Two models of personality and well-being among adolescents

Abstract

Personality is considered a major determinant of adolescents’ well-being; probably due to its relation to emotional reactivity, individual differences in intensity to responses to emotional events, and to the duration of emotional reactions. Personality, however, is a broad concept influenced by heritable traits, environment and learning characteristics. Nevertheless, most research on well-being has focused on traits models of personality. In the present study, personality was measured among 289 high school pupils from Sweden using the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and the NEO Personality Inventory – Revised (NEO-PI-R). Well-being was measured as Psychological Well-Being (PWB) and Subjective Well-Being (SWB: Life Satisfaction, LS; Positive Affect, PA; and Negative Affect, NA). Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: Big Five (NEO-PI-R, SWB, and PWB), TCI (TCI, SWB, and PWB), and a Mixed group (NEO-PI-R, TCI, SWB and PWB). The results show that Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Persistence, and Self-Directedness were strongly related to well-being. More importantly, in the Mixed group, Self-Directedness was strongly related to PWB, LS, and to the absence of NA while the positive relationships between Extraversion-PWB, Extraversion-PA, Neuroticism-NA and the negative relationship between Neuroticism-LS were absent. The inclusion of character as a determinant of well-being is discussed.

Introduction

Research among adults suggests that personality is a major determinant for adults’ well-being (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). The relationship of personality to well-being has been investigated among adolescents and shows similar results (e.g., Fogle et al., 2002, Huebner, 1991). Personality appears to be a key element because it is related to reactivity to emotional stimuli, individual differences in intensity to responses to emotional events, and to the duration of emotional reactions (Kim-Prieto, Diener, Tamir, Scollon, & Diener, 2005). Specifically, Extraversion seems to influence well-being because it is positively related to positive emotions and being more reactive to positive affect, while Neuroticism is negatively related to negative emotions and being more reactive to negative affect (Larsen & Eid, 2008). Nevertheless, personality is a broad concept influenced by heritable traits, environment and learning characteristics (Lucas, 2008). McAdams (2001, pp. 111), for instance, suggested that personality traits may be limited to traits that “are global, stable, linear and comparative dimensions of human individuality”. Indeed, these traits are relatively similar between identical twins reared apart, although they are also influenced by environmental changes, such as becoming a parent (Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003). In contrast, heritable traits together with learning experiences from different life events may be responsible for other levels of personality (McAdams, 2001), such as the development of personal goals, values and even defence mechanisms (i.e., what people make of themselves intentionally or their character; Cloninger, 2004).

However, although the concept of character holds a major position in psychology (e.g., Allport, 1955, Rogers, 1959), most research on adolescents’ well-being has focused on traits models of personality (e.g., the five-factor model or Big Five; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Although character might be influenced by basic traits (e.g., neurotics might develop more defence mechanisms while extraverts might rely more on social relationships; Haidt, 2006), it is also influenced by changes in one’s life. In this context, character probably modifies the significance or meaning of what is experienced, in turn, influencing well-being (Cloninger, 2004). In other words, investigating the relationship between personality and well-being using only trait models of personality needs to be reconsidered. Moreover, in the field of positive psychology, well-being research complements measures of physical (e.g. health) and material (e.g. income) well-being with assessments of optimal psychological functioning and experience (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Two approaches have been distinctive across studies. First, subjective well-being (SWB; Diener, 1984) which focuses on assessment of individuals’ own judgements about life satisfaction (LS), the frequency of positive affects (PA) and the infrequency of negative affects (NA). The second is psychological well-being (PWB; Ryff, 1989) which includes six distinct constructs: autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, mastery, and the ability to have positive relations with others. These six constructs define PWB both theoretically and operationally, and they identify what promotes effective adaptation to life events and emotional and physical health (Ryff, 1989).

The proposition in the present study is that character needs to be included when researchers investigate the relationship between personality and well-being. This might be necessary, not only due to the definition of personality per se, but also due to recent research suggesting that cognitive intrapersonal characteristics such as locus of control (Ash & Huebner, 2001), self-efficacy (Fogle et al., 2002), and adaptive attribution style for positive events (Rigby & Huebner, 2005) are related to specific measures of well-being (life satisfaction). These intrapersonal characteristics are, at least in part, a good definition of character. Moreover, the present study addresses other measures of well-being (i.e., positive affect, negative affect & psychological well-being) that until recently are gaps in the adolescence literature (for some studies addressing these measures see among others: Garcia and Siddiqui, 2009a, Garcia and Siddiqui, 2009b, Lewis et al., 2009). The understanding of character as a determinant of well-being in adolescence is important – adolescents that experience high levels of life satisfaction also show less emotional and behavioral problems (Suldo & Huebner, 2006), and positive emotions during school are related to higher student engagement and adaptive coping (Lewis et al., 2009). Additionally, traits are considered to be 40–60% heritable and relatively stable across the life span, the heritability is greatest for Extraversion and Neuroticism (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001). In contrast, character increases with age – especially between adolescence and early adulthood (Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993).Thus, the study of the relationship between character and well-being in the context of adolescence might lead to interventions that target specific character constructs that are malleable and important for adolescents’ well-being.

In order to test the suggestion about the need of character in the investigation of well-being, adolescents in the present study self-reported personality in two different models of personality: the Five-Factor Model or Big Five (The NEO Personality Inventory – Revised, NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae’ 1992) and Cloninger’s Psychobiological Model of Personality (The Temperament and Character Inventory, TCI; Cloninger et al., 1993). In addition, adolescents reported well-being in two models: SWB and PWB.