University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange
Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School
8-2008
An Investigation of The Big Five, Narrow Traits, and Positive Psychology in Relation to Life Satisfaction
Sarah Elizabeth Connor University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation Connor, Sarah Elizabeth, "An Investigation of The Big Five, Narrow Traits, and Positive Psychology in Relation to Life Satisfaction. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2008. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/421
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Sarah Elizabeth Connor entitled "An Investigation of The Big Five, Narrow Traits, and Positive Psychology in Relation to Life Satisfaction." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Psychology.
John W. Lounsbury, Major Professor
We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance:
Richard Saudargas, Eric Sundstrom, John Peters
Accepted for the Council:
Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Sarah Elizabeth Connor entitled “An Investigation of The Big Five, Narrow Traits, and Positive Psychology in Relation to Life Satisfaction.” I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Psychology.
John W. Lounsbury, Major Professor
We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance:
Richard Saudargas
Eric Sundstrom
John Peters
Acceptance for the Council:
Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIG FIVE, NARROW TRAITS, AND POSITIVE
PSYCHOLOGY IN RELATION TO LIFE SATISFACTION
A Dissertation
Presented for the
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Sarah Elizabeth Connor
August 2008 ii Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband Michael Burns, and my parents
John and Mary Connor, my sister, Katie Sword and all of my friends that supported me through this process. I could not have completed this journey
without your love and support.
iii Abstract
The present research explored the relationship between personality and Life
Satisfaction. The Big Five and Narrow Traits have been used to predict Life
Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being. There is a newer movement in psychology explore qualities about the individual that facilitate thriving and happiness, a movement known as Positive Psychology. The associated traits could lead to better prediction of Life Satisfaction. To test the degree to which the
Positive Psychology traits better predict Life Satisfaction, upper-class college students took a computer-based Personality Measure. The measure consisted of many sub-scales, including the NEO Five-Factor Personality Measure, Narrow
Trait measures, and the VIA Positive Psychology Scale. Regression analysis was performed to assess the degree to which Positive Psychology measures contribute variance in Life Satisfaction. Results showed that Positive Psychology accounts for significant variance in Life Satisfaction above the Big Five and/or
Narrow Traits, particularly along the dimension of Love.
iv Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
The Big Five...... 6
Narrow Traits and the Bandwidth-Fidelity Dilemma ...... 11
Satisfaction during College Years...... 14
Subjective Well-Being ...... 16
Personality and Subjective Well-Being ...... 20
Positive Psychology ...... 22
Chapter 2: Method...... 32
Participants ...... 32
Procedure ...... 32
Measurement...... 33
Chapter 3: Results...... 37
Research Questions 1, 2, and 3...... 37
Research Questions 7, 8 and 9 ...... 41
Chapter 4: Discussion ...... 44
References ...... 49
Vita ...... 67
v List of Tables
Table 1: Structure, Function and Emergence for Each of Freud's Structures...... 2
Table 2: Metaneed and Associated Traits for Each of Maslow's Stages ...... 5
Table 3: The Big Five Personality Traits and Associated Component Traits ...... 9
Table 4: Correlations Between Big Five Personality Traits and SWB...... 22
Table 5: Cross-Cultural Virtues, Descriptions, and Example Traits ...... 25
Table 6: Component Traits and Descriptions of Positive Psychology Traits...... 27
Table 7: Trait, Source Measure and Reliability for Each Trait Used in Analysis .38
Table 8: Trait Correlations with Life Satisfaction...... 39
Table 9: Results of Regression of the Big Five Only ...... 40
Table 10: Results of Regression of Narrow Traits Only...... 40
Table 11: Results of Regression of Positive Psychology Traits Only...... 40
Table 12: Results of Hierarchical Regression of Big Five then Positive Psychology Traits ...... 42
Table 13: Results of Hierarchical Regression of Narrow Traits then Positive Psychology Traits ...... 42
Table 14: Results of Hierarchical Regression of Big Five, then Narrow, then Positive Psychology Traits...... 43
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Personality is defined as a relatively permanent set of traits that influence
behavior across time and situations (Zimbardo & Gerrig, 1996). Basically, personality is comprised of qualities about individuals that make us distinct from one another, and theoretically which determine how a person will react in a given situation. There is a debate in psychology over whether behavior is determined strictly by the environmental/situational factors (a behaviorist view) or whether individual factors, such as personality and perception, determine behavior.
Overwhelmingly it seems that personality factors can influence behavior in any given situation, while the environment can influence the expression of personality, i.e., some people are outgoing in some settings while shy in others.
Though the nature of the relationship between personality and environment is unclear, there have been several theories discussing how the developmental environment shapes the adult personality.
Early personality theorists approached personality from the clinical
standpoint. They sought to understand what factors resulted in an unhealthy
adult personality, namely developmental issues. The most famous
developmental personality psychologist was Sigmund Freud. Freud developed his theory of the structure and function of personality in the early 1900s. He believed that the personality was made up of three structures (the id, ego, and superego) which were in conflict with each other and resulted in observed personality (see Table 1).
2 Table 1: Structure, Function and Emergence for Each of Freud's Structures Structure Function Emergence in Personality Id – most basic Getting impulsive, self- Child-like, selfish centered needs met behaviors Ego – mediator Maintaining balance Appropriate behaviors between id and superego Superego – social factor Pleasing social Altruistic behaviors counterparts
Furthermore, Freud discussed expressions of creativity and optimism as a
result of internal sexual tension and anxiety (defense mechanisms), rather than
being personality traits (Freud, 1924). He believed that any straying from a
“normal” personality was the result of internal anxiety rather than a stable, measurable characteristic of human development. This was true of both desirable characteristics like justice and curiosity and the more notable
“Freudian” afflictions unexplainable medical conditions. It is important to note here that Freud had a negative overall view of the human psyche, and viewed those personality traits that many would consider positive to be signs of
psychopathology. Specifically, those characteristics about an individual that
were associated with drive and ambition or passion and direction, Freud
explained as displacement of sexual tension onto an inappropriate object. Freud
also theorized that religiosity could be viewed through this lens, rather than as a
positive trait for a person to exhibit (Gay, 1989).
Several other theorists approached personality from a developmental
perspective, and most theories of this type are heavily influenced by the work of
Freud. For example, Carl Jung’s conceptualization of personality includes one
3 additional structure: the collective unconscious, which incorporates a universal set of tendencies inherited by all humans (Jung, 1933). Jung understood the personal unconscious to function similarly to Freud’s idea of the preconscious.
The personal unconscious is the controlling area that lets certain traits through, while suppressing other, opposite traits. For example, if Jung observed an extroverted, energetic person, he would say that the personal unconscious is controlling the exhibition while withholding introverted tendencies. If an individual is exceptionally outgoing, Jung would call this a “complex” (Jung, 1927.)
According to Jung, a “complex” refers to a rigid behavior pattern which may result in a person who has high attention to detail (a perfection complex) or unusual drive (an ambition complex). In this sense, Jung also had a negative view of the individual, with seemingly positive traits being the result of a rigid personality structure rather than strength.
An additional psychoanalyst was Alfred Adler, who considered the influence of motivation and a feeling of competence as driving forces of personality (Adler, 1927). Though his theory hints at positive aspects of personality as being valuable to the individual, Adler still takes a negative position overall. Adler states that all humans strive for a sense of competence, but that this is motivated by feelings of inferiority. He states, “To be a human being is to feel oneself inferior.” (Adler, 1939, p. 96) Though the result of these negative feelings is a valued trait in humans, it is still an overall negative view of personality.
4 All of the psychoanalysts theorized about the development of personality, but approached the concept as a whole, rather than made up of individual traits which could be described, measured, and studied. One psychologist that discussed personality in terms of parts building a whole was Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970). The personality is developed via a transition through a pyramid of needs, beginning with basic physical needs and ending with complex psychological needs. Maslow proposed 4 low-levels of needs culminating in what he termed self-actualization which lists mature, desirable personality traits. A self-actualized person is described as the most emotionally healthy individual, having all of his or her physical, psychological and spiritual needs met. An individual that has achieved self actualization would be described as fulfilled; however, Maslow did not describe these types of individuals as stagnant in their personal development (Maslow, 1971). He viewed actualized individuals as having developed metaneeds, or being values, which represent constant behavior and moral goals toward which a self- actualized person progresses. He proposed a total of 18 metaneeds, which are listed in Table 2 (Taken from Maslow, 1971).
Maslow, therefore, theorized about the benefit of some positive psychological traits and their impact on personality and satisfaction with life. One of the strongest criticisms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is that very few people reach self-actualization, yet many people possess characteristics of having metaneeds. Hence, achieving self-actualization does not seem to be a requisite to positive character traits as Maslow proposed. There is little doubt, however,
5 Table 2: Metaneed and Associated Traits for Each of Maslow's Stages Metaneed Associated traits 1.Truth Honesty, Integrity, Belief in others 2. Goodness Love, Acceptance 3. Beauty Appreciation of nature and art 4. Unity, wholeness Singularity of self 5. Transcendence from Dichotomy Can see gray areas, can see middle- thinking ground 6. Alive, process Resistant to stagnation 7. Uniqueness Individuality 8. Perfection Conscientiousness 9. Necessity Order in all areas of life 10. Completion, finality Sense of a complete self, sense of full development 11. Justice Appreciation of social moral 12. Order Secure, Feels safe, Sense of Predictability 13. Simplicity Clarity, Free from irrelevance 14. Richness, comprehensiveness Interest in world and others 15. Effortlessness Agility in handling demands and tasks 16. Playfulness Sense of Humor 17. Self-sufficiency Independence 18. Meaningfulness Sense of purposeful life
6 that an individual must achieve the basic needs (food, shelter, and clothing) before they can consider psychological needs.
