Psychological Bulletin

© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 146, No. 4, 279 –323
ISSN: 0033-2909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226

Predicting Psychological and Subjective Well-Being From Personality:

A Meta-Analysis

Jeromy Anglim and Sharon Horwood Luke D. Smillie

Deakin University University of Melbourne

Rosario J. Marrero Joshua K. Wood

University of La Laguna Deakin University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This study reports the most comprehensive assessment to date of the relations that the domains and facets
of Big Five and HEXACO personality have with self-reported subjective well-being (SWB: life
satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) and psychological well-being (PWB: positive relations,
autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance, and personal growth). It presents a
meta-analysis (n ⫽ 334,567, k ⫽ 462) of the correlations of Big Five and HEXACO personality domains
with the dimensions of SWB and PWB. It provides the first meta-analysis of personality and well-being
to examine (a) HEXACO personality, (b) PWB dimensions, and (c) a broad range of established Big Five
measures. It also provides the first robust synthesis of facet-level correlations and incremental prediction
by facets over domains in relation to SWB and PWB using 4 large data sets comprising data from
prominent, long-form hierarchical personality frameworks: NEO PI-R (n ⫽ 1,673), IPIP-NEO (n ⫽ 903),
HEXACO PI-R (n ⫽ 465), and Big Five Aspect Scales (n ⫽ 706). Meta-analytic results highlighted the
importance of Big Five neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. The pattern of correlations
between Big Five personality and SWB was similar across personality measures (e.g., BFI, NEO, IPIP,
BFAS, Adjectives). In the HEXACO model, extraversion was the strongest well-being correlate.
Facet-level analyses provided a richer description of the relationship between personality and well-being,
and clarified differences between the two trait frameworks. Prediction by facets was typically around
20% better than domains, and this incremental prediction was larger for some well-being dimensions than
others.

Public Significance Statement

This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive and detailed overview of the substantial links between
personality traits and well-being. It is the first investigation to incorporate the two most widely
accepted frameworks for measuring personality (i.e., the Big Five and the HEXACO model) as well
as two of the most influential models of human well-being (i.e., subjective and psychological
well-being). Results of the meta-analysis provide important insights into the various pathways
through which people build well-being in their lives.

Keywords: Big Five, HEXACO, personality facets, psychological well-being, subjective well-being

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226.supp

Decades of research shows that personality traits play a critical Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). Many researchers assess the good life in
role in how we experience, approach, and appraise our lives terms of subjective well-being (SWB): a composite of life satis-
(DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Steel, faction, high levels of positive affect, and low levels of negative

This article was published Online First January 16, 2020. Data, scripts, materials, and supplemental analyses are available at
X Jeromy Anglim and Sharon Horwood, School of Psychology, Deakin https://osf.io/42rsy.
University; Luke D. Smillie, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, We are grateful to Jessie Sun and Ingo Zettler for their valuable feedback
University of Melbourne; Rosario J. Marrero, Department of Clinical on an initial draft of this article.
Psychology, Psychobiology, and Methodology, Faculty of Psychology, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeromy
University of La Laguna; X Joshua K. Wood, School of Psychology, Anglim, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000,
Deakin University. Geelong, 3220 Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

279
 280 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

affect (Diener, 1984). Whereas SWB largely avoids making as- research provides the most comprehensive assessment yet of how
sumptions about the causes of happiness, other conceptualizations personality traits are linked to indices of human flourishing.
of well-being draw more strongly on eudaimonic and humanistic
perspectives in conceptualizing well-being (Waterman, 1993). In Subjective and Psychological Well-Being
particular, the six-dimensional model of psychological well-being
(PWB) identifies a broader set of well-being dimensions, compris- Whereas previous studies have adopted a range of different
ing positive relations, autonomy, environmental mastery, personal perspectives on well-being (Diener & Choi, 2009; Diener, Oishi, &
growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance (Ryff, 1989). Previous Lucas, 2003; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Lucas & Diener,
research shows that major dimensions of personality are robustly 2008), we focus on the complementary perspectives of SWB and
associated with both SWB and PWB, along with other indices of PWB. Several decades ago, Ed Diener and colleagues operation-
human happiness (e.g., Anglim & Grant, 2016; Sun, Kaufman, & alized SWB as high life satisfaction combined with high levels of
Smillie, 2018). positive affect and low levels of negative affect (Deci & Ryan,
To date, most research examining the personality correlates of 2008; Diener, 1984; Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996). Contrastingly,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SWB has focused on the Big Five (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Steel Carol Ryff and colleagues have operationalized PWB using a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

et al., 2008). These five broad domains of personality emerged six-dimensional framework comprising positive relations, auton-
from decades of research seeking to identify the major lines of omy, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, and
covariation among trait terms, and provide a robust organizing self-acceptance (McGregor & Little, 1998; Ryan & Deci, 2001;
framework for personality psychology as a whole (Anglim & Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Definitions and example items for all of
O’Connor, 2019; John & Srivastava, 1999). However, the Big Five these dimensions are depicted in Table 1. Although all nine well-
domains do not provide—nor were they ever intended to pro- being dimensions have moderate to large intercorrelations, they
vide—a complete description of personality. Personality traits can each appear to capture discrete aspects of well-being (Anglim &
be hierarchically arranged at multiple levels both above (e.g., Grant, 2016; Sun et al., 2018).
Anusic, Schimmack, Pinkus, & Lockwood, 2009; DeYoung, 2006; Despite the influence of situational factors on short-term fluc-
Digman, 1997; Musek, 2007; Veselka et al., 2009) and below (e.g., tuation in mood, and the longer-term impact that significant life
events appear to have on well-being—for example, marital tran-
Costa & McCrae, 1995; DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007;
sition (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2003), acquiring a
Mõttus, Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, & McCrae, 2017; Mõttus,
disability (Lucas, 2007), or approaching death (Gerstorf et al.,
McCrae, Allik, & Realo, 2014) the five broad domains. In addi-
2008)—measures of well-being otherwise appear very stable over
tion, a prominent alternative to the Big Five, the six-factor
time (Fujita & Diener, 2005; Schimmack & Oishi, 2005). For
HEXACO model (Ashton, Lee, & De Vries, 2014), has received
example, in a recent, large panel study, Anglim, Weinberg, and
increasing interest and support. Researchers have thus begun to
Cummins (2015) obtained 8-year test–retest correlations for life
expand knowledge of the relation between personality and well-
satisfaction approaching .80. Furthermore, twin studies suggest
being by shifting to different levels in the personality trait hierar-
that SWB is reasonably heritable (Weiss, Bates, & Luciano, 2008).
chy within the Big Five, as well as within the HEXACO frame-
For example, in a large sample of Norwegian Twins, Røysamb, et
work (Aghababaei & Arji, 2014; Anglim & Grant, 2016; Marrero
al. (2018) found the twin-cotwin correlations for life satisfaction
Quevedo & Carballeira Abella, 2011; Schimmack, Oishi, Furr, & for monozygotic twins (r ⫽ .31) was much larger than for dizy-
Funder, 2004; Sun et al., 2018). gotic twins (r ⫽ .15). Grounded in the idea of the “hedonic
To strengthen and consolidate this emerging research, we aim to treadmill” (Brickman & Campbell, 1971), various set-point theo-
address several fundamental gaps in the literature. First, despite ries have been proposed to explain these findings. From this
meta-analytic work relating the Big Five domains to SWB (De- perspective, well-being is a homeostatic process that fluctuates
Neve & Cooper, 1998; Steel et al., 2008), no equivalent meta- around a relatively stable set-point (Cummins, 2015; Headey &
analysis has examined how the Big Five relates to PWB, or how Wearing, 1989, 1992). People differ in their set-points, and per-
the HEXACO model relates to either SWB or PWB. Second, the sonality describes the dispositional mechanisms that influence how
meta-analysis of Steel et al. (2008) focused exclusively on the people experience and perceive the world, which in turn influences
NEO and the meta-analysis of DeNeve and Cooper (1998) largely set-point dynamics (Headey & Wearing, 1989, 1992).
relied on categorizing personality measures that predated the Big
Five. Third, existing research examining facets of the Big Five and
their incremental prediction of well-being above and beyond the Descriptive Models of Personality Traits
Big Five domains suffers from several methodological limitations, Personality traits describe relatively stable patterns of affect,
including small sample sizes, biased statistics, invalid meta- cognition, and behavior. The early history of research on person-
analytically derived correlation matrices, and incomplete reporting ality traits was characterized by a huge proliferation of trait con-
(see the section below on Incremental Prediction for details; for a structs and scales to measure them. Subsequently, emerging from
critical review, see Anglim & Grant, 2014). Fourth, there has been the lexical tradition in the United States, the Big Five traits of
no robust examination of how facets of the HEXACO model map neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscien-
to dimensions of well-being. To address these gaps, we present a tiousness has functioned as a powerful synthesizing framework
meta-analysis that synthesizes the existing literature, and a sys- (Costa & MacCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & John, 1992).
tematic examination of the data sets with the largest sample sizes However, the Big Five is not the only game in town. In particular,
that have examined facet-level associations of Big Five and the six-factor HEXACO model, derived from the same lexical
HEXACO frameworks with both SWB and PWB. We believe this approach but in different (European and East Asian) language
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 281

Table 1
Components and Sample Items for Personality, SWB, and PWB

Construct Components/sample items

Big Five
Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Hostility, Depression, Self-consciousness, Impulsiveness, Vulnerability to Stress
Aspects: Withdrawal, Volatility
Extraversion Facets: Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement Seeking, Positive Emotion
Aspects: Enthusiasm, Assertiveness
Openness Facets: Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values
Aspects: Openness/Creativity, Intellect
Agreeableness Facets: Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Tendermindedness
Aspects: Politeness, Compassion
Conscientiousness Facets: Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving, Self-Discipline, Deliberation
Aspects: Orderliness, Industriousness
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

HEXACO
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Honesty-humility Sincerity, Fairness, Geed Avoidance, Modesty

Emotionality Fearfulness, Anxiety, Dependence, Sentimentality
Extraversion Social Self-Esteem, Social Boldness, Sociability, Liveliness
Agreeableness Forgiveness, Gentleness, Flexibility, Patience
Conscientiousness Organization, Diligence, Perfectionism, Prudence
Openness Aesthetic Appreciation, Inquisitiveness, Creativity, Unconventionality
Interstitial traits Altruism
SWB
Satisfaction with life e.g., “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”; “I am satisfied with my life”
Positive affect Frequency of experiencing positive emotions in the last few weeks/months/etc.: e.g.,
“interested,” “excited,” “strong,” “enthusiastic”
Negative affect Frequency of experiencing negative emotions in the last few weeks/months/etc.: e.g.,
“depressed,” “upset,” “guilty,” “scared”
PWB
Positive relations e.g., “Most people see me as loving and affectionate”; “I enjoy personal and mutual
conversations with family members or friends”
Autonomy e.g., “Sometimes I change the way I act or think to be more like those around me” (R); “My
decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing”
Environmental mastery e.g., “In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live”; “The demands of
everyday life often get me down” (R)
Personal growth e.g., “I am not interested in activities that will expand my horizons” (R); “In general, I feel that
I continue to learn more about myself as time goes by”
Purpose in life e.g., “I feel good when I think of what I’ve done in the past and what I hope to do in the
future”; “I live life one day at a time and don’t really think about the future” (R)
Self-acceptance e.g., “When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out”; “I
feel like many of the people I know have gotten more out of life than I have” (R)
Note. Sample items are from Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), and
Ryff’s measure of PWB (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). PANAS ⫽ positive and negative affect schedule; PWB ⫽ psychological well-being; SWB ⫽ subjective
well-being; R ⫽ reversed item.

groups, has emerged as a prominent alternative to the Big Five (see negative emotions of anxiety and fearfulness as well as more
Ashton et al., 2004; De Raad et al., 2014; Lee & Ashton, 2004; neutral emotional tendencies such as dependence and sentimental-
Saucier, 2009). HEXACO is an acronym for the six broad traits of ity. In general, conscientiousness, openness, and extraversion in
honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, con- the HEXACO framework are notionally close analogues to their
scientiousness, and openness. Big Five equivalents (e.g., cross-correlations all above .75 for the
There are strong similarities but also important differences NEO-PI R, Gaughan et al., 2012).
between the Big Five and the HEXACO models (Ashton & Lee, Both Big Five and HEXACO models are hierarchical frame-
2005; Ashton et al., 2014; Gaughan, Miller, & Lynam, 2012; works, where each broad domain is characterized by a set of
Ludeke et al., 2019). In particular, Big Five agreeableness and narrower traits or facets (see Table 1; for discussion see Anglim &
neuroticism are repartitioned in the HEXACO model to form the O’Connor, 2019). In the context of the Big Five, a range of
three domains of honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotional- facet-level frameworks have been proposed (e.g., Soto & John,
ity. Honesty-humility, characterized by integrity and modesty, is 2017), but the most popular hierarchical framework in research
negatively correlated with antisocial personality traits (e.g., within settings has been the NEO Model which characterizes the Big Five
the Dark Triad framework; Lee & Ashton, 2014) and positively in terms of 30 facets (Costa & McCrae, 1995). This model can be
correlated with the modesty and straightforwardness facets from measured using the NEO PI-R, NEO PI-3, or the IPIP NEO (a
Big Five agreeableness (Ashton & Lee, 2005). HEXACO agree- public domain equivalent). More recently, an intermediate level
ableness captures patience, forgiveness, and a disposition to not between facets and domains has been proposed, whereby each Big
experience anger toward others. Emotionality includes both the Five domain is divided into two trait ‘aspects’ (DeYoung et al.,
 282 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

2007). Unlike the facets of the Big Five, the aspects were derived DeNeve and Cooper (1998). However, Steel and colleagues re-
empirically, informed by quantitative genetic models and other stricted their focus to NEO personality measures, which represents
considerations, and are thus purported to less arbitrarily cut nature only a fraction of the Big Five personality measures used in
at the joints. The HEXACO model also has a hierarchical repre- research. It is presently unknown whether the results of Steel et al.
sentation that includes 25 facets and six domains (four facets for (2008) generalize to a wider range of Big Five measures. Further-
each domain and one interstitial facet; Lee & Ashton, 2018). more, no meta-analysis exists relating the Big Five to the six
dimensions of PWB and no meta-analysis exists relating
Personality Traits and Well-Being: What We HEXACO domains to either SWB or PWB. Fortunately, as a result
of growing interest in these associations, there are now a sufficient
Know So Far
number of primary studies to make such a meta-analysis worth-
Most research on the relation between personality and well- while. Such an examination would complete the mapping of
being has focused on the Big Five and the three dimensions of HEXACO and Big Five domains onto the dimensions of SWB and
SWB (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Steel et al., 2008). The results of PWB and provide a more robust assessment of the relationship
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Steel et al. (2008) were a watershed in this literature, as by this between Big Five personality and SWB.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

time the Big Five was sufficiently well-established, whereas the

earlier meta-analysis by DeNeve and Cooper (1998) required Research Question 1: What are the meta-analytic correlations
many stand-alone traits to be identified by the authors as proxies of of the HEXACO and Big Five personality domains with SWB
Big Five domains. Focusing exclusively on studies using the Costa and PWB?
and McCrae’s NEO, Steel et al. (2008) found that neuroticism was
the strongest correlate of SWB followed by extraversion and then Beyond Domains: How Well Do Narrow Traits
conscientiousness. The research also highlighted the unique profile
Predict Well-Being?
of correlations across the dimensions of SWB where, for example,
relatively larger correlations are seen between neuroticism and Several researchers have also considered the role of narrow
negative affect, extraversion and positive affect, and openness and traits of the Big Five in predicting well-being. Some of this
positive affect. research has focused on life satisfaction (Schimmack et al., 2004;
Although no equivalent meta-analysis exists in relation to PWB, Steel et al., 2019), SWB (Marrero Quevedo & Carballeira Abella,
an emerging literature of primary studies has examined correlates 2011; Steel et al., 2008), or both SWB and PWB (Anglim & Grant,
with the Big Five (e.g., Grant, Langan-Fox, & Anglim, 2009; 2016; Marrero, Rey, & Hernández-Cabrera, 2016; Sun et al.,
Schmutte & Ryff, 1997; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006). Initial 2018). Such research has often highlighted facets such as depres-
research has highlighted the importance of neuroticism, extraver- sion and positive emotions as important predictors, which in turn
sion, and conscientiousness in predicting PWB. Some research has highlighted how construct overlap may be relevant. This
suggests that the Big Five may predict PWB more strongly than research fits into a broader literature discussing the importance of
SWB (Anglim & Grant, 2016). Importantly, each of the six scales narrow traits in providing a more nuanced perspective on criteria
have particular Big Five traits that appear to correlate more prom- of interest (Anglim & Grant, 2014; Anglim & O’Connor, 2019;
inently (Anglim & Grant, 2016; Grant et al., 2009; Meléndez, Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013; Mõttus et al.,
Satorres, Cujiño, & Reyes, 2019; Sun et al., 2018), for instance, 2017; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001;
agreeableness and extraversion with positive relations, openness Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). It also relates to several unanswered
with personal growth, and conscientiousness with purpose in life. questions about the relative predictive validity of broad and nar-
However, meta-analytic estimates are needed to provide a more row traits, and the need for more empirical evidence regarding
definitive assessment of these unique cross-correlations. the factors that influence the degree of incremental prediction at
More recently, researchers have correlated the six HEXACO the facet-level. Such factors may include personality-criteria
personality domains with dimensions of SWB and PWB (Agha- correspondence, choice of hierarchical personality framework,
babaei, 2014; Aghababaei & Arji, 2014; Aghababaei et al., 2016; sample characteristics, criteria characteristics, and measure-
MacInnis, Busseri, Choma, & Hodson, 2013; Pollock, Noser, ment approaches.
Holden, & Zeigler-Hill, 2016; Romero, Villar, & López-Romero, In contrast to the Big Five, no robust facet-level analysis of the
2015; Sibley, 2011; Visser & Pozzebon, 2013). Perhaps the most HEXACO model and well-being has been conducted. Importantly,
prominent difference seen in the results of these studies, com- reliable estimation would require large samples and the use of the
pared to those based on the Big Five, is that HEXACO extra- eight-item per facet HEXACO 200 (Anglim & O’Connor, 2019).
version is the main correlate of well-being, whereas emotion- At present, the best available data come from a facet-level analysis
ality has a much weaker relationship. A comparative facet-level performed by Aghababaei (2014) who correlated the facets of the
analysis of HEXACO and Big Five correlates would assist in HEXACO 60 (i.e., two or three items per facet) with a single item
understanding these differences. measure of life satisfaction in a sample of 288 students. They
Despite several existing meta-analyses mapping the Big Five found that social self-esteem and liveliness had notably stronger
domains with dimensions of SWB (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; correlations than the other HEXACO extraversion facets. The
Steel, Schmidt, Bosco, & Uggerslev, 2019; Steel et al., 2008), agreeableness facet of patience and the honesty-humility facet of
there is a need for an updated meta-analysis of the relationship fairness were also notably larger than other facets in their respec-
between the Big Five and SWB. The results of Steel et al. (2008) tive HEXACO domains. Also using the HEXACO 60, Aghababaei
suggested much stronger and more nuanced relationships between and Arji (2014) report correlations (n ⫽ 215) just for the honesty-
personality and well-being than implied by the meta-analysis of humility facets with PWB dimensions and life satisfaction. They
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 283

found that sincerity and fairness tended to have slightly larger ased estimates of population variance explained is essential, and
correlations with PWB than the facets of greed-avoidance and one reasonable approach is to use an adjusted r-squared correction.
modesty. This is particularly important in the context of domain and facet
Although these studies have provided important insights, they regression comparison because of the large difference in the num-
have not satisfied the methodological requirements for a robust ber of predictors.
assessment of facet-level correlations and the incremental predic- Fourth, Steel and colleagues (Steel et al., 2008, 2019) have
tion of facets (Anglim & Grant, 2014; Anglim & O’Connor, 2019). conducted meta-analytic regression models to estimate facet-
First, facets and domains need to be measured reliably. In partic- level prediction. However, because researchers rarely report
ular, a valid assessment of incremental prediction by facets re- facet-level intercorrelations, these meta-analytic facet-level re-
quires reliable measurement of the variance in facets not shared gressions have to rely on sources other than the primary studies
with personality domains. This is best achieved through the use of (e.g., test manuals). Facet-level correlations vary from study to
long-form measures of personality such as the HEXACO 200, IPIP study and the inability to accurately represent multicollinearity
300, and NEO PI R 240. Second, large samples are also required.
can dramatically inflate or distort variance explained in regres-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

A comprehensive examination of the facet-level correlates of

sion equations. This is already problematic for meta-analytic
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

HEXACO with well-being should also help to explain the differ-

regression involving the Big Five domains, and is of more
ences between the HEXACO and Big Five frameworks. Further-
serious concern for regressions comprising 30 highly correlated
more, relatively little research has systematically examined facet-
facet predictors.
level correlates between Big Five and SWB/PWB. Some studies
have suffered from small sample sizes, and there is a need for a Finally, the few studies that have compared domain and facet
consistent data analytic approach. In particular, examining semi- regression models predicting life satisfaction using the NEO
partial correlations between facets and criteria, after overlap with framework, and reasonable sample sizes have obtained the follow-
broad traits is removed provides a powerful way to identify which ing domain and facet adjusted r-squared values, respectively: .40
facets provide unique prediction. Thus, there is a need for large versus .52 with n ⫽ 337 (Anglim & Grant, 2016); .16 versus .22
sample studies combining different personality frameworks in- with n ⫽ 554 (based on stepwise facet regression, Marrero
cluding the Big Five and HEXACO perspectives. Quevedo & Carballeira Abella, 2011); and .24 versus .32 with n ⫽
1,516 (Røysamb et al., 2018). Thus, an increase in prediction by
Research Question 2: What are the correlations of the facets relative to domains of between 20% and 60% seems more
HEXACO and Big Five personality facets with SWB and likely for life satisfaction. Beyond life satisfaction, Anglim and
PWB? Grant (2016) also examined incremental prediction in relation to
the nine SWB and PWB variables. Although their sample size was
Incremental Prediction of Facets Over Domains too small to yield precise estimates, they found some evidence for
levels of incremental prediction varying across outcomes whereby
Beyond estimating facet-level correlates, the degree to which life satisfaction, autonomy, purpose in life, and self-acceptance
facets provide incremental prediction of well-being remains a had relatively more incremental prediction.
fundamental question. In particular, incremental prediction of fac- In summary, the question of incremental prediction of facets
ets overs domains is important for justifying the loss of parsimony over domains in relation to well-being remains unanswered, and
that results from facet-level analyses. The degree to which facets methods for synthesizing research findings regarding incremental
incrementally predict well-being has been actively debated in the prediction are still in their infancy. We propose that in addition to
literature, especially in relation to life satisfaction (Anglim & measuring criteria of interest, primary studies need to measure
Grant, 2016; Steel et al., 2008, 2019). Although some data suggest reliable full-length hierarchical measures of personality (i.e., typ-
that the variance explained in life satisfaction might double at the ically 8 or more items per facet), and they need to provide (a) raw
facet-level (Marrero Quevedo & Carballeira Abella, 2011; Steel et
data, (b) a full intercorrelation matrix between facets, domains,
al., 2008, 2019; Stephan, 2009), we suspect that the incremental
and criteria, or (c) a valid estimate of incremental variance
prediction, though substantial, may be more modest than these data
explained consistent with the approach adopted in the meta-
suggest. First, Marrero Quevedo and Carballeira Abella (2011)
analysis; that is, typically this would be the difference in
compared predictive validity of the NEO Big Five with a model
adjusted r-squared between domain and facet regression mod-
that includes both the 30 facets of the NEO as well as optimism,
self-esteem, and social support (i.e., variables outside the NEO els, but other approaches such as bifactor models also have
framework). When focusing only on the 30 facets, incremental merit (Anglim, Morse, De Vries, MacCann, & Marty, 2017;
prediction was around 50%. Second, Stephan (2009) examined the Chen, Hayes, Carver, Laurenceau, & Zhang, 2012). In addition,
incremental validity of facets only with respect to their parent particularly large samples are needed when estimating incre-
domain (i.e., the facets of openness were compared only to the mental prediction of facets with the necessary precision. By
domain of openness). However, this approach does not control for obtaining such data, it would be possible to estimate incremen-
overlap that facets have with all other domains. It therefore risks tal prediction of facets in each sample, and synthesize these
overestimating incremental variance explained by facets. Third, findings. Such research could examine how incremental predic-
some early literature using small sample sizes (e.g., ⬍200) com- tion of facets varies across well-being scales (e.g., SWB and
pared unadjusted r-squared values of domain versus facet regres- PWB scales), personality questionnaires (e.g., IPIP NEO vs.
sion models. As discussed in Anglim and Grant (2014), applying NEO PI), personality frameworks (Big Five vs. HEXACO), and
a correction for the number of predictors in order to obtain unbi- target populations.
 284 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Research Question 3: What is the relative prediction of broad Cooper, 1998; Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004; Lucas & Fujita,
and narrow personality traits in relation to SWB and PWB and 2000; Steel et al., 2008, 2019).
how does this vary across the Big Five and HEXACO? After merging the above sources and removing obvious dupli-
cates, the Combined Dataset consisted of 2472 articles. Based on
The Present Research title and abstracts screening, the full-text was examined for 60.5%
of these articles.
In seeking to answer these three research questions, the overall In addition to the articles that met the inclusion criteria, a further
objective of this research is to thoroughly describe relations that 249 articles were identified where relevant variables were mea-
the domains and facets of HEXACO and Big Five personality have sured but the correlations were not reported or not completely
with the dimensions of SWB and PWB. To achieve these aims, we reported. The corresponding author of each of these articles was
conducted a set of comprehensive analyses of published domain- sent an e-mail inviting them to provide either the correlation
level correlations and facet-level data sets. To understand domain- matrix or the data from which we could compute the correlation
level correlations (RQ1), we conducted a meta-analysis of the matrix. When a working corresponding author’s e-mail could not
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

domain-level correlates of HEXACO and Big Five personality be found, another author or Doctoral supervisor was emailed.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

with the dimensions of SWB and PWB. Contacted authors also provided several additional studies that met
To provide a systematic assessment of facet-level correlations the inclusion criteria of our meta-analysis. Several of these addi-
(RQ2) and incremental prediction of facets-over-domains (RQ3) tional studies were unpublished or from articles where the corre-
across well-being measures and various Big Five and HEXACO lations were not reported. This process of contacting authors
frameworks, we adopted a multipronged approach. This included resulted in 68 additional studies being included in the meta-
collecting new data, reanalyzing partially reported raw-data, merg- analysis (11 supplied data; 57 supplied correlation matrices).
ing data sets where equivalent measures were used, and analyzing Several additional sources of correlations were as follows: We
complete correlation matrices where these were reported. All of obtained correlations from six studies in which the correlation
the data sets involved included (a) the nine well-being variables, matrices were not otherwise published that were reported in the
(b) reliable, full-length personality measures, and (c) moderate to meta-analysis on personality and various forms of satisfaction by
large sample sizes. Importantly, the combined sample size of these Heller et al. (2004). We included the domain-level correlations
data sets is an order of magnitude larger than previous attempts to from the two facet-level studies reported in the current paper that
estimate incremental prediction of facets, and will thus provide the have not previously been reported (i.e., the Combined Dataset and
first robust examination of that question. the NEO Dataset). We also computed correlations for six studies
that did not report correlation matrices but included a dataset with
Method the publication (e.g., data on the OSF, PlosOne, other data repos-
itory).
All data, scripts, materials, and supplemental analyses are avail-
After collating the studies, 17 studies were excluded for one of
able on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/42rsy.
the following reasons. First, studies were excluded if they reported
correlations that used a sample that overlapped with another study.
Meta-Analysis This was common with large panel studies such as the GSOEP,
Our meta-analysis served to estimate cross-sectional self-report HILDA, BHPS, and MIDUS as well as some individual small-
relations that the HEXACO and Big Five Domains have with SWB scale studies. In these cases, we sought to retain the article that
and PWB. provided the most comprehensive study in terms of sample and
measurement. Second, several studies were excluded because they
used nonstandard measurement of personality or well-being that
Literature Search
was not initially excluded by our exclusion rules, but were flagged
The literature search sought to identify any study that reported because they produced outlier correlations (e.g., IPIP HEXACO,
a correlation between Big Five or HEXACO Personality and the asking about life satisfaction in the past, etc.). Third, we excluded
dimensions of SWB or PWB. The final literature search reported studies that had outlier correlations combined with other concerns
in this paper was conducted in August, 2019. Keyword searches about data integrity. In several studies, there were strong indi-
were conducted in Scopus and PsycINFO, which included disser- cators that a large proportion of participants were not complet-
tations and foreign language articles. The primary search sought to ing the study conscientiously as evidenced by use of samples
identify articles that included (a) at least one personality-related such as Mechanical Turk, very large average correlations be-
keyword indicating that the Big Five or HEXACO was used, tween the Big Five (e.g., above .6), exclusion of large numbers
which included any personality domain name (e.g., extraversion, of participants due to failing attention checks combined with
neuroticism, honesty-humility) or a common test or framework attention checks that would not be sufficient to identify all
name (e.g., BFI, NEO, HEXACO, Big Five, Big 5, FFM, Five nonconscientious responders, and relatively undifferentiated
Factor Model, etc.), (b) the word personality, and (c) a well-being personality–well-being correlations. Other indicators of con-
related term (e.g., SWB, PWB, subjective well-being, life satis- cern included correlations close to zero between well-being
faction, satisfaction with life, positive affect, negative affect, etc.). variables and poorly written articles.
Second, a search for well-being related terms was performed on The final cleaned database consisted of 377 articles and 462
the more than 600 HEXACO-related references listed on http:// studies. Note that in six samples both HEXACO and Big Five
hexaco.org/references. Third, references from key meta-analyses personality were measured, and these were treated as two
on personality and well-being were included (i.e., DeNeve & separate studies. Likewise, some articles reported correlations
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 285

separately for different groups (e.g., males and females; pa- a few other focused scales. We excluded any life satisfaction
tients and controls), and these were also treated as separate measure which included a broader set of well-being indicators.
studies. Articles were retained if they reported a correlation To be included, positive affect and negative affect needed to be
between a relevant personality variable (i.e., HEXACO or Big measured as the sum of items asking about the frequency of
Five) and a relevant well-being variable. In order to focus our experiencing a set of positive and negative emotions, respectively.
primary meta-analytic estimates on studies that used reliable The vast majority (86%) of studies used the PANAS (Watson,
measures, we classified correlations into core and noncore. If Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) or a variant of the PANAS. We excluded
the personality trait was measured with eight or more items and studies that measured affect using experience sampling methods
the well-being dimension was measured with five or more because there was a lack of standardization in how affect was
items, the correlation was classified as core. For reporting measured and aggregated to the person-level. We also excluded
purposes, we classified a study as core if it had one or more core measures of affect that were obtained following experimental
correlations. Sixteen studies had a mix of core and noncore manipulation or that were in response to stimuli.
correlations. To be included, PWB needed to be measured using an official
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Importantly, in recent years there has been a proliferation of measure of Ryff’s conception of the six dimensions of PWB. This
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

