- Email: [email protected]
Personality and subjective well-being: big five correlates and demographic variables
Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Personality and subjective well-being: big five correlates and demographic variables Jose´ Luis Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez a,*, Bernardo Moreno Jime´nez b, Eva Garrosa Herna´ndez b, Cecilia Pen¨acoba Puente a a
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Avda. Atenas s/n, Alcorco´n 28922, Madrid, Spain b Facultad de Psicologı´a, Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid, Ctra. de Colmenar km. 15, 28049 Madrid, Spain Received 27 February 2004; received in revised form 9 July 2004; accepted 23 September 2004 Available online 30 November 2004
Abstract This work examines the association between the Big Five personality dimensions, the most relevant demographic factors (sex, age and relationship status), and subjective well-being. A total of 236 nursing professionals completed the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the Affect-Balance Scale (ABS). Regression analysis showed personality as one of the most important correlates of subjective well-being, especially through Extraversion and Neuroticism. There was a positive association between Openness to experience and the positive and negative components of affect. Likewise, the most basic demographic variables (sex, age and relationship status) are found to be differentially associated with the different elements of subjective well-being, and the explanation for these associations is highly likely to be found in the links between demographic variables and personality. In the same way as control of the effect of demographic variables is necessary for isolating the effect of personality on subjective well-being, control of personality should permit more accurate analysis of the role of demographic variables in relation to the subjective well-being construct. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Personality; Big Five; Subjective well-being; Demographic variables
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 4888879; fax: +34 91 4888831. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.015
1562
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1. Introduction In the late 1990s, the meta-analysis by DeNeve and Cooper (1998) showed the existence of a large number of studies on the relationship between personality and the two dimensions of subjective well-being (Veenhoven, 1984): affective (positive affect, negative affect and the balance between them) and cognitive (life satisfaction). In terms of the Big Five dimensions, the abovementioned study suggested Neuroticism as the most important predictor of negative affect and life satisfaction, while Extraversion and Agreeableness were identified as the dimensions with the greatest predictive capacity for positive affect. Responsibility has also been identified by some authors as a variable related to both positive affect and life satisfaction (Hayes & Joseph, 2003). McCrae and Costa (1991) have suggested that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness would increase the probability of positive experiences in social and achievement situations, respectively, and this, in turn, is directly related to subjective well-being. On the other hand, Openness to experience should lead the person to experience both more positive emotional states and more negative ones. The same authors argue that Extraversion has an influence on positive affect, while Neuroticism influences negative affect. This has led them to assert that these two basic dimensions of personality lead to positive and negative affect, respectively (Costa & McRae, 1980; McCrae & Costa, 1991). Nevertheless, it would appear interesting to make a systematic analysis of the way personality is linked to the most relevant demographic factors (age, sex, relationship status, etc.) in relation to subjective well-being, given the possible existence of crossed effects between these elements (Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001). Although control of demographic variables in the study of the correlates between personality and subjective well-being has become standard practice (e.g., Hayes & Joseph, 2003), simultaneous control of both personality and demographics appears necessary in order to explore the associations between them in relation to subjective well-being. In this regard, contradictory findings in the relation between demographics and subjective well-being (e.g., Andrews & Withey, 1976; Stock, Okun, Haring, & Witter, 1983; Acock & Hurlbert, 1993; Ball & Robbins, 1986) may be due to the relationship of demographics with external third variables, among which personality seems especially relevant. The aim of the present study is to analyze the correlates between the Big Five personality dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) and the demographic variables most relevant to subjective well-being, systematically controlling and examining the associations between them.
2. Method 2.1. Sample and procedure The sample was made up of 236 nursing professionals working in eight different departments at seven hospitals in Madrid (Spain). Thirty-two were men (13.6%) and 204 were women (86.4%). One hundred and seventy-one (72.5%) said they had a partner, and 65 (27.5%) said they had no partner. Mean age was 35.23 years (SD = 8.03). Mean age of the men was 32.28 years (SD = 6.56), and of the women, 35.70 (SD = 8.16). Mean number of years in the profession was 13.18 (SD = 7.80).