Though originally personality theorists investigated factors that lead to maladaptive behavior, there was a shift among personality psychologists to study the structure of personality in healthy adults. The study of desirable qualities of emotionally healthy individuals was approached through different means
(clinically, developmentally, experimentally), but the study of traits was to become the most researched area in personality psychology.
The Big Five
The Big Five model of personality, or the five-factor model is arguably the most researched and influential model of personality used today. The supposition is that if one measures personality, no matter how many traits the researcher is interested in investigating, factor analysis reliably reveals five universal factors (if all five factors are represented in some way). The Big Five factors have been labeled as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, and Openness (Norman, 1963).
The roots of the psychometric study of personality can be traced to the work of Allport and Cattell, both of whom had great impact on the development of the Big Five view of personality traits. Initially, Allport posited that personality could be described in common terms, which was in contrast to the psychoanalytic view of personality. To support this view, Allport and Odbert
(1936) compiled a list of nearly 18,000 words that described human personality
7 after a review of Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1925 edition. Cattell applied factor analysis to this list and arrived at 16 personality factors, which he used to develop the commonly used 16 personality factor test (Cattell, 1943), and additionally the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire which includes the 16 factors and an additional 12 directed at abnormal personality testing (Cattell & Kline, 1977).
Where Cattell was developing a 16-trait model, the husband and wife research team of Hans and Sybil Eysenck were developing a three-factor model of personality. These dimensions are Extraversion versus introversion,
Neuroticism versus emotional stability, and psychoticism versus impulse control
(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963). Eysenck’s contribution to personality factor research is sometimes referred to as the Big Three, including all his factors, or more rarely, the Big Two, which omits psychoticisim (Eysenck, 1947; Eysenck,
1970; Eysenck, 1990). Though these approaches range from 18,000 terms for personality to three, the most commonly discussed theoretical framework consists of five personality factors.
The study of personality by five factors was given its first solid theoretical framework by a landmark study by Tupes and Christal (1958). They were conducting a study involving a peer-rating system across dichotomous rating scales at Michigan AFB. Tupes and Christal investigators found five personality factors that, when rated by peers, predicted later officer performance. These factors were termed by the researchers as (1) surgency (Extraversion in the Big
Five), (2) Agreeableness, (3) dependability, (4) emotional stability, and (5) culture
(Openness in the Big Five). This constitutes the first emergence of a five-factor
8 model of personality, which differs only in the names of the factors from today’s
Big Five model.
Though the basic factor model had been outlined, much research was needed to provide a firm foundation in order for the model to be accepted into mainstream psychology. Piedmont, McCrae and Costa (1991) used self-report measures, objective testing, and observer reports to establish the reliability and validity of the Big Five Factors. Another prominent researcher in this area is
Goldberg, who produced much research in the 80’s and early 90’s that established psychometric support for the Big Five (Goldberg, 1981, 1982, 1990,
1992). Through his influential work, other researchers became interested in the
Big Five and established their stability, reliability, and central roles in personality
(Digman, 1979, 1990; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock,
1981). Costa and McCrae (1980) also established that the Big Five traits remain relatively constant throughout the lifetime, further strengthening and unifying the five-trait theory of personality (see also Costa & McCrae, 1988; Viken, Rose,
Kaprio & Koskenvuo, 1994; Carmichael & McGue, 1994.). The Big Five as it is understood today has been demonstrated through factor analysis by numerous researchers (see Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992; and John, 1990.)
The Big Five Model consists of five broadly-defined personality factors:
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness and Neuroticism
(also referred to as emotional stability). Each of the Big Five is made up of more narrow, or specific, traits. Table 3 shows some component traits associated with each of the Big Five.
9 The Five Factors as they appear in Table 3 may differ in name between personality psychologists, but rarely differ in their conceptualizations. Most personality theorists would agree with the following descriptions of each of the
Big Five personality traits. Extraversion is a trait that refers to outgoingness in social situations and has been found to be positively related to emotional well- being (Costa & McCrae, 1984) and ability to cope with stress (Amirkhan,
Risinger, & Swickert, 1995.) Conscientiousness is a trait that captures the organization, diligence, and reliability of an individual. Not surprisingly,
Conscientiousness is positively related to better grades in school (Goldberg,
1990), traits such as cooperation, helpfulness, altruism, and honesty (Digman,
1990; John 1990), and overall longevity (Friedman et al, 1993, 1995). In a meta- analysis conducted by Mount, Barrick and Stewart (1998) Conscientiousness was found to be a nearly universal predictor of overall job performance.
Individuals scoring high on Openness scales tend to welcome exposure to a wide range of beliefs and experiences. They are likely to change careers and have a positive regard for life changes (McCrae & Costa, 1985a, 1985b). Neuroticism or
Table 3: The Big Five Personality Traits and Associated Component Traits Big Five Trait Component Traits 1. Extraversion Sociability, gregariousness, talkativeness 2. Agreeableness Sympathy, trust, cooperation 3. Conscientiousness Discipline, Order, Diligence 4. Neuroticism Anxiety, Self-consciousness 5. Openness Curiosity, Imaginativeness
10 Emotional Stability as it is sometimes referred, is negatively related to emotional well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1984) and positively related to a predisposition of negative events such as weight gain, traffic violations, suicide attempt, loss of job, and many others (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993).
The Five-Factor theory has been studied in relation to personality disorders. Researchers have consistently demonstrated a predictable relationship between the Big Five and development of personality disorders accounting for one-tenth to one-half of the variance (Clark & Watson, 1999;
Costa & Widiger, 2002; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson
& Costa, 2002). Rantanen et al. (2005) investigated the Big Five as they relate to balancing work and family demands, to the degree that family does not impact work and also that work remains distinct from family life. They found that
Neuroticism was positively related to both work-to-family intrusions as well as family-to-work intrusions for both men and women, suggesting that it could impact both work and home domains of experience.
Though the most widely accepted Factor model of personality is made up of five traits, there has been other work to suggest support for as few as two
“metatraits.” This area of work was proposed by Digman (1997). He analyzed the data of 14 published studies on the Big Five and found support for two factors, which he calls alpha and beta. Digman proposed that alpha is a factor most clearly related to (and comprised of) Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness. Beta is most clearly related to Extraversion and
11 Openness. Though this model could gain momentum in the future, most researchers find the five-factor model sufficiently useful for prediction.
There has been a resurgence of research on the Big Five model, owed mainly to its investigation into possible applications in Industrial/Organizational
Psychology (Hogan & Roberts, 2001). Researchers noted that while the workplace (environment) was consistent for workers, the personality of the workers could determine, to a large degree, success or failure in the workplace.
By measuring personality traits, an employer could make better decisions about hiring new workers based on those results. Many researchers performed such studies and determined that several traits (such as Conscientiousness) were valuable in predicting work performance (Digman, 1990; Barrick & Mount, 1991;
Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991).
Narrow Traits and the Bandwidth-Fidelity Dilemma
While the Big Five traits are useful in both explaining and predicting behavior, they are closely related to many other constructs and variables. The traits are relatively broad in their definitions and each can be viewed as a composite trait made up of various related traits. For example,
Conscientiousness may be logically viewed as a compilation of thoroughness, order, attention to detail, and the like. In certain settings-- such as job placement, pre-employment screening, and career planning--it could be useful to know the level of a person’s Conscientiousness, as it is positively related to a
12 variety of important work outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, and turnover.
For some jobs, though, attention to detail is of significant importance, whereas in others, order may be stressed. A measure of Conscientiousness would likely be highly correlated with the more specific traits, but measuring the more narrow traits might also be useful. For this reason, psychologists have begun to investigate what is known as the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma. Very simply, the more broadly one defines a construct, the less detailed (and thereby less useful at the individual level) the construct. On the other hand, one loses generalizability by defining a construct too narrowly. A bandwidth is the applicability of a given trait, along with breadth of conceptualization. The applicability of a given construct is limited if it is defined precisely. Conversely, the fidelity, or reliability and usefulness of a trait is compromised if it is defined too broadly. Different investigations call for different levels of precision, so this topic is becoming of interest to personality psychologists (Stewart, 1999).
The balance of trait investigation is usually discussed in terms of Broad traits (like the Big Five) versus Narrow traits (those traits that are facets of the Big
Five). Broad traits are viewed as more general concepts with broader range, though less precise, while Narrow traits (narrower bandwidth) are useful, yet sometime viewed as too specific (Spector, 1996.). One could view personality traits as a hierarchy, with Broad traits being global in nature, more complex and thus higher-order traits (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996).