short-form measures of personality (e.g., TIPI, BFI 10, Mini-IPIP, mostly included 42-, 54-, and 84-item versions of Ryff’s scales and
etc.). There are also a wide range of short-form adaptations used in their translations. We focused exclusively on the six scales and not
individual studies. In contrast, studies classified as core tended to overall measures of PWB.
use reliable, well-validated and well-established measures of per-
sonality and well-being. The focus on these core studies also
Data Extraction
makes results more comparable across the Big Five and HEXACO,
where HEXACO personality is typically measured with 60, 100 For each included study, we extracted the following study
and 200 item formats. It also enables more direct comparison with features: sample size, personality measure, life satisfaction
the meta-analysis by Steel et al. (2008) which focused exclusively measure, positive affect measures, PWB measure, proportion
on the NEO where the most common formats involve 12 (NEO female, mean age, country of sample, type of sample (e.g.,
FFI) and 48 (NEO PI R) items per factor, respectively. It also university students, Mechanical Turk, Workers, Community,
reduces the need to rely on problematic assumptions related to etc.), the source of the correlations (e.g., from the article,
estimating reliability and correcting for measurement error. None- provided following correspondence with author, etc.), reference
theless, we do report results for the full set of studies in the section details, and additional notes. Correlations were extracted by
on moderator analysis. copying the correlation matrix into Excel, extracting the corre-
lations in the order they appeared in the correlation matrix and
then using data transformations to convert into a standardized
Eligibility Criteria and Data Coding Procedures
order. All study feature and correlation extraction was per-
Several criteria needed to be satisfied for correlations to be formed by the first- and fifth-author of this paper. All correla-
retained in the meta-analysis. For consistency, the study needed to tions were extracted by one author and checked for accuracy by
involve self-report measurement of both personality and well- the other. To further identify data entry errors, reporting errors
being. Second, personality needed to be measured with either a by original authors, and problematic studies, we obtained
standard measure of the HEXACO (e.g., HEXACO 60, 100, 192, z-scores for all correlations by correlation type (i.e., there were
200, etc.) or a measure explicitly designed to assess the Big Five. 99 different types of correlations based on the 11 personality
We excluded the one study by Churchyard, Pine, Sharma, and traits and 9 well-being variables). We closely examined corre-
Fletcher (2014) that used the IPIP HEXACO, largely because this lations with absolute z-scores larger than 2.5. In a few cases,
is based on an early model of HEXACO that excluded social researchers had made an error in reporting their correlations
self-esteem. This also resulted in the exclusion of studies that used (e.g., omitting the minus sign on correlations with neuroticism)
the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) or the Eysenck Person- and this was corrected. In other cases, we examined the study
ality Questionnaire (EPQ). Detailed meta-analysis of the EPI and more carefully and identified indicators that the study was
EPQ are already available in Steel et al. (2008), and we wanted to problematic (nonconscientious participants; failure to exhibit
focus on measures that were explicitly designed to partition per- universal features of correlations in this area such as correla-
sonality trait variance into the Big Five or HEXACO. We similarly tions between well-being), and these studies were excluded as
excluded measures that can be scored to derive a Big Five measure described earlier.
but were not designed to measure the Big Five.
Third, the well-being measure needed to be designed to measure
Data Analytic Approach
satisfaction with life, positive affect, negative affect (i.e., SWB) or
the six scales of Ryff’s measure of PWB. In relation to life Meta-analytic correlations were estimated using a random-
satisfaction, we sought to only include pure measures of life effects model using the metafor package in R (Viechtbauer,
satisfaction. Life satisfaction was typically (82%) measured using 2010). The standard deviation of true effect sizes (i.e., ␶) was
Diener’s Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & estimated using restricted maximum-likelihood estimation.
Griffin, 1985). We also included single-item measures of life Meta-analytic estimates were obtained using both observed
satisfaction, composite measures of life satisfaction that sum sat- correlations and correlations corrected for measurement error.
isfaction with various life domains (e.g., Personal Well-Being Relatively few studies provided scale-level reliability informa-
Index), modified versions of the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and tion, so we relied on more general sources based on the test
 286 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

used, and where this was not available we estimated reliability Combined dataset. We conducted a new study in which me
as the average reliability for tests in the database with equiva- measured the HEXACO PI R, the IPIP NEO, and both SWB and
lent numbers of items per factor. PWB. This enabled (a) the first rigorous estimate of HEXACO
correlates of SWB and PWB at the facet-level, (b) a more robust
assessment of the correlates of the IPIP NEO with SWB and PWB,
Facet-Level Analysis (c) clarity regarding the similarities and differences between the
Identifying data sets. To provide a comprehensive assess- HEXACO and IPIP NEO frameworks, and (d) an opportunity to
ment of facet-level correlates and incremental prediction, we examine the combined prediction of HEXACO and the IPIP NEO.
sought to identify all studies that had included a hierarchical The final sample consisted of 465 Australian university students
measure of personality that enabled reliable facet-level measure- (79% female; age in years M ⫽ 25.1, SD ⫽ 7.8, range: 18 to 56),
ment, and that included measurement of SWB and PWB. In order based on an initial sample of 578, from which 113 cases were
to estimate incremental prediction, we needed to have either (a) the dropped because of incomplete data. Because of the large number
raw data, (b) the full correlation matrix between facets, domains, of items, data was collected online over two sessions. In the first
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

session, participants completed demographics, the 300-item IPIP

and criteria, or (c) the adjusted r-squared values for the domain and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

personality measure, the well-being measures, and measures that

facet regression equations. Based on these criteria, we identified
did not form part of this study (i.e., problematic smartphone usage,
three existing data sets that could be analyzed: the NEO Dataset
reported in Horwood & Anglim, 2018; Horwood & Anglim, 2019).
(Marrero et al., 2016), the IPIP NEO Dataset (Anglim & Grant,
In the second session, completed on average 28 days later, partic-
2016), and the Big Five Aspects Dataset (Sun et al., 2018). We
ipants completed the 200-item HEXACO PI R.
also conducted an additional study that measured 200-item
IPIP dataset. This sample (n ⫽ 903) combines data from three
HEXACO PI R, 300-item IPIP NEO, and well-being. Importantly,
related sources. First, it uses the IPIP NEO data from the Com-
this study provided a facet-level assessment using the HEXACO
bined Dataset (n ⫽ 465). Second, it includes cases from the
model, and substantially increased the sample size for the IPIP
Combined Dataset that were excluded because they did not have
NEO. The resulting four data sets each provide the large samples
matching HEXACO data (n ⫽ 102). Finally, 336 cases were
needed for assessment of incremental variance explained by facets
obtained from Anglim and Grant (2016), which was also based on
over domains.
an Australian university student sample and used identical mea-
We note that the identification of the above data sets was based
sures of personality (i.e., the 300 item IPIP NEO Inventory) and
on a systematic search of studies measuring personality facets with well-being to those used in the Combined Study.
any measure of SWB or PWB. Common issues included (a) very HEXACO dataset. This is the Combined Dataset focusing on
small sample sizes for estimating incremental prediction (e.g., the HEXACO-PI-R data (n ⫽ 465).
under 200), (b) only partial measurement of facets, (c) focus on a Big Five aspects dataset. A study by Sun et al. (2018) exam-
limited set of well-being measures (e.g., only life satisfaction was ined the Big Five Aspects in relation to SWB and PWB across two
common), (d) use of nonstandard measures of PWB, (e) the study samples (n1 ⫽ 205, n2 ⫽ 501). We pooled the correlations across
was a meta-analysis, (f) the study was a reanalysis of existing data, the two data sets by weighting correlations by their respective
or (g) the personality assessment had poor facet-level psychomet- sample sizes, giving a final sample size of 706. Although Sun et al.
ric properties. We briefly note two relevant data sets that did (2018) reported the variance explained by the 10 aspects, they did
involve large samples. First, Røysamb et al. (2018) does provide a not report the variance explained by the Big Five. Thus, we sought
valid estimate of incremental prediction of life satisfaction by the to compute this value and thereby assess the incremental predic-
NEO PI-R. However, they did not measure any other well-being tion of the 10 aspects over and above the Big Five. We calculated
indicators. Second, Romero et al. (2015) reported domain-level adjusted r-squared using the setCor function in the psych package
correlations (but nothing at the facet-level) between personality in R (Revelle, 2018) which enables regression analyses to be
(HEXACO 100 and NEO PI-R) and dimensions of SWB and performed on correlation matrices.
PWB. However, we were unable to obtain the data or full facet-
level correlations needed to estimate incremental prediction in this
dataset. Measures
Data sets. Satisfaction With Life Scale. This well-established five-item
NEO dataset. Participants were 1,673 Spanish adults (52% measure (Diener et al., 1985) provides a measure of overall life
female; age in years M ⫽ 38.9, SD ⫽ 13.3, range: 17 to 89). satisfaction. Items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly
Participants were recruited by university students instructed to disagree, 2 ⫽ disagree, 3 ⫽ slightly disagree, 4 ⫽ neither agree
target participants of different ages and professions. Participants nor disagree, 5 ⫽ slightly agree, 6 ⫽ agree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree).
completed Spanish translations of the NEO PI R and well-being The scale score was the mean of items. The NEO Dataset used the
measures, administered individually. Although a subset of this data Spanish version of the measure (Vázquez, Duque, & Hervás,
was analyzed in Marrero et al. (2016), facet-level correlations and 2013), and the English version was used in all other data sets.
incremental prediction by facets were not reported. Thus, the Positive and negative affect. The IPIP, HEXACO, and NEO
analyses presented here are novel. Moreover, this is the largest data sets measured positive and negative affect using the PANAS
sample yet reported examining a hierarchical measure of person- (Watson et al., 1988). The PANAS consists of two scales that
ality in combination with a full set of SWB and PWB measures. measure the frequency with which positive and negative affect is
This large sample is particularly crucial for deriving precise esti- experienced. In the current study, participants were asked about
mates of incremental prediction. how frequently they had experienced the emotions in the past few
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 287

weeks. The 20 items each concerned a different emotion and were rials, we report semipartial correlations that remove the shared
rated on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ very slightly or not at all, 2 ⫽ a little, variance between the facet and the five domain-level personality
3 ⫽ moderately, 4 ⫽ quite a bit, 5 ⫽ extremely). Scales were factors. They provide an estimate of the unique prediction pro-
scored as the mean of items. The NEO Dataset used a version of vided by the facets over and above the domains. The square of the
the measure translated into Spanish by Marrero et al. (2016). The semipartial correlation is equivalent to the percentage of incremen-
Big Five Aspects Dataset measured positive and negative emotions tal variance explained by a regression model that adds the facet of
using six-items from the PERMA-Profiler (Butler & Kern, 2016). interest (e.g., gregariousness) as a predictor to one with only the
Psychological well-being. Ryff’s (1989) scales were used to domains (e.g., the Big Five). Incremental prediction of facets over
measure the six proposed dimensions of psychological well-being. domains was obtained by taking the difference in the adjusted
Items were rated on a 6-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 2 ⫽ r-squared values for a regression model with domains as predictors
disagree somewhat, 3 ⫽ disagree slightly, 4 ⫽ agree slightly, 5 ⫽ to one with facets as predictors.
agree somewhat, 6 ⫽ strongly agree). The scale consisted of
positively and negatively worded items, and scale scores were the Results
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

mean after item reversal. The NEO Dataset used the 84-item
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Spanish translation of Ryff’s PWB measure (Díaz et al., 2006).

The IPIP and HEXACO data sets used the standard 84-item
Summary of the Literature
version. The Big Five Aspects data sets included two samples, A summary of the studies included in the meta-analysis is
where Sample 1 used the 54-item version and Sample 2 used the provided in Table 2, with further details provided in the OSF
42-item version. repository. In total, the meta-analysis included 4,153 correlations
NEO personality. The NEO Dataset measured the Big Five (3,246 core; 907 noncore). Table 3 provides an overview of the
and 30 Facets of the NEO model of personality using the official included studies for the combined, core, and noncore samples. The
Spanish translation of the 240-item Revised NEO Personality combined sample consisted of 462 studies and a total sample of
Inventory. Four items were excluded because of low corrected- 334,567 participants. Most scales of personality measures involved
item-total correlations (⬍.20). 8 to 15 items. The most common personality frameworks were the
IPIP NEO personality. The IPIP and Combined Data Sets NEO and the BFI. The number of studies that met the inclusion
measured the 30 facets and five domains of the NEO model (Costa criteria has grown dramatically since the meta-analysis by Steel et
& McCrae, 2008) using the 300 item IPIP-NEO Inventory (Gold- al. (2008). More studies were from the 5-year period from 2010 to
berg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006). Items were rated on a 5-point 2014 than from before 2010, and in the last 4.5 years the number
scale (1 ⫽ very inaccurate, 2 ⫽ moderately inaccurate, 3 ⫽ of studies per year has increased even further. This may reflect the
neither inaccurate nor accurate, 4 ⫽ moderately accurate, 5 ⫽ general growth in science, the expanding number of journals,
very accurate). Scale scores were the mean after any item reversal. the accessibility of international journals and PhD theses, and the
The scales have an average correlation with corresponding NEO- increasing popularity of the Big Five, the PANAS, and life satis-
PI-R scales of .73, or .94 when corrected for measurement error faction measurement.
(Goldberg, 1999).
HEXACO personality. The HEXACO Dataset measured
Meta-Analytic Correlations
personality traits using the full-length 200-item version of the
HEXACO PI-R (Ashton et al., 2014; Lee & Ashton, 2004, 2006). Table 4 provides an overall summary of the meta-analytic
The measure consists of six domain scales and 25 facet scales. correlations between personality and well-being based on the core
Each domain scale consists of four facet scales, and there is one studies. Detailed reporting of the meta-analytic observed and
interstitial facet, altruism. Participants responded to items on a reliability-corrected correlations between Big Five and SWB (see
scale from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree. Scale Table 5), Big Five and PWB (see Table 6), HEXACO and SWB
scores were obtained as the mean of items after any necessary item (see Table 7), and HEXACO and PWB (see Table 8) are presented
reversal. To increase comparability with the Big Five, a HEXACO for the core studies.
Neuroticism factor was computed as weighted composite facets as Overall, the average correlation between personality domains
set out in Lee and Ashton (2013): HEXACO Neuroticism ⫽ and well-being was .28. If negative affect is reversed, the mean
Fearfulness ⫹ 3 ⫻ (Anxiety) ⫹ Dependence ⫹ 3 ⫻ (6 – Social meta-analytic correlation averaged over the nine well-being indi-
Self-Esteem) ⫹ (6 – Liveliness) ⫹ (6 – Patience) ⫹ (6 – Pru- cators for the Big Five domains were ⫺.46 (neuroticism), .37
dence). (extraversion), .19 (openness), .25 (agreeableness), and .36 (con-
Big Five aspects personality. In the Big Five Aspects Data- scientiousness). The corresponding values for HEXACO domains
set, the five domains and 10 aspects were measured using the were .16 (honesty-humility), ⫺.16 (emotionality), .48 (extraver-
100-item Big Five Aspect Scales (DeYoung et al., 2007). The Big sion), .18 (agreeableness), .28 (conscientiousness), and .16 (open-
Five Aspect Scales were developed using items from the IPIP. The ness). Thus, for the Big Five, neuroticism was the strongest cor-
response scale ranged from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly relate followed by extraversion and conscientiousness; correlations
agree. for openness and agreeableness were more moderate. For
Data analytic approach. We broadly followed the method- HEXACO, extraversion was clearly the strongest correlate. As
ology for reporting facet-level correlations and incremental pre- discussed earlier, although the content of HEXACO emotionality has
diction set out in Anglim and Grant (2014). For each personality some similarity with Big Five neuroticism, it also has important
measure we report zero-order correlations between facets and the differences, and thus it is perhaps not surprising that it had a much
dimensions of SWB and PWB. In the online supplemental mate- weaker correlation with well-being. HEXACO conscientiousness and
 288 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 2
Summary of Studies Included in Meta-Analysis

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Aghababaei and Arji (2014) Big 5 Study 3 215 IPIP 10 D W 61 22 IR C FA

Aghababaei and Arji (2014) HEXACO
Study 3 215 HEXACO 10 D W 61 22 IR C FA
Aghababaei et al. (2016) Sample 1 422 HEXACO 10 D 70 23 IR C FA
Aghababaei et al. (2016) Sample 2 221 HEXACO 10 D 77 22 PL C FA
Aghababaei et al. (2016) Sample 3 255 HEXACO 10 D 76 24 MY C FA
Aghababaei et al. (2016) Sample 4 251 HEXACO 10 D W 68 22 IR C FA
Aghababaei et al. (2016) Sample 5 226 HEXACO 10 D W 91 20 PL C FA
Ahadi and Puente-Díaz (2011) Study 1 107 NEO 36 D P P 50 20 US C FA
Ahadi and Puente-Díaz (2011) Study 2 88 NEO 36 D P P 62 21 US C FA
Albrecht, Dilchert, Deller, and Paulus
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(2014) 913 NEO 48 D 32 37 C FA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Albuquerque, de Lima, Matos, and

Figueiredo (2012) 398 NEO 48 D P P 72 41 PT C FA
Alfonsi, Conway, and Pushkar (2011) 341 NEO 12 P 53 59 CA C FA
Anand, Vidyarthi, Singh, and Ryu (2015) 756 NEO 12 D 58 39 US C FA
Anglim and Grant (2016) 337 NEO 60 D P P W 76 21 AU C FA
Anglim and Horwood (2019) Big 5 465 NEO 60 D P P W 79 25 AU C FA
Anglim and Horwood (2019) HEXACO 465 HEXACO 32 D P P W 79 25 AU C FA
Anwar (2017) 274 BFI 9 P P 22 47 PK C FA
Austin, Saklofske, and Mastoras (2010) 475 Adjectives 8 D P P 70 21 CA C FA
Aykaç et al. (2011) 131 HEXACO 32 D 51 32 GB C FA
Baltes, Zhdanova, and Clark (2011) 289 IPIP 10 P 61 38 US C FA
Barr (2018) 142 BFI 9 P P 98 AU C FA
Baselmans et al. (2019) 8,622 NEO 12 D 36 42 NL C FA
Baudin, Aluja, Rolland, and Blanch (2011) 313 NEO 48 D 26 23 FR C FA
Bauer and McAdams (2010) 145 BFI 9 D P P 74 20 US C CA
Beer, Watson, and McDade-Montez (2013) 395 BFI 9 P P 50 32 US C DA
Belsky, Crnic, and Woodworth (1995)
Fathers 69 NEO 36 P P 0 31 US C FA
Belsky et al. (1995) Mothers 69 NEO 36 P P 100 28 US C FA
Benet-Martínez and Karakitapoğlu-Aygün
(2003) Asian 199 BFI 9 D 59 20 US C FA
Benet-Martínez and Karakitapoğlu-Aygün
(2003) European 122 BFI 9 D 59 20 US C FA
Benotsch, Lutgendorf, Watson, Fick, and
Lang (2000) 198 BFI 9 P P 52 54 US C CA
Bianchi, Rolland, and Salgado (2018) Men 222 NEO 12 D 0 43 FR C FA
Bianchi et al. (2018) Women 941 NEO 12 D 100 43 FR C FA
Biderman, McAbee, Job Chen, and Hendy
(2018) Big 5 1,195 NEO 12 P P 76 20 US C FA
Biderman et al. (2018) HEXACO 1,195 HEXACO 16 P P 76 20 US C FA
Blatný, Millová, Jelínek, and Osecká
(2015) 138 NEO 12 D 61 40 CZ C FA
Bogin (2018) 283 Adjectives 8 D 67 18 US C FA
Boland and Cappeliez (1997) 113 NEO 36 D 100 73 CA C FA
Bono (2011) 228 NEO 12 D US C FA
Boudreau, Boswell, and Judge (2001)
Americans 1,885 NEO 12 D 10 47 US C FA
Boudreau et al. (2001) Europeans 1,871 NEO 12 D 6 42 C FA
Brajša-Žganec, Ivanović, and Lipovčan
(2011) 392 IPIP 10 D P P 50 20 HR C FA
Bratko and Sabol (2006) 1,166 IPIP 10 D 66 26 HR C FA
Brenner, St-Hilaire, Liu, Laplante, and
King (2011) Community 29 NEO 12 D 29 28 CA C FA
Brenner et al. (2011) Schizophrenia 30 NEO 12 D 30 20 CA C FA
Burles et al. (2014) 179 NEO 60 P P 75 20 CA C CA
Burton, Plaks, and Peterson (2015) Study 1 619 BFAS 20 D 55 32 US C FA
Burton et al. (2015) Study 2 700 BFAS 20 D 52 33 US C FA
Bye and Pushkar (2009) 385 NEO 12 P P 52 60 CA C FA
Cabrera-Darias and Marrero-Quevedo
(2015) Online 108 NEO 48 D P P 71 36 ES C FA
Cabrera-Darias and Marrero-Quevedo
(2015) Paper 45 NEO 48 D P P 71 36 ES C FA
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 289

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Caprara, Fratte, and Steca (2002) Females 300 Other 12 D 100 17 IT C FA

Caprara et al. (2002) Males 292 Other 12 D 0 17 IT C FA
Caprara et al. (2012) Study 3 3,589 Other 12 D 58 39 IT C FA
Caprara et al. (2012) Study 5 Italy 689 Other 12 D 56 19 IT C FA
Caprara et al. (2012) Study 5 Japan 281 Other 12 D 60 20 JP C FA
Caprara et al. (2012) Study 5 Spain 302 Other 12 D 64 28 ES C FA
Carmona-Halty and Rojas-Paz (2014) 235 Other 19 D 34 21 CL C FA
Carrillo, Prado-Gascó, Fiszman, and Varela
(2012) 356 BFI 9 D 24 24 ES C FA
Castro Solano and Cosentino (2018) 302 BFI 9 D 52 39 AR C CA
Cellini, Duggan, and Sarlo (2017) 498 BFI 9 P P 71 27 IT C FA
Chambers (2004) 238 NEO 12 D P P 0 30 C FA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Chan, Luciano, and Lee (2018) 349 BFI 9 D P P 55 62 C CA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Chen and Carey (2009) 113 NEO 12 D 54 20 HK C FA

Chen (2011) 107 NEO 48 D 63 35 US C FA
Chen, Hayes, Carver, Laurenceau, and
Zhang (2012) 383 NEO 48 D P P 58 19 US C FA
Chen (2015) 371 NEO 12 D P P 75 21 CN C FA
Choi and Lee (2014) 373 IPIP 10 D 23 33 KR C FA
Clark, Lelchook, and Taylor (2010) 322 IPIP 10 P P 73 24 US C FA
Clifton et al. (2019) Study 2 562 BFI 9 D O O 51 37 US C CA
Compton, Smith, Cornish, and Qualls
(1996) 338 NEO 36 D 39 26 US C FA
Costa and MacCrae (1992) 364 NEO 48 O O C FA
Cotter and Fouad (2011) 172 NEO 12 D 67 21 US C FA
Courneya et al. (2000) 56 NEO 12 D O O 41 60 CA C FA
Cowan (2019) 159 NEO 12 D 64 56 US C FA
Crouch (2016) 562 NEO 12 D 41 21 US C FA
Crowe, LoPilato, Campbell, and Miller
(2016) 914 IPIP 12 D P P 62 34 US C CA
de Frias, Dixon, and Bäckman (2003) 528 NEO 36 O O 67 68 CA C FA
De Gucht, Fischler, and Heiser (2004) 377 NEO 12 P P 73 44 C FA
Delfabbro, Winefield, Anderson,
Hammarström, and Winefield (2011) 2,266 NEO 12 O 60 15 AU C CA
Di Fabio and Saklofske (2014) 164 Other 12 D 56 18 IT C FA
Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2015) 168 Other 12 D P 63 20 IT C FA
Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, and Bucci (2017) 258 Other 12 D 41 46 IT C FA
Di Fabio and Kenny (2018) 241 Other 12 D P P 63 24 IT C FA
Di Nuovo (2009) 1,080 Other 12 D 50 IT C FA
Dimotakis, Conlon, and Ilies (2012) 112 NEO 48 P 39 21 US C FA
Donofrio (2005) 138 NEO 48 D 75 33 US C FA
Drezno, Stolarski, and Matthews (2019) 379 IPIP 10 D 34 36 PL C FA
Drobnjaković, Dinić, and Mihić (2017)
Study 1 400 HEXACO 16 P P 74 RS C DA
Drobnjaković (2019) 377 HEXACO 10 P P 49 33 RS C DA
Dumitrache et al. (2015) 400 NEO 12 D W 62 75 ES C CA
Egan, Chan, and Shorter (2014) 860 IPIP 10 D 69 30 I C CA
Etxeberria, Urdaneta, and Galdona (2019)
65 to 84 155 NEO 12 D P P 58 74 ES C FA
Etxeberria et al. (2019) 85 to 104 102 NEO 12 D P P 61 94 ES C FA
Fagley (2012) 243 BFI 9 D 63 23 US C CA
Fagley (2018) 236 BFI 9 P P 64 19 US C FA
FitzMedrud (2009) 119 NEO 12 D P P 82 35 US C FA
Fortunato (2002) 206 Adjectives 8 D 34 50 US C FA
Fossum and Barrett (2000) Sample 1 205 NEO 48 P P 71 US C FA
Fossum and Barrett (2000) Sample 2 241 NEO 48 P P 65 US C FA
Fowler, Davis, Both, and Best (2018) 448 BFI 9 D 75 29 CA C FA
Fox and Moore (2019) 142 NEO 12 P P 70 21 I C CA
Froehlich (2005) 350 NEO 12 D 0 US C FA
Furr and Funder (1998) 146 NEO 36 D 56 US C FA
Galea (2014) 121 BFI 9 D 65 MT C FA
Ganginis Del Pino (2012) 305 BFI 9 D 100 38 US C FA
Gannon and Ranzijn (2005) 191 NEO 12 D 67 36 AU C FA
Garcia and Erlandsson (2011) 151 NEO 48 D 67 23 SE C FA
Garcia (2011) 98 NEO 48 D P P 68 17 SE C FA
(table continues)
 290 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Goldberg et al. (2017) 156 BFI 9 P P W 62 19 US C DA

Golden (2002) 321 Adjectives 16 D 19 51 US C FA
Gore et al. (2014) Study 2 260 IPIP 10 D 71 US C FA
Grady (1996) 140 NEO 48 P P 100 39 CA C FA
Graham (2012) Entrepreneurs 88 NEO 12 D 25 US C FA
Graham (2012) Students 102 NEO 12 D 54 17 US C FA
Grant, Langan-Fox, and Anglim (2009) 211 NEO 12 D P P W 58 36 AU C FA
Guilera et al. (2018) 364 BFI 9 D 60 38 ES C AD
Gutiérrez, Moreno-Jiménez, Hernández,
and Puente (2005) 236 NEO 12 O O 86 35 ES C FA
Habarth (2009) 576 Adjectives 8 D 55 45 US C FA
Halama and Dědová (2007) 148 NEO 12 D 51 17 SK C FA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Halama (2010) 451 NEO 12 D 52 20 SK C FA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Harris (2002) 147 BFI 9 D P P 74 22 US C FA

Hart (1999) Wave 1 282 NEO 48 D 10 34 AU C FA
Hayes and Joseph (2003) 129 NEO 12 D 58 38 GB C FA
Hébert and Weaver (2014) 270 HEXACO 10 D 62 25 I C FA
Heller, Judge, and Watson (2002) 159 NEO 12 D P P US C FA
Heller (2004) 76 BFI 9 D P P 80 US C FA
Hemenover (2001) 236 NEO 48 P P 71 20 US C FA
Hengartner, Graf, and Schreiber (2017) 831 IPIP 48 O O 66 34 CH C FA
Henriett (2018) 421 BFI 9 D 61 24 HU C FA
Herringer (1998) 162 NEO 48 D 65 22 US C FA
Hill and Allemand (2011) 962 BFI 9 D O O 57 52 CH C FA
Hirsh, Guindon, Morisano, and Peterson
(2010) 137 BFI 9 P P 72 20 CA C CA
Hofer, Busch, and Kiessling (2008) 131 NEO 12 D W 55 25 DE C FA
Hogan (2006) 318 IPIP 10 P P 85 60 US C FA
Holder, Love, and Timoney (2015) 437 NEO 12 D P P 69 20 CA C CA
Hossack (1997) 520 NEO 12 D 50 CA C FA
Howell (2006) 314 BFI 9 D 62 19 US C FA
Hudson and Roberts (2014) 264 BFI 9 D 53 19 US C FA
Hutz, Midgett, Pacico, Bastianello, and
Zanon (2014) American 179 NEO 48 D P P 63 25 US C FA
Hutz et al. (2014) Brazilian 168 Other 25 D P P 60 22 BR C FA
Ioannidis and Siegling (2015) 203 BFI 9 P P 71 23 GB C FA
Isaacowitz and Smith (2003) 516 NEO 36 P P 85 DE C FA
Işık and Üzbe (2015) 335 Adjectives 8 P P 57 46 TR C FA
Jacques-Hamilton, Sun, and Smillie (2019) 223 BFAS 20 D P P 68 23 AU C AD
Jaksic et al. (2015) 319 IPIP 10 D 58 44 HR C CA
James, Bore, and Zito (2012) 150 IPIP 20 D 53 21 AU C FA
Jensen, Kirkegaard Thomsen, O’Connor,
and Mehlsen (2019) 259 NEO 12 D 44 DK C FA
Jibeen (2014) 251 NEO 12 D 39 30 PK C FA
Johnson (2003) 140 NEO 48 P P US C FA
Jokela, Bleidorn, Lamb, Gosling, and
Rentfrow (2015) 56,019 BFI 9 D 63 33 GB C FA
Jones, Hill, and Henn (2015) 207 Other 12 W 59 ZA C FA
Joshanloo and Afshari (2011) 235 BFI 9 D 74 21 IR C FA
Jovanovic (2011) 225 Other 10 D 56 24 RS C FA
Jovanović (2014) 380 Other 10 D P P 59 22 RS C CA
Jovanović (2019) 500 BFI 9 D 68 17 RS C FA
Kahlbaugh and Huffman (2017) 49 BFI 9 P P 65 74 US C FA
Kahn and Hessling (2001) 278 NEO 12 P P 52 20 US C FA
Kämpfe and Parriaux (2010) Sample 1 467 NEO 12 D 56 26 DE C FA
Kämpfe and Parriaux (2010) Sample 3 679 NEO 12 D P P 69 28 DE C FA
Kaynak (2018) Older 61 Other 15 P P 48 78 TR C FA
Kaynak (2018) Younger 64 Other 15 P P 52 21 TR C FA
Kirkland, Gruber, and Cunningham (2015)
Sample 1 Students 352 BFAS 20 P P 61 19 US C FA
Kirkland et al. (2015) Sample 2 MTurk 459 BFAS 20 P P 62 33 US C FA
Kirkland et al. (2015) Sample 3 MTurk 178 BFAS 20 P P 58 34 US C FA
Kjell, Nima, Sikström, Archer, and Garcia
(2013) Iranian 122 BFI 9 D P P W 59 15 IR C FA
Kjell et al. (2013) Swedish 109 BFI 9 D P P W 65 17 SE C FA
Kluemper (2008) 180 NEO 12 D 42 27 US C FA
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 291

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Kokinda (2011) 108 Adjectives 8 D 73 38 US C FA

Kong, Wang, Hu, and Liu (2015) 274 NEO 24 D 54 CN C CA
Kong, Zhao, You, and Xiang (2019) 136 NEO 12 D 40 CN C CA
Kovacs (2007) 450 NEO 12 D 57 22 US C FA
Koydemir and Schütz (2012) German 101 BFI 9 D P P 68 24 DE C FA
Koydemir and Schütz (2012) Turkey 86 BFI 9 D P P 55 22 TR C FA
Krick and Felfe (2019) 259 NEO 12 P P 21 26 DE C CA
Kwan, Bond, and Singelis (1997)
American 184 NEO 12 O 71 22 US C FA
Kwan et al. (1997) Hong Kong 194 NEO 12 O 55 22 HK C FA
Lang, Lüdtke, and Asendorpf (2001) 480 BFI 9 P P 56 DE C FA
Langvik, Hjemdal, and Nordahl (2016) 372 NEO 12 P P 76 22 NO C FA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Lee, Sudom, and Zamorski (2013) 1,584 BFI 9 P 0 26 CA C FA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Letrzing (2019) 206 BFI 9 D P P W 68 39 US C DA

