stability beyond 3 years. A recent meta-analysis (Bleidorn et al., 2022)
found that the amount of mean-level change in personality traits increased with longer time lags between
assessments. In the absence of other studies, it is not possible to estimate how lag length effects the
66 JOSHANLOO

magnitude of the cross-lagged effects between psychological well-being and personality traits. However,
a study with a shorter time lag may yield smaller changes in mean levels of well-being and traits between
time points. Therefore, future studies are needed with different lag lengths, particularly less than 3 years.

CONCLUSION

This study shed light on the within-person relationships between the Big Five traits and psychological
well-being. For extraversion and openness, there are reciprocal within-person associations with psycho-
logical well-being. For agreeableness and conscientiousness, however, the within-person associations are
not reciprocal, but run from psychological well-being to traits. The effect sizes are moderate to strong.
Due to the relatively long interval between assessments, the present results describe only the long-term
interplay between psychological well-being and traits. Given that changes in psychological well-being are
followed by changes in personality traits, it might be that changes in well-being through interventions
may also result in changes in some of the traits. Similarly, changes in extraversion and openness due to
interventions may be followed by changes in psychological well-being. These possibilities need to be
explored in future research. Future studies also need to replicate the findings of this study with samples
from different age groups and cultural contexts, using different lag lengths.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Mohsen Joshanloo: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writ-
ing –original draft; writing –review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEME NT

All data and study materials are publicly available. More information is available at http://midus.wisc.
edu/data/index.php.

ORCID
Mohsen Joshanloo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9350-6219

REFERENCES
Abbott, R. A., Croudace, T. J., Ploubidis, G. B., Kuh, D., Richards, M., & Huppert, F. A. (2008). The relationship between early
personality and midlife psychological well-being: Evidence from a UK birth cohort study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epide-
miology, 43(9), 679–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-008-0355-8
Allemand, M., & Flückiger, C. (2017). Changing personality traits: Some considerations from psychotherapy process-outcome
research for intervention efforts on intentional personality change. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 27(4), 476–494. https://
doi.org/10.1037/int0000094
Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from
personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2008). Auxiliary variables predicting missing data. https://www.statmodel.com/download/AuxM2.pdf
Balzarotti, S., Biassoni, F., Villani, D., Prunas, A., & Velotti, P. (2014). Individual differences in cognitive emotion regulation: Impli-
cations for subjective and psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-014-9587-3
Bauer, J. J. (2016). Eudaimonic growth: The development of the goods in personhood (or: Cultivating a good life story). In J.
Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic well-being (pp. 147–174). Springer International Publishing.
Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). Narrative identity and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1),
81–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9021-6
Bleidorn, W., Hill, P. L., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hopwood, C. J., Jokela, M., Kandler, C., Lucas, R. E.,
Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., Zimmermann, J., & Roberts, B. (2019). The policy relevance of personality
traits. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1056–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000503
Bleidorn, W., & Hopwood, C. J. (2019). Stability and change in personality traits over the lifespan. In D. P. McAdams, R. Shiner, &
J. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (vol. 1, pp. 237–252). Guilford.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 67

Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., & Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and
change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2015). Personality: Theory and research. John Wiley & Sons.
Choi, N. G., & Kim, J. (2010). The effect of time volunteering and charitable donations in later life on psychological wellbeing. Ageing
and Society, 31(4), 590–610. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x10001224
Cicognani, E. (2014). Social well-being. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6193–6197).
Springer.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2019). Personality across the life span. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1),
423–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103244
DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Toward a theory of the big five. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478401003648674
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrp.2014.07.004
Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons from subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality,
30(3), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1996.0027
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246–1256. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246
Dweck, C. S. (2021). Toward an integrative theory of motivation, personality, and development. In O. P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 83–103). The Guilford Press.
Falkenström, F., Solomonov, N., & Rubel, J. (2020). Using time-lagged panel data analysis to study mechanisms of change in
psychotherapy research: Methodological recommendations. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 20(3), 435–441. https://doi.
org/10.1002/capr.12293
Fetvadjiev, V. H., & He, J. (2019). The longitudinal links of personality traits, values, and well-being and self-esteem: A five-wave
study of a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000212
Graham, E. K., Weston, S. J., Gerstorf, D., Yoneda, T. B., Booth, T., Beam, C. R., Petkus, A. J., Drewelies, J., Hall, A. N., Bastarache,
E. D., Estabrook, R., Katz, M. J., Turiano, N. A., Lindenberger, U., Smith, J., Wagner, G. G., Pedersen, N. L., Allemand, M.,
Spiro, A., & Deeg, D. J. H. (2020). Trajectories of big five personality traits: A coordinated analysis of 16 longitudinal samples.
European Journal of Personality, 34(3), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2259
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships,
and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. G. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1),
102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
Hennecke, M., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., & Wood, D. (2014). A three–part framework for self–regulated personality develop-
ment across adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1945
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Metatraits of the big five differentially predict engagement and restraint of
behavior. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1085–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00575.x
Hudson, N. W., Briley, D. A., Chopik, W. J., & Derringer, J. (2019). You have to follow through: Attaining behavioral change goals
predicts volitional personality change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), 839–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000221
Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021
James, B. D., Wilson, R. S., Barnes, L. L., & Bennett, D. A. (2011). Late-life social activity and cognitive decline in old age. Journal of
the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(6), 998–1005. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617711000531
John, O. P. (2021). History, measurement, and conceptual elaboration of the big-five trait taxonomy: The paradigm matures. In O.
P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 35–82). The Guilford Press.
Joshanloo, M. (2018a). Evaluating the factor structure of the MIDI personality scale using exploratory structural equation modeling.
Japanese Psychological Research, 60(3), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12186
Joshanloo, M. (2018b). Optimal human functioning around the world: A new index of eudaimonic well-being in 166 nations. British
Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12316
Joshanloo, M. (2019a). Investigating the relationships between subjective well-being and psychological well-being over two decades.
Emotion, 19(1), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000414
Joshanloo, M. (2019b). Lay conceptions of happiness: Associations with reported well-being, personality traits, and materialism.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02377
Joshanloo, M. (2021). Centrality and dimensionality of 14 indicators of mental well-being in four countries: Developing an inte-
grative framework to guide theorizing and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 158(2), 727–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-021-02723-6
Joshanloo, M. (2022). Longitudinal relationships between personality traits and social well-being: A two-decade study. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 23(6), 2969–2983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00534-1
Joshanloo, M., Rastegar, P., & Bakhshi, A. (2012). The big five personality domains as predictors of social wellbeing in Iranian
university students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5), 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512443432
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065
68 JOSHANLOO