13 Which is the better tool for researchers: the higher-order, broad traits or the lower-order narrow traits? Because this dilemma is viewed as a tradeoff
(Shannon & Weaver, 1949), there has been research dedicated to the appropriate selection of bandwidth for a given study. Hogan and Roberts (1996) demonstrate the issue in selecting measurement by comparing binoculars to a microscope. In the former, there is less precision, but much information to be gained about larger-scale patterns. The individual sees the large picture but misses the detail. The latter option has so much precision that the experimenter can lose information that is applicable on a large scale. In response to Shannon and Weaver’s 1949 article, Lee Cronbach (1960) outlined four concepts regarding the choice of bandwidth:
1. Increasing precision of measurement decreases complexity of
the construct being measured.
2. Information from exceptionally large bandwidths may be
unreliable whereas information from exceptionally small
bandwidths may only be useful for specific research questions.
3. With a high number of outcomes are important, a larger
bandwidth should be selected. Small bandwidths applied to
larger-scale conclusions can be problematic as the reliability
becomes low (and thereby so does validity).
Each of these points illustrates the necessity of an appropriate measure for each research question. Hence, one must carefully match the predictors to the criteria in a given study (Hogan & Roberts, 1996).
14 How does one determine what is a broad trait and what is a narrow trait?
Most researchers agree that the Big Five are considered broad traits, but there are some researchers that feel some of the Big Five traits are broader than others (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996). Specifically, Saucier and Goldberg contend that Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness are broader in their definitions than Openness and Neuroticism. Indeed, many more adjectives can describe the former than the latter, but the distinction is not so severe as to label
Openness and Neuroticism narrow traits.
Because of their differing usefulness in descriptive abilities, both broad and narrow traits can be useful in prediction, depending on the research context and validity criteria. A recent study by Lounsbury et al. (2003) demonstrated that the two narrow traits of Aggression and Work Drive added to the prediction of grade point average above and beyond simply using the Big Five for prediction.
In addition, narrow traits of Work Drive, Tough-mindedness and Optimism have been related to Life Satisfaction (Lounsbury et al., 2004). In a measure of general Life Satisfaction, four of the Big Five: Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (Neuroticism), and Extraversion, as well as one narrow trait of Sense of Identity accounted for 52% of the variance
(Lounsbury, Saudargas, et al, 2005).
Satisfaction during College Years
College, for those individuals who choose to go, is arguably one of the most important time periods of a person’s life. A transition is made from being
15 part of a family unit to a more autonomous individual, as well as social and academic training to become part of society (Astin, 1977, 1993). There are many facets of the college experience beyond the academic requirements. Students are called upon to balance social, familial, and often work-related responsibilities during college. This time period is also associated with the development of ideas, personal beliefs and norms (Skinner, 1987).
Satisfaction with this time period can be viewed as a blend of satisfaction within different areas of the college experience (Astin, 1977, 1993; Skinner,
1987). Personal satisfaction, satisfaction with the institution itself, as well as the overall outcome of the college experience could all be seen as integral to the perception of satisfaction in the overall transition. External events could also play a role in the sense of satisfaction with the time period. This could include satisfaction with friends, roommates, free time, living conditions, and overall health of the individual.
Satisfaction with the school experience has been studied extensively, paying particular attention to the high school student, with few studies of student satisfaction at the college level. At the high school level, however, much is known about the influence of school satisfaction (Karatzias et al, 2002.)
Increased levels of satisfaction are associated with attainment of goals (Gray &
Wilcox, 1995), and commitment to school (Wehlage et al., 1997). Lower levels of school satisfaction are associated with problems in achievement (Baker, 1998) as well as feelings of alienation (Fine, 1986). Presumably, these same principles could apply in the college setting.
16 Satisfaction in the college setting has been studied, primarily as related to student retention (Edwards & Walters, 1982), but also as related to the availability of student services or campus environments (Benjamin & Hollings,
1995). Many theorists have taken a developmental approach to the college experience, noting the impact of differing campus environments and characteristics on the individual’s development (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Lounsbury, Saudargas, Gibson, and Leong (2005) investigated the role of personality in the prediction of satisfaction among college students. Both broad and narrow personality traits were examined in relation to satisfaction. The personality traits of Emotional Stability, Sense of Identity, Optimism and
Extraversion correlated with their measure of General Life Satisfaction. A subset of items related to College satisfaction was found to correlate highly with Work
Drive, Career-Decidedness, Emotional Stability, and Optimism. With regards to prediction, as earlier reported, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability, Extraversion, Sense of Identity and College Satisfaction were shown to account for 52% of the variance of General Satisfaction. This demonstrates that not only personality but also College Satisfaction contribute to overall sense of satisfaction for the individual.
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective Well-Being or “SWB” is the tendency to have a positive perception of one’s life (Diener, 1984). A person with high levels of SWB will experience their life in a positive light. Though SWB is more complex than “being
17 happy”, happiness levels are frequently used as the dependent variable in research. SWB is more than objective happiness, it is by definition (and by name) subjective happiness and refers to a life-long tendency rather than isolated mood.
Research on SWB is either focused on external variables such as demographic factors, or internal variables like personality traits. Research on external variables has led to some interesting findings. Researchers have looked at gender differences to see if one sex experiences greater subjective well-being, but significant differences between the sexes have not been found (Wood,
Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989; Haring, Stock, & Okhun, 1984). Married individuals report higher levels of happiness than those who have divorced, separated, or never married (Lee et al., 1991). The relationship is unclear, though, as happy individuals are more likely to get married (Mastekaasa, 1992; Scott, 1991).
Children of couples who have stayed married report higher levels of SWB than do children of broken homes (Gohm et al., 1997), suggesting that stability in the home environment may have lasting impressions on the individual’s ability to evaluate life positively. Wealth is frequently presumed to increase SWB at the anecdotal level, but research shows little to no effect of increased wealth on
SWB (Diener, 1995; Diener et al., 1993). Though demographic relationships with
SWB can be demonstrated, these factors tend to account for little variance of
SWB. When numerous demographic variables were considered, they accounted for less than 20 percent of the variance of SWB (Campbell et al., 1976).
18 An important component of subjective well-being is Life Satisfaction.
Obviously, individuals would not report high levels of subjective well-being if they did not have a sense of satisfaction in their lives. Abbey and Andrews (1985) found that Life Satisfaction increased with a higher reported sense of internal control, social support, and performance. Conversely, stress and depression was found to be associated with a decrease in Life Satisfaction.
Lounsbury, et al. (2005) found that Life Satisfaction was predicted by a combination of Big Five and Narrow traits. Specifically, the predictors were
Assertiveness (narrow), Conscientiousness (Big Five), Extraversion (Big Five),
Emotional Stability (Big Five), Openness (Big Five), Optimism (narrow), and
Tough-Mindedness (narrow). Their results demonstrate that though the Big Five is useful, the narrow traits also account for unique variance in Life Satisfaction.
Research has also been conducted on the question of what personality factors are associated with high levels of SWB. SWB appears to remain fairly stable throughout the lifespan, regardless of isolated events (Headey & Wearing,
1989). Other studies support the notion that SWB is more strongly related to stable emotional traits (i.e., personality) rather than adverse or highly positive events (Ormel & Schaufeli, 1991; Ormel & Wohlfarth, 1991).
There are three main theories related to subjective well-being: top-down theory (Diener, 1984 and others), equilibrium theory (Headey & Wearing, 1989), and temperamental-instrumental theory (McCrae & Costa, 1991). Diener (1984), among others, has suggested the top-down model of subjective well-being, which contends that an individual has a universal tendency of either seeing things
19 positively or negatively, and this impacts his or her outlook on life. The top-down model speaks to the relative stability of personality traits throughout life. In the equilibrium theory (Heady & Wearing, 1989) any individual has a set level of subjective well being. Though a person may experience phases of increased or decreased subjective well-being, the individual will return eventually to their equilibrium level.
McCrae and Costa (1991) added an additional layer of complexity in the understanding of the relationship between SWB and personality. They suggest that some personality traits directly impact SWB while others do so only indirectly. Those traits that have a direct effect are termed “temperamental” and are responsible for producing emotions consisted with SWB (such as
Neuroticism). High levels of Neuroticism can impact happiness and self-esteem, thereby effecting SWB. Other personality traits are only indirect in their relationship and are termed “instrumental.” These traits, such as Agreeableness, tend to place individuals in situations that impact SWB, rather than being directly related. Indeed, many researchers support this distinction (Diener et al., 1992;
Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1991).
When considering the relationship between personality and SWB, one must consider different measures of SWB. The most common understanding of
SWB is that it is very closely related to one’s happiness level (Diener, 1984).
Happiness tends to be viewed as a stable characteristic, whereas negative and positive affect are more closely associated with moods (less stable). Life
Satisfaction must also be considered when conceptualizing SWB. Measures of
20 Life Satisfaction call upon individuals to cognitively label their life experiences to evaluate them, which is not required when evaluating happiness or affect.
McCrae and Costa (1991) suggest that SWB is a conceptualization that combines stable personality characteristics, state measures, and cognitive labels for those evaluations. To this end, most measures of SWB are self-report measures such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale, SWLS (Pavot and Diener,
1993) or the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, PANAS (Watson et al.,
1988).
Personality and Subjective Well-Being
Demographic factors seem to contribute very little to variance explained in
SWB (see Stock, et al., 1983, Haring et al., 1984). Personality can have a dual role in predicting SWB, as previously mentioned (McCrae & Costa, 1991). Not only can personality directly impact certain demographics such as marital status and social activity, it can indirectly impact other demographics, such as education and income (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). For example, Extraversion and positive affectivity can predict frequency and length of social contact, as well as positive perception of social interaction (Berry & Hansen, 1996; Watson, 1988; Watson et al., 1992.) Furthermore, Neuroticism can impact coping styles and thereby negative affect (Diener, 1996).