Letzring (2015) 152 IPIP 10 D P P 64 25 US C DA
Lightsey et al. (2013) 199 BFI 9 P P 69 24 US C FA
Lodewyk (2018) 300 HEXACO 16 P 51 CA C FA
Lönnqvist and große Deters (2016) Study 1 153 BFI 9 D P P 61 20 US C FA
Lönnqvist and große Deters (2016) Study 2 187 BFI 9 D 79 24 DE C FA
López et al. (2015) 1,643 NEO 12 P P 55 55 NL C AD
Lounsbury, Tatum, Chambers, Owens, and
Gibson (1999) 249 NEO 12 O 67 22 US C HM
Lucas and Fujita (2000) Study 2 142 NEO 36 P 73 US C FA
Lucas and Fujita (2000) Study 3 212 NEO 12 P 62 US C FA
Lucas and Fujita (2000) Study 5 221 NEO 36 P 61 US C FA
MacCann, Lipnevich, Burrus, and Roberts
(2012) 354 IPIP 24 O 52 16 US C FA
MacInnis, Busseri, Choma, and Hodson
(2013) 245 HEXACO 10 O P P 88 20 CA C FA
Mangino (2018) 220 IPIP 20 D 56 US C FA
Marcionetti and Rossier (2016) 437 NEO 12 D 47 13 CH C FA
Margolis, Schwitzgebel, Ozer, and
Lyubomirsky (2019) Study 1 504 BFI 12 D P P W 51 35 C CA
Margolis et al. (2019) Study 2 303 BFI 12 D P P W 45 32 I C CA
Margolis and Lyubomirsky (2019) 129 BFI 12 D O O 69 19 US C CA
Marrero Quevedo and Carballeira Abella
(2011) 554 NEO 48 D P P 64 28 ES C FA
Marrero (2019) 1,673 NEO 48 D P P W 52 39 ES C FA
Marshall et al. (1992) Sample 1 346 NEO 12 P P 0 20 US C FA
Marshall et al. (1992) Sample 2 543 NEO 12 P P 0 19 US C FA
Martin, Nejad, Colmar, and Liem (2013) 969 Other 8 D 48 14 AU C FA
McCrae and Costa (1991) 364 NEO 36 O O O 47 US C FA
McCullough et al. (2002) Study 2 1,179 Adjectives 8 D 84 45 I C HM
McKay (2017) Big 5 127 IPIP 24 D P P 61 22 US C FA
McKay (2017) HEXACO 127 HEXACO 10 D P P 61 22 US C FA
Meléndez, Satorres, Cujiño, and Reyes
(2019) 618 NEO 12 D P P W 64 70 CO C FA
Mellor, Cummins, Karlinski, and Storer
(2003) 45 NEO 12 O 96 45 AU C FA
Michel and Clark (2013) 380 IPIP 10 P P 54 36 US C FA
Miciuk, Jankowski, and Oleś (2016) 130 NEO 12 D 62 25 PL C FA
Miciuk, Jankowski, Laskowska, et al.
(2016) 200 NEO 12 D 50 23 PL C FA
Mongrain, Barnes, Barnhart, and Zalan
(2018) 648 BFI 9 D 67 32 I C FA
Morris, Burns, Periard, and Shoda (2015) 337 NEO 48 D P P 66 20 US C FA
Morrison (1997) 307 NEO 12 D 12 US C FA
Murray (2002) 7,133 IPIP 10 D 50 52 AU C HM
Musek (2007) 301 BFI 9 D P P 40 37 SI C FA
Navarro-Prados, Serrate-Gonzalez, Muñoz-
Rodríguez, and Díaz-Orueta (2018) 342 NEO 12 D 66 68 ES C FA
Neff, Rude, and Kirkpatrick (2007) 177 NEO 12 D P P 71 20 US C FA
Ng, Russell Kua, and Kang (2019) 507 IPIP 10 O O O 51 43 SG C FA
Novak et al. (2017) 117 BFI 9 P P 43 57 US C FA
Novakov and Popovic-Petrovic (2017) 40 BFI 9 P P 100 55 RS C FA
Novoa and Barra (2015) 353 BFI 9 D 53 20 CL C FA
(table continues)
 292 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

O’Rourke (2004) 192 NEO 12 D 100 61 I C CA

O’Rourke (2005) 208 NEO 12 D O O 54 64 CA C FA
Odacı and Çikrikçi (2018) 620 BFI 9 D 74 21 TR C FA
Oken et al. (2017) 134 NEO 12 P P 80 60 US C CA
Olesen, Thomsen, and O’Toole (2015) 1,181 NEO 12 D P P 59 22 DK C FA
Osma et al. (2018) 428 NEO 12 P P ES C CA
Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2012) 181 BFI 9 P P 52 36 CA C FA
Parker, Martin, and Marsh (2008) 523 NEO 12 D 70 22 AU C FA
Paulson and Leuty (2016) 270 IPIP 10 P P 42 33 US C FA
Pavani et al. (2017) 78 NEO 60 O O 62 45 FR C FA
Pazda and Thorstenson (2018) 262 NEO 12 P P 68 US C FA
Petrides, Pita, and Kokkinaki (2007) 274 Other 40 D 66 26 GR C FA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Kandler et al. (2017) 576 NEO 48 D 58 37 US C AD

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Plopa, Plopa, and Skuzińska (2017) 359 NEO 12 D 81 39 PL C FA

Pollock, Noser, Holden, and Zeigler-Hill
(2016) 149 HEXACO 10 D P P 47 34 US C FA
Pratt (2006) 305 IPIP 10 P P 62 36 US C FA
Purvis, Howell, and Iyer (2011) Sample 1 1,858 Adjectives 8 D P P 73 29 US C FA
Purvis et al. (2011) Sample 2 1,065 BFI 9 D 56 41 I C FA
Pychyl and Little (1998) 81 NEO 36 D O O 56 35 CA C FA
Qing-Guo, O’Shea, Bajpai, Bajpai, and
Yu-Bo (2011) 818 BFI 9 O 44 34 CN C FA
Ramanaiah, Detwiler, and Byravan (1995) 245 NEO 36 D 55 23 US C HM
Ro (2011) Study 1 429 BFI 9 D W 65 25 US C FA
Ro (2011) Study 2 181 BFI 9 W 75 41 US C FA
Robinson, Goetz, Wilkowski, and Hoffman
(2006) Study 1 246 IPIP 10 P P 74 US C FA
Robinson et al. (2006) Study 2 68 IPIP 10 P P 72 US C FA
Romero, Luengo, Gómez-Fraguela, and
Sobral (2002) 324 NEO 48 P P 36 16 ES C FA
Romero, Villar, Luengo, and Gómez-
Fraguela (2009) 405 NEO 48 D P P 61 32 ES C FA
Romero, Gómez-Fraguela, and Villar
(2012) 583 NEO 48 D P P 72 35 ES C FA
Romero, Villar, and López-Romero (2015) 876 HEXACO 16 D P P W 57 41 ES C FA
Røysamb, Nes, Czajkowski, and Vassend
(2018) 1,516 NEO 48 D 65 57 NO C FA
Ryan and Frederick (1997) Study 3 102 NEO 36 P P 59 21 US C FA
Rzeszutek, Gruszczyńska, and Firla˛g-
Burkacka (2019) 530 NEO 12 D P P 16 40 PL C FA
Sadiković, Smederevac, Mitrović, and
Milovanović (2019) Dizygotic 122 NEO 48 D 63 25 RS C FA
Sadiković et al. (2019) Monozygotic 242 NEO 48 D 76 25 RS C FA
Saeed Abbasi, Rattan, Kousar, and Khalifa
Elsayed (2018) 819 BFI 9 P 62 27 US C FA
Saklofske, Austin, Mastoras, Beaton, and
Osborne (2012) 216 Adjectives 8 D P P 78 20 GB C FA
Salter, Smith, and Ethans (2013) Control 36 NEO 48 P P US C FA
Salter et al. (2013) Spinal Cord Injury 36 NEO 48 P P US C FA
Schimmack, Oishi, Furr, and Funder
(2004) Study 1 136 NEO 48 D 74 20 US C FA
Schimmack et al. (2004) Study 2 124 NEO 60 D 71 21 US C FA
Schimmack et al. (2004) Study 3 143 NEO 48 D US C FA
Schimmack et al. (2004) Study 4 344 BFI 9 D 74 CA C FA
Schmutte and Ryff (1997) Sample 1 215 NEO 12 O O W 53 54 US C FA
Schmutte and Ryff (1997) Sample 2 139 NEO 12 W 47 US C FA
Schneider, Rench, Lyons, and Riffle (2012) 152 IPIP 10 P P 72 20 US C FA
Schwartz, Michael, Zhang, Rapkin, and
Sprangers (2018) 541 NEO 12 W 76 44 US C CA
Selnes, Marthinsen, and Vittersø (2004) 131 NEO 12 D O O W 52 44 NO C FA
Sheu, Mejia, Rigali-Oiler, Primé, and
Chong (2016) 849 Adjectives 10 D 58 20 US C FA
Sheu, Liu, and Li (2017) 757 Adjectives 10 D 70 21 CN C FA
Shi, Luo, Liu, and Yang (2019) Study 2 208 IPIP 10 D 54 20 CN C FA
Shulman and Hemenover (2006) 112 NEO 12 W 47 19 US C FA
Sibley (2011) Study 3 148 HEXACO 10 O 64 20 NZ C FA
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 293

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Şimşek (2011) Study 4 106 BFI 9 D P P 45 22 TR C FA

Şimşek and Koydemir (2013) 721 BFI 9 D P P 66 29 TR C CA
Şimşek and Kocayörük (2013) Study 4
SWB 99 BFI 9 D P P 54 19 TR C FA
Singh and Shejwal (2017) Females 98 NEO 12 P P 100 18 IN C CA
Singh and Shejwal (2017) Males 102 NEO 12 P P 0 18 IN C CA
Sirianni Molnar (2011) Ill 773 Adjectives 8 D P P 93 49 US C FA
Sirianni Molnar (2011) Student 538 Adjectives 8 D P P 78 22 US C FA
Skomorovsky and Sudom (2011) 200 Other 15 D 19 CA C FA
Sliter, Withrow, and Jex (2015) 708 IPIP 10 P P 72 21 US C FA
Sobocko and Zelenski (2015) Study 1 154 BFI 9 D P P 68 22 CA C CA
Sobocko and Zelenski (2015) Study 2 118 BFI 9 P P 63 20 CA C CA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Sorondo (2017) Public Services 25 BFI 9 P P 62 45 US C FA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Sorondo (2017) Technical Services 21 BFI 9 P P 62 45 US C FA

Soto and John (2017) Study 3 179 BFI 12 W US C FA
Soubelet and Salthouse (2011) 1,175 IPIP 10 D P P 63 C FA
Spörrle, Strobel, and Tumasjan (2010) 200 NEO 12 D 50 28 DE C FA
Stamatopoulou, Galanis, and Prezerakos
(2016) 602 Other 15 D 62 34 GR C FA
Stanton, Rozek, Stasik-O’Brien, Ellickson-
Larew, and Watson (2016) Big 5 293 NEO 48 D 71 46 US C CA
Stanton et al. (2016) HEXACO 293 HEXACO 16 D 71 46 US C CA
Stanton, Gruber, and Watson (2017)
Students 381 BFI 9 D P P 67 19 US C CA
Steca, Capanna, Mecaroni, and Delle Fratte
(2005) Females 549 Other 12 D 100 43 IT C FA
Steca et al. (2005) Males 601 Other 12 D 0 45 IT C FA
Stimson (2010) 89 BFI 9 D 79 18 US C FA
Stolarski (2016) 265 NEO 12 D 54 23 PL C FA
Suh, Diener, and Fujita (1996) 115 NEO 24 D O O 63 22 US C FA
Sulaiman et al. (2013) 315 NEO 12 D P P 41 19 MY C FA
Suldo, Minch, and Hearon (2015) 624 Other 23 O 63 16 US C FA
Sun, Stevenson, Kabbani, Richardson, and
Smillie (2017) 205 BFAS 20 P 48 35 US C FA
Sun, Kaufman, and Smillie (2018) 706 BFAS 20 D O O W 54 36 US C FA
Szcześniak, Sopińska, and Kroplewski
(2019) 213 NEO 12 D 72 32 PL C FA
Tan, Sheffield, Khoo, Byrne, and Pachana
(2018) 330 NEO 12 D 100 69 AU C FA
Tanksale (2015) 183 NEO 12 D P P 51 35 IN C FA
Teachman, Siedlecki, and Magee (2007) 325 IPIP 10 P P 64 US C CA
Terracciano (2003) 575 NEO 48 P P 63 28 IT C FA
Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005) 152 Adjectives 8 D P P 66 22 US C FA
Thingujam (2011) 300 NEO 12 D P P 49 23 IN C FA
Thomas (2011) 176 IPIP 10 P P 54 31 US C FA
Thoresen (2000) 440 NEO 12 D P P 39 40 US C FA
Thorpe (2015) 197 BFI 9 O 58 34 US C FA
Tov (2012) Study 1 206 IPIP 10 O O O 59 22 SG C FA
Tov (2012) Study 2 139 IPIP 10 D O O 66 21 SG C FA
Trankle and Haw (2009) 157 BFI 9 P P 83 22 AU C FA
Tuce and Fako (2014) Boys 225 Other 10 O 0 18 BA C FA
Tuce and Fako (2014) Girls 200 Other 10 O 100 18 BA C FA
van Allen and Zelenski (2018) 221 IPIP 24 D P P W 75 22 CA C DA
Vilhena et al. (2014) 729 NEO 48 O 71 42 PT C FA
Villieux, Sovet, Jung, and Guilbert (2016) 403 BFI 9 D P P 86 23 FR C FA
Vittersø (2001) 264 Other 12 D O O 19 NO C FA
Vorkapić and Lončarić (2013) 290 BFI 9 D 99 37 HR C FA
Wahl, Heyl, and Schilling (2012) Hearing
Impaired 116 NEO 12 P P 42 83 DE C FA
Wahl et al. (2012) Sensory Unimpaired 150 NEO 12 P P 49 82 DE C FA
Wahl et al. (2012) Visually Impaired 121 NEO 12 P P 59 83 DE C FA
Watson and Clark (1992) Sample 1 532 Adjectives 16 P P US C FA
Watson and Clark (1992) Sample 2 236 Adjectives 16 P P US C FA
Watson and Clark (1992) Sample 3 224 NEO 36 P P US C FA
Watson and Clark (1992) Sample 4 325 NEO 12 P P US C FA
(table continues)
 294 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Watson, Hubbard, and Wiese (2000)

Dating females 136 NEO 12 D 100 US C HM
Watson et al. (2000) Dating males 136 NEO 12 D 0 US C HM
Watson et al. (2000) Friends 558 BFI 9 D P P US C CA
Watson, Suls, and Haig (2002) Study 2 287 BFI 9 P P 51 US C FA
Watson et al. (2002) Study 3 346 NEO 48 P P 61 US C FA
Watson et al. (2004) 576 BFI 9 P P 50 28 US C CA
Watson et al. (2007) Study 2 370 BFI 9 P P 67 39 US C CA
Watson et al. (2007) Study 3 Patients 329 BFI 9 P P 68 42 US C CA
Watson et al. (2007) Study 3 Students 306 BFI 9 P P 63 US C CA
Watson, Stasik, Chmielewski, and
Naragon-Gainey (2015) Community 372 BFI 9 P P 74 37 US C CA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Watson et al. (2015) Iowa 554 BFI 9 P P 67 19 US C CA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Watson et al. (2015) Notre Dame 493 BFI 9 P P 60 19 US C CA

Watson, Stanton, and Clark (2017) 448 BFI 12 P P 53 36 US C CA
Webb et al. (2013) 65 NEO 48 P P 49 30 US C FA
Weber and Huebner (2015) 344 Other 23 O 55 12 US C FA
West (2007) 148 Other 23 O US C FA
White (2011) Dating 262 BFI 9 P P 63 19 US C FA
White (2011) Married 202 BFI 9 P P 50 39 US C FA
Williams and Wiebe (2000) 140 NEO 48 P 55 21 US C FA
Williams and Simms (2018) 336 NEO 24 D 68 40 US C FA
Wilt, Grubbs, Exline, and Pargament
(2016) Community 965 BFI 9 D 62 35 US C FA
Wilt et al. (2016) University Student 418 BFI 9 D 70 US C FA
Shyh Shin, Boon Ooi, Ang, Oei, and Aik
Kwang (2009) Australian 189 Adjectives 8 D 69 19 AU C FA
Shyh Shin et al. (2009) Singaporean 243 Adjectives 8 D 66 18 SG C FA
Wong et al. (2015) 401 NEO 12 P 58 44 CN C FA
Wood, Nye, and Saucier (2010) 259 BFI 9 D US C FA
Woyciekoski, Natividade, and Hutz (2014) 274 Other 25 D P P 69 27 BR C FA
Wu, Liu, Guo, Cai, and Zhou (2019)
Husband 587 BFI 9 D 0 42 CN C FA
Wu et al. (2019) Wife 587 BFI 9 D 100 41 CN C FA
Xu et al. (2017) 2,357 Other 8 O 58 16 CN C FA
Yeo (2015) 260 IPIP 10 D W 51 37 ID C FA
Yilmaz and Kafadar (2019) 100 Other 9 P P 59 20 TR C DA
Zeidner and Olnick-Shemesh (2010) 203 Other 12 D 58 16 IL C FA
Zellars, Perrewé, Hochwarter, and
Anderson (2006) 188 NEO 12 P P 90 40 US C FA
Zhai, O’Shea, Mike, and Yang (2010) 413 BFI 9 O 59 31 CN C FA
Zhai, Willis, O’Shea, Zhai, and Yang
(2013) 818 BFI 9 O 56 34 CN C FA
Zhang, Mandl, and Wang (2010) 139 BFI 9 D 52 25 DE C FA
Zhang and Howell (2011) 754 Adjectives 8 D 70 25 US C FA
Zhang and Tsingan (2014) 238 BFI 9 P P 71 19 CN C FA
Zhu, Woo, Porter, and Brzezinski (2013) 309 BFI 9 D 58 19 US C FA
Agbo and Ngwu (2017) 238 TIPI 2 O O 48 22 NG N FA
Aghababaei and Tabik (2013) 256 IPIP 4 D 49 23 IR N FA
Aghababaei (2014) 288 HEXACO 10 O 64 21 IR N FA
Aghababaei and Arji (2014) Big 5 Study 1 183 IPIP 10 O 68 21 IR N FA
Aghababaei and Arji (2014) HEXACO
Study 1 183 HEXACO 10 O 68 21 IR N FA
Aghababaei and Arji (2014) Study 2 109 HEXACO 10 O 59 20 IR N FA
Antunes, Caetano, Pina, and Cunha (2017)
Sample 1 542 IPIP 4 P P 56 33 PT N FA
Balgiu (2018) 496 BFI 2 D O O W 39 19 RO N FA
Blatný et al. (2018) 2,229 BFI 2 D 43 42 CZ N FA
Brailovskaia and Margraf (2016) Facebook
non-users 155 BFI 2 D 64 25 DE N FA
Brailovskaia and Margraf (2016) Facebook
users 790 BFI 2 D 71 23 DE N FA
Brailovskaia and Margraf (2018) 633 BFI 2 D 66 22 DE N AD
Brailovskaia, Bierhoff, and Margraf (2019) 438 BFI 2 D 66 22 DE N CA
Carciofo and Song (2019) 767 BFI 2 O P P 20 CN N CA
Chopik and Lucas (2019) Men 2,578 BFI 3 O 0 51 DE N FA
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 295

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Chopik and Lucas (2019) Women 2,578 BFI 3 O 100 51 DE N FA

Çikrikçi (2019) 292 TIPI 2 D 66 20 TR N FA
Correa, Hinsley, and de Zúñiga (2010) 959 TIPI 2 O 33 46 US N FA
Csarny (1998) 386 NEO 12 O 58 52 US N FA
Datu (2014) 210 TIPI 2 D 63 18 PH N FA
Datu, Yuen, and Chen (2018) 356 TIPI 2 O O O 67 14 PH N FA
Denovan (2018) 306 TIPI 2 D P P 82 20 GB N FA
Deventer, Lüdtke, Nagy, Retelsdorf, and
Wagner (2019) 896 BFI 9 O 29 18 DE N FA
Dijkstra and Barelds (2009) 3,626 Adjectives 2 D P P 100 46 NL N FA
Duckworth, Weir, Tsukayama, and Kwok
(2012) 9,649 Other 6 D O O 58 68 US N FA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Eakman and Eklund (2012) 224 TIPI 2 D 54 28 US N FA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Ebner, Thiele, Spurk, and Kauffeld (2018)

Study 2 322 BFI 4 O 67 30 DE N FA
Freund and Baltes (1998) 200 NEO 6 P 51 84 DE N FA
Furler, Gomez, and Grob (2013) Men 1,608 BFI 2 O 0 52 CH N FA
Furler et al. (2013) Women 1,608 BFI 2 O 100 19 CH N FA
Gibson (2007) Study 1 240 TIPI 2 D 73 US N DA
Glidden, Billings, and Jobe (2006) 295 NEO 12 O 62 43 US N DA
Goldstein and Flett (2009) 138 TIPI 2 P P 70 19 CA N FA
Gore et al. (2014) Study 1 2,566 Other 5 P P 70 US N FA
Goswami (2014) 893 IPIP 5 O 61 12 GB N FA
Grevenstein and Bluemke (2015) 1,842 BFI 5 D 86 28 DE N FA
Grevenstein, Aguilar-Raab, and Bluemke
(2018) 1,033 BFI 3 D 75 42 DE N FA
Halama, Martos, and Adamovováú (2010)
Hungarian 249 Adjectives 6 D 62 22 HU N FA
Halama et al. (2010) Slovak 274 Adjectives 6 D 53 22 SK N FA
Hengartner, Kawohl, Haker, Rössler, and
Ajdacic-Gross (2016) 1,125 BFI 3 P P 50 30 CH N CA
Jennings (2004) 794 Adjectives 7 D P P 30 72 US N FA
Joshanloo and Nosratabadi (2009) 227 BFI 9 O W 49 23 IR N FA
Kashdan and Steger (2007) 97 Other 5 D 66 20 US N FA
Kim, Schimmack, Cheng, Webster, and
Spectre (2016) American 174 BFI 9 O 80 19 US N CA
Kim et al. (2016) Hong Kong 97 BFI 9 O 76 20 HK N CA
Knöpfli, Morselli, and Perrig-Chiello
(2016) 2,508 BFI 2 D 58 60 CH N DA
Lai (2018) 13,424 Adjectives 6 O 47 44 AU N FA
Augusto Landa, Martos, and López-Zafra
(2010) 228 NEO 12 W 84 21 ES N FA
Leffel et al. (2018) 499 NEO 3 D 45 US N FA
Levinson and Rodebaugh (2011) 323 IPIP 4 P 68 19 US N FA
Lönnqvist and Itkonen (2014) 4,701 Adjectives 6 D 66 33 FI N FA
Losoncz (2007) 10,512 Adjectives 6 O 53 44 AU N FA
Luhmann, Hawkley, and Cacioppo (2014) 414 BFI 2 D P P 64 35 US N FA
Margolis et al. (2019) Study 3 407 BFI 3 O O O 62 36 I N CA
Martínez-Molina and Arias (2018) 278 IPIP 4 D P P 71 22 ES N AD
McMahan, Renken, Kehn, and Nitkova
(2013) 464 TIPI 2 D P P W 65 21 US N FA
Montasem, Brown, and Harris (2013) 218 TIPI 2 D P P 58 22 GB N FA
Morsunbul (2014) 793 Other 6 D 64 18 TR N FA
Naukkarinen, Karkkola, Kuittinen, and
Räty (2016) 187 TIPI 2 D FI N FA
Ng (2015) 1,972 BFI 2 O 55 42 SG N FA
Nishimura and Suzuki (2016) 463 Other 5 D 36 19 JP N FA
Oishi, Krochik, Roth, and Sherman (2012)
African American 33 Other 5 D O O 76 US N FA
Oishi et al. (2012) Asian American 46 Other 5 D O O 76 US N FA
Oishi et al. (2012) European American 41 Other 5 D O O 76 US N FA
Oishi, Kohlbacher, and Choi (2018) 1,546 BFI 2 O 52 61 JP N CA
Pavot, Diener, and Suh (1998) Study 3 66 NEO 12 O 61 79 US N FA
Rammstedt, Lechner, and Danner (2018) 1,338 BFI 6 O 50 43 DE N FA
Reich, Sangiorgio, and Young (2019) 223 TIPI 2 D 77 21 US N FA
Rigby and Huebner (2005) 211 Other 5 O 51 16 US N FA
(table continues)
 296 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 2 (continued)

Study N Framework Items SWL PA NA PWB F Age Country Core Source

Robinson, Demetre, and Corney (2010)

Approaching Retirement 86 TIPI 2 D 54 61 GB N FA
Robinson et al. (2010) In Retirement 279 TIPI 2 D 54 64 GB N FA
Rodgers et al. (2018) 244 TIPI 2 D W 77 25 I N CA
Ryan, Newton, Chauhan, and Chopik
(2017) 716 Other 6 P P 55 62 US N FA
Saeki, Oishi, Maeno, and Gilbert (2014) 404 BFI 4 O O O 43 20 JP N FA
Saiz, Álvaro, and Martínez (2011) 655 Other 12 O ES N CA
Schimmack, Schupp, and Wagner (2008) 1,053 BFI 3 O DE N FA
Schoeps, González, and Montoya-Castilla
(2016) Female 182 BFI 2 D 100 42 ES N FA
Schoeps et al. (2016) Male 182 BFI 2 D 0 44 ES N FA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Seder and Oishi (2012) Study 1 48 Other 1 D 58 US N FA

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Seder and Oishi (2012) Study 2 36 Other 1 D 64 US N FA

Selvarajan, Singh, and Cloninger (2016) 1,130 Adjectives 7 P 51 50 US N FA
Sibley et al. (2011) 21,219 IPIP 4 O 59 47 NZ N CA
Sodermans and Matthijs (2014) 506 BFI 9 O 49 18 BE N FA
Soto and Luhmann (2013) BHPS 13,825 BFI 3 O 55 48 GB N CA
Tartaglia, Miglietta, and Gattino (2017) 600 Other 1 D 40 22 IT N FA
Tian and Zheng (2007) 1,151 Other 5 O 48 CN N FA
Vollmann, Pukrop, and Salewski (2016) 158 BFI 2 O 68 56 DE N FA
Wang, Hu, Li, and Tao (2019) 545 IPIP 4 D 28 20 CN N CA
Whisman, Uebelacker, Tolejko, Chatav,
and McKelvie (2006) Female 416 NEO 12 O 100 68 US N FA
Whisman et al. (2006) Male 416 NEO 12 O 0 72 US N FA
Wicker (2016) 183 TIPI 2 D 80 US N FA
Wigert (2002) 125 NEO 12 O 57 53 US N FA
Note. Items ⫽ the rounded mean number of items per personality factor; SWL ⫽ whether life satisfaction was measured using either D ⫽ Diener’s
Satisfaction with Life Scale or O ⫽ other measure; PA and NA ⫽ whether the positive and negative affect measures were measured with either P ⫽ PANAS
or O ⫽ other measure; PWB ⫽ psychological well-being, and is W when PWB was measured in the study. A blank cell for SWL, PA, NA, or PWB indicates
that the construct was not measured in the study in a way that met inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. F ⫽ the percentage of females in the sample.
Age is the mean age of the sample. Country is the two-digit ISO country code, and “I” indicates a multi-country English-speaking Internet sample. Core
is coded C ⫽ core and N ⫽ noncore, where core studies included at least one correlation involving a personality scale with at least eight items per factor
and a well-being measure with at least five items. Source ⫽ the source of the correlations using the following codes: FA ⫽ from article; AD ⫽
accompanying dataset; CA ⫽ correlations provided following contact with the author; DA ⫽ data were provided following contact with the author; HM ⫽
otherwise unpublished correlations taken from the Heller, Watson, and Ilies (2004) meta-analysis. Further details about the nature of the sample in each
study are provided in the online repository that accompanies this paper. Samples where HEXACO and Big Five were measured are treated as two separate
studies for reporting purposes. BFAS ⫽ Big Five Aspect Scales; BFI ⫽ Big Five Inventory; IPIP ⫽ International Personality Item Pool; TIPI ⫽ Ten-Item
Personality Inventory.

openness exhibited similar correlations with well-being to their Big were reversed neuroticism with reversed negative affect (.14), and
Five analogues. The average correlations with well-being for honesty- personal growth (⫺.15); openness with personal growth (.22);
humility and HEXACO agreeableness were also similar to the corre- agreeableness with positive relations (.13) and autonomy (⫺.13),
lation for Big Five agreeableness. Results also showed that the vari- and conscientiousness with purpose in life (.13). For HEXACO,
ance in observed correlations was greater for the Big Five than for the these were reversed emotionality with reversed negative affect
HEXACO; this is consistent with the greater variability in question- (.19), positive relations (⫺.18), autonomy (.22), and purpose in life
naires used to measure the Big Five. (⫺.14); agreeableness with autonomy (⫺.13); conscientiousness
To assess which combinations of personality and well-being with purpose in life (.18); and openness with autonomy (.12) and
dimension were uniquely related, we performed a marginalization personal growth (.15).
procedure on the meta-analytic corrected correlation matrix (see Table 9 presents the meta-analytic estimate of the correlations
the online supplemental materials). Specifically, we reversed neg- between the Big Five and SWB across various moderators (i.e.,
ative affect, neuroticism, and emotionality so that all variables core and noncore studies, item length, and personality measure-
were positively aligned with well-being. We then subtracted the ment type) and compares results with past meta-analyses. It also
overall mean correlation, and the row and column marginal means reports the mean and standard deviation of correlations after re-
from the correlation matrix (for further details of the procedure versing the negative correlations (i.e., N with PA, N with SWL,
see, Anglim & Grant, 2016). Large residual cross-correlations and E, O, A, C with NA). The mean correlation indexes the extent
(e.g., above .10 or .15) highlight the unique profile of the to which personality is related to well-being. The standard devia-
personality-well-being relationship, where positive residuals indi- tion of correlations indexes the degree to which a nuanced profile
cate that the pair of variables is more related than expected, and of personality correlates is provided as opposed to a more homog-
negative residuals indicate that the pair of variables is less related enous set of correlations. Overall, the pattern of correlations is
than expected. Absolute residuals greater than .12 for the Big Five fairly robust across different types of measures and different item
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 297

Table 3
Combined Sample Sizes and Number of Studies Across Study Features

Combined Core Noncore

Category n k n k n k

Total 334,567 462 206,364 370 128,203 92

Personality items
Extra Short 1 to 3 47,941 45 47,941 45
Short 4 to 7 75,012 30 75,012 30
Standard 8 to 15 180,646 292 175,396 275 5,250 17
Long 16 or more 30,968 95 30,968 95
Measure type
HEXACO 7,146 22 6,566 19 580 3
NEO 64,398 170 61,767 161 2,631 9
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

IPIP 44,359 43 20,120 35 24,239 8

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

BFAS 3,442 8 3,442 8

BFI 131,342 125 87,251 93 44,091 32
TIPI 4,847 17 4,847 17
Adjectives 45,290 28 10,580 20 34,710 8
Other 33,743 49 16,638 34 17,105 15
Year
Pre-2000 7,256 30 6,604 27 652 3
2000–2004 23,903 49 22,984 47 919 2
2005–2009 30,664 51 12,282 39 18,382 12
2010–2014 106,176 146 42,598 112 63,578 34
2015–2019 166,568 186 121,896 145 44,672 41
Sample size
Under 100 2,239 36 1,689 27 550 9
100–199 16,288 111 14,329 99 1,959 12
200–299 23,904 99 19,230 80 4,674 19
300–499 38,454 102 32,344 87 6,110 15
500–999 47,609 70 37,520 56 10,089 14
1000 or more 206,073 44 101,252 21 104,821 23
M age
Under 18 13,722 29 10,753 23 2,969 6
18 to 29 65,597 192 49,522 155 16,075 37
30 to 59 213,033 147 127,288 122 85,745 25
60 or over 21,082 29 4,406 18 16,676 11
Note. Correlations between a trait and a well-being variable were classified as core if the personality trait was
measured with eight or more items and the well-being variable was measured with five or more items. Studies
were classified as core if they had one or more core correlation. BFAS ⫽ Big Five Aspect Scales; BFI ⫽ Big
Five Inventory; IPIP ⫽ International Personality Item Pool; TIPI ⫽ Ten-Item Personality Inventory.

lengths. Nonetheless, consistent with reduced reliability of mea- sively on the NEO framework. The current meta-analysis found
surement and potentially validity, noncore studies and extrashort meta-analytic correlations between personality and well-being that
measures had weaker correlations with well-being. were slightly larger than Steel et al. (2008). Importantly, the
In general, there was a high degree of consistency across the current results indicate that this finding is not limited to the NEO
different personality frameworks, although the TIPI was notably framework, but is shared across a broad range of personality
less consistent. The BFAS had somewhat stronger average corre- measures that are intended to measure the Big Five.
lations and the TIPI had weaker average correlations. The NEO
The pattern of correlations in the current meta-analysis was
and BFAS had larger standard deviations. To quantify the consis-
almost identical to that obtained in Steel et al. (2008), but quite
tency across frameworks, we created a data frame that had 15 rows
different to that of DeNeve and Cooper (1998). To quantify this,
for the 15 absolute SWB correlations and seven columns for the
we first treated the 15 absolute correlations between Big Five
seven personality frameworks. We then computed the average
correlation each framework had with the other six frameworks. personality and SWB (i.e., SWL, PA, NA) for the three meta-
These correlations were .88 (NEO), .88 (IPIP), .90 (BFAS), .87 analyses (i.e., current study, Steel et al., and DeNeve & Cooper) as
(BFI), .74 (TIPI), .90 (Adjectives), and .84 (Other). a vector. The correlation between the 15 Big Five–SWB-absolute-
Table 9 also compares meta-analytic correlations of the current correlations was r ⫽ .991 (current study with Steel), r ⫽ .689
study with that of previous meta-analyses. A major conclusion of (current study with DeNeve), and r ⫽ .679 (DeNeve with Steel).
Steel et al. (2008) was that personality is more strongly related to Thus, it seems that categorizing historical measures of personality
well-being than was found in the meta-analysis of DeNeve and into Big Five frameworks as was done by necessity in DeNeve and
Cooper (1998). Whereas DeNeve and Cooper (1998) synthesized Cooper (1998) only provides an approximation of how Big Five
a mostly pre-Big Five literature, Steel et al. (2008) focused exclu- personality actually correlates with well-being.
 298 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 4
Meta-Analytic Correlations of Big Five and HEXACO Personality With SWB and PWB

Measure SWL PA NA PR AU EM PG PL SA M

NEO
Neuroticism ⴚ.39 ⴚ.34 .56 ⴚ.43 ⴚ.45 ⴚ.58 ⴚ.34 ⴚ.45 ⴚ.60 ⴚ.46
Extraversion .32 .44 ⫺.21 .47 .26 .38 .39 .39 .43 .37
Openness .08 .24 ⫺.05 .20 .24 .11 .44 .21 .16 .19
Agreeableness .20 .19 ⫺.25 .39 .10 .28 .31 .28 .28 .25
Conscientiousness .27 .35 ⫺.25 .32 .30 .51 .32 .50 .44 .36
HEXACO
Honesty-humility .11 .07 ⫺.15 .20 .19 .20 .21 .18 .14 .16
Emotionality ⫺.09 ⫺.12 .31 .01 ⴚ.36 ⫺.19 ⫺.11 ⫺.03 ⫺.24 ⫺.16
Extraversion .43 .55 ⴚ.39 .57 .39 .52 .45 .41 .61 .48
Agreeableness .17 .14 ⫺.25 .27 .02 .22 .16 .13 .23 .18
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Conscientiousness .22 .32 ⫺.17 .18 .23 .41 .31 .47 .23 .28
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Openness .10 .15 ⫺.01 .14 .25 .10 .34 .14 .18 .16
Note. PWB ⫽ psychological well-being; SWB ⫽ subjective well-being; SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; PR ⫽
positive relations; AU ⫽ autonomy; EM ⫽ environmental mastery; PG ⫽ personal growth; PL ⫽ purpose in life; SA ⫽ self-acceptance. Absolute
correlations above .30 are bolded. M ⫽ mean correlation between the personality trait and well-being variables, where the correlation with negative affect
(NA) is reversed.