Kitayama, S., Berg, M. K., & Chopik, W. J. (2020). Culture and well-being in late adulthood: Theory and evidence. American Psycholo-
gist, 75(4), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000614
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
Kokko, K., Tolvanen, A., & Pulkkinen, L. (2013). Associations between personality traits and psychological well-being across time in
middle adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 748–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.07.002
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1997). The Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI) personality scales: Scale construction and scoring (Technical
Report). Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.
Lilgendahl, J. P., & McAdams, D. P. (2011). Constructing stories of self-growth: How individual differences in patterns
of autobiographical reasoning relate to well-being in midlife. Journal of Personality, 79(2), 391–428. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00688.x
Martin, C. C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2015). Investigating the goldilocks hypothesis: The non-linear impact of positive trait change on
well-being. PLoS One, 10(7), e0131316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131316
Matz, S. C. (2021). Personal echo chambers: Openness-to-experience is linked to higher levels of psychological interest diversity in
large-scale behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(6), 1284–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000324
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 17(2), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616729101700217
Mund, M., & Nestler, S. (2019). Beyond the cross-lagged panel model: Next-generation statistical tools for analyzing interdependen-
cies across the life course. Advances in Life Course Research, 41, 100249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018.10.002
Newsom, J. T. (2015). Longitudinal structural equation modeling: A comprehensive introduction. Routledge.
Niemiec, C. P. (2014). Eudaimonic well-being. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2004–
2005). Springer Netherlands.
Orth, U., Meier, L. L., Bühler, J. L., Dapp, L. C., Krauss, S., Messerli, D., & Robins, R. W. (2022). Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged
effects. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000499
Osafo Hounkpatin, H., Wood, A. M., Boyce, C. J., & Dunn, G. (2014). An existential-humanistic view of personality change:
Co-occurring changes with psychological well-being in a 10 year cohort study. Social Indicators Research, 121(2), 455–470.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0648-0
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantita-
tive review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of
personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
Roberts, B. W., & Nickel, L. B. (2021). Personality development across the life course: A neo-socioanalytic perspective. In O. P. John
& R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 259–283). The Guilford Press.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A
meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Keyes's model of mental health with personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predic-
tor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013954
Ruini, C., Vescovelli, F., & Albieri, E. (2012). Post-traumatic growth in breast cancer survivors: New insights into its relation-
ships with well-being and distress. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 20(3), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10880-012-9340-1
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 9(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Ryff, C. D. (2013). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychoso-
matics, 83(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263
Ryff, C. D., Boylan, J. M., & Kirsch, J. A. (2021). Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being: An integrative perspective with linkages to socio-
demographic factors and health. In M. T. Lee, L. D. Kubzansky, & T. J. VanderWeele (Eds.), Measuring well-being: Interdisciplinary
perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197512531.003.0005
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
Satchell, L. P., Kaaronen, R. O., & Latzman, R. D. (2021). An ecological approach topersonality: Psychological traits as drivers and
consequences of active perception. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15, e12595. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12595
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review,
18(4), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003
Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(3), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.549
Schwaba, T., Luhmann, M., Denissen, J. J. A., Chung, J. M., & Bleidorn, W. (2018). Openness to experience and culture-openness trans-
actions across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000150
Soto, C. J. (2015). Is happiness good for your personality? Concurrent and prospective relations of the big five with subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality, 83(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12081
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 69

Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2012). Examining mechanisms of personality maturation. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 4(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612448197
Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., Luchetti, M., & Terracciano, A. (2020). Personality and memory performance over twenty years: Findings
from three prospective studies. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 128, 109885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.109885
Tauber, B., Wahl, H.-W., & Schröder, J. (2016). Personality and life satisfaction over 12 years: Contrasting mid- and late life. GeroPsych:
The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 29(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000141
Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A., Mikuška, J., & Jiskrova, G. (2015). The big five and adolescent adjustment: An empirical test across six
cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.049
Vittersø, J. (2013). Feelings, meanings, and optimal functioning: Some distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In
A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 39–55). American Psychological Associa-
tion. https://doi.org/10.1037/14092-003
Vittersø, J. (2016). The feeling of excellent functioning: Hedonic and eudaimonic emotions. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of Eudai-
monic well-being (pp. 253–276). Springer International Publishing.
Vittersø, J., Oelmann, H. I., & Wang, A. L. (2007). Life satisfaction is not a balanced estimator of the good life: Evidence from
reaction time measures and self-reported emotions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-007-9058-1
Wilson, K. E., & Rhodes, R. E. (2021). Personality and physical activity. In Z. Zenko & L. Jones (Eds.), Essentials of exercise and sport
psychology: An open access textbook (pp. 114–149). Society for Transparency, Openness, and Replication in Kinesiology. https://
doi.org/10.51224/B1006
World Health Organization. (2015). World report on ageing and health. WHO Press.
Zhao, Y., An, Y., Sun, X., & Liu, J. (2020). Self-acceptance, post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic growth, and the role of
social support in Chinese rescue workers. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(3), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.20
19.1672935

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end
of this article.

How to cite this article: Joshanloo, M. (2023). Reciprocal relationships between personality
traits and psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 114, 54–69. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjop.12596
Copyright of British Journal of Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.