Because personality (by definition) remains stable throughout life, the influence on SWB is primarily a top-down effect (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Feist et al., 1995; Headey et al., 1991.) In this view, personality is seen as a
21 predisposition both to have certain experiences and also as an anchor that returns the individual to a baseline following certain experiences. For example, both the joy of a lottery win and the heartache of permanent paralysis linger for a relatively brief period (Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978.) Particularly for negative events, Hardiness can have a large impact on not only the perceptions formed regarding the incident, but also coping skills and optimism
(McNeil, Kozma, Stones, & Hannah, 1986). In this top-down fashion, personality can impact the view of the event and those views formed as a result of an event.
The Big Five and Subjective Well-Being
As previously outlined, personality predisposes experiences then colors those experiences for the individual. Because the Big Five is the most widely researched conceptualization of the factor-theories, it has been researched extensively as it applies to SWB. For instance, Neuroticism is negatively related to both Life Satisfaction and happiness (two dimensions of SWB), with respective correlations of r= -.24 and r = -.25 (Costa & McRae 1980, 1991). Clearly, individuals higher in Neuroticism are at a diminished capacity for positive evaluations of experiences, possess increased disposition to experience negative emotions, and an overall lack of positive emotions throughout the lifespan. On the other hand, Extraversion seems to have just the opposite effect, predisposing individuals toward positive emotions and affect (Diener & Larsen,
1993; Eysenck & Eysenck 1985; Hotard, et al., 1989; Meyer & Shack, 1989;
Myers, 1992; Myers & Diener, 1995; Strelau, 1987; Thayer, 1989).
Agreeableness, too, seems to impact SWB strongly (Myers & Diener, 1995).
22 Considering the component traits of each of these broad traits implies that traits that foster relationship building and maintenance skills (Extraversion and
Agreeableness) have a greater impact on SWB than other Big Five traits, such as Openness and Neuroticism (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). In their meta-analysis,
DeNeve and Cooper (1998) found that Conscientiousness has the strongest positive relationship to SWB. They conclude that goal-oriented behavior, control of one’s environment, and structure leads an individual to be more satisfied with life. For a complete list of the Big Five traits as they correlate to SWB, see Table
4 (from DeNeve & Cooper, 1998).
Positive Psychology
Positive psychology is a proposed new direction for psychological research put forth by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) which asserts that the focus of psychology should not be the struggles associated with human existence, rather those aspects of humanity that make “life worth living”
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 13). They declare that the field of psychology has been hindered by a concentration on pathology of mental disorders as well as “repairing damage within a disease model of human
Table 4: Correlations Between Big Five Personality Traits and SWB Big Five Personality Trait r value between listed trait and SWB Extraversion .17 Agreeableness .17 Conscientiousness .21 Neuroticism -.22 Openness to Experience .11
23
functioning” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). That is, psychology has been focused on fixing what has gone awry, rather than study what has been useful and advantageous for an individual. The traditional perspective of
Psychology is useful for those who suffer, while providing little information to support and encourage those who are functional and healthy.
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi also discuss positive personality traits and how those may impact the life experience as a whole. They list the traits of
“subjective well-being, optimism, happiness and self-determination” (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 9) as traits which have an overwhelming positive effect on aspects of life from better mood to better physical condition (See:
Diener, 2000, Peterson, 2000, and Myers, 2000.) This suggests that differing levels of positive personality traits could directly impact Life Satisfaction for the average individual.
Positive Psychology has been discussed recently in a number of publications. For instance, Richman et al. (2005) investigated the relationship between positive emotions and health as measured by the development of disease. Specifically, they looked at hypertension, diabetes, and respiratory infections as they related to possessing high levels of hope and curiosity.
Negative emotions and stress have been related to the development of hypertension (Jonas et al., 1997), diabetes (Carnethon et al., 2003), irritable bowel syndrome (Drossman, 1999), arthritis (Vali & Walkup, 1998), and psoriasis
(Scharloo et al., 2000). Therefore, Richman et al. hypothesized that positive
24 emotions may play a protective function against the development of such diseases. Beyond not possessing negative emotions, actually possessing positive emotional characteristics may act as a greater protection against disease. Indeed, they found that hope and curiosity did serve a protective role in the prevention of disease in general. Furthermore, higher levels of curiosity were associated with lower risk of hypertension and diabetes. Even when controlling for behavioral differences such as smoking and alcohol consumption rates, the relationship was still observed. Thus, positive emotions may be directly related to the immune system as negative emotions have been shown to be; however, more studies are needed to confirm and elaborate such a relationship.
One recent study looked at historical and philosophical writings across cultures to derive a foundation of traits that are represented throughout. Specifically,
Dahlsgaard et al. (2005) reviewed writings by Confucius, Lao Tzu (the founder of
Taoism), the Buddha, and Plato and Aristotle, as well as Christian, Jewish, and
Islamic writings. By using a broad cross-section, the authors hoped a consistency of traits would emerge that would represent virtues that were universally valued, instead of those influenced by culture. Indeed, several virtues consistently appeared in each major philosophical approach. These traits and their definitions are listed in Table 5 (taken from Dahlsgaard et al., 2005.)
Reviews have critiqued the approach of positive psychologists, with chief complaint being that the idea set forth by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) is not novel. McLafferty and Kirylo (2001) and Shapiro (2001) suggest that though the focus of psychology in the past has been in maladaptive behavior,
25 many theorists extended ideas relating to positive psychology traits which could be viewed as foundations of positive psychology. Other criticisms include encouraging a principle-based approach, which would prevent splintering facets of positive psychology into too many minor areas of study instead of one coherent area (Kelley, 2001). It should be noted that none of the criticisms directly counter the philosophy of positive psychology, and most introduce their criticism with support of the overall movement within psychology (see McLafferty
& Kirylo, 2001; Shapiro, 2001; Kelley, 2001).
One criticism of positive psychology concerns the hypothesis that strong character traits can develop from profound loss and suffering. Harvey (2001) contends that an individual can develop the strengths associated with Positive
Psychology during a period of personal struggle. Harvey’s view is related to the development of character strengths, but still incorporates those maladaptive behaviors that positive psychology was striving to avoid. More recently, Harvey
Table 5: Cross-Cultural Virtues, Descriptions, and Example Traits Virtue Description Example Traits Courage Exercising one’s will in the face of Bravery, opposition perseverance, honesty Justice Civic strengths, community life, social Fairness, leadership, conscience citizenship Humanity Interpersonal strength in relationships Love, kindness Temperance Strengths that protect against excess Forgiveness, humility, self-control Wisdom Strengths that describe the acquisition Creativity, judgment, and application of knowledge perspective Transcendence Interconnectivity with the universe, Gratitude, hope, meaning of life as a whole spirituality
26 and Pauwels (2004) questioned how positive psychology can account for the finding that reports of character strength increase following a tragedy. The authors call for investigation into which traits enable an individual to make such a recovery. How can some people emerge stronger after a crisis than before, while others are weakened by crises?
Positive psychology seeks to develop a ”classification of the sanities” that is directly opposite to the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, which diagnoses mental disorders (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p.3). Such a manual would include specific definitions of character strengths and also characteristics that indicate presence and absence of said strengths. Ideally, one could evaluate his or her own character strengths based on a list of criteria akin to the symptoms listed in the DSM.
Seligman and others approach the study of personality through the assessment of positive character strengths, rather than through approaches which may be too broad to include these narrower, positive traits. They arrived at six broad categories of character strengths, similar to the Big Five in that they are comprised of distinct narrow traits. Peterson and Seligman used stringent criteria to arrive at 24 narrow traits that are independent of one another, yet can be classified according to their six-fold classification system. The categories, which include the narrower strengths and brief definitions, are listed in Table 6
(Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 29-30).