Finally, a publication bias analysis was conducted. There are sev- negative affect, none of the correlations examined exhibited
eral reasons to expect publication biases to be minimal in this context. significant positive asymmetry.
First, the majority of primary studies have a high degree of power to
detect the main correlations between personality and well-being. For
Well-Being Intercorrelations
example, a study with n ⫽ 200 has 99% statistical power to detect a
population correlation of .30 at a .05 significance threshold. Second, To contextualize the meta-analytic and facet-level analyses, we
many studies measure personality and well-being incidentally as part present estimates of the intercorrelations between dimensions of
of broader studies of individual differences and there is no obvious well-being. Table 10 presents correlations among the nine well-
incentive to show a specific pattern of correlations between person- being scales for the Combined and the NEO Data Sets. Reflecting
ality and well-being. Nonetheless, we examined funnel plots for the a general well-being factor, the average correlation between well-
99 correlation types (i.e., 11 personality traits by nine well-being being variables was .51 in the Combined Dataset. Consistent with
variables) and calculated the rank test for funnel asymmetry (Begg & the focus on the scale-level, when factor analysis is performed and
Mazumdar, 1994). After reversing neuroticism, emotionality, and two factors are extracted, loadings for the nine scales do not align

Table 5
Detailed Meta-Analytic Results for Big Five Domains and Subjective Well-Being

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Measure k n r៮ ␶r៮ 95% CI r៮ 95% CI r៮ ␳ ␶␳ 95% CI ␳ 95% CI ␳

Satisfaction with life

Neuroticism 224 158,934 ⫺.39 .10 ⫺.41 ⫺.38 ⫺.46 .13 ⫺.48 ⫺.44
Extraversion 219 158,905 .32 .08 .31 .33 .38 .11 .36 .39
Openness 194 146,668 .08 .08 .07 .10 .10 .11 .08 .12
Agreeableness 188 145,623 .20 .07 .19 .21 .24 .10 .23 .26
Conscientiousness 196 149,681 .27 .07 .26 .28 .31 .09 .30 .33
Positive affect
Neuroticism 167 54,816 ⫺.34 .11 ⫺.36 ⫺.32 ⫺.39 .13 ⫺.41 ⫺.36
Extraversion 157 51,731 .44 .10 .42 .46 .51 .13 .49 .53
Openness 123 41,406 .24 .13 .21 .26 .28 .15 .25 .31
Agreeableness 122 40,714 .19 .13 .16 .21 .22 .16 .19 .25
Conscientiousness 128 43,497 .35 .10 .33 .37 .40 .12 .38 .43
Negative affect
Neuroticism 172 55,495 .56 .11 .55 .58 .65 .13 .63 .67
Extraversion 152 49,212 ⫺.21 .10 ⫺.22 ⫺.19 ⫺.24 .12 ⫺.26 ⫺.22
Openness 121 39,538 ⫺.05 .08 ⫺.07 ⫺.03 ⫺.06 .10 ⫺.08 ⫺.04
Agreeableness 120 39,023 ⫺.25 .11 ⫺.28 ⫺.23 ⫺.30 .14 ⫺.33 ⫺.28
Conscientiousness 128 42,358 ⫺.25 .11 ⫺.27 ⫺.22 ⫺.29 .14 ⫺.31 ⫺.26
Note. Only core studies using at least eight items per personality factor and at least five items for well-being were included. k is the number of studies.
r៮ is mean observed correlation estimated from random-effects model and inverse-variance weighting. ␳ is the equivalent correlation estimated using
correlations corrected for measurement error. ␶r៮ and ␶␳ are the estimated standard deviations of true unadjusted and corrected correlations, respectively.
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 299

Table 6
Detailed Meta-Analytic Results for Big Five Domains and Psychological Well-Being

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Measure k n r៮ ␶r៮ 95% CI r៮ 95% CI r៮ ␳ ␶␳ 95% CI ␳ 95% CI ␳

Positive relation with others

Neuroticism 18 6,440 ⫺.43 .11 ⫺.49 ⫺.37 ⫺.51 .14 ⫺.57 ⫺.44
Extraversion 19 6,840 .47 .12 .41 .53 .56 .15 .49 .63
Openness 17 6,233 .20 .09 .15 .25 .24 .12 .17 .30
Agreeableness 17 6,233 .39 .09 .34 .44 .47 .12 .41 .53
Conscientiousness 18 6,440 .32 .12 .26 .38 .38 .16 .30 .46
Autonomy
Neuroticism 17 6,309 ⫺.45 .08 ⫺.50 ⫺.41 ⫺.54 .11 ⫺.60 ⫺.49
Extraversion 17 6,309 .26 .10 .20 .32 .31 .13 .25 .38
Openness 16 6,102 .24 .09 .18 .29 .29 .13 .23 .36
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Agreeableness 16 6,102 .10 .11 .04 .16 .13 .14 .05 .20
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Conscientiousness 17 6,309 .30 .05 .27 .34 .36 .07 .32 .41
Environmental mastery
Neuroticism 16 6,160 ⫺.58 .11 ⫺.64 ⫺.52 ⫺.69 .13 ⫺.76 ⫺.63
Extraversion 16 6,160 .38 .14 .31 .45 .45 .16 .37 .53
Openness 15 5,953 .11 .11 .04 .17 .13 .15 .04 .21
Agreeableness 15 5,953 .28 .10 .22 .34 .35 .13 .27 .42
Conscientiousness 16 6,160 .51 .10 .45 .56 .61 .11 .55 .67
Personal growth
Neuroticism 16 5,920 ⫺.34 .11 ⫺.40 ⫺.28 ⫺.41 .15 ⫺.49 ⫺.33
Extraversion 16 5,920 .39 .09 .34 .44 .47 .12 .41 .54
Openness 15 5,713 .44 .10 .39 .50 .55 .12 .48 .61
Agreeableness 15 5,713 .31 .10 .25 .36 .38 .12 .31 .45
Conscientiousness 16 5,920 .32 .06 .28 .36 .40 .08 .35 .44
Purpose in life
Neuroticism 15 5,699 ⫺.45 .12 ⫺.51 ⫺.38 ⫺.53 .14 ⫺.61 ⫺.46
Extraversion 15 5,699 .39 .10 .33 .45 .47 .13 .40 .54
Openness 14 5,492 .21 .09 .15 .26 .25 .13 .18 .33
Agreeableness 14 5,492 .28 .06 .24 .32 .35 .09 .29 .40
Conscientiousness 15 5,699 .50 .10 .44 .55 .60 .10 .54 .66
Self-acceptance
Neuroticism 14 5,488 ⫺.60 .13 ⫺.67 ⫺.53 ⫺.69 .15 ⫺.77 ⫺.61
Extraversion 14 5,488 .43 .11 .37 .49 .50 .13 .43 .57
Openness 13 5,281 .16 .10 .10 .23 .19 .13 .11 .27
Agreeableness 13 5,281 .28 .06 .24 .32 .35 .09 .29 .41
Conscientiousness 14 5,488 .44 .05 .40 .47 .51 .08 .46 .56
Note. k is the number of studies. r៮ is mean observed correlation estimated from random-effects model and inverse-variance weighting. ␳ is the equivalent
correlation estimated using correlations corrected for measurement error. ␶r៮ and ␶␳ are the estimated standard deviations of true unadjusted and corrected
correlations, respectively.

with higher-order PWB and SWB dimensions. Life satisfaction Zero-order correlations between personality facets and well-
shared the greatest overlap with self-acceptance, although corre- being are presented for NEO (see Table 11), IPIP NEO (see Table
lations were relatively large for most other well-being scales, with 12), and HEXACO (see Table 13). Domain-level correlations for
the exception of autonomy and personal growth. the NEO and IPIP NEO data sets are reported in the online
supplemental materials. Semipartial correlations that involved re-
Facet-Level Correlations moving overlap between each facet and the corresponding domain
scores are also reported in the online supplemental materials. For
We first examined the degree to which the domain correlations
the NEO, the strongest average correlations with well-being are
between personality and well-being in the facet-level data sets
were consistent with the core meta-analytic estimates. In general, seen for depression (⫺.46), vulnerability (⫺.44), and competence
there was very strong convergence with the pattern of domain (.41). For the IPIP NEO, semipartial correlations frequently high-
correlations for all the facet-level data sets: NEO (r ⫽ .94), IPIP lighted depression as an incremental predictor over and above the
(r ⫽ .95), HEXACO (r ⫽ .96), Big Five Aspects (r ⫽ .89) data Big Five. Positive emotions was also a prominent incremental
sets (see the online supplemental materials for details). Average predictor in relation to satisfaction with life, positive affect, and
correlations between personality and well-being were higher self-acceptance. Various other semipartial correlations emerged
(mean difference study and meta-analytic correlations in parenthe- consistent with the unique profile of the well-being variable (e.g.,
ses) than meta-analytic estimates for the IPIP (M ⫽ .06) and Big purpose in life with achievement striving and autonomy with angry
Five Aspects (M ⫽ .12), but similar for HEXACO (M ⫽ .03) and hostility [⫹], self-consciousness [⫺], and assertiveness [⫹]). For
NEO (M ⫽ ⫺.03). the HEXACO, social self-esteem and liveliness emerged as the
 300 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 7
Detailed Meta-Analytic Results for HEXACO Domains and Subjective Well-Being

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Measure k n r៮ ␶r៮ 95% CI r៮ 95% CI r៮ ␳ ␶␳ 95% CI ␳ 95% CI ␳

Satisfaction with life

Honesty-humility 14 4,049 .11 .00 .08 .14 .13 .00 .10 .16
Emotionality 14 4,049 ⫺.09 .07 ⫺.14 ⫺.04 ⫺.11 .09 ⫺.16 ⫺.05
Extraversion 14 4,049 .43 .07 .39 .48 .51 .09 .46 .56
Agreeableness 14 4,049 .17 .06 .13 .22 .21 .08 .15 .26
Conscientiousness 14 4,049 .22 .00 .19 .25 .27 .02 .24 .30
Openness 14 4,049 .10 .12 .03 .17 .11 .14 .03 .19
Positive affect
Honesty-humility 8 3,834 .07 .05 .02 .13 .09 .06 .03 .14
Emotionality 8 3,834 ⫺.12 .05 ⫺.17 ⫺.06 ⫺.15 .09 ⫺.22 ⫺.08
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Extraversion 8 3,834 .55 .04 .51 .58 .63 .05 .59 .67
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Agreeableness 8 3,834 .14 .09 .07 .21 .17 .10 .09 .25
Conscientiousness 8 3,834 .32 .10 .25 .40 .38 .12 .29 .47
Openness 8 3,834 .15 .04 .10 .20 .17 .05 .13 .22
Negative affect
Honesty-humility 9 4,134 ⫺.15 .05 ⫺.20 ⫺.11 ⫺.18 .06 ⫺.23 ⫺.13
Emotionality 9 4,134 .31 .09 .24 .37 .36 .11 .28 .44
Extraversion 9 4,134 ⫺.39 .11 ⫺.47 ⫺.32 ⫺.46 .13 ⫺.55 ⫺.37
Agreeableness 9 4,134 ⫺.25 .07 ⫺.31 ⫺.19 ⫺.30 .09 ⫺.36 ⫺.23
Conscientiousness 9 4,134 ⫺.17 .09 ⫺.24 ⫺.10 ⫺.20 .11 ⫺.28 ⫺.12
Openness 9 4,134 ⫺.01 .02 ⫺.04 .03 ⫺.01 .04 ⫺.05 .03
Note. k is the number of studies. r៮ is mean observed correlation estimated from random-effects model and inverse-variance weighting. ␳ is the equivalent
correlation estimated using correlations corrected for measurement error. ␶r៮ and ␶␳ are the estimated standard deviations of true unadjusted and corrected
correlations, respectively.

strongest average predictors of well-being. Differential correla- prediction in the NEO sample. Overall, the greatest proportional
tions of emotionality facets highlight why emotionality correlated increase in variance explained by facets was seen for life satisfac-
much less with well-being overall. Specifically, anxiety and to a tion, autonomy, self-acceptance, and purpose in life.
lesser extent fearfulness had strong negative correlations with
well-being whereas dependence and sentimentality did not. Simi- HEXACO Versus Big Five Comparison
larly, with regards t conscientiousness, it was mostly diligence that
had the stand-out correlations. To contextualize the meta-analytic finding and frame a compar-
ison of HEXACO and Big Five, Table 15 presents the correlations
between HEXACO and Big Five domains using the Combined
Incremental Prediction of Facets Over Domains
Dataset. All analogous scales between HEXACO and Big Five
To examine the variance explained by broad and narrow traits correlated greater than .50. Interestingly—though unsurprisingly,
across the four data sets, regression models were estimated pre- given the rotational differences between the two models—
dicting each well-being variable from either the broad or the honesty-humility correlated more with Big Five agreeableness
narrow traits for the given personality measure. The variance than did HEXACO agreeableness. Of relevance to understanding
explained by broad and narrow traits (adjusted r-squared) for each correlations with well-being, HEXACO extraversion correlated
measure is shown in Table 14. Two measures of incremental more with neuroticism than did HEXACO emotionality.
prediction of narrow traits are also provided: raw incremental Table 16 presents the domain-level correlations for HEXACO
prediction by narrow over broad traits and proportional increase of and IPIP NEO Domains with well-being dimensions in the Com-
narrow traits relative to broad traits. bined Dataset. The pattern of correlations is broadly similar to the
On average, broad traits explained 46% of variance and narrow meta-analytic findings, albeit the correlations are slightly stronger
traits explained 53% for an average proportional increase of facets on average. This may reflect the use of particularly reliable per-
over domains of 18% (21% if you exclude the Big Five Aspects sonality and well-being measures in this study. We also computed
data). Despite differences in the overall magnitude of prediction the HEXACO Neuroticism domain score using the weighted facet-
(i.e., Big Five Aspects and IPIP NEO explained more than composite described in the Method section. This yielded a pattern
HEXACO and NEO), the general pattern of well-being predicted of correlations that was very similar to IPIP NEO Neuroticism.
by domains and facets/aspects was similar across NEO, IPIP NEO, To compare the HEXACO and Big Five models of personality
and HEXACO, but distinct for the Big Five Aspects. On average, in terms of the prediction of well-being dimensions, regression
PWB variables were better predicted by personality than SWB models were estimated (using the Combined Dataset) predicting
variables. IPIP NEO and HEXACO had larger incremental pre- each well-being variable from various sets of personality predic-
diction than the NEO and Big Five Aspects, although the differ- tors: that is, HEXACO Domains, NEO Domains, HEXACO Fac-
ence for the NEO was reduced when incremental prediction was ets, NEO Facets, and the different combinations of Domains and
defined as a proportion, due to the relatively lower levels of Facets from both instruments. The variance in well-being ex-
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 301

Table 8
Detailed Meta-Analytic Results for HEXACO Domains and Psychological Well-Being

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Measure k n r៮ ␶r៮ 95% CI r៮ 95% CI r៮ ␳ ␶␳ 95% CI ␳ 95% CI ␳

Positive relation with others

Honesty-humility 5 2,033 .20 .00 .16 .24 .24 .00 .20 .28
Emotionality 5 2,033 .01 .09 ⫺.08 .09 .00 .12 ⫺.11 .12
Extraversion 5 2,033 .57 .04 .52 .61 .68 .00 .66 .70
Agreeableness 5 2,033 .27 .04 .21 .32 .33 .06 .26 .40
Conscientiousness 5 2,033 .18 .00 .14 .22 .22 .02 .17 .27
Openness 5 2,033 .14 .00 .10 .19 .18 .05 .12 .25
Autonomy
Honesty-humility 5 2,033 .19 .05 .13 .25 .24 .06 .17 .31
Emotionality 5 2,033 ⫺.36 .00 ⫺.40 ⫺.32 ⫺.45 .00 ⫺.48 ⫺.41
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Extraversion 5 2,033 .39 .00 .36 .43 .49 .02 .45 .53
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Agreeableness 5 2,033 .02 .07 ⫺.05 .10 .03 .09 ⫺.06 .12
Conscientiousness 5 2,033 .23 .05 .17 .29 .29 .06 .22 .36
Openness 5 2,033 .25 .05 .19 .32 .32 .07 .24 .39
Environmental mastery
Honesty-humility 5 2,033 .20 .02 .15 .25 .26 .06 .19 .32
Emotionality 5 2,033 ⫺.19 .09 ⫺.28 ⫺.10 ⫺.23 .10 ⫺.33 ⫺.13
Extraversion 5 2,033 .52 .08 .44 .61 .64 .09 .56 .72
Agreeableness 5 2,033 .22 .07 .14 .30 .27 .09 .18 .37
Conscientiousness 5 2,033 .41 .07 .34 .49 .51 .11 .41 .61
Openness 5 2,033 .10 .08 .01 .19 .12 .11 .01 .23
Personal growth
Honesty-humility 5 2,033 .21 .07 .13 .29 .27 .10 .17 .37
Emotionality 5 2,033 ⫺.11 .00 ⫺.15 ⫺.06 ⫺.14 .05 ⫺.20 ⫺.07
Extraversion 5 2,033 .45 .04 .40 .50 .56 .00 .53 .59
Agreeableness 5 2,033 .16 .04 .10 .21 .20 .05 .14 .26
Conscientiousness 5 2,033 .31 .02 .26 .35 .40 .05 .35 .46
Openness 5 2,033 .34 .05 .28 .41 .43 .09 .35 .52
Purpose in life
Honesty-humility 5 2,033 .18 .00 .13 .22 .24 .06 .17 .31
Emotionality 5 2,033 ⫺.03 .04 ⫺.09 .03 ⫺.03 .05 ⫺.10 .04
Extraversion 5 2,033 .41 .08 .33 .49 .52 .06 .46 .59
Agreeableness 5 2,033 .13 .07 .05 .21 .17 .09 .08 .27
Conscientiousness 5 2,033 .47 .00 .43 .50 .60 .04 .55 .64
Openness 5 2,033 .14 .00 .10 .19 .19 .02 .15 .24
Self-acceptance
Honesty-humility 5 2,033 .14 .02 .10 .19 .18 .03 .12 .23
Emotionality 5 2,033 ⫺.24 .00 ⫺.29 ⫺.20 ⫺.31 .06 ⫺.37 ⫺.24
Extraversion 5 2,033 .61 .03 .57 .64 .74 .03 .71 .78
Agreeableness 5 2,033 .23 .06 .17 .30 .29 .07 .21 .37
Conscientiousness 5 2,033 .23 .07 .15 .30 .27 .09 .18 .36
Openness 5 2,033 .18 .10 .08 .27 .22 .14 .09 .35
Note. k is the number of studies. r៮ is mean observed correlation estimated from random-effects model and inverse-variance weighting. ␳ is the equivalent
correlation estimated using correlations corrected for measurement error. r៮ and ␶␳ are the estimated standard deviations of true unadjusted and corrected
correlations, respectively.

plained by each set of predictors, using adjusted r-squared to Discussion

penalize for overfitting, is shown in Table 17. On average, NEO
Domains explained more variance than HEXACO Domains and The present study provides a comprehensive examination of
NEO facets explained more variance than HEXACO facets. the links between self-reported personality and well-being, us-
HEXACO facets explained about 22% more variance (mean in- ing both the HEXACO and Big Five frameworks of personality,
crease of adjusted r-squared of .09) than HEXACO domains, and broad and narrow traits within each of these frameworks, and
NEO Facets explained about 18% more variance than NEO do- both evaluative (i.e., SWB) and eudaimonic (i.e., PWB) con-
mains (mean increase of adjusted r-squared of .12). Satisfaction ceptualizations of well-being. Whereas previous meta-analyses
with life showed the largest relative increase in prediction when have either relied on pre-Big-Five measures or a single Big Five
moving from domains to facets: 52% for HEXACO and 41% for personality framework, the current study incorporated a broad
NEO, although in terms of absolute increase, self-acceptance range of Big Five measures and synthesized the large body of
showed similar increases. Whereas the HEXACO facets improved research that has emerged in recent years. Whereas previous
prediction when added to a model with NEO Domains, adding meta-analyses have examined the relationship between the Big
HEXACO Domains or HEXACO Facets to a model with NEO Five and SWB, none have examined the Big Five in relation to
Facets led to almost no improvement in prediction. PWB, and none have examined the HEXACO framework at all.
 302 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 9
Meta-Analytic Correlations Between Big Five Personality and Subjective Well-Being by Study Type, Number of Personality Items,
Personality Measure Type, and Comparison With Past Meta-Analyses

SWL PA NA
Personality items N E O A C N E O A C N E O A C M SD

Study status
Core studies ⫺.39 .32 .08 .20 .27 ⫺.34 .44 .24 .19 .35 .56 ⫺.21 ⫺.05 ⫺.25 ⫺.25 .28 .13
Noncore studies ⫺.32 .24 .09 .18 .21 ⫺.36 .40 .27 .24 .26 .53 ⫺.20 ⫺.08 ⫺.14 ⫺.24 .25 .12
Personality items
Extra Short 1 to 3 ⫺.31 .22 .08 .15 .20 ⫺.34 .33 .20 .12 .23 .46 ⫺.20 ⫺.05 ⫺.13 ⫺.21 .22 .11
Short 4 to 7 ⫺.32 .27 .14 .19 .23 ⫺.32 .45 .36 .33 .28 .55 ⫺.18 ⫺.10 ⫺.12 ⫺.23 .27 .12
Standard 8 to 15 ⫺.38 .31 .09 .21 .26 ⫺.34 .43 .25 .22 .36 .57 ⫺.20 ⫺.07 ⫺.27 ⫺.26 .28 .13
Long 16 or more ⫺.42 .33 .06 .18 .29 ⫺.35 .46 .19 .11 .31 .57 ⫺.22 ⫺.01 ⫺.20 ⫺.22 .26 .15
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Measure type
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

NEO ⫺.42 .34 .05 .17 .28 ⫺.32 .44 .18 .10 .36 .56 ⫺.20 ⫺.02 ⫺.20 ⫺.21 .26 .15
IPIP ⫺.38 .28 .09 .19 .25 ⫺.36 .38 .20 .23 .33 .54 ⫺.21 ⫺.05 ⫺.23 ⫺.28 .27 .12
BFAS ⫺.43 .37 .06 .14 .31 ⫺.41 .57 .27 .24 .42 .65 ⫺.34 ⫺.12 ⫺.24 ⫺.27 .32 .16
BFI ⫺.34 .27 .09 .20 .23 ⫺.37 .43 .28 .24 .34 .57 ⫺.20 ⫺.06 ⫺.31 ⫺.29 .28 .13
TIPI ⫺.31 .22 .10 .14 .19 ⫺.32 .38 .27 .09 .19 .39 ⫺.26 ⫺.16 ⫺.01 ⫺.22 .22 .11
Adjectives ⫺.35 .26 .06 .21 .23 ⫺.29 .46 .33 .23 .33 .57 ⫺.22 ⫺.10 ⫺.19 ⫺.24 .27 .13
Other ⫺.34 .31 .17 .25 .25 ⫺.34 .46 .31 .26 .27 .58 ⫺.17 ⫺.09 ⫺.15 ⫺.12 .27 .13
Meta-analyses
Current (core) ⫺.39 .32 .08 .20 .27 ⫺.34 .44 .24 .19 .35 .56 ⫺.21 ⫺.05 ⫺.25 ⫺.25 .28 .13
DeNeve and Cooper (1998) ⫺.24 .17 .14 .16 .22 ⫺.14 .20 .14 .17 .14 .23 ⫺.07 .05 ⫺.13 ⫺.10 .15 .07
Steel et al. (2008) ⫺.38 .28 .03 .14 .22 ⫺.30 .44 .20 .12 .27 .54 ⫺.18 ⫺.02 ⫺.20 ⫺.20 .23 .14
Heller (2004) ⫺.48 .28 .08 .29 .31
Note. Current (core) k ⫽ 120 to 224, n ⫽ 39,023 to 158,934; Heller, Watson, and Ilies (2004) k ⫽ 19, n ⫽ 12,092; Steel et al. (2008) k ⫽ 22 to 57, n ⫽
6,040 to 16,764; DeNeve and Cooper (1998) k ⫽ 38 to 102, n is a subset of 42,171. M and SD is the mean and standard deviation of correlation after
reversing N with PA, N with SWL, and E, O, A, C with NA. NA ⫽ negative affect; PA ⫽ positive affect; SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; BFAS ⫽ Big
Five Aspect Scales; BFI ⫽ Big Five Inventory; IPIP ⫽ International Personality Item Pool; TIPI ⫽ Ten-Item Personality Inventory.