Peterson and Seligman developed the Values in Action scale, or the VIA,
27 Table 6: Component Traits and Descriptions of Positive Psychology Traits Broad Category Narrow Trait Definition 1. Wisdom and Strengths that entail the acquisition and Knowledge application of knowledge 1. Creativity Originality, ingenuity; thinking of novel and productive ways to do things 2. Curiosity Interest, novelty-seeking, Openness to experience; interest in new experience 3. Open- Judgment and critical thinking; thinking Mindedness things through 4. Love of Mastery of new skills, tendency to Learning systematically increase one’s knowledge 5. Perspective The ability to provide wise council to others 2. Courage Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will 6. Bravery Not shrinking from threat or challenge 7. Persistence Perseverance, finishing what one starts
8. Integrity Presenting one’s self in a genuine way, acting in a sincere manner 9. Vitality Zest, enthusiasm, feeling alive and activated 3. Humanity Strengths that involve tending to and befriending others 10. Love Valuing close relationships with others 11. Kindness Generosity, taking care of others and doing favors and good deeds 12. Social Personal intelligence; understanding Intelligence the feelings and motivations of other people 4. Justice Civic strengths; healthy community life 13. Citizenship Social responsibility, loyalty to a group 14. Fairness Treating all people the same, not letting personal feelings bias decision 15. Leadership Encouraging a group to get things done, organizing group activities 5. Temperance Strengths that protect against excess 16. Forgiveness Forgiving transgressions, accepting and Mercy shortcomings of others 17. Humility or Not regarding one’s self as more Modesty important that one is, letting accomplishments speak for themselves
28 Table 6 continued Broad Trait Narrow Trait Description 18. Prudence Being careful about choices, not taking undue risks 19. Self- Self-control, regulating how one behaves regulation 6. Transcendence Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning 20. Appreciation Awe and wonder where appropriate in of beauty and nature, art, and also daily life excellence 21. Gratitude Bring thankful for good things that happen, expressing thankfulness 22. Hope Optimism, future-mindedness, expecting and working for best in the future 23. Humor Playfulness; liking laughter, making others smile, seeing light side 24. Spirituality Religiosity, coherent beliefs about a higher being a purpose
29 Peterson and Seligman developed the Values in Action scale, or the VIA, to assess varying levels of each of the narrow character strengths. The VIA is a
240-item Likert scale that is suitable for adults (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The
24 strengths are each represented by 10 items on the measure. The VIA has been found to have high reliability, both internal (r>.70 alpha) and test re-test
(r>.70). A factor analysis was performed which provided the experimenters with
5 factors, which they gave the following titles (Taken from Peterson & Seligman,
2004, p. 632): 1) strengths of restraint, 2) intellectual strengths, 3) interpersonal strengths, 4) emotional strengths, and 5) theological strengths. The authors noted that these did not exactly match their categories; four were similar to the
Big Five traits of Conscientiousness, Openness, Agreeableness, and the positive end of Neuroticism, while the fifth factor, theological strength, does not have a counterpart in the Big Five.
There is a need to integrate several views of personality when clarifying the impact of positive psychology traits. Many researchers have demonstrated the usefulness of the Big Five in prediction of Life Satisfaction, and also the variance accounted for by adding the predictive ability of Narrow Traits (Costa &
McRae 1980, 1991;DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Eysenck & Eysenck 1985; Hotard, et al., 1989; Lounsbury et al. 2003, 2004, 2005; Myers & Diener, 1995). Can the
Positive Psychology traits add to the understanding and prediction of SWB? One could hypothesize that if a person possessed traits that made him or her more resistant to mental disease, the person would be higher in Life Satisfaction. On the other hand, if those traits did not impact Life Satisfaction, what does this tell
30 psychologists about the Positive Psychology movement? It would be useful to understand the relationship between the Big Five, Narrow traits, and the newly- investigated Positive psychology/character strength traits in predicting Life
Satisfaction.
There are two different systems which could account for variance in Life
Satisfaction. The first is the traditional Big Five and Narrow traits approach.
Such an analysis would start with the Big Five, and then add Narrow traits to see if predicative capability is improved. The second system is the Positive
Psychology approach, which uses positive personality traits to predict Life
Satisfaction.
In addition, it is an open question whether the Big Five and narrow traits as well as positive psychology attributes contribute uniquely to the prediction of
Life Satisfaction. This study compared the joint and unique sources of variation in life satisfaction attributable to the Big Five personality traits, narrow personality traits, and positive psychology measures. This study examined Life Satisfaction as a global construct as well as facets of life satisfaction.
The following research questions were addressed:
Question 1: How do the Big Five relate to Life Satisfaction?
Question 2: How do narrow traits relate to Life Satisfaction?
Question 3: How do the Positive Psychology traits relate to Life Satisfaction?
Question 4: How much variance of Life Satisfaction is accounted for by the Big
Five Personality Traits? Is this sample consistent with previous research that
31 finds Extraversion, Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness strong predictors of Life Satisfaction?
Question 5: How much variance of Life Satisfaction is accounted for by the
Narrow Personality Traits? Is this sample consistent with previous research that finds Work Drive, Tough-mindedness and Optimism strong predictors of Life
Satisfaction?
Question 6: How much variance of Life Satisfaction is accounted for by the
Positive Psychology Traits?
Question 7: Do the Positive Psychology traits add to prediction of Life
Satisfaction above and beyond the Big Five? If so, what specific traits add significant variance?
Question 8: Do the Positive Psychology traits add to prediction of Life
Satisfaction above and beyond the narrow traits? If so, what specific traits add significant variance?
Question 9: Do the Positive Psychology traits add to prediction of Life
Satisfaction above and beyond the Big Five and narrow traits? If so, what specific traits add significant variance?
32
Chapter 2: Method
Participants
The participants for this study were undergraduate college students at a public university in the Southeast United States. Students from upper-level psychology courses participated in a series of online surveys. The data presented were collected by Resource Associates, Inc. The University of
Tennessee Institutional Review board approved the methodology of data collection. The total number of participants was 237, with 141 females and 94 males. Two participants did not identify their sex. Most participants were 22-25 years of age (47%) with the next most frequent age range of 20-21 accounting for 31% of the total number. Participants received extra credit for their participation, as well as a print-out of their scores relating to character strengths.
Procedure
Each participant obtained information about this study via an online interface describing opportunities for extra credit for Psychology students. After a brief description of the study, the potential participant was prompted to contact a researcher through email to obtain a link to the study website, a login, and a pass key. This prevented the students from participating in the data collection twice. After receiving the information required to login to the site, each participant was directed to the site to begin responding to Likert-scale questions related to numerous aspects of their personality, living conditions, and perception
33 of satisfaction. The students were given 3 hours to complete the online survey which had over 600 questions. Each student received a printable output of a personality profile, as well as other statistical data related to their lifestyle.
Measurement
Life Satisfaction Scale
The scale used to measure Life Satisfaction is part of a larger scale to measure both Life Satisfaction and College Satisfaction, called the Transition to
College Scale, or TTC. The scale was developed by Lounsbury et. al (2005) as part of another study. The scale is a 22-item Likert scale, of which 15 items were used in this study to assess Life Satisfaction. Each question in this study required a response from the following choices: 7-Very Satisfied, 6- Satisfied, 5-
Slightly satisfied, 4-Neutral, 3-Slightly Dissatisfied, 2-Dissatisfied, or 1-Very
Dissatisfied.
Big Five Personality Scale
The scale used to asses the Big Five Personality Traits was the
Adolescent Personal Style Inventory, or APSI. This scale uses 10 items to assess each of the Big Five Personality traits of Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Openness. Each item uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree.
The APSI has demonstrated sufficient reliability and validity (Lounsbury et. al,
2003a).
34 Narrow Trait Scales
Work Drive
Work Drive was assessed using an 11-item Likert-type response scale developed by Lounsbury and Gibson (1998). This trait reflects being highly motivated, productive, and devoting exceptional time and effort to accomplish a given task.
Optimism
Optimism was measured using a scale developed by Lounsbury et al
(2003b) to assess having an optimistic, hopeful outlook concerning prospects, people, and the future, even in the face of difficulty and adversity as well as a tendency to minimize problems and persist in the face of setbacks. The
Optimism scale consists of 7 Likert-type items.
Tough-Mindedness
Tough-mindedness was assessed using an 11-item scale developed by
Lounsbury et al (2003b). This scale measures a person’s disposition to rely on facts and data to appraise information and make decisions; being analytical, realistic, objective, and unsentimental.
Assertiveness
Assertiveness involves exerting influence on one’s own behalf, seizing the initiative in unstructured situations, speaking one’s mind, defending one’s beliefs, and being forceful in group settings. These individuals tend to speak their minds in situations in which they feel uncomfortable or under duress. Assertiveness was assessed using a 7-item scale developed by Lounsbury & Gibson (2008).
35 Visionary Style
Visionary Style involves focusing on long-term planning, strategy, and envisioning future possibilities and contingencies. Persons with scores high on this scale have excellent planning skills, can imagine complex strategies and weigh potential risks against outcomes. The trait subscale is made up of 6 items and was developed by Lounsbury and Gibson (2008).
Positive Psychology Traits Scale: Values in Action Scale
The Values in Action Scale was developed by Peterson, Park, &
Seligman 2004. The scale consists of 240 items representing 24 traits associated with the Positive Psychology movement. Each trait subscale consists of 10 Likert scaled items ranging from 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree.
A description of each trait can be found in Table 6, previously in this text.
Data Analysis Procedures
First, to ensure the scales were in the expected range of Reliability, a reliability analysis was performed. Next, the data analysis was performed that examined the relationships between the variables represented by each of the scales.
The data analyses performed in this study fully explored the predictive relationship of the Big Five, Narrow Traits, and Positive Psychology Traits in relation to Life Satisfaction. First, correlations were computed between (1) each of the Big Five, (2) Narrow Traits, and (3) Positive Psychology Traits and Life
Satisfaction (the dependent variable). Next, the relationship between the Big
Five and Life Satisfaction was explored. Specifically, a regression analysis was
36 performed using a stepwise variable selection procedure to examine traits which significantly predicted Life Satisfaction. Following this analysis, the narrow traits were used in a stepwise regression to examine which traits lead to greater predictive ability regarding Life Satisfaction. These steps were performed as a precursor to the next section, which examined the relationship of Positive
Psychology traits to the overall prediction of Life Satisfaction.
For the final steps of analysis, the Positive Psychology traits were used in conjunction with the Big Five in a stepwise regression analysis which examined if
Positive Psychology added unique variance to the prediction of Life Satisfaction.