The study also provides the first robust assessment of incre- works. Third, correlations with personality mirror the unique
mental prediction by facets across both SWB and PWB and two characteristics of different dimensions of well-being. For example,
major personality frameworks. notably strong correlations were observed between openness and
Several important findings emerged from this investigation. personal growth, between conscientiousness and purpose in life,
First, the research confirms that the overlap between basic person- and between neuroticism and negative affect. Fourth, examination
ality traits and well-being dimensions is substantial. Second, of facet-level correlates highlighted the unique importance of
whereas (lower) neuroticism is the strongest correlate of well- particular facets (e.g., depression and positive emotions in the Big
being within the Big Five framework, extraversion is the strongest Five framework and social self-esteem in the HEXACO frame-
correlate within the HEXACO framework. Conversely, conscien- work) as well as explaining differences between the HEXACO and
tiousness—which previous research has rarely highlighted in re- Big Five frameworks. Fifth, facets provided moderate levels of
lation to well-being—is a notable correlate within both frame- incremental prediction over and above domains when predicting

Table 10
Correlation Among Well-Being Scales for Combined Dataset (Lower Diagonal) and NEO
Dataset (Upper Diagonal)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SWB
1. Life satisfaction .36 ⫺.29 .41 .25 .51 .27 .52 .65
2. Positive affect .52 ⫺.09 .31 .23 .40 .32 .37 .36
3. Negative affect ⫺.44 ⫺.39 ⫺.32 ⫺.29 ⫺.43 ⫺.21 ⫺.33 ⫺.40
PWB
4. Positive relations .49 .53 ⫺.41 .45 .57 .53 .58 .63
5. Autonomy .16 .26 ⫺.42 .25 .55 .46 .48 .56
6. Environmental mastery .58 .60 ⫺.59 .61 .42 .47 .72 .74
7. Personal growth .36 .51 ⫺.38 .53 .44 .58 .53 .49
8. Purpose in life .55 .60 ⫺.49 .53 .38 .76 .69 .73
9. Self-acceptance .74 .63 ⫺.58 .60 .44 .77 .60 .77
Note. N ⫽ 903 for Combined Dataset; N ⫽ 1,673 for NEO Dataset; PWB ⫽ psychological well-being; SWB ⫽
subjective well-being.
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 303

Table 11
Correlations of NEO Facets With Well-Being Measures in NEO Dataset

Variable SWL PA NA PR AU EM PG PL SA M

N1. Anxiety ⫺.28 ⫺.16 .31 ⫺.21 ⫺.28 ⴚ.34 ⫺.06 ⫺.15 ⴚ.38 ⫺.23
N2. Angry hostility ⫺.23 ⫺.14 .35 ⴚ.39 ⫺.28 ⴚ.39 ⫺.20 ⫺.29 ⴚ.39 ⫺.29
N3. Depression ⴚ.48 ⴚ.32 .41 ⴚ.46 ⴚ.41 ⴚ.57 ⫺.27 ⴚ.49 ⴚ.66 ⫺.46
N4. Self-consciousness ⴚ.31 ⫺.27 .26 ⴚ.40 ⴚ.41 ⴚ.43 ⫺.22 ⴚ.34 ⴚ.50 ⫺.36
N5. Impulsiveness ⫺.15 ⫺.07 .19 ⫺.05 ⫺.14 ⫺.23 .04 ⫺.15 ⫺.21 ⫺.12
N6. Vulnerability ⴚ.39 ⴚ.35 .36 ⴚ.36 ⴚ.44 ⴚ.60 ⫺.28 ⴚ.48 ⴚ.59 ⫺.44
E1. Warmth .22 .27 ⫺.13 .59 .24 .32 .35 .31 .32 .33
E2. Gregariousness .19 .17 ⫺.07 .40 .04 .14 .24 .18 .18 .19
E3. Assertiveness .23 .28 ⫺.04 .31 .23 .28 .22 .23 .32 .26
E4. Activity .18 .29 .02 .22 .19 .25 .23 .30 .25 .24
E5. Excitement seeking .00 .12 .05 .07 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 .25 ⫺.07 ⫺.03 .03
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

E6. Positive emotions .34 .31 ⫺.14 .49 .22 .36 .42 .34 .40 .36
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

O1. Fantasy ⫺.02 .07 .06 .09 .03 ⫺.05 .30 .01 .00 .05
O2. Aesthetics .00 .10 .06 .10 .02 ⫺.02 .30 .01 ⫺.03 .06
O3. Feelings .07 .17 .04 .25 .14 .13 .41 .18 .12 .18
O4. Actions .08 .13 ⫺.03 .19 .12 .07 .43 .08 .12 .15
O5. Ideas .01 .19 ⫺.01 .09 .14 .08 .37 .09 .07 .13
O6. Values .02 .06 ⫺.11 .25 .23 .12 .40 .16 .13 .17
A1. Trust .22 .16 ⫺.15 .41 .12 .25 .17 .24 .27 .23
A2. Straightforwardness .02 ⫺.05 ⫺.15 .11 .13 .08 .05 .11 .07 .07
A3. Altruism .18 .14 ⫺.16 .43 .22 .28 .24 .30 .26 .26
A4. Compliance .05 ⫺.04 ⫺.15 .11 ⫺.06 .07 ⫺.03 .04 .08 .03
A5. Modesty ⫺.09 ⫺.13 ⫺.04 .05 .03 ⫺.06 .02 .00 ⫺.09 ⫺.03
A6. Tender-mindedness .07 .05 ⫺.11 .27 .22 .17 .27 .23 .18 .18
C1. Competence .37 .33 ⫺.24 .35 .35 .55 .28 .54 .51 .41
C2. Order .15 .14 ⫺.04 .06 .11 .30 .09 .30 .17 .17
C3. Dutifulness .17 .16 ⫺.15 .17 .31 .41 .17 .39 .28 .26
C4. Achievement striving .24 .33 ⫺.02 .18 .24 .39 .23 .46 .31 .30
C5. Self-discipline .28 .29 ⫺.19 .26 .34 .55 .19 .52 .43 .36
C6. Deliberation .15 .11 ⫺.14 .04 .09 .24 ⫺.04 .26 .18 .13
Note. N ⫽ 1,673; SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; PR ⫽ positive relations; AU ⫽ autonomy; EM ⫽
environmental mastery; PG ⫽ personal growth; PL ⫽ purpose in life; SA ⫽ self-acceptance; Correlations .30 or above are in bold. Correlations equal to
or larger than .05, .07, and .09 are significant at .05, .01, and .001, respectively.

well-being. Across multiple measures of the Big Five and different well-being measures. In contrast, Steel et al. (2008)
HEXACO frameworks there were moderate levels of consistency focused on a small number of high-quality personality question-
in the degree of incremental prediction by facets. These findings naires such as the NEO and a limited set of reliable measures of
have fundamental implications for understanding well-being, in SWB. Similar to Steel et al. (2008), we focused the core meta-
terms of the role that both broad and narrow personality traits may analysis on a limited set of reliable personality and well-being
play in human flourishing. measures. Our research extends that of Steel et al. (2008) by
showing that the magnitude and pattern of correlations observed in
Personality and Well-Being Steel et al. (2008) is not limited to the NEO. A broadly similar
magnitude and pattern of well-being correlations was found across
According to effect size guidelines in individual differences a diverse range of Big Five measures. Second, the HEXACO and
research (e.g., Gignac & Szodorai, 2016), the relationship between the Big Five frameworks have a strong focus on affect, well-being,
personality and well-being is strong. The average correlation be- and psychological functioning. In general, it seems likely that
tween personality domains and well-being was r ⫽ .28, consider- measures based on the Big Five and related lexical approaches,
ably higher than the average correlation in individual differences such as the HEXACO, will generally exhibit strong correlations
research as a whole (i.e., r ⬃ .20). The strongest average correla- with well-being.
tions with well-being were ⫺.46 for Big Five neuroticism and .48
for HEXACO extraversion. Regression models indicated that Broad and Narrow Personality Traits of the Big Five
about half the observed variance in well-being scales can be
and HEXACO
explained by personality domains (46%) and facets (53%).
The domain-level correlations between Big Five personality and Overall, both the HEXACO and Big Five models are similarly
SWB were very similar to those reported in the meta-analysis by effective in predicting well-being. For the Big Five model, neu-
Steel et al. (2008) and larger and more nuanced than those reported roticism is a very strong predictor, extraversion and conscientious-
in the meta-analysis by DeNeve and Cooper (1998). There are ness are fairly strong, and openness and agreeableness are more
several reasons for this. First, DeNeve and Cooper (1998) included moderate. For the HEXACO model, extraversion is a very strong
many studies that predated the Big Five and also used a mixture of predictor (even stronger than Big Five neuroticism), conscientious-
 304 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 12
Correlations Between IPIP NEO Facets and Well-Being Measures in Combined Dataset

Variable SWL PA NA PR AU EM PG PL SA M

N1. Anxiety ⴚ.38 ⴚ.38 .59 ⴚ.33 ⴚ.43 ⴚ.56 ⴚ.31 ⴚ.36 ⴚ.53 ⴚ.43
N2. Angry hostility ⴚ.32 ⴚ.35 .54 ⴚ.32 ⴚ.29 ⴚ.45 ⴚ.30 ⴚ.33 ⴚ.43 ⴚ.37
N3. Depression ⴚ.65 ⴚ.58 .70 ⴚ.59 ⴚ.45 ⴚ.76 ⴚ.50 ⴚ.69 ⴚ.83 ⴚ.64
N4. Self-consciousness ⴚ.36 ⴚ.43 .49 ⴚ.45 ⴚ.56 ⴚ.56 ⴚ.42 ⴚ.44 ⴚ.55 ⴚ.47
N5. Impulsiveness ⫺.20 ⫺.22 .36 ⫺.13 ⴚ.34 ⴚ.36 ⫺.14 ⫺.27 ⴚ.31 ⫺.26
N6. Vulnerability ⴚ.41 ⴚ.43 .62 ⴚ.36 ⴚ.53 ⴚ.65 ⴚ.42 ⴚ.49 ⴚ.57 ⴚ.50
E1. Warmth .42 .50 ⴚ.40 .69 .25 .52 .44 .47 .53 .47
E2. Gregariousness .30 .36 ⫺.24 .46 .07 .33 .25 .24 .33 .29
E3. Assertiveness .34 .44 ⴚ.30 .42 .42 .47 .44 .46 .47 .42
E4. Activity .28 .41 ⫺.22 .29 .25 .49 .38 .51 .38 .36
E5. Excitement seeking .14 .23 ⫺.03 .17 .03 .09 .20 .04 .12 .12
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

E6. Positive emotions .50 .53 ⴚ.37 .59 .23 .48 .49 .47 .55 .47
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

O1. Fantasy .00 .11 .08 .09 .06 ⫺.06 .21 .03 .01 .04
O2. Aesthetics .08 .24 ⫺.06 .23 .15 .11 .42 .22 .16 .19
O3. Feelings .01 .09 .19 .19 .02 ⫺.04 .35 .20 .05 .08
O4. Actions .20 .30 ⫺.26 .27 .29 .29 .54 .32 .32 .31
O5. Ideas .12 .28 ⫺.17 .20 .41 .29 .48 .35 .26 .28
O6. Values ⫺.04 ⫺.04 .02 .01 .06 ⫺.08 .17 ⫺.04 ⫺.01 .00
A1. Trust .35 .32 ⴚ.37 .54 .10 .40 .34 .37 .42 .36
A2. Straightforwardness .08 .09 ⫺.25 .22 .15 .22 .21 .27 .17 .18
A3. Altruism .26 .36 ⫺.25 .52 .15 .34 .47 .43 .34 .35
A4. Compliance .13 .11 ⫺.21 .19 ⫺.04 .12 .17 .17 .15 .13
A5. Modesty ⴚ.30 ⫺.26 .16 ⫺.22 ⫺.18 ⫺.27 ⫺.17 ⫺.26 ⴚ.39 ⫺.25
A6. Tender-mindedness .10 .15 ⫺.07 .31 .07 .07 .33 .22 .14 .16
C1. Competence .41 .47 ⴚ.48 .42 .52 .66 .56 .68 .60 .53
C2. Order .10 .15 ⫺.14 .02 .12 .25 .10 .28 .13 .14
C3. Dutifulness .21 .23 ⴚ.34 .27 .30 .40 .34 .43 .32 .32
C4. Achievement striving .34 .45 ⫺.27 .29 .34 .54 .49 .67 .45 .43
C5. Self-discipline .34 .42 ⴚ.37 .26 .33 .61 .33 .58 .45 .41
C6. Deliberation .09 .06 ⫺.26 .09 .21 .26 .11 .30 .17 .17
Note. N ⫽ 903; SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; PR ⫽ positive relations; AU ⫽ autonomy; EM ⫽
environmental mastery; PG ⫽ personal growth; PL ⫽ purpose in life; SA ⫽ self-acceptance. Correlations .30 or above are in bold. Correlations equal to
or larger than .07, .09, and .11 are significant at .05, .01, and .001, respectively.

ness is fairly strong, and honesty-humility, emotionality, agree- honesty-humility has a secondary correlation with Big Five con-
ableness, and openness are more modest. scientiousness, whereas HEXACO agreeableness has a secondary
Differences in well-being correlations between the Big Five and correlation with neuroticism, reflecting its content related to lower
HEXACO may largely result from how these models partition anger and hostility.
personality trait variance (for a review, see Ashton & Lee, 2019; Although organized differently across the Big Five and
Ashton et al., 2014). These differences can be readily appreciated HEXACO frameworks, the tendency to experience low levels of
by examining (a) the correlations between the HEXACO and the negative emotions and high levels of positive emotions accounts
Big Five (see Table 15 in the current paper and Table 1 in Gaughan for much of the effect of personality on well-being. In the Big Five
et al., 2012), (b) the item content of relevant HEXACO and Big model, neuroticism captures the broad set of tendencies to expe-
Five scales, and (c) the correlations between personality and well- rience negative emotions, whereas facets related to positive emo-
being at the facet-level for HEXACO and the Big Five. For
tions form only part of extraversion. Facets such as depression,
instance, HEXACO extraversion (a) correlates at ⫺.65 with IPIP
positive emotions, and social self-esteem are particularly strong
NEO neuroticism, (b) has many (reversed) items that relate to low
predictors of well-being. It is not surprising that these character-
self-esteem and depression (e.g., “I sometimes feel that I am a
istic ways of experiencing the world—viewing life through a more
worthless person”), and (c) shows correlations with well-being
most prominently for the facets of social self-esteem and liveli- negative lens, ruminating on negative experiences, and emphasiz-
ness. In contrast, HEXACO emotionality (a) correlated only .56 ing what’s wrong rather than what’s right with the world—trans-
with IPIP NEO neuroticism, and (b) combines traditional neurot- late into lower levels of well-being. On the other hand, Big Five
icism facet scales such as fearfulness and anxiety (which correlate extraversion may operate both through the tendency to experience
negatively with well-being) with more neutral emotional tenden- positive emotion as well as the more instrumental pathways paved
cies such as dependence (which is relatively uncorrelated with by the behavioral components of extraversion, such as facilitating
well-being) and prosocial tendencies such as sentimentality (which positive social connections and actively engaging with environ-
correlate positively with some aspects of well-being). HEXACO mental rewards (Smillie, Cooper, Wilt, & Revelle, 2012; Smillie,
honesty-humility and HEXACO agreeableness both correlate most Wilt, Kabbani, Garratt, & Revelle, 2015; Sun, Stevenson, Kabbani,
strongly with Big Five agreeableness, although HEXACO Richardson, & Smillie, 2017).
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 305

Table 13
Correlations Between HEXACO Facets and Well-Being Measures in HEXACO Dataset

Variable SWL PA NA PR AU EM PG PL SA M

H1: Sincerity .14 .10 ⫺.25 .21 .27 .24 .23 .19 .21 .20
H2: Fairness .19 .21 ⫺.22 .25 .16 .21 .18 .25 .23 .21
H3: Greed-avoidance .08 .04 ⫺.14 .11 .23 .03 .15 .07 .10 .11
H4: Modesty ⫺.05 .00 ⫺.09 .11 .03 .01 .10 .01 ⫺.06 .03
E1: Fearfulness ⫺.04 ⫺.16 .19 ⫺.15 ⴚ.37 ⫺.27 ⫺.22 ⫺.14 ⫺.17 ⫺.19
E2: Anxiety ⫺.26 ⫺.22 .47 ⫺.23 ⴚ.35 ⴚ.43 ⫺.23 ⫺.26 ⴚ.40 ⫺.32
E3: Dependence .09 .05 .25 .17 ⴚ.30 ⫺.19 .01 ⫺.08 ⫺.05 ⫺.06
E4: Sentimentality .13 .17 .11 .25 ⫺.14 .04 .22 .18 .07 .09
X1: Social self-esteem .57 .56 ⴚ.55 .62 .37 .70 .50 .62 .75 .58
X2: Social boldness .27 .35 ⫺.27 .39 .44 .38 .40 .38 .40 .36
X3: Sociability .27 .33 ⫺.20 .51 .09 .32 .30 .24 .31 .29
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

X4: Liveliness .52 .59 ⴚ.46 .60 .29 .66 .50 .58 .64 .54
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

A1: Forgiveness .21 .21 ⫺.18 .29 .09 .21 .19 .15 .23 .20
A2: Gentleness .17 .17 ⫺.15 .18 .06 .10 .13 .07 .13 .13
A3: Flexibility .14 .14 ⫺.19 .23 ⫺.02 .16 .14 .10 .17 .14
A4: Patience .22 .27 ⴚ.34 .20 .16 .27 .20 .19 .27 .24
C1: Organization .11 .19 ⫺.12 .07 .16 .33 .14 .31 .18 .18
C2: Diligence .26 .44 ⫺.29 .24 .36 .52 .44 .62 .41 .40
C3: Perfectionism ⫺.02 .13 ⫺.03 .02 .16 .15 .20 .27 .10 .12
C4: Prudence .17 .24 ⴚ.35 .15 .27 .34 .17 .33 .27 .25
O1: Aesthetic appreciation .09 .20 ⫺.06 .12 .22 .11 .33 .16 .13 .16
O2: Inquisitiveness .06 .21 ⫺.16 .10 .29 .21 .30 .16 .16 .18
O3: Creativity .05 .23 ⫺.06 .08 .25 .08 .28 .13 .17 .15
O4: Unconventionality .00 .14 .05 .02 .22 ⫺.04 .25 .05 .07 .07
I: Altruism .14 .21 ⫺.06 .28 .00 .12 .32 .25 .18 .17
Note. N ⫽ 465; SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; PR ⫽ positive relations; AU ⫽ autonomy; EM ⫽
environmental mastery; PG ⫽ personal growth; PL ⫽ purpose in life; SA ⫽ self-acceptance. Correlations .30 or above are in bold.

Whereas most previous research has emphasized only neuroti- correlations with well-being. Each of these prosocial traits may
cism/emotionality and extraversion in relation to well-being (e.g., plausibly improve well-being by reducing interpersonal conflict
Diener et al., 1999; Schimmack et al., 2004; Smillie, Kern, & and helping to foster positive relations with others. Status seeking,
Uljarevic, 2018), the present research reveals that conscientious- manipulativeness, and greed (captured by honesty-humility and
ness is not far behind, and is perhaps even on par with extraver- some facets of Big Five agreeableness) may also create instability
sion. For instance, the average correlation for Big Five extraver- of social networks, with negative consequences for well-being.
sion was .37 versus .36 for Big Five conscientiousness (.28 for Although self-interest may bring short-term benefits, excessive
HEXACO conscientiousness). Conscientiousness emerged as par- self-interest may, in the long term, damage one’s reputation, social
ticularly important for purpose in life and environmental mastery, relationships, and sense of meaning in life. Furthermore, placing
although was somewhat less related to negative affect and positive substantial value on status symbols and power places more weight
relations. Several processes described by conscientiousness could on zero-sum aspects of life (Headey & Wearing, 1992). As a
account for its positive implications for well-being. First, consci- counterpoint, we note that the modesty facet in both the Big Five
entiousness is related to a sense of competence in life, and the and HEXACO models tended to be unrelated or negatively related
competence facet of conscientiousness was a particularly strong to well-being. This may suggest that an inability or unwillingness
predictor of well-being. Second, conscientiousness describes ef- to compare oneself favorably to others—whether this be in terms
fective self-regulation, as when one forgoes short-term pleasures of income, wealth, health, physical attractiveness, or even popu-
for the attainment of longer-term goals, whether they be related to larity on social media—may have negative implications for well-
family, education, finance, or health (Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, being. Indeed, it is well-established that most people perceive their
Richards, & Hill, 2014). Third, achievement striving and diligence lives to be “better than average” (Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher,
can connect people with a sense of purpose and meaning, that can Yurak, & Vredenburg, 1995; Headey & Wearing, 1992), and that
facilitate a deeper sense of life satisfaction. However, as a small this rationalization may promote well-being.
counterpoint, we note that a desire for order and perfection gen- Finally, openness to experience was also a modest but never-
erally showed much weaker correlations with well-being. Consis- theless meaningful predictor of well-being, with correlations ap-
tent with highlighting the shortcomings of one’s achievements proximating the average effect size in individual differences re-
relative to demanding expectations, perfectionism showed small search. Openness comprises such characteristics as intellectual
negative semipartial correlations with some well-being dimensions curiosity, an ability to adapt to change, and the tendency to seek
after controlling for personality domains (for further discussion of novel experiences (Schmutte & Ryff, 1997). Consistent with this,
the benefits and costs of perfectionism, see Stoeber & Otto, 2006; the current study revealed that openness was particularly related to
Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009). personal growth, autonomy, and positive emotions. Whereas
Both the Big Five and HEXACO conceptions of agreeableness, Stephan (2009) found openness to feelings and ideas to be the most
as well as HEXACO honesty-humility, had relatively modest important facets in relation to life satisfaction, our current findings
 306 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Table 14
Variance Explained by Broad and Narrow Traits Across Measures

Measure SWL PA NA PR AU EM PG PL SA M
2
Broad: Adjusted R
NEO .25 .23 .21 .47 .27 .51 .41 .44 .50 .36
IPIP NEO .32 .43 .52 .50 .38 .65 .54 .58 .57 .50
HEXACO .25 .37 .35 .47 .39 .52 .39 .46 .45 .41
Big Five aspects .32 .54 .67 .44 .69 .53 .67 .61 .53 .56
M .29 .39 .44 .47 .43 .56 .50 .52 .51 .46
Narrow: Adj R2
NEO .30 .25 .24 .54 .38 .55 .48 .51 .56 .42
IPIP NEO .47 .48 .58 .59 .52 .71 .62 .70 .74 .60
HEXACO .38 .44 .44 .51 .44 .63 .45 .58 .61 .50
Big Five aspects .39 .59 .69 .52 .73 .55 .72 .65 .55 .60
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

M .39 .44 .49 .54 .52 .61 .56 .61 .61 .53
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Adj R2 change
NEO .06 .02 .03 .06 .11 .04 .07 .07 .06 .06
IPIP NEO .15 .05 .06 .10 .14 .06 .07 .12 .17 .10
HEXACO .13 .07 .09 .04 .05 .11 .06 .11 .16 .09
Big Five aspects .07 .06 .03 .08 .03 .02 .05 .04 .02 .04
M .10 .05 .05 .07 .08 .06 .06 .09 .10 .07
Adj R2 prop increase
NEO .24 .09 .16 .13 .43 .08 .16 .16 .13 .17
IPIP NEO .47 .12 .11 .19 .37 .09 .14 .21 .30 .22
HEXACO .51 .19 .26 .09 .13 .20 .14 .24 .36 .24
Big Five aspects .21 .11 .04 .18 .05 .03 .07 .06 .03 .09
M .36 .13 .14 .15 .24 .10 .13 .17 .20 .18
Note. SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; PR ⫽ positive relations; AU ⫽ autonomy; EM ⫽ environmental mastery;
PG ⫽ personal growth; PL ⫽ purpose in life; SA ⫽ self-acceptance. Mean values are in bold.

varied somewhat across the different data sets. Openness to actions being, but the process through which a person achieves the good
was a salient predictor to emerge in our data, particularly in life. For those high on openness to experience, variety and growth
relation to personal growth. Openness appears to reflect an orien- are important, for those low in openness to experience, stability,
tation toward well-being that involves valuing novelty and non- safety and maintaining tradition may be more critical.
conformity, and viewing life as a process of growth and change.
This is reflected in the strong correlation between values and
Well-Being Dimensions
openness for the Big Five (Parks-Leduc, Feldman, & Bardi, 2015)
and the HEXACO (Anglim, Knowles, Dunlop, & Marty, 2017), One of the main insights revealed by the present study concerns
whereby people who are high on openness tend to value self- the differential patterns of correlations between personality and
direction, stimulation, and universalist values and are less inter- well-being as one shifts between SWB and PWB. Whereas SWB
ested in power and conformity. Given that openness is relatively focuses on the evaluation of the good life, PWB is more strongly
unrelated to life satisfaction, it may provide an example of a reflective of Eudaimonic perspectives. It is important to note,
personality trait that influences not just the experience of well- however, that this distinction is theoretical and conceptual,

Table 15
Correlations Among HEXACO and IPIP NEO Personality Domains From Combined Dataset

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

HEXACO
1. Honesty-humility
2. Emotionality .06
3. Extraversion .01 ⫺.21
4. Agreeableness .37 ⫺.18 .31
5. Conscientiousness .31 ⫺.11 .21 .22
6. Openness .13 ⫺.18 .19 .19 .17
IPIP NEO
7. Neuroticism ⫺.19 .56 ⴚ.65 ⫺.46 ⫺.36 ⫺.26
8. Extraversion ⫺.09 ⫺.08 .83 .17 .11 .13 ⫺.49
9. Agreeableness .67 .22 .12 .53 .26 .05 ⫺.17 .08
10. Conscientiousness .32 ⫺.14 .28 .19 .84 .09 ⫺.48 .19 .32
11. Openness .16 .06 .23 .14 .15 .71 ⫺.19 .30 .20 .14
Note. N ⫽ 465. Cross-correlations between personality measures greater than .50 are shown in bold.
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 307

Table 16
Correlations Between HEXACO and IPIP NEO Domains and Well-Being Measures for Combined Dataset

Measure SWL PA NA PR AU EM PG PL SA M

IPIP NEO
Neuroticism ⴚ.45 ⴚ.52 .69 ⴚ.46 ⴚ.55 ⴚ.70 ⴚ.47 ⴚ.56 ⴚ.68 ⴚ.56
Extraversion .42 .55 ⴚ.30 .63 .30 .53 .53 .49 .52 .47
Openness .09 .32 ⫺.04 .26 .28 .15 .57 .31 .24 .25
Agreeableness .15 .20 ⫺.21 .35 .04 .19 .29 .24 .19 .21
Conscientiousness .27 .39 ⴚ.37 .26 .39 .59 .38 .61 .45 .41
HEXACO
Honesty-humility .12 .12 ⫺.23 .22 .23 .16 .21 .17 .16 .18
Emotionality ⫺.03 ⫺.07 .37 .00 ⴚ.41 ⴚ.31 ⫺.09 ⫺.12 ⫺.20 ⫺.18
Extraversion .49 .56 ⴚ.45 .64 .37 .62 .52 .55 .64 .54
Agreeableness .24 .26 ⫺.28 .29 .10 .24 .21 .17 .26 .23
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Conscientiousness .17 .33 ⫺.26 .16 .30 .44 .31 .50 .31 .31
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Openness .07 .25 ⫺.08 .11 .31 .12 .37 .17 .17 .18
HEXACO Neuroticism ⴚ.48 ⴚ.49 .64 ⴚ.48 ⴚ.45 ⴚ.70 ⴚ.44 ⴚ.55 ⴚ.68 ⴚ.55
Note. N ⫽ 465; SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; PR ⫽ positive relations; AU ⫽ autonomy; EM ⫽
environmental mastery; PG ⫽ personal growth; PL ⫽ purpose in life; SA ⫽ self-acceptance. Correlations equal to or larger than .10, .12, and .16 are
significant at .05, .01, and .001, respectively. M ⫽ mean correlation between the personality trait and well-being variables, where the correlation with
negative affect (NA) is reversed. Correlations .30 or above in bold.

whereas the empirical differences between these models are less Second, of the three components of SWB, life satisfaction was
clear cut. All nine dimensions of well-being are positively inter- less well predicted by personality compared with positive and
correlated (after reversing negative affect), despite each capturing negative affect. This is perhaps unsurprising given that the ten-
important unique variance. Additionally, the nine scales do not dency to experience positive and negative emotions is part of the
segregate into distinct SWB and PWB factors. Thus, it is important core content of personality scales (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, &
to consider both the broad and the scale-specific patterns of per- Dienstbier, 2002). In contrast, life satisfaction is a cognitive ap-
sonality correlates. praisal, influenced both by expectations and evaluations, and the
First, and in line with recent research (e.g., Anglim & Grant, individual’s choice of what factors are relevant to that judgment. It
2016), many PWB scales showed a much stronger overlap with is therefore a step removed from summaries of a person’s typical
personality compared with SWB scales. In the meta-analysis, behavior and experience. Such factors may help explain why life
correlations were larger for environmental mastery, personal satisfaction shows a much more modest overlap with personality
growth, and self-acceptance, and smaller for life satisfaction, al- compared to other dimensions of well-being. Interestingly, the
though the PWB scale of autonomy also had smaller correlations. facets of modesty and perfectionism showed negative semipartial
In the domain- and facet-level regression models this pattern was correlations with life satisfaction. Thus, whether through objective
also observed, although positive and negative affect were also circumstance, arrogance, or pleasant self-deception, very high life
predicted somewhat less well. These differences may partially be satisfaction is often related to seeing oneself and one’s life as
methodological. PWB is often measured with a 14-item per scale superior to those around you. Furthermore, perfectionism may lead
format whereas the standard life satisfaction measure (Diener et people to focus on ways that their life could conceivably be better.
al., 1985) involves only five items. Nonetheless, as we discuss At a more general level, it was apparent that each well-being
below, there are several theoretical reasons why some PWB scales dimension was characterized by a coherent pattern of personality
overlap more with particular personality traits. correlates. Specifically, positive affect, unsurprisingly, was well-

Table 17
Adjusted R Squared for Regression Models Predicting Well-Being Measures in Combined Dataset

Predictors k SWL PA NA PR AU EM PG PL SA M

HEXACO domains 6 .25 .37 .35 .47 .39 .52 .39 .46 .45 .41
NEO domains 5 .26 .43 .49 .50 .36 .63 .55 .55 .53 .48
HEXACO facets 25 .38 .44 .44 .51 .44 .63 .45 .58 .61 .50
NEO domains ⫹ HEXACO domains 11 .31 .45 .50 .53 .45 .64 .55 .57 .57 .51
NEO domains ⫹ HEXACO facets 30 .41 .50 .52 .59 .49 .70 .57 .64 .67 .57
NEO facets 30 .44 .50 .57 .59 .52 .70 .64 .70 .70 .60
HEXACO domains ⫹ NEO facets 36 .46 .50 .57 .59 .54 .71 .64 .71 .71 .60
HEXACO facets ⫹ NEO facets 55 .48 .52 .56 .61 .56 .72 .64 .70 .73 .61
Note. n ⫽ 465; k ⫽ number of predictors in regression model; M ⫽ the mean adjusted r-squared value averaged over well-being variables; NEO ⫽ IPIP
NEO; SWL ⫽ satisfaction with life; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; PR ⫽ positive relations; AU ⫽ autonomy; EM ⫽ environmental mastery;
PG ⫽ personal growth; PL ⫽ purpose in life; SA ⫽ self-acceptance. k is number of predictors. Mean represents the average variance explained for the
predictor set over the nine well-being measures.
 308 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

predicted by extraversion and facets related to the tendency to though much of the perceived value of narrow traits is attributable
experience positive emotions. Negative affect was strongly related to the idea that facets might double prediction, more modest
to neuroticism, and most prominently with the facet of depression. incremental prediction is still of practical and theoretical impor-
Positive relations showed close connections with agreeableness tance. Facets also provide a richer profile of how and why different
and to some extent extraversion. Autonomy combined common domains correlate with relevant criteria, and provide a more nu-
well-being correlates with a fairly unique set of personality corre- anced picture of the personality–well-being interface.
lates that combine impulsiveness, noncompliance, and low trust, Interestingly, the HEXACO model was characterized by larger
with assertiveness and social boldness. Environmental mastery incremental facet prediction (as a proportion) than the Big Five,
correlated fairly uniformly across personality traits although it did both in terms of the NEO and IPIP NEO. This is striking, given
show some elevation for conscientiousness. Personal growth was that the NEO model has fewer domains and more facets than does
characterized most uniquely by openness with some amplification the HEXACO model, which should lead the NEO model to have
for diligence and achievement striving. Purpose in life was partic- stronger incremental prediction. The IPIP NEO also has more
ularly well characterized by conscientiousness and especially dil- items per facet, which should yield more reliable measurement of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

igence and achievement striving. Finally, self-acceptance showed the unique aspects of each facet. On the other hand, the HEXACO
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

a somewhat similar pattern of correlations to that of life satisfac- model incudes the interstitial trait of altruism, which is not used in
tion albeit at much greater levels. Although self-acceptance and scoring the domains, whereas all of the items of the Big Five
life satisfaction are highly correlated, self-acceptance places rela- facets/aspects are used to compute the domain scores. Critically,
tively less emphasis on the external conditions of life. This em- none of the HEXACO domains capture the general tendency to
phasis on liking or loathing oneself brings it very close to several experience negative emotions in the same way as Big Five neu-
dimensions of personality, as seen by the particularly large corre- roticism (Gaughan et al., 2012). Rather, the HEXACO model
lation with the facet of depression. Some of these cross- distributes content from Big Five neuroticism over various do-
correlations have already been noted in previous research (e.g., mains including extraversion (r ⫽ ⫺.50), emotionality (r ⫽ .52),
Anglim & Grant, 2016; Grant et al., 2009; Sun et al., 2018), and and agreeableness (r ⫽ ⫺.38; Gaughan et al., 2012). The most
the current study consolidates these observations through the first salient observation regarding incremental facet prediction within
comprehensive, large sample assessment. the HEXACO concerned the emotionality facet of anxiety and the
extraversion facets of social self-esteem and liveliness, all of
Incremental Prediction by Narrow Traits which seem to capture the most affect-related influences on well-
being.
One of the most critical contributions of the present study
concerns estimation of the proportional increase in variance ex-
plained by facets above and beyond domains. Average incremental Limitations and Future Research
variance explained by facets was 17%, 22%, and 24% for NEO,
IPIP NEO, and HEXACO taxonomies, respectively. The amount Because the current meta-analysis is based on self-report mea-
of incremental prediction showed some systematic variation across sures of personality and well-being, some care is required when
these three measures, although much less consistency was ob- generalizing the findings to the latent constructs. Participants vary
served for the Big Five Aspect Scales. In particular, life satisfac- in the degree to which social desirability influences their re-
tion, autonomy, and self-acceptance showed the greatest incremen- sponses, and items and scales vary in their degree of socially
tal prediction. These scales are not obviously broader or narrower desirable content (Anglim, Morse, et al., 2017; McCrae & Costa,
than other well-being dimensions. Rather they may exhibit a 1983; Wiggins, 1968). Person- and item-level variance in socially
complexity that means that several facets are important as is the desirable responding can lead to elevated correlations between
case with autonomy. Equally, there may be a particular facet that personality and well-being. This is particularly evident in the
aligns very closely, perhaps as can be seen with depression and minority of studies using low-paid participant samples where
social self-esteem in relation to self-acceptance. many participants engage in satisficing and semirandom respond-
A major focus of the literature on incremental facet prediction ing. We observed that in such studies, correlations between broad
has been on life satisfaction (Røysamb et al., 2018; Schimmack et personality traits were often elevated, which presumably translates
al., 2004; Steel et al., 2019), and this exhibited somewhat greater to elevated correlations between personality and well-being. As a
increases of between 24% and 51% depending on the personality consequence, care is needed when evaluating personality measures
framework. This estimate is broadly consistent with the largest in terms of how much variance they explain in self-reported
study to report incremental facet prediction to date, albeit limited well-being. One measure might predict self-reported well-being
to life satisfaction, which obtained 33% incremental prediction better because it has more socially desirable items. This may
(Røysamb et al., 2018). Steel et al. (2019) reported a 78% increase partially explain why the IPIP NEO predicted well-being better
based on a meta-analytic correlation matrix, but it is important to than the HEXACO PI R. Similarly, if one sample has more
note that meta-analytic regression is problematic. In particular, evaluative variance, then this may lead to elevated correlations
estimating a regression model with 30 highly correlated predictors, between personality and well-being. For example, the greater
where facet-level intercorrelations are not provided in the primary prediction of well-being in the Big Five Aspects dataset may
studies leads to unreliable and often inflated estimates of variance partially be explained by the use of a Mechanical Turk sample.
explained. Although several studies have examined other-reports of person-
More generally, we consider the proportional increase of 10% to ality and well-being (Dobewall, Realo, Allik, Esko, & Metspalu,
50% when using hierarchical instruments as noteworthy. Even 2013; Schimmack et al., 2004), more research is needed in this
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 309

area, particularly involving large samples, full hierarchical mea- of the role that personality traits play in pathways to the good
sures of personality, and multidimensional models of well-being. life.
Finally, it is worth considering the degree to which the
correlations between personality and well-being are attributable References
to artifactual measurement overlap (Anglim & Grant, 2016;
Schmutte & Ryff, 1997). Theoretically, the concepts of person- References marked with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis.
ality and well-being can be distinguished in terms of temporal ⴱ
Agbo, A. A., & Ngwu, C. N. (2017). Aversion to happiness and the
frame-of-reference, implied stability, and degree of attribution experience of happiness: The moderating roles of personality. Person-
to the person versus the situation. Whereas personality is de- ality and Individual Differences, 111, 227–231. http://dx.doi.org/10
fined as relatively stable and originating more from the person, .1016/j.paid.2017.02.010
ⴱ
well-being captures the experience and appraisal of life at a Aghababaei, N. (2014). God, the good life, and HEXACO: The relations
given moment. Nonetheless, it is unsurprising that an individ- among religion, subjective well-being and personality. Mental Health,
ual’s general approach to acting in and experiencing the world Religion & Culture, 17, 284 –290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674676
.2013.797956
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(i.e., their personality) predicts his or her momentary emotional ⴱ