Next, the Narrow Traits were used with the Positive Psychology Traits in a stepwise regression to see how much variance is uniquely contributed by the
Positive Psychology Traits. Next, the Big Five was added to the previous analysis to see if Positive Psychology Traits added unique variance above and beyond both the Big Five and the Narrow Traits. Finally, a stepwise regression analysis was performed with all variables to see the overall picture of the prediction of Life Satisfaction.
37
Chapter 3: Results
First, each scale was evaluated through Reliability analysis to ensure the scales were in the expected range of reliability. These results are presented in
Table 7.
Research Questions 1, 2, and 3
Next, correlations were computed between the scales according to
Research Questions 1-3. All variables were correlated with the Life Satisfaction
scores. The results are presented in Table 8.
Research Questions 3, 4, and 5
Following the correlation analysis, the primary focus of the paper was
addressed. First, regression analysis was performed to assess the degree to
which the Big Five variables predict Life Satisfaction yielding significant variance
(31.2%, p<.01) accounted for by all five Big Five Predictors entered in as a set.
These results can be found in Table 9. Next, stepwise Multiple Regression analysis was performed to assess the degree to which the Narrow Traits account for the variance in the Life Satisfaction scores. Narrow Traits were found to contribute 24.7% of the variance (p<.01) when considered as a set. These results can be found in Table 10. Finally, shown in Table 11, the traits associated with the VIA were found to account for 30.5% of the variance (p<.01).
All of the previously mentioned analyses were performed to be used as a
comparison in subsequent analyses.
38
Table 7: Trait, Source Measure and Reliability for Each Trait Used in Analysis Trait Measure Reliability Assertiveness Narrow Trait .78 Visionary Style Narrow Trait .77 Optimism Narrow Trait .85 Tough-Mindedness Narrow Trait .79 Work Drive Narrow Trait .84 Openness Big Five .75 Conscientiousness Big Five .79 Extraversion Big Five .82 Agreeableness Big Five .75 Emotional Stability Big Five .84 Perspective Positive Psychology .80 Curiosity Positive Psychology .81 Open-Mindedness Positive Psychology .82 Love of Learning Positive Psychology .82 Creativity Positive Psychology .87 Hope Positive Psychology .79 Gratitude Positive Psychology .85 Humor Positive Psychology .86 Beauty Appreciation Positive Psychology .60 Spirituality Positive Psychology .89 Self-regulation Positive Psychology .78 Forgiveness Positive Psychology .86 Prudence Positive Psychology .79 Modesty Positive Psychology .81 Fairness Positive Psychology .84 Leadership Positive Psychology .83 Citizenship Positive Psychology .76 Love Positive Psychology .81 Kindness Positive Psychology .85 Social Intelligence Positive Psychology .77 Vitality Positive Psychology .78 Persistence Positive Psychology .86 Integrity Positive Psychology .77 Bravery Positive Psychology .80
39 Table 8: Trait Correlations with Life Satisfaction Trait Measure Correlation with Life Satisfaction Assertiveness Narrow Trait .27** Visionary Style Narrow Trait .07 Optimism Narrow Trait .38** Tough-Mindedness Narrow Trait -.05 Work drive Narrow Trait .17* Openness Big Five .25** Conscientiousness Big Five .12 Extraversion Big Five .28** Agreeableness Big Five .17** Emotional Stability Big Five .47** Perspective Positive Psychology .36** Curiosity Positive Psychology .34** Open-Mindedness Positive Psychology .28** Love of Learning Positive Psychology .19** Creativity Positive Psychology .15* Hope Positive Psychology .43** Gratitude Positive Psychology .29** Humor Positive Psychology .29** Beauty Appreciation Positive Psychology .25** Spirituality Positive Psychology .24** Self-regulation Positive Psychology .42** Forgiveness Positive Psychology .35** Prudence Positive Psychology .29** Modesty Positive Psychology .22** Fairness Positive Psychology .37** Leadership Positive Psychology .37** Citizenship Positive Psychology .37** Love Positive Psychology .34** Kindness Positive Psychology .30** Social Intelligence Positive Psychology .28** Vitality Positive Psychology .44** Persistence Positive Psychology .36** Integrity Positive Psychology .36** Bravery Positive Psychology .31** * indicates significance at .05 level, **indicates significance at .01 level
40 Table 9: Results of Regression of the Big Five Only Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 All Big Five .559** .312** .312** **significant at .01 level
Table 10: Results of Regression of Narrow Traits Only Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 All Narrow Traits .559** .246** .246** **significant at .01 level
Table 11: Results of Regression of Positive Psychology Traits Only Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 All Pos. Psych. Traits .552** .305** .305** **significant at .01 level
41
Research Questions 7, 8 and 9
The next stage of the analysis deals with unique variance contributed by each major trait grouping: The Big Five, the narrow traits, and the Positive
Psychology traits. First, the Big Five were entered as a set, then the Positive
Psychology traits were allowed to enter to see what, if any, variance was uniquely accounted for by the Positive Psychology Traits above and beyond the
Big Five traits. The unique variance was computed in two ways. In the first method (Method A), all Big Five were allowed to enter as a set. In the second method (Method B), only the Big Five that significantly predicted Life Satisfaction were allowed to enter as a set. The first analysis yielded an increase of R- square value of 9.6% (p<.01) contributed by the trait of Love. The second method, in which only Emotional Stability and Extraversion were considered in the first set, yielded an increase of 9.9% (p<.01) contributed by the trait of Love.
Both of the methods’ results are presented in Table 12.
Using the same methodology as above, the Narrow Traits were allowed to enter as a set (Method A), and then only those that were significant (only
Assertiveness and Optimism) entered in as a set in Method B. The Positive
Psychology Traits were then allowed to enter as a set, producing slightly different results for Method A and Method B. The Positive Psychology traits again contributed unique variance, 15.8% (p<.01) and 15.2% (p<.01), for Method A and
B, respectively. For both Methods, Love, Self-Regulation, and Creativity contributed the unique variance. These results are presented in Table 13.
42 Table 12: Results of Hierarchical Regression of Big Five then Positive Psychology Traits Method A Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 All Big Five Traits .559** .312** .312** 2 Love .639** .408** .096** **significant at .01 level Method B Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 Emotional Stability .495** .246** .246** 2 Extraversion .533** .284** .038** 3 Love .619** .383** .099** **significant at .01 level Method A: All Big Five Traits entered as a set. Method B: Only significant Big Five Traits allowed into analysis.
Table 13: Results of Hierarchical Regression of Narrow Traits then Positive Psychology Traits Method A Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 All Narrow Traits .497** .247** .247** 2 Love ..572** .328** .081** 3 Self-Regulation .624** .390** .062** 4 Creativity .636** .405** .015** **significant at .01 level Method B Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 Assertiveness .345 .119 .119 2 Optimism .487 .238 .118 3 Love .568 .323 .085 4 Self-Regulation .615 .378 .055 5 Creativity .625 .390 .012 **significant at .01 level Method A: All narrow traits allowed to enter as a set. Method B: Only significant narrow traits allowed into analysis.
43 Using the same methodology again, the Big Five were entered into the model, and then the Narrow Traits were allowed to enter the Model. Lastly, the
Positive Psychology Traits were added to the model. The results showed that if all Big Five are entered as a set, the Narrow Traits do not add unique variance, but when the Positive Psychology traits are added to the model, Love increases the variance accounted for by 8.2%. When the second methodology is employed, only the Big Five Traits of Emotional Stability and Extraversion are entered in the first step. Love contributes 9.9% (p<.01) of unique variance in Life
Satisfaction. These results are presented in Table 14.
Table 14: Results of Hierarchical Regression of Big Five, then Narrow, then Positive Psychology Traits Method A Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 All Big Five .559** .312** .312** 2 All Narrow Traits .585** .342** .030** 3 Love .651** .424** .082** **significant at .01 level Method B Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction Step Variables Multiple R R2 R2 Change 1 Emotional Stability .495** .246** .246** 2 Extraversion .533** .284** .038** 3 Love .619** .383** .099** **significant at .01 level Method A: All Big Five and all narrow traits allowed to enter in sets. Method B: Only significant Big Five and narrow traits were entered into analysis.
44 Chapter 4: Discussion
The present results are mostly consistent with previous findings on the
relationship between life satisfaction and the Big Five Personality Factors. For
instance, the present study supports previous research which found that
Extraversion predicts Subjective Well-Being. (Diener & Larsen, 1993; Eysenck &
Eysenck 1985; Hotard, et al., 1989; Meyer & Shack, 1989; Myers, 1992; Myers &
Diener, 1995; Strelau, 1987; Thayer, 1989). Also, Emotional Stability was found
to predict Life Satisfaction, which supports the findings of Costa & McRae (1980,
1991). Also, the negative relationship between Emotional Stability and Life
Satisfaction was supported (Diener et al., 1992; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989, 1991;
Lounsbury, 2005; McCrae & Costa, 1991). There are other researcher’s findings,
however, which were not supported by the present research, namely the relationship between Conscientiousness and Life Satisfaction (DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998). Not only did Conscientiousness not uniquely predict Life
Satisfaction in the current study, but there was no significant correlation between
the two variables. The latter finding is contrary to the meta-analysis conducted
by DeNeve and Cooper (1998), in which they investigated Big Five and
Subjective Well-Being and found a .21 correlation (p< .01), which was the highest
of any of the other Big Five Variables. Also, Lounsbury found Conscientiousness
predicted Life Satisfaction (2004) and Subjective Well-Being (2005).
Furthermore, Agreeableness has been shown to be predictive of Life Satisfaction
(Lounsbury, 2004) and Subjective Well-Being (Lounsbury, 2005.) The current
45 study did not find that Agreeableness contributed significant variance when the
Big Five Personality traits were used as predictors.
Indeed, the concepts of Life Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being may be quite distinct from one another. Though one would expect that Subjective
Well-Being, sometimes conceptualized as “happiness,” would be strongly related to Life Satisfaction, the author submits that the appraisal of satisfaction with one’s life may be independent of feelings of happiness. That is, where as an individual may appraise satisfaction with life when estimating well-being, one may not consider happiness level when reporting life satisfaction. Further investigation is needed to make a clear distinction between these two related yet different facets of experience.
Regarding the Narrow Traits, some research was supported, like the findings that Optimism and Assertiveness are significantly predictive of Life
Satisfaction (Lounsbury, 2004); however, this study did not find that Work Drive and Tough-Mindedness contributed unique variance to the prediction of Life
Satisfaction. Research on the positive relationship between Optimism and Life
Satisfaction was supported (Lounsbury, 2003). Perhaps the most surprising finding was that the Narrow Traits did not add significant variance beyond the Big
Five when the Big Five was entered as a set. Lounsbury (2005) found additional unique variance contributed by Optimism and Tough-mindedness beyond that of the Big Five. In the present study, Narrow Traits did not add unique variance beyond the Big Five, supporting the notion that wider bandwidth traits are sufficient in explaining differences in Life Satisfaction.
46 All of the Positive Psychology traits were positively correlated with Life
Satisfaction. Particularly, Hope (.43), Self-regulation (.42) and Vitality (.44) had the highest correlations. Since Hope (Positive Psychology) and Optimism
(Narrow Trait) have very similar definitions, it is not surprising that their correlations to Life Satisfaction be very similar--.43 and .38, respectively.
Because the basic philosophy of the Positive Psychology movement implies, but does not specifically hypothesize, a positive relationship between Life
Satisfaction and each of the Positive Psychology Traits, this could be viewed as further support in the validity of the Positive Psychology movement. That is, not only are the Positive Psychology traits related to physical health (Carnethon et. al, 2003; Drossman, 1999; Jonas et. al, 1997; Richman et. al, 2005; Scharloo et. al, 2000; Vali & Walkup, 1998) and mental health (Diener, 2000; Myers, 2000;
Peterson, 2000) but also Life Satisfaction. Since Life Satisfaction has been found to be correlated with Subjective Well-Being (Lounsbury, 2004 & 2005) and
Subjective Well-being is often conceptualized as happiness (Diener, 1984), it follows that possessing higher scores on the VIA would indicate a happier person. To verify this hypothesis, further study would be required to either close the gap in conceptualizations of Life Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being, or make the case that these two concepts are highly related but different.
In considering the predictive abilities of the Positive Psychology Traits, one trait in particular showed unique additional variance in every analysis: Love.
Indeed, at each stage of analysis, Love emerged as adding significant unique
47 variance (See tables 12, 13 & 14.) The trait of Love as it is defined by the VIA is to value close relationships with others (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Such a result would suggest that not just having close relationships (perhaps a bi- product of a high score on this criterion), but valuing those relationships impacts one’s life satisfaction. The author believes an important distinction could be made when one discusses valuing close relationships as opposed to an objective measure such as number of close relationships. Also, a measure involving number of close relationships would involve Extroversion to some extent, where simply valuing close relationships need not involve being outgoing. The act of valuing relationships also can occur regardless of number of close relationships.
Indeed, the higher number of close relationships that an individual is part of may hinder the ability to maximize intimacy in any one given relationship (Gilman,
2001; McCamish-Svensson et. al, 1999; Van & Taryn, 1997.)
In summary, future research should address the similarities and differences of Life Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being to assess if these results were due to chance, or indicating a true distinction between the two variables. Also, though the Positive Psychology movement has received much empirical support during its limited research history, further research is needed to asses the degree to which the subjective evaluations of one’s traits correspond to more objective measures. Research that addresses individuals that score very high on any given traits, such as creativity, would be very valuable. The outliers of a given population may not have the demonstrated benefits of these traits, and
48 instead may find such aspects of their personality a hindrance on their Life
Satisfaction.
49
References
50 References
Abbey, A. & Andrews, F. (1985). Modeling the psychological determinants of life
quality. Social Indicators Research, 16, 1-34.
Adler, A. (1927). Understanding human nature. Oxford, England: Greenberg
Press.
Adler, A. (1939). Social interest: A challenge to mankind. J. Linton & R.
Vaughan (Trans.) New York: Putnam.
Allport, G. & Odbert, H. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological Monographs, 211, 171.
Amirkhan, J., Risinger, R., & Swickert, R. (1995). Extraversion: A “hidden”
personality factor in coping? Journal of Personality, 63, 189-212.
Andrews, F., & Withey, S. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s
perception of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes,
and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters most in college? Four critical years revisited.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, J. A. (1998). The social context of school satisfaction among urban, low-
income, African-American students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 25-
44.
51 Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Benjamin, M. & Hollings, A. (1995). Toward a theory of student satisfaction: An
exploratory study of the “quality of student life”. Journal of College
Student Development, 36, 574-586.
Berry D., & Hansen, J. (1996.) Positive affect, negative affect, and social
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 796-809.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and
accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 917-927.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American
life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carmichael, C., & McGue, M. (1994). A longitudinal family study of personality
change and stability. Journal of Personality, 62, 1-20.
Carnethon, M., Kinder, L., Fair, J., Stafford, R., & Fortmann, S. (2003).
Symptoms of depression as a risk factor for incident diabetes: Findings
from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-
up Study 1971-1992. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158, 416-423.
Cattell, R. & Kline, P. (1977). The scientific analysis of personality and
motivation. New York: Academic Press.
Cattell, R. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into
clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506.
52 Chickering, A. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Clark, L. & Watson, D. (1999). Personality, disorder, and personality disorder:
Toward a more rational conceptualization. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 13, 142-151.
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor
model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,
227-232.
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1984). Personality as a lifelong determinant of well-
being. (In C. Malatesta & C. Isard (Eds.), Emotion in adult development
(pp. 141-157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.)
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal
study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the Neo Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.
Costa, P. & Widiger, T. (Eds.) (2002). Personality Implications for future
research are discussed. disorders and the five-factor model of personality
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: APA.
53 Cronbach, L.J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper &
Row.
Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. (2005). Shared virtue: the
convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history.
Review of General Psychology, 9, 203-213.
DeNeve, K., and Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of
137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin,
124, 197-229.
Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful but are not enough: Lessons from
subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389-399.
Diener, E. & Larsen, R. (1993). The experience of emotional well-being. (In M.
Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 404-415). New
York: Guilford Press.)
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Diener, E. (1995). Subjective well-being in cross-cultural perspective. In H. Grad,
A. Blanco, & J. Georgas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International
Congress of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Swets & Zeitlinger.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a
proposal for a national index. American Psycholgist, 55, 34-43.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Fujita, F. (1992). Extraversion and
subjective well-being in a U.S. probability sample. Journal of Research in
Personality, 26, 205-215.
54 Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship
between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social
Indicators Research, 28, 195-223.
Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.
Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Digman, J. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.
Digman, J. M. (1979, October). The five major dimensions of personality
variables: Analysis of personality questionnaire data in the light of the five
robust factors emerging from studies of rated characteristics. (Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Multivariate
Experimental Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.)
Digman, J., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of
personality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.
Digman, J., & Takemoto-Chock, N. (1981). Factors in the natural language of
personality: Reanalysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major
studies. Multi-Variate Behavioral Research, 16, 149-170.
Drossman, D. (1999). Do psychological factors define symptom severity and
patient status in irritable bowel syndrome? American Journal of Medicine,
107, 41S-50S.
Edwards, J. & Walters, L. (1982). Involvement, ability, performance, and
satisfaction as predictors of college attrition. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 42, 1149-1152.
55 Eysenck H. & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A
natural science approach. New York: Plenum.
Eysenck, H. (1947). Dimensions of personality. Oxford, England: Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. (1970). The structure of human personality. New York, NY:
Methuen.
Eysenck, H. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Eysenck, H. & Eysenck, S. (1963). Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego,
CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Feist, G., Bodner, T., Jacobs, J., Miles, M., & Tan, V. (1995). Integrating top-
down and bottom-up structural models of subjective well-being: A
longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68, 138-150.
Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public school.
Teachers College Report, 87, 393-447.
Freud, S. (1924). Collected papers. New York: International Psychoanalytic
Press.
Friedman, H., Schwartz, J., Tomlison-Keasey, C., Tucker, J., Martin, L., Wingard,
D., & Criqui, M. (1995). Childhood conscientiousness and longevity:
Health behaviors and cause of death. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 696-703.
56 Friedman, H., Tucker, J., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J., Wingard, D., &
Criqui, M. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 176-185.
Gay, P. (1989). The Freud reader. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
Gilman, R. (2001). The relationship between life satisfaction, social interest, and
frequency of extracurricular activities among adolescent students. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 749-767.