Aghababaei, N., & Arji, A. (2014). Well-being and the HEXACO model
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

experiences and evaluations of life. Importantly, the correla- of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 139 –142.
tions between personality and well-being index the extent and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.037
nature of this relationship. So, for example, to remove negative ⴱ
Aghababaei, N., Błachnio, A., Arji, A., Chiniforoushan, M., Tekke, M., &
affect from neuroticism, or positive affect from extraversion is Fazeli Mehrabadi, A. (2016). Honesty– humility and the HEXACO
to fundamentally change the nature of these personality traits. structure of religiosity and well-being. Current Psychology, 35, 421–
However, many important research questions remain regarding 426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9310-5
ⴱ
the causal processes that relate personality and well-being. Aghababaei, N., & Tabik, M. T. (2013). Gratitude and mental health:
Facet-level analysis provides some perspective about which Differences between religious and general gratitude in a Muslim context.
aspects of a given trait are more or less important in predicting Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 16, 761–766. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/13674676.2012.718754
different dimensions of well-being. Nonetheless, the literature ⴱ
Ahadi, S. A., & Puente-Díaz, R. (2011). Acculturation, personality, and
would benefit from more experimental and experience sampling psychological adjustment. Psychological Reports, 109, 842– 862. http://
research exploring these questions (e.g., Jacques-Hamilton, dx.doi.org/10.2466/02.07.17.20.PR0.109.6.842-862
Sun, & Smillie, 2019). ⴱ
Albrecht, A. G., Dilchert, S., Deller, J., & Paulus, F. M. (2014). Openness
in cross-cultural work settings: A multicountry study of expatriates.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 64 –75. http://dx.doi.org/10
Conclusion .1080/00223891.2013.821074
ⴱ
The current research reaffirms that personality is critical to the Albuquerque, I., de Lima, M. P., Matos, M., & Figueiredo, C. (2012).
experience of well-being. This is consistent with set-point theories Personality and subjective well-being: What hides behind global analy-
of well-being (Cummins, 2015; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Headey ses? Social Indicators Research, 105, 447– 460. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s11205-010-9780-7
& Wearing, 1992), and the idea that well-being is relatively stable ⴱ
Alfonsi, G., Conway, M., & Pushkar, D. (2011). The lower subjective
despite short-term fluctuations in response to many transient social status of neurotic individuals: Multiple pathways through occu-
events. However, it is also important to remember that personality pational prestige, income, and illness. Journal of Personality, 79, 619 –
traits are not set like plaster but rather are malleable, with a wealth 642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00684.x
of evidence that traits change across the life span (Ashton & Lee, Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vre-
2016; McCrae et al., 1999; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011), denburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-
after specific experiences (e.g., Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013) or than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
interventions (e.g., Roberts et al., 2017), and even according to 804 – 825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.804
ⴱ
one’s trait change-goals (e.g., Hudson & Fraley, 2015). It would Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P., Singh, S., & Ryu, S. (2015). Family interference
therefore be inappropriate to interpret the strong relation between and employee dissatisfaction: Do agreeable employees better cope with
stress? Human Relations, 68, 691–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
personality and well-being as indicative of the immutability of
0018726714539714
human happiness. Rather, efforts to improve well-being might Anglim, J., & Grant, S. L. (2014). Incremental criterion prediction of
target the most critical aspects of one’s habitual or characteristic personality facets over factors: Obtaining unbiased estimates and con-
patterns of behavior and experience, as reflected in basic person- fidence intervals. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 148 –157.
ality traits. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.005
ⴱ
In summary, we have provided the most comprehensive Anglim, J., & Grant, S. (2016). Predicting psychological and subjective
assessment yet of the relations between personality traits and well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over
dimensions of well-being. Our study expands the mapping of the Big 5. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 59 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/
personality to well-being by encompassing both the Big Five 10.1007/s10902-014-9583-7
ⴱ
and the increasingly popular HEXACO model of personality, Anglim, J., & Horwood, S. (2019). HEXACO IPIP well-being data.
Unpublished dataset presented in the current article.
and also both Diener’s SWB perspective as well as Ryff’s PWB
Anglim, J., Knowles, E. R., Dunlop, P. D., & Marty, A. (2017). HEXACO
perspective on well-being. Moreover, our analyses span personality and Schwartz’s personal values: A facet-level analysis. Jour-
domain-level traits and narrower aspects and facets within the nal of Research in Personality, 68, 23–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
personality trait hierarchy, while contributing more broadly to .jrp.2017.04.002
methods for synthesizing facet-level research. Taken together, Anglim, J., Morse, G., De Vries, R. E., MacCann, C., & Marty, A. (2017).
the findings reported here expand and enrich our understanding Comparing job applicants to non-applicants using an item-level bifactor
 310 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

ⴱ
model on the HEXACO personality inventory. European Journal of Baselmans, B. M. L., van de Weijer, M. P., Abdellaoui, A., Vink, J. M.,
Personality, 31, 669 – 684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.2120 Hottenga, J. J., Willemsen, G., . . . Bartels, M. (2019). A Genetic
Anglim, J., & O’Connor, P. (2019). Measurement and research using the investigation of the well-being spectrum. Behavior Genetics, 49, 286 –
Big Five, HEXACO, and narrow traits: A primer for researchers and 297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09951-0
ⴱ
practitioners. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71, 16 –25. http://dx.doi Baudin, N., Aluja, A., Rolland, J.-P., & Blanch, A. (2011). The role of
.org/10.1111/ajpy.12202 personality in satisfaction with life and sport. Behavioral Psychology/
Anglim, J., Weinberg, M. K., & Cummins, R. A. (2015). Bayesian hier- Psicología Conductual, 19, 333–345.
archical modeling of the temporal dynamics of subjective well-being: A ⴱ
Bauer, J. J., & McAdams, D. P. (2010). Eudaimonic growth: Narrative
10 year longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, growth goals predict increases in ego development and subjective well-
1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.08.003 being 3 years later. Developmental Psychology, 46, 761–772. http://dx
ⴱ
Antunes, A. C., Caetano, A., Pina, E., & Cunha, M. (2017). Reliability and .doi.org/10.1037/a0019654
construct validity of the Portuguese version of the Psychological Capital ⴱ
Beer, A., Watson, D., & McDade-Montez, E. (2013). Self-other agree-
Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 120, 520 –536. http://dx.doi.org/ ment and assumed similarity in neuroticism, extraversion, and trait
10.1177/0033294116686742 affect: Distinguishing the effects of form and content. Assessment, 20,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Anusic, I., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R. T., & Lockwood, P. (2009). The 723–737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191113500521
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The halo- Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank
alpha-beta model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088 –1101. http://
1142–1156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017159 dx.doi.org/10.2307/2533446
ⴱ
Anwar, C. M. (2017). Linkages between personality and knowledge ⴱ
Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Woodworth, S. (1995). Personality and parenting:
sharing behavior in workplace: Mediating role of affective states. E⫹M: Exploring the mediating role of transient mood and daily hassles. Jour-
Ekonomie a Management, 20, 102–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.15240/tul/ nal of Personality, 63, 905–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494
001/2017-2-008 .1995.tb00320.x
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-humility, the big five, and the ⴱ
Benet-Martínez, V., & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (2003). The interplay of
five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 73, 1321–1354. http://dx.doi cultural syndromes and personality in predicting life satisfaction: Com-
.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x
paring Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Cross-
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2016). Age trends in HEXACO-PI-R self-
Cultural Psychology, 34, 38 – 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220
reports. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 102–111. http://dx.doi
22102239154
.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.08.008 ⴱ
Benotsch, E. G., Lutgendorf, S. K., Watson, D., Fick, L. J., & Lang, E. V.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2019). How well do Big Five measures capture
(2000). Rapid anxiety assessment in medical patients: Evidence for the
HEXACO scale variance? Journal of Personality Assessment, 101,
validity of verbal anxiety ratings. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22,
567–573.
199 –203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02895114
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty- ⴱ
Bianchi, R., Rolland, J. P., & Salgado, J. F. (2018). Burnout, depression,
Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research
and borderline personality: A 1,163-participant study. Frontiers in Psy-
and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139 –152.
chology, 8, 2336. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838 ⴱ
Biderman, M. D., McAbee, S. T., Job Chen, Z., & Hendy, N. T. (2018).
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas,
Assessing the evaluative content of personality questionnaires using
L., . . . De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-
bifactor models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 375–388.
descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1406362
languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356 –366. ⴱ
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356 Blatný, M., Květon, P., Jelínek, M., Šolcová, I., Zábrodská, K., Mudrák,
ⴱ
Augusto Landa, J. M., Martos, M. P., & López-Zafra, E. (2010). Emo- J., & Machovcová, K. (2018). The influence of personality traits on life
tional intelligence and personality traits as predictors of psychological satisfaction through work engagement and job satisfaction among aca-
well-being in Spanish undergraduates. Social Behavior and Personality, demic faculty members. Studia Psychologica, 60, 274 –286. http://dx.doi
38, 783–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.783 .org/10.21909/sp.2018.04.767
ⴱ
ⴱ
Austin, E., Saklofske, D., & Mastoras, S. (2010). Emotional intelligence, Blatný, M., Millová, K., Jelínek, M., & Osecká, T. (2015). Personality
coping and exam-related stress in Canadian undergraduate students. predictors of successful development: Toddler temperament and adoles-
Australian Journal of Psychology, 62, 42–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ cent personality traits predict well-being and career stability in middle
00049530903312899 adulthood. PLoS ONE, 10, e0126032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal
ⴱ
Aykaç, B., Copuroğlu, C., Ozcan, M., Ciftdemir, M., & Yalnız, E. (2011). .pone.0126032
ⴱ
Postoperative evaluation of quality of life in lumbar spinal stenosis Bogin, L. (2018). A portrait of college success: Grit, theories of intelli-
patients following instrumented posterior decompression. Acta Ortho- gence, and cumulative life adversity (Doctoral dissertation). Pace Uni-
paedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 45, 47–52. versity, Pleasantville, NY.
ⴱ ⴱ
Balgiu, B. A. (2018). The psychometric properties of the Big Five Boland, A., & Cappeliez, P. (1997). Optimism and neuroticism as pre-
inventory-10 (BFI-10) including correlations with subjective and psy- dictors of coping and adaptation in older woman. Personality and
chological well-being. Global Journal of Psychology Research: New Individual Differences, 22, 909 –919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
Trends and Issues, 8, 61– 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.18844/gjpr.v8i2.3434 8869(96)00251-6
ⴱ ⴱ
Baltes, B. B., Zhdanova, L. S., & Clark, M. A. (2011). Examining the Bono, T. J. (2011). What good is engagement? Predicting academic
relationships between personality, coping strategies, and work–family performance and college satisfaction from personality, social support,
conflict. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 517–530. http://dx.doi and student engagement (Doctoral thesis). Washington University, Saint
.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9207-0 Louis, MO.
ⴱ ⴱ
Barr, P. (2018). Personality traits, state positive and negative affect, and Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of
professional quality of life in neonatal nurses. Journal of Obstetric, personality on executive career success in the United States and Europe.
Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 47, 771–782. http://dx.doi.org/10 Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 53– 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
.1016/j.jogn.2018.08.003 jvbe.2000.1755
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 311
ⴱ ⴱ
Brailovskaia, J., Bierhoff, H. W., & Margraf, J. (2019). How to identify Carrillo, E., Prado-Gascó, V., Fiszman, S., & Varela, P. (2012). How
narcissism with 13 items? Validation of the German Narcissistic Per- personality traits and intrinsic personal characteristics influence the
sonality Inventory-13 (G-NPI-13). Assessment, 26, 630 – 644. http://dx consumer’s choice of reduced-calorie food. Food Research Interna-
.doi.org/10.1177/1073191117740625 tional, 49, 792–797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.09.006
ⴱ ⴱ
Brailovskaia, J., & Margraf, J. (2016). Comparing Facebook users and Castro Solano, A., & Cosentino, A. C. (2018). IVyF abreviado—
Facebook non-users: Relationship between personality traits and mental IVyFabre: Análisis psicométrico y de estructura factorial en Argentina
health variables: An exploratory study. PLoS ONE, 11, e0166999. http:// [sci Brief Form (sci-bf): Psychometric and factor structure analyses in
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166999 Argentina]. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 36, 619 – 637.
ⴱ
Brailovskaia, J., & Margraf, J. (2018). What does media use reveal about http://dx.doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.4681
ⴱ
personality and mental health? An exploratory investigation among Cellini, N., Duggan, K. A., & Sarlo, M. (2017). Perceived sleep quality:
German students. PLoS ONE, 13, e0191810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ The interplay of neuroticism, affect, and hyperarousal. Sleep Health, 3,
journal.pone.0191810 184 –189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2017.03.001
ⴱ ⴱ
Brajša-Žganec, A., Ivanović, D., & Lipovčan, L. K. (2011). Personality Chambers, B. J. (2004). Adjustment to career termination in professional
traits and social desirability as predictors of subjective well-being. hockey players (Doctoral thesis). Simon Fraser University, Vancouver,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Psihologijske Teme, 20, 261–276. Canada.

ⴱ ⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Bratko, D., & Sabol, J. (2006). Personality and basic psychological needs Chan, B. C. L., Luciano, M., & Lee, B. (2018). Interaction of physical
as predictors of life satisfaction: Results of the on-line study [Osobine activity and personality in the subjective wellbeing of older adults in
ličnosti i osnovne psihološke potrebe kao prediktori zadovoljstva Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Behavioral Sciences, 8, 71.
životom: Rezultati on-line istraživanja]. Drustvena Istrazivanja, 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs8080071
ⴱ
693–711. Chen, C. (2015). Incremental validity of achievement goals in predicting
ⴱ
Brenner, K., St-Hilaire, A., Liu, A., Laplante, D. P., & King, S. (2011). subjective well-being among university students. Journal of Cognitive
Cortisol response and coping style predict quality of life in schizophre- Education and Psychology, 14, 38 – 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-
nia. Schizophrenia Research, 128, 23–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j 8959.14.1.38
ⴱ
.schres.2011.01.016 Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Zhang, Z.
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted con-
the good society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. structs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal
287–305). New York, NY: Academic Press. of Personality, 80, 219 –251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494
ⴱ
Burles, F., Guadagni, V., Hoey, F., Arnold, A. E., Levy, R. M., O’Neill, .2011.00739.x
ⴱ
T., & Iaria, G. (2014). Neuroticism and self-evaluation measures are Chen, M. M. (2011). A study of the criterion and incremental validity of
related to the ability to form cognitive maps critical for spatial orienta- the Structured Interview for DSM–IV personality, the revised neuroti-
tion. Behavioural Brain Research, 271, 154 –159. http://dx.doi.org/10 cism, extraversion, openness - personality inventory, and schedule for
.1016/j.bbr.2014.06.002 adaptive and nonadaptive personality (Doctoral thesis). St. John’s Uni-
ⴱ
Burton, C. M., Plaks, J. E., & Peterson, J. B. (2015). Why Do Conserva- versity, New York, NY.
ⴱ
tives Report Being Happier Than Liberals? The Contribution of Neu- Chen, S. X., & Carey, T. P. (2009). Assessing Citizenship Behavior in
roticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 89 –102. http:// Educational Contexts. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27,
dx.doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.117 125–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908325146
ⴱ
Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidi- Choi, Y., & Lee, D. (2014). Psychological capital, Big Five traits, and
mensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6, employee outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 122–140.
6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0193
ⴱ ⴱ
Bye, D., & Pushkar, D. (2009). How need for cognition and perceived Chopik, W. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2019). Actor, partner, and similarity effects
control are differentially linked to emotional outcomes in the transition of personality on global and experienced well-being. Journal of Re-
to retirement. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 320 –332. http://dx.doi.org/ search in Personality, 78, 249 –261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018
10.1007/s11031-009-9135-3 .12.008
ⴱ
Cabrera-Darias, M., & Marrero-Quevedo, R. J. (2015). Motivos, person- Churchyard, J. S., Pine, K. J., Sharma, S., & Fletcher, B. C. (2014). Same
alidad y bienestar subjetivo en el voluntariado [Motives, personality and traits, different variance: Item-level variation within personality mea-
subjective well-being in volunteering]. Anales de Psicología, 31, 791– sures. SAGE Open, 4, 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522634
ⴱ
801. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.31.3.180921 Çikrikçi, Ö. (2019). An exploration of the associations among positivity,
ⴱ
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Eisenberg, N., Kupfer, A., Steca, P., general distress and internet addiction: The mediating effect of general
Caprara, M. G., . . . Abela, J. (2012). The positivity scale. Psychological distress. Psychiatry Research, 272, 628 – 637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Assessment, 24, 701–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026681 j.psychres.2018.12.147
ⴱ ⴱ
Caprara, G. V., Fratte, A., & Steca, P. (2002). Determinanti personali del Clark, M. A., Lelchook, A. M., & Taylor, M. L. (2010). Beyond the Big
benessere nell’adolescenza: Indicatori e predittori [Personal determi- Five: How narcissism, perfectionism, and dispositional affect relate to
nants of well-being in adolescence: Indicators and predictors]. Psicolo- workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 786 –791.
gia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 6, 203–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.013
ⴱ ⴱ
Carciofo, R., & Song, N. (2019). The Chinese Morningness-Eveningness- Clifton, J. D. W., Baker, J. D., Park, C. L., Yaden, D. B., Clifton,
Stability-Scale improved (MESSi): Validity, reliability, and associations A. B. W., Terni, P., . . . Seligman, M. E. P. (2019). Primal world beliefs.
with sleep quality, personality, affect and life satisfaction. Chronobiol- Psychological Assessment, 31, 82–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
ogy International, 36, 1036 –1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07420528 pas0000639
ⴱ
.2019.1608225 Compton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A., & Qualls, D. L. (1996).
ⴱ
Carmona-Halty, M. A., & Rojas-Paz, P. P. (2014). Rasgos de personali- Factor structure of mental health measures. Journal of Personality and
dad, necesidad de cognición y satisfacción vital en estudiantes univer- Social Psychology, 71, 406 – 413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
sitarios chilenos [Personality traits, need for cognition and life satisfac- .71.2.406
ⴱ
tion in Chilean university students]. Universitas Psychologica, 13, 83– Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on
93. http://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-1.rpnc the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use.
 312 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-
j.chb.2009.09.003 analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psycholog-
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical ical Bulletin, 124, 197–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2
personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. .197
ⴱ
Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ Denovan, M. A. (2018). Investigating student stress from a positive
s15327752jpa6401_2 psychology perspective (Doctoral thesis). Sheffield Hallam University,
ⴱ Sheffield, England.
Costa, P. T., & MacCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inven-
tory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Profes- De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P., Timmerman, M. E., De Roover, K., Mlačić,
sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. B., & Church, A. T. (2014). Towards a pan-cultural personality struc-
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality ture: Input from 11 psycholexical studies. European Journal of Person-
Inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske ality, 28, 497–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1953
ⴱ
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. Deventer, J., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., Retelsdorf, J., & Wagner, J. (2019).
2, pp. 179 –198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Against all odds - is a more differentiated view of personality develop-
ⴱ ment in emerging adulthood needed? The case of young apprentices.
Cotter, E. W., & Fouad, N. A. (2011). The Relationship Between Sub-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

jective Well-Being and Vocational Personality Type. Journal of Career British Journal of Psychology, 110, 60 – 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Assessment, 19, 51– 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072710382614 bjop.12336

ⴱ
Courneya, K. S., Bobick, T. M., Rhodes, R. E., Jones, L. W., Friedenreich, DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-
C. M., & Arthur, K. (2000). Personality correlates of patients’ subjective informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
well-being after surgery for colorectal cancer. Journal of Psychosocial 1138 –1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138
Oncology, 18, 61–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J077v18n04_04 DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets
ⴱ
Cowan, H. R. (2019). Can a good life be unsatisfying? Within-person and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and
dynamics of life satisfaction and psychological well-being in late Social Psychology, 93, 880 – 896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
midlife. Psychological Science, 30, 697–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ .93.5.880
0956797619831981 Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Gal-
ⴱ lardo, I., Valle, C., & van Dierendonck, D. (2006). Adaptación española
Crouch, T. B. (2016). A latent profile analysis of affect regulation patterns
de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff [Spanish adaptation of the
among young adults and relations with early life stress, executive
Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWBS)]. Psicothema, 18, 572–577.
functioning, and risky substance use (Doctoral dissertation). University
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–
of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD.
ⴱ 575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Crowe, M. L., LoPilato, A. C., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2016).
Diener, E., & Choi, D.-W. (Eds.). (2009). Culture and well-being. Dor-
Identifying two groups of entitled individuals: Cluster analysis reveals
drecht, the Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-
emotional stability and self-esteem distinction. Journal of Personality
2352-0
Disorders, 30, 762–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_229
ⴱ Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
Csarny, R. J. (1998). The incremental validity of religious constructs in
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–
predicting quality of life, racism, and sexual attitudes (Doctoral disser-
75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
tation). Loyola College in Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and
Cummins, R. A. (2015). The theory of subjective wellbeing homeostasis:
subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. An-
A contribution to understanding life quality. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A life
nual Review of Psychology, 54, 403– 425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
devoted to quality of life - Festschrift in honor of Alex C. Michalos (pp.
annurev.psych.54.101601.145056
61–79). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective
ⴱ
Datu, J. A. D. (2014). Forgiveness, gratitude and subjective well-being well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
among Filipino adolescents. International Journal for the Advancement 276 –302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
of Counselling, 36, 262–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10447-013- ⴱ
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2018). Academic relational civility as a key
9205-9 resource for sustaining well-being. Sustainability, 10, 1914. http://dx.doi
ⴱ
Datu, J. A. D., Yuen, M., & Chen, G. (2018). The triarchic model of grit .org/10.3390/su10061914
is linked to academic success and well-being among Filipino high school ⴱ
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2015). Hedonic and eudaimonic well-
students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33, 428 – 438. http://dx.doi.org/ being: The role of resilience beyond fluid intelligence and personality
10.1037/spq0000234 traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1367. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: .2015.01367
An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11. http://dx.doi ⴱ
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., & Bucci, O. (2017). In an unpredictable and
.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1 changing environment: Intrapreneurial self-capital as a key resource for
ⴱ
de Frias, C. M., Dixon, R. A., & Bäckman, L. (2003). Use of memory life satisfaction and flourishing. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1819. http://
compensation strategies is related to psychosocial and health indicators. dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01819
The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and ⴱ
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Promoting individual resources:
Social Sciences, 58, 12–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.1.P12 The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual
ⴱ
De Gucht, V., Fischler, B., & Heiser, W. (2004). Neuroticism, alexithy- Differences, 65, 19 –23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026
mia, negative affect, and positive affect as determinants of medically Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of
unexplained symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246 –1256. http://dx.doi.org/10
1655–1667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.012 .1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246
ⴱ ⴱ
Delfabbro, P. H., Winefield, A. H., Anderson, S., Hammarström, A., & Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. (2009). Women’s well-being: The role of
Winefield, H. (2011). Body image and psychological well-being in individual differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 309 –
adolescents: The relationship between gender and school type. The 315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00711.x
ⴱ
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 172, 67– 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Dimotakis, N., Conlon, D. E., & Ilies, R. (2012). The mind and heart
00221325.2010.517812 (literally) of the negotiator: Personality and contextual determinants of
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 313
ⴱ
experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation. Journal of Fossum, T. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). Distinguishing evaluation from
Applied Psychology, 97, 183–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025706 description in the personality-emotion relationship. Personality and So-
ⴱ
Di Nuovo, S. (2009). Variables and quantity: What else? Integrative cial Psychology Bulletin, 26, 669 – 678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Psychological & Behavioral Science, 43, 84 – 88. http://dx.doi.org/10 0146167200268003
ⴱ
.1007/s12124-008-9081-8 Fowler, S. A., Davis, L. L., Both, L. E., & Best, L. A. (2018). Personality
Dobewall, H., Realo, A., Allik, J., Esko, T., & Metspalu, A. (2013). and perfectionism as predictors of life satisfaction: The unique contri-
Self-other agreement in happiness and life-satisfaction: The role of bution of having high standards for others. Facets, 3, 227–241. http://
personality traits. Social Indicators Research, 114, 479 – 492. http://dx dx.doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0084
ⴱ
.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0157-y Fox, A. G., & Moore, M. T. (2019). Extraversion and neuroticism:
ⴱ
Donofrio, A. (2005). The relationship between the five factor model of Associated responses to a positive mood induction. Psychology of Mu-
personality and relationally based measures of Judeo-Christian spiritu- sic. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0305
ality: A correlational analysis between NEO PI-R facet scores and 735619838049
ⴱ
subscales of the spiritual assessment inventory and faith maturity scale Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization, and
(thesis). University of Akron, Akron, OH. compensation as strategies of life management: Correlations with sub-
ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Drezno, M., Stolarski, M., & Matthews, G. (2019). An in-depth look into jective indicators of successful aging. Psychology and Aging, 13, 531–
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the association between morningness-eveningness and well-being: Evi- 543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.531

ⴱ
dence for mediating and moderating effects of personality. Chronobiol- Froehlich, J. P. (2005). Spirituality and fraternity: Spiritual maturity and
ogy International, 36, 96 –109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07420528 social support in a national study of a male religious order (Doctoral
.2018.1523184 thesis). Loyola College Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
ⴱ
Drobnjaković, E. (2019). Unpublished data on HEXACO Personality and Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and
PANAS. change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 158 –164.
ⴱ
Drobnjaković, E., Dinić, B., & Mihić, L. (2017). Distinktivnost u okviru http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.158
ⴱ
pozitivnog i negativnog afekta: Validacija srpske adaptacije inventara za Furler, K., Gomez, V., & Grob, A. (2013). Personality similarity and life
procenu pozitivnog i negativnog afekta (PANAS) [Distinction within satisfaction in couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 369 –375.
positive and negative affect: Validation of the Serbian adaptation of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.03.002
ⴱ
positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS)]. Primenjena Psi- Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (1998). A multimodal analysis of personal
hologija, 10, 203–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.19090/pp.2017.2.203-225 negativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1580 –
ⴱ
Duckworth, A. L., Weir, D., Tsukayama, E., & Kwok, D. (2012). Who 1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1580
ⴱ
does well in life? Conscientious adults excel in both objective and Galea, M. (2014). Assessing the incremental validity of spirituality in
subjective success. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 356. http://dx.doi.org/10 predicting nurses’ burnout. Archiv für Religionspsychologie / Archive for
.3389/fpsyg.2012.00356 the Psychology of Religion, 36, 118 –136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/
ⴱ
Dumitrache, M. O., Matei, I. A., Ionică, A. M., Kalmár, Z., D’Amico, G., 15736121-12341276
ⴱ
Sikó-Barabási, S., . . . Mihalca, A. D. (2015). Molecular detection of Ganginis Del Pino, H. V. (2012). Work-family experiences among em-
Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato geno- ployed mothers (Doctoral thesis). University of Maryland.
ⴱ
species in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from Romania. Parasites & Vec- Gannon, N., & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does emotional intelligence predict
tors, 8, 514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1130-9 unique variance in life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality? Person-
ⴱ
Eakman, A. M., & Eklund, M. (2012). The relative impact of personality ality and Individual Differences, 38, 1353–1364. http://dx.doi.org/10
traits, meaningful occupation and occupational value on meaning in life .1016/j.paid.2004.09.001
ⴱ
and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Science, 19, 165–177. Garcia, D. (2011). Two models of personality and well-being among
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2012.671762 adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1208 –1212.
ⴱ
Ebner, K., Thiele, L., Spurk, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2018). Validation of the http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.009
ⴱ
German Career Decision-Making Profile—An updated 12-factor ver- Garcia, D., & Erlandsson, A. (2011). The relationship between personality
sion. Journal of Career Assessment, 26, 111–136. http://dx.doi.org/10 and subjective well-being: Different association patterns when measur-
.1177/1069072716679996 ing the affective component in frequency and intensity. Journal of
ⴱ
Egan, V., Chan, S., & Shorter, G. W. (2014). The Dark Triad, happiness Happiness Studies, 12, 1023–1034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-
and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 010-9242-6
17–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.004 Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). Examining the utility
ⴱ
Etxeberria, I., Urdaneta, E., & Galdona, N. (2019). Factors associated with of general models of personality in the study of psychopathy: A com-
health-related quality of life (HRQoL): Differential patterns depending parison of the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO PI-R. Journal of Personality
on age. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Disorders, 26, 513–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.4.513
Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 28, 2221–2231. Gerstorf, D., Ram, N., Estabrook, R., Schupp, J., Wagner, G. G., &
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02182-0 Lindenberger, U. (2008). Life satisfaction shows terminal decline in old
ⴱ
Fagley, N. S. (2012). Appreciation uniquely predicts life satisfaction age: Longitudinal evidence from the German Socio-Economic Panel
above demographics, the Big 5 personality factors, and gratitude. Per- Study (SOEP). Developmental Psychology, 44, 1148 –1159. http://dx.doi
sonality and Individual Differences, 53, 59 – 63. http://dx.doi.org/10 .org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1148
ⴱ
.1016/j.paid.2012.02.019 Gibson, J. E. M. (2007). Interpersonal perception: Don’t worry, be happy
ⴱ
Fagley, N. S. (2018). Appreciation (including gratitude) and affective (Doctoral thesis). University of Victoria, Canada.
well-being: Appreciation predicts positive and negative affect above the Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for indi-
Big Five personality factors and demographics. SAGE Open. Advance vidual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences,
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244018818621 102, 74 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
ⴱ ⴱ
FitzMedrud, E. J. (2009). The correlates of playfulness in adults (Doctoral Glidden, L. M., Billings, F. J., & Jobe, B. M. (2006). Personality, coping
thesis). Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, Palo Alto, CA. style and well-being of parents rearing children with developmental
ⴱ
Fortunato, F. D. (2002). Midlife pursuits: Expansive or consistent with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 949 –962.
current roles (Doctoral thesis). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00929.x
 314 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