Gohm, C. L., Hillier-Darlington, J., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). The effects of
marital conflict, marital status, and culture on the subjective well-being of
young adults. Manuscript for publication. University of Illinois.
Goldberg, L. (1981). Unconfounding situational attributions from uncertain,
neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of descriptions of
oneself and various types of others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 517-552.
Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five
factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-
1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language
of personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in
Personality Assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of marker variables for the Big-Five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
57 Gray, J. & Wilcox, B. (1995). Good school, bad school. Evaluating performance
and encouraging improvement. Bristol, UK: Open University Press.
Harring, M., Stock, W. & Okhun, M. (1984). A research synthesis of gender and
social class as correlates of subjective well-being. Human Relations, 37,
645-657.
Harvey, J. & Pauwels, B. (2004.) Modesty, humility, character strength, and
positive psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 620-
623.
Harvey, J. (2001). The psychology of loss as a lens to a positive psychology.
American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 835-853.
Heady, B. & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-
being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 731-739.
Heady, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up
theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 81-100.
Hogan, F. & Roberts, B. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth
trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627 - 637.
Hogan, R. & Hogan J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.
Hogan, R. & Roberts, B. (2001). Introduction: Personality and industrial and
organizational psychology. In R.T. Hogan and B.W. Roberts (Eds.),
Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 3-16). Baltimore: United
Book Press.
58 Hotard, S. R., McFatter, R. M., McWhirter, R. M., & Stegall, M. E. (1989).
Interactive effects of extraversion, neuroticism and social relationships on
subjective well-being. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 321-
331.
Intelligence, “Big Five” personality traits, and work drive as predictors of
course grade. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1231-1239.
John, O. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in
the natural language and in questionnaires. (In L.A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (66-100). New York:
Guilford Press.
Jonas, B., Franks, P., & Ingram, D. (1997). Are symptoms of anxiety and
depression risk factors for hypertension? Longitudinal evidence from the
National Health and Nutrition Examinations Survey Epidemiologic Follow-
Up Study. Archives of Family Medicine, 6, 43-49.
Jung, C. (1927). The structure of the psyche. In Collected works 8, 129-138.
Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. Oxford: Harcourt Brace.
Karatzias, A., Power, K., Flemming, J., Lennan, F. & Swanson, V. (2002). The
role of demographics, personality variables and school stress on
predicting school satisfaction/dissatisfaction: Review of the literature and
research findings. Educational Psychology, 22, 33-50.
Kelley, T. (2001). The need for a principle-based positive psychology. American
Psychologist, 56, 88-89.
59 Larsen, R. and Ketelaar, T. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility
to positive and negative mood induction procedures. Personality and
Individual Differences, 10, 1221-1228.
Larsen, R. and Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and
negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 132-140.
Lee, G., Seccombe, K., & Shehan, C. (1991). Marital status and personal
happiness: An analysis of trend data. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
53, 839-844.
Lounsbury, J. and Gibson, L. (2008). Transition to college assessment:
Technical summary. Knoxville, TN: Research Associates, Inc.
Lounsbury, J., Gibson, L., & Hamrick, F. (2004). The development of a
personological measure of work drive. Journal of Business Psychology,
18, 347-371.
Lounsbury, J., Saudargas, R., Gibson, L. & Leong, T. (2005). An investigation of
broad and narrow personality traits in relation to general and domain-
specific Life Satisfaction of college students. Research in Higher
Education.
Lounsbury, J., Sundstrom, E, Loveland, J., & Gibson, L. (2003a). Broad versus
narrow personality traits in predicting academic performance of
adolescents. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 65-75.
60 Lounsbury, J., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J., & Gibson, L. (2003). Intelligence,
“big five” personality traits and work drive as predictors of course grade.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1231-1239.
Lounsbury, J., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J., & Gibson, L. (2003b).
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and
neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046-1053.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY: Viking
Press.
Mastekaasa, A. (1992). Marriage and psychological well-being: Some evidence
on selection into marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 901-
911.
McCamish-Svensson, C., Samuelsson, G., Hagberg, B., Svensson, T. and
Dehlin, O. (1999). Social relationships and health as predictors of life
satisfaction in advanced old age: Results from a Swedish longitudinal
study. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 48, 301-324.
McCrae R. and Costa, P. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor
model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,
227-232.
61 McCrae, R. and Costa, P. (1985a). Openness to experience. In R. Hogan & W.
Jones (Eds.) Perspectives in Personality (Vol.1, pp. 145-172). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
McCrae, R. and Costa, P. (1985b). Updating Norman’s “adequate taxonomy”:
Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and
questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-
721.
McCrae, R. and Costa, P. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
McLafferty, C. & Kirylo, J. (2001). Prior positive psychologists proposed
personality and spiritual growth. American Psychologist, 56.
McNeil, K., Kozma, A., Stones, M. & Hannah, E. (1986). Measurement of
psychological hardiness in older adults. Canadian Journal on Aging, 5,
43-48.
Meyer, G. & Shack, J. (1989). Structural convergence of mood and personality:
Evidence for old and new directions. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 57, 691-706.
Mount, M., Barrick, M., & Stewart, G. (1998). Five-factor model of personality
and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human
Performance, 11, 145-165.
Myers, D. & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19
Myers, D. (1992). The pursuit of happiness: Who is happy and why. New York:
William Morrow.
62 Myers, D. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American
Psycholgist, 55, 56-67.
Norman, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:
Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Ones, D. & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality
measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17, 609-626.
Ormel, J. & Schaufeli, W. (1991). Stability and chance in psychological distress
and their relationship with self-esteem and locus of control: A dynamic
equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 288-
299.
Ormel, J. & Wohlfarth, T. (1991). How neuroticism, long-term difficulties, and life
situation change influence psychological distress: A longitudinal model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 744-755.
Pavot, W. and Diener. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Psychological Assessment, 5, 164-172.
Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A
handbook and classification. New York, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55.
63 Rantanen, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). The big five personality
dimensions, work-family conflict, and psychological distress. Journal of
Individual differences, 26, 155-166.
Richaman, L., Kubzansky, L., Maselko, J., Kawachi, I., Choo, P., & Bauer, M.
(2005). Positive emotion and health: Going beyond the negative. Health
Psychology, 24, 422-429.
Saucier, G. and Goldberg, L.R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical
perspectives on the five-factor model. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Scharloo, M., Kapstein, A., Weinman, J., Bergman, W., Vermeer, B., &
Rooijmans, H. (2000). Patients’ illness perceptions and coping as
predictors of functional status in psoriasis: A 1-year follow-up. British
Journal of Dermatology, 142, 899-907.
Scott, C. K. (1991). Marital status and well-being. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois.
Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical theory of communication.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Shapiro, S. (2001). Illogical positivism. American Psychologist, 56, 82.
Skinner, W. F. (1987). Educational social climates and delinquency in Iceland:
An integrated perspective. Acta Sociologica, 30, 67-86.
Spector, P.E. (1996). Introduction, point/counterpoint. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 17, 607.
64 Stewart, G. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing
differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 959-968.
Stock, W., Okun, M., Haring, M., & Witter, R. (1983). Age and subjective well-
being: A meta-analysis. (In R.J. Light (Ed.), Evaluation studies, Review
annual (Vol. 8, pp. 279-302). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.)
Strelau, J. (1987). Emotion as a key concept in temperament research. Journal
of Research in Personality, 21, 510-528
Tett, R., Jackson, D., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as
predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tupes, E. & Christal, R. (1958). Stability of personality trait rating factors
obtained under diverse conditions. USAF-Wright-Air-Development-Center-
Technical-Note. 16, 58-61.
Vali, F. & Walkup, J. (1998). Combined medical and psychological symptoms:
Impact on disability and health care utilization of patients with arthritis.
Medical Care, 36, 1073-1084.
Van, G. and Taryn, S. (1997) Examining the predictors of loneliness in fifth- and
sixth-grade females: Friendship type, friendship quality, and number of
friends. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering. 57, 5368.
65 Viken, R., Rose, R., Kapiro, J., & Koskenvuo, M. (1994). A developmental
genetic analysis of adult personality: Extraversion and neuroticism from 18
to 59 years of age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
722-730.
Watson D., Clark, L., McIntyre, C., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Affect, personality,
and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
1011-1025.
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and
negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and
daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1020-
1030.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of a
brief measure of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wehlage, G., Rutter, R., Smith, G., Lensko, N. & Fernandez, R. (1997).
Reducing the risk: Schools and communities of support. New York, NY:
Falmer Press.
Widiger, T., Trull, T., Clarkin, J., Sanderson, C., & Costa, P. (2002). A
description of the DSM-IV personality disorders with the five factor model
of personality. In P. Costa & T. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and
the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., p. 89-99). Washington, D.C.:
APA.
66 Wood, W., Rhodes, N. & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well
being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological
Bulletin, 106, 249-264.
Zimbardo, P. G. & Gerrig, R.J. (1996). Psychology and life (14th ed.). New
York: Harper Collins.
67
Vita
Sarah Elizabeth Connor was born in Bristol, Tennessee in 1979. She went to elementary school at Sullins Academy, middle school at Vance Junior High
School, and high school at Tennessee High School, where she graduated in
1997. She earned her Bachelor of Science Degree at Presbyterian College in
2001 and completed her Doctorate of Philosophy Degree form the University of
Tennessee in 2008.