ⴱ
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Halama, P., Martos, T., & Adamovováú, L. (2010). Religiosity and
American Psychologist, 48, 26 –34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003- well-being in Slovak and Hungarian student samples: The role of per-
066X.48.1.26 sonality traits. Studia Psychologica, 52, 101–116.
ⴱ
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality Harris, P. R. (2002). Constructive thinking as a mediator of the relation-
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. ships between neuroticism, extraversion, and subjective well-being (the-
Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28. sis). ProQuest Information & Learning.
ⴱ
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Hart, P. M. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent
Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality model of personality, work, and nonwork experiences, and domain
item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 564 –584. http://dx.doi
of Research in Personality, 40, 84 –96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp .org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.564
ⴱ
.2005.08.007 Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of
ⴱ
Goldberg, S. B., Flook, L., Hirshberg, M. J., Findley, D., Kesebir, P., subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 723–
Schaefer, S. M., & Davidson, R. J. (2017). Getting a grip on the handgrip 727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00057-0
task: Handgrip duration correlates with neuroticism but not conscien- Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tiousness. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1367. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Person-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

fpsyg.2017.01367 ality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

ⴱ
Golden, J. L. (2002). Spirituality as a predictor of burnout among United 0022-3514.57.4.731
Methodist clergy: An incremental validity study (thesis). Loyola College, Headey, B., & Wearing, A. J. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory
Baltimore, MD. of subjective well-being. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire.
ⴱ ⴱ
Goldstein, A. L., & Flett, G. L. (2009). Personality, alcohol use, and Hébert, A., & Weaver, A. (2014). An examination of personality charac-
drinking motives: A comparison of independent and combined internal teristics associated with BDSM orientations. Canadian Journal of Hu-
drinking motives groups. Behavior Modification, 33, 182–198. http://dx man Sexuality, 23, 106 –115.
ⴱ
.doi.org/10.1177/0145445508322920 Heller, D. (2004). The dynamic process of life satisfaction: The role of job
ⴱ
Gore, J. S., Davis, T., Spaeth, G., Bauer, A., Loveland, J. M., & Palmer, and marital satisfaction, life events, personality and mood (Doctoral
J. K. (2014). Subjective Well-being predictors of academic citizenship thesis). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
ⴱ
behavior. Psychological Studies, 59, 299 –308. http://dx.doi.org/10 Heller, D., Judge, T. A., & Watson, D. (2002). The confounding role of
.1007/s12646-014-0235-0 personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life
ⴱ
Goswami, H. (2014). Children’s subjective well-being: Socio- satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815– 835. http://
demographic characteristics and personality. Child Indicators Research, dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.168
7, 119 –140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-013-9205-7 Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus
ⴱ
Grady, A. B. (1996). Coping effectiveness as an explanation of the situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bul-
relationship between personality and affect in daily stressful circum- letin, 130, 574 – 600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.574
ⴱ
stances (Doctoral thesis). Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada. Hemenover, S. H. (2001). Self-reported processing bias and naturally
ⴱ
Graham, J. D. B. (2012). Elements of human effectiveness: Intelligences, occurring mood: Mediators between personality and stress appraisals.
traits, and abilities that lead to success and fulfillment in life (Doctoral Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 387–394. http://dx.doi
thesis). University of California, Los Angeles, CA. .org/10.1177/0146167201274001
ⴱ ⴱ
Grant, S., Langan-Fox, J., & Anglim, J. (2009). The big five traits as Hengartner, M. P., Graf, M., & Schreiber, M. (2017). Traits across the
predictors of subjective and psychological well-being. Psychological personality hierarchy differentially relate to positive and negative affect:
Reports, 105, 205–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.1.205-231 Evidence for the predictive validity of empirically derived meta-traits.
ⴱ
Grevenstein, D., Aguilar-Raab, C., & Bluemke, M. (2018). Mindful and Personality and Mental Health, 11, 132–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
resilient? Incremental validity of sense of coherence over mindfulness pmh.1366
ⴱ
and Big Five personality factors for quality of life outcomes. Journal of Hengartner, M. P., Kawohl, W., Haker, H., Rössler, W., & Ajdacic-Gross,
Happiness Studies, 19, 1883–1902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902- V. (2016). Big Five personality traits may inform public health policy
017-9901-y and preventive medicine: Evidence from a cross-sectional and a pro-
ⴱ
Grevenstein, D., & Bluemke, M. (2015). Can the Big Five explain the spective longitudinal epidemiologic study in a Swiss community. Jour-
criterion validity of Sense of Coherence for mental health, life satisfac- nal of Psychosomatic Research, 84, 44 –51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
tion, and personal distress? Personality and Individual Differences, 77, .jpsychores.2016.03.012
ⴱ
106 –111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.053 Henriett, B.-N. (2018). Személyiség, érzelmi intelligencia és élettel való
ⴱ
Guilera, G., Barrios, M., Penelo, E., Morin, C., Steel, P., & Gómez- elégedettség [Personality, emotional intelligence and life satisfaction].
Benito, J. (2018). Validation of the Spanish version of the Irrational Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika, 19, 158 –175. http://dx.doi.org/10
Procrastination Scale (IPS). PLoS ONE, 13, e0190806. http://dx.doi.org/ .1556/0406.19.2018.007
ⴱ
10.1371/journal.pone.0190806 Herringer, L. G. (1998). Facets of extraversion related to life satisfaction.
ⴱ
Gutiérrez, G. J. L., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Hernández, E. G., & Puente, Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 731–733. http://dx.doi.org/
C. P. (2005). Personality and subjective well-being: Big five correlates 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00194-3
ⴱ
and demographic variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, Hill, P. L., & Allemand, M. (2011). Gratitude, forgivingness, and well-
1561–1569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.015 being in adulthood: Tests of moderation and incremental prediction. The
ⴱ
Habarth, J. M. (2009). Thinking ‘straight’: Heteronormativity and asso- Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 397– 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
ciated outcomes across sexual orientation (Doctoral thesis). University 17439760.2011.602099
ⴱ
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Hirsh, J. B., Guindon, A., Morisano, D., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Positive
ⴱ
Halama, P. (2010). Hope as a mediator between personality traits and life mood effects on delay discounting. Emotion, 10, 717–721. http://dx.doi
satisfaction. Studia Psychologica, 52, 309 –314. .org/10.1037/a0019466
ⴱ ⴱ
Halama, P., & Dědová, M. (2007). Meaning in life and hope as predictors Hofer, J., Busch, H., & Kiessling, F. (2008). Individual pathways to life
of positive mental health: Do they explain residual variance not pre- satisfaction: The significance of traits and motives. Journal of Happiness
dicted by personality traits? Studia Psychologica, 49, 191–200. Studies, 9, 503–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9086-x
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 315
ⴱ
Hogan, J. M. (2006). Individual differences as predictors of complemen- differences in subjective well-being. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
tary and alternative medicine use in rheumatology patients (Doctoral Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3580
ⴱ
thesis). University of Hawaii. Jibeen, T. (2014). Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being: Moder-
ⴱ
Holder, M. D., Love, A. B., & Timoney, L. R. (2015). The poor subjective ating Role of Optimism in University Employees. Social Indicators
well-being associated with alexithymia is mediated by romantic rela- Research, 118, 157–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0416-6
tionships. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 117–133. http://dx.doi.org/ John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
10.1007/s10902-014-9500-0 measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John
Horwood, S., & Anglim, J. (2018). Personality and problematic smart- (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp.
phone use: A facet-level analysis using the Five Factor Model and 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford
ⴱ
HEXACO frameworks. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 349 –359. Johnson, D. K. (2003). Biases in negative affect and aging (Doctoral
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.013 thesis). Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
ⴱ
Horwood, S., & Anglim, J. (2019). Problematic smartphone usage and Jokela, M., Bleidorn, W., Lamb, M. E., Gosling, S. D., & Rentfrow, P. J.
subjective and psychological well-being. Computers in Human Behav- (2015). Geographically varying associations between personality and
ior, 97, 44 –50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.028 life satisfaction in the London metropolitan area. Proceedings of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ⴱ
Hossack, R. C. (1997). Salutogenic and pathogenic orientations to life: National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Attachment, personality, sense of coherence and well-being in late 725–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415800112

ⴱ
adolescence: A structural equation model (Doctoral dissertation). Uni- Jones, N., Hill, C., & Henn, C. (2015). Personality and job satisfaction:
versity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Their role in work-related psychological well-being. Journal of Psychol-
ⴱ
Howell, R. T. (2006). Models of happiness: The role of personality traits ogy in Africa, 25, 297–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2015
and daily experience in understanding life satisfaction (thesis). Univer- .1078086
ⴱ
sity of California Riverside, CA. Joshanloo, M., & Afshari, S. (2011). Big Five personality traits and
Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: self-esteem as predictors of life satisfaction in Iranian Muslim university
Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Per- students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 105–113. http://dx.doi.org/
sonality and Social Psychology, 109, 490 –507. http://dx.doi.org/10 10.1007/s10902-009-9177-y
ⴱ
.1037/pspp0000021 Joshanloo, M., & Nosratabadi, M. (2009). Levels of mental health con-
ⴱ
Hudson, N. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2014). Goals to change personality tinuum and personality traits. Social Indicators Research, 90, 211–224.
traits: Concurrent links between personality traits, daily behavior, and http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9253-4
ⴱ
goals to change oneself. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 68 – 83. Jovanovic, V. (2011). Do humor styles matter in the relationship between
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.008 personality and subjective well-being? Scandinavian Journal of Psy-
ⴱ
Hutz, C. S., Midgett, A., Pacico, J. C., Bastianello, M. R., & Zanon, C. chology, 52, 502–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011
(2014). The relationship of hope, optimism, self-esteem, subjective .00898.x
ⴱ
well-being, and personality in Brazilians and Americans. [Scientific Jovanović, V. (2014). Psychometric evaluation of a Serbian version of the
Research]. Psychology, 5, 514 –522. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research, 119, 1095–
.2014.56061 1104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0522-5
ⴱ ⴱ
Ioannidis, C. A., & Siegling, A. B. (2015). Criterion and incremental Jovanović, V. (2019). Adolescent life satisfaction: The role of negative
validity of the emotion regulation questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychol- life events and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual
ogy, 6, 247. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00247 Differences, 151, 109548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109548
ⴱ
Isaacowitz, D. M., & Smith, J. (2003). Positive and negative affect in very Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R.
old age. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 58, 143–152. http://dx (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of person-
.doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.3.P143 ality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frame-
ⴱ
Işık, Ş., & Üzbe, N. (2015). Personality traits and positive/negative works with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology,
affects: An analysis of meaning in life among adults. Kuram ve 98, 875–925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033901
ⴱ
Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri/Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, Kahlbaugh, P., & Huffman, L. (2017). Personality, emotional qualities of
15, 587–595. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id⫽EJ1067429 leisure, and subjective well-being in the elderly. The International
ⴱ
Jacques-Hamilton, R., Sun, J., & Smillie, L. D. (2019). Costs and benefits Journal of Aging & Human Development, 85, 164 –184. http://dx.doi
of acting extraverted: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Exper- .org/10.1177/0091415016685329
ⴱ
imental Psychology: General, 148, 1538 –1556. http://dx.doi.org/10 Kahn, J. H., & Hessling, R. M. (2001). Measuring the tendency to conceal
.1037/xge0000516 versus disclose psychological distress. Journal of Social and Clinical
ⴱ
Jaksic, N., Aukst-Margetic, B., Rózsa, S., Brajkovic, L., Jovanovic, N., Psychology, 20, 41– 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.20.1.41.22254
ⴱ
Vuksan-Cusa, B., . . . Jakovljevic, M. (2015). Psychometric properties Kämpfe, T., & Parriaux, O. (2010). Parameter-tolerant binary gratings.
and factor structure of the Temperament and Character Inventory- Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Optics, Image Science, and
Revised (TCI-R) in a Croatian psychiatric outpatient sample. Compre- Vision, 27, 2660 –2669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.27.002660
ⴱ
hensive Psychiatry, 57, 177–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych Kandler, C., Pfattheicher, S., Geiger, M., Hartung, J., Weiss, S., &
.2014.10.016 Schindler, S. (2017). Old wine in new bottles? The case of self-
ⴱ
James, C., Bore, M., & Zito, S. (2012). Emotional Intelligence and compassion and neuroticism. European Journal of Personality, 31,
Personality as Predictors of Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Psy- 160 –169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.2097
ⴱ
choeducational Assessment, 30, 425– 438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to
0734282912449448 well-being and meaning in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors.
ⴱ
Jennings, P. A. (2004). The role of personality, stress, and coping in the Motivation and Emotion, 31, 159 –173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
development of wisdom (Doctoral thesis). University of California Da- s11031-007-9068-7
ⴱ
vis, CA. Kaynak, H. (2018). Relations among emotional mood state, personality
ⴱ
Jensen, R. A. A., Kirkegaard Thomsen, D., O’Connor, M., & Mehlsen, dimensions and social desirability in older adults. Turk Geriatri Dergisi,
M. Y. (2019). Age differences in life stories and neuroticism mediate age 21, 596 – 606. http://dx.doi.org/10.31086/tjgeri.2018.67
 316 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

ⴱ
Kim, H., Schimmack, U., Cheng, C., Webster, G. D., & Spectre, A. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO
(2016). The role of positive self-evaluation on cross-cultural differences personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329 –358.
in well-being. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Social Science, 50, 85–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069397115617902 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO
ⴱ
Kirkland, T., Gruber, J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2015). Comparing Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form.
happiness and hypomania risk: A study of extraversion and neuroticism Psychological Assessment, 18, 182–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
aspects. PLoS ONE, 10, e0132438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal 3590.18.2.182
.pone.0132438 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2013). Prediction of self-and observer report
ⴱ
Kjell, O. N. E., Nima, A. A., Sikström, S., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. scores on HEXACO-60 and NEO-FFI scales. Journal of Research in
(2013). Iranian and Swedish adolescents: Differences in personality Personality, 47, 668 – 675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.06.002
traits and well-being. PeerJ, 1, e197. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.197 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The dark triad, the big five, and the
ⴱ
Kluemper, D. H. (2008). Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2–5.
core-self evaluations and social desirability. Personality and Individual http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.048
Differences, 44, 1402–1412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

.008 HEXACO-100. Assessment, 25, 543–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

ⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Knöpfli, B., Morselli, D., & Perrig-Chiello, P. (2016). Trajectories of 1073191116659134

ⴱ
psychological adaptation to marital breakup after a long-term marriage. Leffel, G. M., Oakes Mueller, R. A., Ham, S. A., Karches, K. E., Curlin,
Gerontology, 62, 541–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000445056 F. A., & Yoon, J. D. (2018). Project on the good physician: Further
ⴱ
Kokinda, L. (2011). The effects of meditation on openness, awareness, evidence for the validity of a moral intuitionist model of virtuous caring.
and acceptance: A correlational study (Doctoral thesis). Alliant Inter- Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 30, 303–316. http://dx.doi.org/10
national University, Los Angeles, CA. .1080/10401334.2017.1414608
ⴱ ⴱ
Kong, F., Wang, X., Hu, S., & Liu, J. (2015). Neural correlates of Letrzing, T. (2019). Unpublished data of self-ratings of Satisfaction with
psychological resilience and their relation to life satisfaction in a sample Life, the BFI, trait PANAS, and Ryff’s PWB.
ⴱ
of healthy young adults. NeuroImage, 123, 165–172. http://dx.doi.org/ Letzring, T. D. (2015). Observer judgmental accuracy of personality:
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.020 Benefits related to being a good (normative) judge. Journal of Research
ⴱ
Kong, F., Zhao, J., You, X., & Xiang, Y. (2019). Gratitude and the brain: in Personality, 54, 51– 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.001
ⴱ
Trait gratitude mediates the association between structural variations in Levinson, C. A., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2011). Validation of the Social
the medial prefrontal cortex and life satisfaction. Emotion. Advance Appearance Anxiety Scale: Factor, convergent, and divergent validity.
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000617 Assessment, 18, 350 –356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191111404808
ⴱ ⴱ
Kovacs, A. (2007). The leisure personality: Relationships between per- Lightsey, O. R., Gharibian Gharghani, G., Katz, A. M., McKinney, V. A.,
sonality, leisure satisfaction, and life satisfaction (thesis). Indiana Uni- & Rarey, E. B. (2013). Positive automatic cognitions mediate the rela-
versity, Bloomington, IN. tionship between personality and trait positive affect. Journal of Hap-
ⴱ
Koydemir, S., & Schütz, A. (2012). Emotional intelligence predicts com- piness Studies, 14, 115–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-
ponents of subjective well-being beyond personality: A two-country 9319-x
ⴱ
study using self- and informant reports. The Journal of Positive Psy- Lodewyk, K. R. (2018). Associations between university students’ per-
chology, 7, 107–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.647050 sonality traits and victimization and its negative affect in school physical
ⴱ
Krick, A., & Felfe, J. (2019). Who benefits from mindfulness? The education. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2018, 937–943.
ⴱ
moderating role of personality and social norms for the effectiveness on Lönnqvist, J.-E., & große Deters, F. (2016). Facebook friends, subjective
psychological and physiological outcomes among police officers. Jour- well-being, social support, and personality. Computers in Human Be-
nal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. havior, 55, 113–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.002
ⴱ
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000159 Lönnqvist, J.-E., & Itkonen, J. V. A. (2014). It’s all about extraversion:
ⴱ
Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural Why Facebook friend count doesn’t count towards well-being. Journal
explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self- of Research in Personality, 53, 64 – 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp
esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038 –1051. .2014.08.009
ⴱ
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1038 López, A., Sanderman, R., Smink, A., Zhang, Y., van Sonderen, E.,
ⴱ
Lai, C. C. W. (2018). The mediating role of sleep quality in the relation- Ranchor, A., & Schroevers, M. J. (2015). A reconsideration of the
ship between personality and subjective well-being. SAGE Open, 8, 8. self-compassion scale’s total score: Self-compassion versus self-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244018773139 criticism. PLoS ONE, 10, e0132940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal
ⴱ
Lang, F. R., Lüdtke, O., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Testgüte und psy- .pone.0132940
ⴱ
chometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory Losoncz, I. (2007). Personality traits in HILDA. Retrieved from https://
(BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen [Validity and melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-bibliography/
psychometric equivalence of the German version of the Big Five Inven- hilda-conference-papers/2007/Losoncz,-Ibolya_final-paper.pdf
ⴱ
tory in young, middle-aged and old adults]. Diagnostica, 47, 111–121. Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H. E., Chambers, W., Owens, K. S., & Gibson,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.47.3.111 L. W. (1999). An investigation of career decidedness in relation to “big
ⴱ
Langvik, E., Hjemdal, O., & Nordahl, H. M. (2016). Personality traits, five” personality constructs and life satisfaction. College Student Jour-
gender differences and symptoms of anhedonia: What does the Hospital nal, 33, 646.
Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) measure in nonclinical settings? Lucas, R. E. (2007). Long-term disability is associated with lasting changes
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57, 144 –151. http://dx.doi.org/10 in subjective well-being: Evidence from two nationally representative
.1111/sjop.12272 longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
ⴱ
Lee, J. E., Sudom, K. A., & Zamorski, M. A. (2013). Longitudinal 717–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.717
analysis of psychological resilience and mental health in Canadian Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexam-
military personnel returning from overseas deployment. Journal of Oc- ining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to
cupational Health Psychology, 18, 327–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
a0033059 84, 527–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.527
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 317
ⴱ
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2008). Subjective well-being. In M. Lewis, McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full
J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
471– 484). New York, NY: Guilford. letin, 17, 227–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616729101700217
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Pedroso de Lima, M., Simões, A.,
well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., . . . Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Age differ-
616 – 628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616 ences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures.
ⴱ
Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation between Developmental Psychology, 35, 466 – 477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
extraversion and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social 0012-1649.35.2.466
Psychology, 79, 1039 –1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6 McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor
.1039 model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. http://
Ludeke, S. G., Bainbridge, T. F., Liu, J., Zhao, K., Smillie, L. D., & Zettler, dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
I. (2019). Using the Big Five Aspect Scales to translate between the ⴱ
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). The grateful
HEXACO and Big Five personality models. Journal of Personality, 87, disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Person-
1025–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12453 ality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Luhmann, M., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2014). Thinking about 0022-3514.82.1.112
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

one’s subjective well-being: Average trends and individual differences. McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and
Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 757–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and
s10902-013-9448-5 Social Psychology, 74, 494 –512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
ⴱ
MacCann, C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). The .74.2.494
best years of our lives? Coping with stress predicts school grades, life ⴱ
McKay, D. A. (2017). A facet and domain-level analysis of two trait
satisfaction, and feelings about high school. Learning and Individual models of personality: Relationship with subjective well-being (Doctoral
Differences, 22, 235–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.08.004 dissertation). The University of Akron, Akron, OH.
ⴱ
MacInnis, C. C., Busseri, M. A., Choma, B. L., & Hodson, G. (2013). The McMahan, E. A., Renken, M. D., Kehn, A., & Nitkova, M. (2013).
happy cyclist: Examining the association between generalized authori- Individual conceptions of well-being predict psychological and subjec-
tarianism and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differ- tive well-being: Beyond the big five. In F. Sarracino (Ed.), The happi-
ences, 55, 789 –793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.018
ⴱ
ness compass: Theories, actions and perspectives for well-being (pp.
Mangino, A. M. (2018). Connectedness to nature, life satisfaction, and
3–16). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
personality: Humans, nature, and therapy (thesis). Alliant International ⴱ
Meléndez, J. C., Satorres, E., Cujiño, M. A., & Reyes, M. F. (2019). Big
University, Sacramento, CA.
ⴱ Five and psychological and subjective well-being in Colombian older
Marcionetti, J., & Rossier, J. (2016). Global life satisfaction in adoles-
adults. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 82, 88 –93. http://dx.doi
cence. Journal of Individual Differences, 37, 135–144. http://dx.doi.org/
.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.01.016
10.1027/1614-0001/a000198 ⴱ
ⴱ Mellor, D. J., Cummins, R. A., Karlinski, E., & Storer, S. P. (2003). The
Margolis, S., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2019). Experimental manipulation of
management of subjective quality of life by short-stay hospital patients:
extraverted and introverted behavior and its effects on well-being. Jour-
An exploratory study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 39.
nal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-39
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000668 ⴱ
ⴱ Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2013). Investigating the relative importance
Margolis, S., Schwitzgebel, E., Ozer, D. J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2019). A
of individual differences on the work-family interface and the moderat-
new measure of life satisfaction: The Riverside Life Satisfaction Scale.
ing role of boundary preference for segmentation. Stress and Health, 29,
Journal of Personality Assessment, 101, 621– 630.
ⴱ
Marrero, R. J. (2019). Dataset on NEO PI R Personality and well-being 324 –336.
ⴱ
partially based on Marrero et al (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp Miciuk, Ł. R., Jankowski, T., Laskowska, A., & Oleś, P. (2016). Positive
.2016.95 Orientation and the Five-Factor Model. Polish Psychological Bulletin,
Marrero, R. J., Rey, M., & Hernández-Cabrera, J. A. (2016). Can Big Five 47, 141–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2016-0016
ⴱ
facets distinguish between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being? A dom- Miciuk, Ł. R., Jankowski, T., & Oleś, P. (2016). Incremental validity of
inance analysis. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, E84. http://dx positive orientation: Predictive efficiency beyond the five-factor model.
.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.95 Health Psychology Report, 4, 294 –302. http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/hpr
ⴱ
Marrero Quevedo, R. J., & Carballeira Abella, M. (2011). Well-being and .2016.59895
ⴱ
personality: Facet-level analyses. Personality and Individual Differ- Mongrain, M., Barnes, C., Barnhart, R., & Zalan, L. B. (2018). Acts of
ences, 50, 206 –211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.030 kindness reduce depression in individuals low on agreeableness. Trans-
ⴱ lational Issues in Psychological Science, 4, 323–334. http://dx.doi.org/
Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Kusulas, J. W., Hervig, L. K., &
Vickers, Jr., R. R. (1992). Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: 10.1037/tps0000168
ⴱ
Relations to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. Journal Montasem, A., Brown, S. L., & Harris, R. (2013). Do core self-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1067–1074. http://dx.doi.org/ evaluations and trait emotional intelligence predict subjective well-being
10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1067 in dental students? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1097–
ⴱ 1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12074
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2013).
ⴱ
Adaptability: How students’ responses to uncertainty and novelty predict Morris, M. B., Burns, G. N., Periard, D. A., & Shoda, E. A. (2015).
their academic and non-academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Extraversion– emotional stability circumplex traits and subjective well-
Psychology, 105, 728 –746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032794 being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 1509 –1523. http://dx.doi.org/
ⴱ 10.1007/s10902-014-9573-9
Martínez-Molina, A., & Arias, V. B. (2018). Balanced and positively
ⴱ
worded personality short-forms: Mini-IPIP validity and cross-cultural Morrison, K. A. (1997). Personality correlates of the Five-Factor Model
invariance. PeerJ, 6, e5542. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5542 for a sample of business owners/managers: Associations with scores on
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More Self-Monitoring, Type A Behavior, Locus of Control, and Subjective
substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, Well-being. Psychological Reports, 80, 255–272. http://dx.doi.org/10
882– 888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.6.882 .2466/pr0.1997.80.1.255
 318 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

ⴱ
Morsunbul, U. (2014). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish cial Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 364 –371. http://dx.doi
version of Quick Big Five Personality Test. Dusunen Adam. The Journal .org/10.1177/1948550617707016
ⴱ
of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 27, 316 –322. Oishi, S., Krochik, M., Roth, D., & Sherman, G. D. (2012). Residential
Mõttus, R., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., & McCrae, R. R. mobility, personality, and subjective and physical well-being. Social
(2017). Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longi- Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 153–161. http://dx.doi.org/10
tudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal .1177/1948550611412395
ⴱ
of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 474 – 490. http://dx.doi.org/ Oken, B. S., Wahbeh, H., Goodrich, E., Klee, D., Memmott, T., Miller,
10.1037/pspp0000100 M., & Fu, R. (2017). Meditation in stressed older adults: Improvements
Mõttus, R., McCrae, R. R., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2014). Cross-rater in self-rated mental health not paralleled by improvements in cognitive
agreement on common and specific variance of personality scales and function or physiological measures. Mindfulness, 8, 627– 638. http://dx
items. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 47–54. http://dx.doi.org/ .doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0640-7
ⴱ
10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.005 Olesen, M. H., Thomsen, D. K., & O’Toole, M. S. (2015). Subjective
ⴱ
Murray, G. (2002). The relationship between the Big-5 personality factors well-being: Above neuroticism and extraversion, autonomy motivation
and life satisfaction in two community samples. Unpublished data. matters. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 45– 49. http://dx.doi
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Correlations reported in Heller et al (2004) meta-analysis. .org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.033

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth–fidelity dilemma in
in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213– personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organiza-
1233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003 tional Behavior, 17, 609 – 626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
ⴱ
Naukkarinen, S., Karkkola, P., Kuittinen, M., & Räty, H. (2016). Suomen- 1379(199611)17:6⬍609::AID-JOB1828⬎3.0.CO;2-K
ⴱ
kielisen MAAS-mittarin psykometrinen rakenne ja yhteydet persoonal- O’Rourke, N. (2004). Cognitive adaptation and women’s adjustment to
lisuuspiirteisiin sekä hyvinvointiin [The psychometric structure of the conjugal bereavement. Journal of Women & Aging, 16, 87–104. http://
Finnish MAAS measure and associations with personality and well- dx.doi.org/10.1300/J074v16n01_07
ⴱ
being]. Psykologia, 51, 343–359. O’Rourke, N. (2005). Personality, cognitive adaptation, and marital sat-
ⴱ
Navarro-Prados, A. B., Serrate-Gonzalez, S., Muñoz-Rodríguez, J. M., & isfaction as predictors of well-being among older married adults. Cana-
Díaz-Orueta, U. (2018). Relationship Between Personality Traits, Gen- dian Journal on Aging, 24, 211–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cja.2005
erativity, and Life Satisfaction in Individuals Attending University Pro- .0081
ⴱ
grams for Seniors. International Journal of Aging & Human Develop- Osma, J., Suso-Ribera, C., García-Palacios, A., Crespo-Delgado, E.,
ment, 87, 184 –200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0091415017740678 Robert-Flor, C., Sánchez-Guerrero, A., . . . Torres-Alfosea, M. Á.
ⴱ
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of (2018). Efficacy of the unified protocol for the treatment of emotional
self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and disorders in the Spanish public mental health system using a group
personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 908 –916. format: Study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002 controlled trial. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16, 46. http://dx
ⴱ
Ng, W. (2015). Processes underlying links to subjective well-being: .doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0866-2
ⴱ
Material concerns, autonomy, and personality. Journal of Happiness Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2012). Five-factor model of person-
Studies, 16, 1575–1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9580-x ality and organizational commitment: The mediating role of positive and
ⴱ
Ng, W., Russell Kua, W. S., & Kang, S. H. (2019). The relative impor- negative affective states. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 647– 658.
tance of personality, financial satisfaction, and autonomy for different http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.03.002
ⴱ
subjective well-being facets. The Journal of Psychology, 153, 680 –700. Parker, P. D., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Factors Predicting
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1598928 Life Satisfaction: A Process Model of Personality, Multidimensional
ⴱ
Nishimura, T., & Suzuki, T. (2016). Basic psychological need satisfaction Self-Concept, and Life Satisfaction. Australian Journal of Guidance and
and frustration in Japan: Controlling for the Big Five personality traits. Counselling, 18, 15–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.18.1.15
Japanese Psychological Research, 58, 320 –331. http://dx.doi.org/10 Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and
.1111/jpr.12131 personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
ⴱ
Novak, J. R., Anderson, J. R., Johnson, M. D., Hardy, N. R., Walker, A., Review, 19, 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548
ⴱ
Wilcox, A., . . . Robbins, D. C. (2017). Does personality matter in Paulson, D., & Leuty, M. E. (2016). Dispositional coping, personality
diabetes adherence? Exploring the pathways between neuroticism and traits, and affective style relating to conflict between work and family
patient adherence in couples with type 2 diabetes. Applied Psychology: domains. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37, 519 –539. http://
Health and Well-Being, 9, 207–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aphw dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10834-015-9470-3
.12087 Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and
ⴱ
Novakov, I., & Popovic-Petrovic, S. (2017). Personality traits as predic- the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
tors of the affective state in patients after breast cancer surgery. Archive ogy, 81, 524 –539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524
of Oncology, 23, 3– 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/AOO1701003N Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the big five?
ⴱ
Novoa, C., & Barra, E. (2015). Influencia del apoyo social percibido y los Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821– 835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
factores de personalidad en la satisfacción vital de estudiantes universi- 1467-6494.00117
ⴱ
tarios [Influence of perceived social support and personality factors in Pavani, J.-B., Le Vigouroux, S., Kop, J.-L., Congard, A., Dauvier, B., &
vital satisfaction of university students]. Terapia Psicológica, 33, 239 – Denissen, J. (2017). A network approach to affect regulation dynamics
245. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082015000300007 and personality trait-induced variations: Extraversion and neuroticism
ⴱ
Odacı, H., & Çikrikçi, Ö. (2018). Cognitive flexibility mediates the moderate reciprocal influences between affect and affect regulation
relationship between Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction. strategies. European Journal of Personality, 31, 329 –346. http://dx.doi
Applied Research in Quality of Life. Advance online publication. http:// .org/10.1002/per.2109
ⴱ
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9651-y Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1998). The Temporal Satisfaction With
ⴱ
Oishi, S., Kohlbacher, F., & Choi, H. (2018). Does a major earthquake Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 340 –354. http://dx
change attitudes and well-being judgments? A natural experiment. So- .doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa7002_11
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 319
ⴱ
Pazda, A. D., & Thorstenson, C. A. (2018). Extraversion predicts a predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 629 – 640.
preference for high-chroma colors. Personality and Individual Differ- http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284283
ⴱ
ences, 127, 133–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.028 Robinson, O. C., Demetre, J. D., & Corney, R. (2010). Personality and
ⴱ
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait retirement: Exploring the links between the Big Five personality traits,
emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psy- reasons for retirement and the experience of being retired. Personality
chology, 98, 273–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618 and Individual Differences, 48, 792–797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
ⴱ
Plopa, M., Plopa, W., & Skuzińska, A. (2017). Bullying at work, person- .paid.2010.01.014
ⴱ
ality and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psy- Rodgers, J. D., Lodi-Smith, J., Hill, P. L., Spain, S. M., Lopata, C., &
chology, 22, 19 –27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040320 Thomeer, M. L. (2018). Brief report: Personality mediates the relation-
ⴱ
Pollock, N. C., Noser, A. E., Holden, C. J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Do ship between autism quotient and well-being: A conceptual replication
orientations to happiness mediate the associations between personality using self-report. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48,
traits and subjective well-being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 307–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3290-2
ⴱ
713–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9617-9 Romero, E., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., & Villar, P. (2012). Life aspirations,
ⴱ
Pratt, A. K. (2006). Role of cognitive ability and personality factors in personality traits and subjective well-being in a Spanish sample. Euro-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

coping with work-family conflict (Doctoral thesis). Wayne State Univer- pean Journal of Personality, 26, 45–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

sity, Detroit, MI. .815

ⴱ ⴱ
Purvis, A., Howell, R. T., & Iyer, R. (2011). Exploring the role of Romero, E., Luengo, M. A., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., & Sobral, J. (2002).
personality in the relationship between maximization and well-being. The structure of personality traits in adolescents: The five-factor model
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 370 –375. http://dx.doi.org/ and the alternative five [La estructura de los rasgos de personalidad en
10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.023 adolescentes: El modelo de Cinco factores y los Cinco alternativos].
ⴱ
Pychyl, T. A., & Little, B. R. (1998). Dimensional specificity in the Psicothema, 14, 134 –143.
ⴱ
prediction of subjective well-being: Personal projects in pursuit of the Romero, E., Villar, P., & López-Romero, L. (2015). Assessing six factors
PhD. Social Indicators Research, 45, 423– 473. http://dx.doi.org/10 in Spain: Validation of the HEXACO-100 in relation to the Five Factor
.1023/A:1006970504138 Model and other conceptually relevant criteria. Personality and Individ-
Pytlik Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002). What ual Differences, 76, 75– 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.056
ⴱ
do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the Romero, E., Villar, P., Luengo, M. Á., & Gómez-Fraguela, J. A. (2009).
affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 Traits, personal strivings and well-being. Journal of Research in Per-
personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, sonality, 43, 535–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.006
ⴱ
847– 858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289013 Røysamb, E., Nes, R. B., Czajkowski, N. O., & Vassend, O. (2018).
ⴱ
Qing-Guo, Z., O’Shea, B., Bajpai, M., Bajpai, W., & Yu-Bo, Z. (2011). Genetics, personality and wellbeing. A twin study of traits, facets and
The influence of Big Five personality traits on subjective well-being: life satisfaction. Scientific Reports, 8, 12298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
Mediation of job satisfaction. International Conference on Management s41598-018-29881-x
ⴱ
Science and Engineering - Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 717– Ryan, L. H., Newton, N. J., Chauhan, P. K., & Chopik, W. J. (2017).
725). Effects of Pre-Retirement Personality, Health and Job Lock on Post-
ⴱ
Ramanaiah, N. V., Detwiler, F. R., & Byravan, A. (1995). Sex-role Retirement Subjective Well-being. Translational Issues in Psychologi-
orientation and satisfaction with life. Psychological Reports, 77, 1260 – cal Science, 3, 378 –387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000138
1262. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3f.1260 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A
ⴱ
Rammstedt, B., Lechner, C. M., & Danner, D. (2018). Relationships review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual
between personality and cognitive ability: A facet-level analysis. Jour- Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev
nal of Intelligence, 6, 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020028 .psych.52.1.141
ⴱ ⴱ
Reich, W. A., Sangiorgio, C., & Young, J. (2019). Self-role integration: A Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health:
person-specific predictor of life satisfaction and prosocial behavior. The Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 153, 649 – 666. Personality, 65, 529 –565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1590297 .tb00326.x
Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the
research (Version 1.8.4). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Re- meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
trieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package⫽psych Psychology, 57, 1069 –1081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6
ⴱ
Rigby, B. T., & Huebner, E. S. (2005). Do causal attributions mediate the .1069
relationship between personality characteristics and life satisfaction in Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological
adolescence? Psychology in the Schools, 42, 91–99. http://dx.doi.org/10 well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
.1002/pits.20026 719 –727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
ⴱ ⴱ
Ro, E. (2011). Conceptualization of psychosocial functioning: Under- Rzeszutek, M., Gruszczyńska, E., & Firla˛g-Burkacka, E. (2019). Socio-
standing structure and relations with personality and psychopathology medical and personality correlates of psychological well-being among
(Doctoral thesis). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. people living with HIV: A latent profile analysis. Applied Research in
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P. L. Quality of Life, 14, 1113–1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-
(2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Devel- 9640-1
ⴱ
opmental Psychology, 50, 1315–1330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Sadiković, S., Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D., & Milovanović, I. (2019).
a0031109 Behavioral genetics foundations of relations between personality traits
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. and satisfaction with life. Primenjena Psihologija, 11, 487–502. http://
(2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through inter- dx.doi.org/10.19090/pp.2018.4.487-502
ⴱ
vention. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 117–141. http://dx.doi.org/10 Saeed Abbasi, I., Rattan, N., Kousar, T., & Khalifa Elsayed, F. (2018).
.1037/bul0000088 Neuroticism and close relationships: How negative affect is linked with
ⴱ
Robinson, M. D., Goetz, M. C., Wilkowski, B. M., & Hoffman, S. J. relationship disaffection in couples. American Journal of Family Ther-
(2006). Driven to tears or to joy: Response dominance and trait-based apy, 46, 139 –152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2018.1461030
 320 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

ⴱ ⴱ
Saeki, M., Oishi, S., Maeno, T., & Gilbert, E. (2014). Self–informant Sheu, H. B., Mejia, A., Rigali-Oiler, M., Primé, D. R., & Chong, S. S.
agreement for subjective well-being among Japanese. Personality and (2016). Social cognitive predictors of academic and life satisfaction:
Individual Differences, 69, 124 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid Measurement and structural equivalence across three racial/ethnic
.2014.05.018 groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 460 – 474. http://dx.doi
ⴱ
Saiz, J., Álvaro, J. L., & Martínez, I. (2011). Relación entre rasgos de .org/10.1037/cou0000158
ⴱ
personalidad y valores personales en pacientes dependientes de la co- Shi, Y., Luo, Y. L. L., Liu, Y., & Yang, Z. (2019). Affective experience
caína [Relation between personality traits and personal values in on social networking sites predicts psychological well-being off-line.
cocaine-dependent patients]. Adicciones, 23, 125–132. http://dx.doi.org/ Psychological Reports, 122, 1666 –1677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
10.20882/adicciones.155 0033294118789039
ⴱ ⴱ
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., Mastoras, S. M., Beaton, L., & Osborne, Shulman, T. E., & Hemenover, S. H. (2006). Is dispositional emotional
S. E. (2012). Relationships of personality, affect, emotional intelligence intelligence synonymous with personality? Self and Identity, 5, 147–171.
and coping with student stress and academic success: Different patterns http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860600586206
ⴱ
of association for stress and success. Learning and Individual Differ- Shyh Shin, W., Boon Ooi, L., Ang, R. P., Oei, T. P. S., & Aik Kwang, N.
ences, 22, 251–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.010 (2009). Personality, Health, and Coping. Cross-Cultural Research: The
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ⴱ Journal of Comparative Social Science, 43, 251–279. http://dx.doi.org/

Salter, J. E., Smith, S. D., & Ethans, K. D. (2013). Positive and negative
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

affect in individuals with spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord, 51, 252–256. 10.1177/1069397109335729
ⴱ
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.105 Sibley, C. G. (2011). The BIAS-Treatment Scale (BIAS-TS): A measure
Saucier, G. (2009). Recurrent personality dimensions in inclusive lexical of the subjective experience of active and passive harm and facilitation.
studies: Indications for a big six structure. Journal of Personality, 77, Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 300 –315. http://dx.doi.org/10
1577–1614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00593.x .1080/00223891.2011.559389
ⴱ
Schimmack, U., & Oishi, S. (2005). The influence of chronically and Sibley, C. G., Luyten, N., Purnomo, M., Mobberley, A., Wootton, L. W.,
temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. Jour- Hammond, M. D., . . . West-Newman, T. (2011). The Mini-IPIP6:
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 395– 406. http://dx.doi Validation and extension of a short measure of the Big-Six factors of
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.395 personality in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40,
ⴱ 142–159.
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Person- ⴱ
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2011). An intentional model of emotional well-being: The
ality and life satisfaction: A facet-level analysis. Personality and Social
development and initial validation of a measure of subjective well-being.
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062–1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 421– 442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
0146167204264292
ⴱ s10902-010-9203-0
Schimmack, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2008). The influence of ⴱ
Şimşek, Ö. F., & Kocayörük, E. (2013). Affective reactions to one’s
environment and personality on the affective and cognitive component
whole life: Preliminary development and validation of the ontological
of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 89, 41– 60. http://
well-being scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 309 –343. http://dx
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9230-3
ⴱ .doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9333-7
Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: ⴱ
Şimşek, Ö. F., & Koydemir, S. (2013). Linking metatraits of the Big Five
Reexamining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social
to well-being and ill-being: Do basic psychological needs matter? Social
Psychology, 73, 549 –559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3
Indicators Research, 112, 221–238.
.549 ⴱ
ⴱ
Singh, B., & Shejwal, B. R. (2017). Role of mental image, and personality
Schneider, T. R., Rench, T. A., Lyons, J. B., & Riffle, R. R. (2012). The
in emotions and affect among NCC cadets. Journal of the Indian
influence of neuroticism, extraversion and openness on stress responses.
Academy of Applied Psychology, 43, 276 –285.
Stress and Health, 28, 102–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1409 ⴱ
Sirianni Molnar, D. (2011). The light and dark sides of perfectionism
ⴱ
Schoeps, K., González, R., & Montoya-Castilla, I. (2016). Personalidad, implications for health and well-being (Doctoral thesis). Brock Univer-
relaciones familiares ysatisfacción con la vida en parejas casadas [Per- sity, Ontario, Canada.
sonality, family relations and satisfaction with life in married couples]. ⴱ
Skomorovsky, A., & Sudom, K. A. (2011). Psychological well-being of
Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 33, 89 –100. Canadian Forces officer candidates: The unique roles of hardiness and
ⴱ
Schwartz, C. E., Michael, W., Zhang, J., Rapkin, B. D., & Sprangers, personality. Military Medicine, 176, 389 –396. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/
M. A. G. (2018). Assessing reserve-building pursuits and person char- MILMED-D-10-00359
acteristics: Psychometric validation of the Reserve-Building Measure. ⴱ
Sliter, M., Withrow, S., & Jex, S. M. (2015). It happened, or you thought
Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life it happened? Examining the perception of workplace incivility based on
Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27, 423– 436. http://dx personality characteristics. International Journal of Stress Management,
.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1694-2 22, 24 – 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038329
ⴱ
Seder, J. P., & Oishi, S. (2012). Intensity of smiling in Facebook photos Smillie, L. D., Cooper, A. J., Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2012). Do extraverts
predicts future life satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality get more bang for the buck? Refining the affective-reactivity hypothesis
Science, 3, 407– 413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611424968 of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103,
ⴱ
Selnes, M., Marthinsen, K., & Vittersø, J. (2004). Hedonisme og eudai- 306 –326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028372
monia: To separate dimensjoner av livskvalitet? [Hedonism and eudai- Smillie, L. D., Kern, M. L., & Uljarevic, M. (2018). Description, devel-
monia: Two distinct quality-of-life dimensions?]. Tidsskrift for Norsk opment, and mechanisms. In D. P. MacAdams, R. L. Shiner, & J. L.
Psykologforening, 41, 179 –187. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 118 –136).
ⴱ
Selvarajan, T. T., Singh, B., & Cloninger, P. A. (2016). Role of person- New York, NY: Guilford.
ality and affect on the social support and work family conflict relation- Smillie, L. D., Wilt, J., Kabbani, R., Garratt, C., & Revelle, W. (2015).
ship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 39 –56. http://dx.doi.org/10 Quality of social experience explains the relation between extraversion
.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.004 and positive affect. Emotion, 15, 339 –349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
ⴱ
Sheu, H.-B., Liu, Y., & Li, Y. (2017). Well-being of college students in emo0000047
ⴱ
China. Journal of Career Assessment, 25, 144 –158. http://dx.doi.org/10 Sobocko, K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2015). Trait sensory-processing sensitiv-
.1177/1069072716658240 ity and subjective well-being: Distinctive associations for different as-
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 321

pects of sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 44 – 49. life. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 530 –535. http://dx.doi
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.045 .org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006
ⴱ ⴱ
Sodermans, A. K., & Matthijs, K. (2014). Joint physical custody and Stolarski, M. (2016). Not restricted by their personality: Balanced Time
adolescents’ subjective well-being: A personality ⫻ environment inter- Perspective moderates well-established relationships between personal-
action. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 346 –356. http://dx.doi.org/ ity traits and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 100,
10.1037/a0036713 140 –144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.037
ⴱ ⴱ
Sorondo, B. M. (2017). Associations between affect, personality, and job Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being:
satisfaction among library employees: Efficient and ethical assessment Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
of library staff. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, ogy, 70, 1091–1102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1091
ⴱ
37, 35–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0732-067120170000037003 Sulaiman, W. S. W., Kadir, N. B. A., Halim, F. W., Omar, F., Latiff,
ⴱ R. A., & Sulaiman, W. S. W. (2013). Structural relations between
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2):
Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance personality traits, coping strategy, social support and well-being among
bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and adolescents. Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanities, 21,
Social Psychology, 113, 117–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp 121–134.
ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

0000096 Suldo, S. M. R., Minch, D., & Hearon, B. V. (2015). Adolescent life
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences satisfaction and personality characteristics: Investigating relationships
in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large using a five factor model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 965–983.
cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9544-1
ⴱ
100, 330 –348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021717 Sun, J., Kaufman, S. B., & Smillie, L. D. (2018). Unique associations
ⴱ
Soto, C. J., & Luhmann, M. (2013). Who Can Buy Happiness? Social between big five personality aspects and multiple dimensions of well-
Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 46 –53. http://dx.doi.org/10 being. Journal of Personality, 86, 158 –172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
.1177/1948550612444139 jopy.12301
ⴱ
ⴱ
Soubelet, A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Influence of social desirability on Sun, J., Stevenson, K., Kabbani, R., Richardson, B., & Smillie, L. D.
age differences in self-reports of mood and personality. Journal of (2017). The pleasure of making a difference: Perceived social contribu-
tion explains the relation between extraverted behavior and positive
Personality, 79, 741–762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011
affect. Emotion, 17, 794 – 810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000273
.00700.x ⴱ
ⴱ Szcześniak, M., Sopińska, B., & Kroplewski, Z. (2019). Big Five person-
Spörrle, M., Strobel, M., & Tumasjan, A. (2010). On the incremental
ality traits and life satisfaction: The mediating role of religiosity. Reli-
validity of irrational beliefs to predict subjective well-being while con-
gions, 10, 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel10070437
trolling for personality factors. Psicothema, 22, 543–548. ⴱ
ⴱ Tan, W. H., Sheffield, J., Khoo, S. K., Byrne, G., & Pachana, N. A.
Stamatopoulou, M., Galanis, P., & Prezerakos, P. (2016). Psychometric
(2018). Influences on psychological well-being and ill-being in older
properties of the Greek translation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence
women. Australian Psychologist, 53, 203–212. http://dx.doi.org/10
Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF). Personality and Individual
.1111/ap.12297
Differences, 95, 80 – 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.035 ⴱ
ⴱ Tanksale, D. (2015). Big Five personality traits: Are they really important
Stanton, K., Gruber, J., & Watson, D. (2017). Basic dimensions defining
for the subjective well-being of Indians? International Journal of Psy-
mania risk: A structural approach. Psychological Assessment, 29, 304 –
chology, 50, 64 – 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12060
319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000337 ⴱ
ⴱ
Tartaglia, S., Miglietta, A., & Gattino, S. (2017). Life satisfaction and
Stanton, K., Rozek, D. C., Stasik-O’Brien, S. M., Ellickson-Larew, S., &
cannabis use: A study on young adults. Journal of Happiness Studies,
Watson, D. (2016). A transdiagnostic approach to examining the incre-
18, 709 –718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9742-0
mental predictive power of emotion regulation and basic personality ⴱ
Teachman, B. A., Siedlecki, K. L., & Magee, J. C. (2007). Aging and
dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125, 960 –975. http://dx symptoms of anxiety and depression: Structural invariance of the tripar-
.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000208 tite model. Psychology and Aging, 22, 160 –170. http://dx.doi.org/10
ⴱ
Steca, P., Capanna, C., Mecaroni, M., & Delle Fratte, A. (2005). La .1037/0882-7974.22.1.160
soddisfazione di vita e le sue relazioni con i cinque fattori di personalità ⴱ
Terracciano, A. (2003). The Italian version of the NEO PI-R: Conceptual
[Life satisfaction and its relation with the big five personality factors]. and empirical support for the use of targeted rotation. Personality and
Rassegna di Psicologia, 22, 21–33. Individual Differences, 35, 1859 –1872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., Bosco, F., & Uggerslev, K. (2019). The effects of S0191-8869(03)00035-7
personality on job satisfaction and life satisfaction: A meta-analytic ⴱ
Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation
investigation accounting for bandwidth–fidelity and commensurability. of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional
Human Relations, 72, 217–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00187 trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 859 – 888.
26718771465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167204272860
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship ⴱ
Thingujam, N. S. (2011). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction:
between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, Re-examining the link and mediating role of affectivity and personality
134, 138 –161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138 in India. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37,
Stephan, Y. (2009). Openness to experience and active older adults’ life 27–34.
satisfaction: A trait and facet-level analysis. Personality and Individual ⴱ
Thomas, E. A. (2011). Personality characteristics and behavioral out-
Differences, 47, 637– 641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.025 comes associated with engagement in work-related roles (thesis). Alliant
ⴱ
Stimson, T. S. (2010). The precursors and outcomes of goal choice and International University, Los Angeles, CA.
attainment (Doctoral thesis). University of California Riverside, CA. ⴱ
Thoresen, C. J. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of coping with
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: setbacks at work: A theory-driven framework (PhD thesis). University of
Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
ⴱ
Review, 10, 295–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2 Thorpe, K. (2015). The role of humor, mindfulness, coping, and person-
Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence ality in psychological health (Doctoral thesis). St John’s University,
and relationships with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with New York, NY.
 322 ANGLIM, HORWOOD, SMILLIE, MARRERO, AND WOOD

ⴱ
Tian, L.-L., & Zheng, X. (2007). Relationship between five personality of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678 – 691. http://dx.doi.org/
factors and multi-dimensional life satisfaction in middle school students. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678
ⴱ
Chinese Mental Health Journal, 21, 165–168. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: General
ⴱ
Tov, W. (2012). Daily experiences and well-being: Do memories of and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the
events matter? Cognition and Emotion, 26, 1371–1389. http://dx.doi five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441– 476. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.660135 .org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00980.x
ⴱ Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
Trankle, S. A., & Haw, J. (2009). Predicting Australian health behaviour
from health beliefs. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 42979. dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
ⴱ scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Tuce, Ð., & Fako, I. (2014). Odrednice zadovoljstva životom kod ado-
lescenata [The determinants of satisfaction with life in adolescents]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
ⴱ
Psihologijske Teme, 23, 407– 433. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in
ⴱ personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility,
van Allen, Z. M., & Zelenski, J. M. (2018). Testing trait-state isomor-
phism in a new domain: An exploratory manipulation of openness to and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1964. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ 78, 546 –558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.546
ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

fpsyg.2018.01964 Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Vázquez, C., Duque, A., & Hervás, G. (2013). Satisfaction with life scale D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative
in a representative sample of Spanish adults: Validation and normative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029 –1068.
data. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E82. http://dx.doi.org/10 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00289.x
ⴱ
.1017/sjp.2013.82 Watson, D., O’Hara, M. W., Simms, L. J., Kotov, R., Chmielewski, M.,
Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., Petrides, K. V., Cherkas, L. F., Spector, T. D., McDade-Montez, E. A., . . . Stuart, S. (2007). Development and vali-
& Vernon, P. A. (2009). A general factor of personality: Evidence from dation of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS).
the HEXACO model and a measure of trait emotional intelligence. Twin Psychological Assessment, 19, 253–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
Research and Human Genetics, 12, 420 – 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/ 3590.19.3.253
ⴱ
twin.12.5.420 Watson, D., Stanton, K., & Clark, L. A. (2017). Self-report indicators of
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor negative valence constructs within the research domain criteria (RDoC):
A critical review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 216, 58 – 69. http://dx
package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1– 48. http://dx.doi.org/10
.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.065
.18637/jss.v036.i03 ⴱ
ⴱ Watson, D., Stasik, S. M., Chmielewski, M., & Naragon-Gainey, K.
Vilhena, E., Pais-Ribeiro, J., Silva, I., Pedro, L., Meneses, R. F., Cardoso,
(2015). Development and validation of the Temperament and Affectivity
H., . . . Mendonça, D. (2014). Optimism on quality of life in Portuguese
Inventory (TAI). Assessment, 22, 540 –560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
chronic patients: Moderator/mediator? Revista da Associação Médica
1073191114557943
Brasileira, 60, 373–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.60.04.017 ⴱ
ⴱ Watson, D., Suls, J., & Haig, J. (2002). Global self-esteem in relation to
Villieux, A., Sovet, L., Jung, S.-C., & Guilbert, L. (2016). Psychological
structural models of personality and affectivity. Journal of Personality
flourishing: Validation of the French version of the Flourishing Scale
and Social Psychology, 83, 185–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
and exploration of its relationships with personality traits. Personality
3514.83.1.185
and Individual Differences, 88, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid ⴱ
Webb, C. A., Schwab, Z. J., Weber, M., DelDonno, S., Kipman, M.,
.2015.08.027
Weiner, M. R., & Killgore, W. D. S. (2013). Convergent and divergent
Visser, B. A., & Pozzebon, J. A. (2013). Who are you and what do you
validity of integrative versus mixed model measures of emotional intel-
want? Life aspirations, personality, and well-being. Personality and
ligence. Intelligence, 41, 149 –156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell
Individual Differences, 54, 266 –271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid .2013.01.004
.2012.09.010 ⴱ
Weber, M., & Huebner, E. S. (2015). Early adolescents’ personality and
ⴱ
Vittersø, J. (2001). Personality traits and subjective well-being. Person- life satisfaction: A closer look at global vs. domain-specific satisfaction.
ality and Individual Differences, 31, 903–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 31–36. http://dx.doi.org/10
S0191-8869(00)00192-6 .1016/j.paid.2015.03.042
ⴱ
Vollmann, M., Pukrop, J., & Salewski, C. (2016). Coping mediates the Weiss, A., Bates, T. C., & Luciano, M. (2008). Happiness is a personal(ity)
influence of personality on life satisfaction in patients with rheumatic thing: The genetics of personality and well-being in a representative
diseases. Clinical Rheumatology, 35, 1093–1097. http://dx.doi.org/10 sample. Psychological Science, 19, 205–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
.1007/s10067-016-3215-z j.1467-9280.2008.02068.x
ⴱ
Vorkapić, S. T., & Lončarić, D. (2013). Posreduje li profesionalno sago- ⴱ
West, N. M. (2007). The relationship among personality traits, character
rijevanje učinke osobina ličnosti na zadovoljstvo životom odgojitelja strengths, and life satisfaction in college students (Doctoral thesis).
predškolske djece? [Does professional burnout mediate the effects of University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
personality traits on life satisfaction among preschool teachers?] Psi- ⴱ
Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., Tolejko, N., Chatav, Y., & McKel-
hologijske Teme, 22, 431– 445. vie, M. (2006). Marital discord and well-being in older adults: Is the
ⴱ
Wahl, H. W., Heyl, V., & Schilling, O. (2012). Robustness of personality association confounded by personality? Psychology and Aging, 21,
and affect relations under chronic conditions: The case of age-related 626 – 631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.626
vision and hearing impairment. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, ⴱ
White, G. A. (2011). Implications of relationship social comparison
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67, 687– 696. http://dx.doi tendencies among dating and married individuals (Doctoral thesis).
.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs002 University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
ⴱ ⴱ
Wang, D., Hu, M., Li, S., & Tao, S. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Wicker, A. D. (2016). The relationship between workplace sexual identity
temperament and character inventory-revised in Chinese young adults. management and workplace satisfaction among lesbian, gay, and bisex-
Current Psychology, 38, 1276 –1284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144- ual professionals (Doctoral thesis). Massachusetts School of Profes-
017-9643-3 sional Psychology, Newton, MA.
ⴱ
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of Wigert, L. R. (2002). An investigation of the relationships among per-
personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal sonality traits, locus of control, religious orientation, and life satisfac-
 PERSONALITY AND WELL-BEING 323

tion: A path analytical study (Doctoral thesis). University of Nebraska, and affect via the structural equation model in young adults. Applied
Lincoln NE. Neuropsychology: Adult. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/
Wiggins, J. S. (1968). Personality structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 10.1080/23279095.2019.1576690
ⴱ
19, 293–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.19.020168.001453 Zeidner, M., & Olnick-Shemesh, D. (2010). Emotional intelligence and
ⴱ
Williams, P. G., & Wiebe, D. J. (2000). Individual differences in self- subjective well-being revisited. Personality and Individual Differences,
assessed health: Gender, neuroticism and physical symptom reports. 48, 431– 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.011
ⴱ
Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 823– 835. http://dx.doi.org/ Zellars, K. L., Perrewé, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Anderson, K. S.
10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00140-3 (2006). The interactive effects of positive affect and conscientiousness
ⴱ
Williams, T. F., & Simms, L. J. (2018). Personality traits and maladap- on strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 281–289.
tivity: Unipolarity versus bipolarity. Journal of Personality, 86, 888 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.281
ⴱ
901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12363 Zhai, Q.-G., O’Shea, B., Mike, W., & Yang, Y.-W. (2010). Subjective
ⴱ
Wilt, J. A., Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2016). well-being, personality and environmental satisfaction in Urban China.
Personality, religious and spiritual struggles, and well-being. Psychology 2010 International Conference on Management Science and Engineer-
of Religion and Spirituality, 8, 341–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ ing, ICMSE, 2010, 879 – 885.
ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

rel0000054 Zhai, Q., Willis, M., O’Shea, B., Zhai, Y., & Yang, Y. (2013). Big Five
ⴱ
Wong, W. S., Lam, H. M., Chen, P. P., Chow, Y. F., Wong, S., Lim, H. S., personality traits, job satisfaction and subjective wellbeing in China.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

. . . Fielding, R. (2015). The fear-avoidance model of chronic pain: International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1099 –1108. http://dx.doi.org/
Assessing the role of neuroticism and negative affect in pain catastro- 10.1080/00207594.2012.732700
ⴱ
phizing using structural equation modeling. International Journal of Zhang, J. W., & Howell, R. T. (2011). Do time perspectives predict
Behavioral Medicine, 22, 118 –131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12529- unique variance in life satisfaction beyond personality traits? Personality
014-9413-7 and Individual Differences, 50, 1261–1266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
ⴱ
Wood, D., Nye, C. D., & Saucier, G. (2010). Identification and measure- .paid.2011.02.021
ⴱ
ment of a more comprehensive set of person-descriptive trait markers Zhang, J., Mandl, H., & Wang, E. (2010). Personality, acculturation, and
from the English lexicon. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, psychosocial adjustment of Chinese international students in Germany.
258 –272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.02.003 Psychological Reports, 107, 511–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/07.09
ⴱ
Woyciekoski, C., Natividade, J. C., & Hutz, C. S. (2014). Contributions of .11.17.PR0.107.5.511-525
ⴱ
personality and life events to the subjective well-being [As contribuições Zhang, R.-P., & Tsingan, L. (2014). Extraversion and neuroticism mediate
da personalidade e dos eventos de vida para o bem-estar subjetivo]. associations between openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness
Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 30, 401– 409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ and affective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1377–1388.
S0102-37722014000400005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9482-3
ⴱ ⴱ
Wu, R., Liu, Z., Guo, Q., Cai, M., & Zhou, J. (2019). Couple Similarity Zhu, X., Woo, S. E., Porter, C., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to
on personality, moral identity and spirituality predict life satisfaction of happiness: From personality to social networks and perceived support.
spouses and their offspring. Journal of Happiness Studies. Advance Social Networks, 35, 382–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00108-8 .04.005
ⴱ
Xu, L., Liu, R. D., Ding, Y., Mou, X., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). The Zimmermann, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Do we become a different person
mediation effect of coping style on the relations between personality and when hitting the road? Personality development of sojourners. Journal of
life satisfaction in Chinese adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 515–530. http://dx.doi.org/10
1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01076 .1037/a0033019
ⴱ
Yeo, P. L. (2015). Religiosity, personality, and subjective wellbeing
among Muslim adults in Indonesia (Doctoral thesis). Regent University,
Virginia Beach, VA. Received May 17, 2019
ⴱ Revision received December 4, 2019
Yilmaz, S., & Kafadar, H. (2019). Investigating the relationship between
decision-making processes and cognitive processes, personality traits, Accepted December 7, 2019 䡲