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1563
In each of the seven hospitals, questionnaires were given to the departmental supervisors. Questionnaires were delivered to each department according to the total number of possible participants, and respondents were given two weeks to complete them. A telephone follow-up to the departmental supervisors was maintained until all the questionnaires were completed. 2.2. Measures The Spanish version of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1999) was employed to assess the Big Five personality dimensions. NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 60-element version of the NEO PI-R (form S), which offers a rapid and general measure of the Big Five personality factors: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. The Spanish version was derived from the 180 items of the NEO PI-R (Spanish version). For each domain, the 12 items with the highest homogeneity and the lowest correlations with the rest of the factors were selected. When the NEO-FFI scales correlated with the domain scales of the NEO PIR (both Spanish versions), correlations ranged from .87 to .93. Internal consistency and factorial structure (varimax rotation) were also satisfactory (Costa & McCrae, 1999). CronbachÕs alpha values in the present sample were .73 (Agreeableness), .75 (Openness), .78 (Conscientiousness), .78 (Neuroticism) and .80 (Extraversion). Subjective well-being was assessed by means of BradburnÕs Affect Balance Scale (ABS; Bradburn, 1969). This scale was derived from BradburnÕs theoretical approach to subjective well-being, based on the concept of ‘‘happiness’’ defined as a preponderance of positive affect over negative affect. A form of obtaining this preponderance consists in subtracting the negative affect scores from the positive affect scores (Kozma & Stones, 1980). Five out of ten items refer to questions about positive feelings, and the other five items refer to questions about negative feelings. All items are formulated as questions about the subjectÕs feelings during the last few weeks, and answers are given using a dichotomous scale with two options: ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’. Thus, the score on each subscale (positive and negative affect, respectively) ranges from 0 to 5. In addition, a general score on affect balance can be computed as positive affect minus negative affect plus a constant of 5 (in order to avoid negative values). The instrument has satisfactory convergent validity, as well as a good test–retest correlation (Bradburn, 1969; Harding, 1982; Lewis, McCollam, & Joseph, 2000), though its internal consistency is less satisfactory. In the original study by Bradburn (1969), correlations among the items ranged from .19 to .75 for positive affect and from .38 to .72 for negative affect. In a sample collected in 38 countries, correlations among the items were between .29 and .73 for positive affect and between .41 and .60 for negative affect (Macintosh, 1998). Lewis et al. (2000) reported alpha coefficients of .67 for the positive affect subscale and .50 for the negative affect subscale. In the present study, KR20 values (Kuder & Richardson, 1937) of .55 and .56 were obtained for the positive affect and negative affect subscales, respectively.
3. Results Correlations between personality (raw scores on NEO-FFI dimensions) and subjective wellbeing were calculated (see Table 1). Neuroticism, Extraversion and Responsibility were correlated
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1564
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations for NEO-FFI and ABS scales M Positive affect Negative affect Affect balance Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness *
p < .05;
**
2.52 0.92 6.59 18.80 31.41 28.47 31.28 33.26
SD 1.34 1.16 1.92 7.11 7.07 6.87 6.20 6.18
Neurot. **
.21 .44** .41**
Extrav. **
.37 .18** .36**
Openn. **
.33 .01 .23**
Agree. .16 .01 .11
*
Cons. .19** .14* .21**
p < .01.
with both dimensions of affect (positive and negative) and affect balance. Openness was found to correlate only with positive affect (r = .33) and affect balance (r = .23). Agreeableness correlated only with positive affect (r = .16). Two multiple-regression analyses (MRA) were conducted to allow an examination of the variance in subjective well-being (positive affect, negative affect and affect balance) accounted for separately by demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions, respectively (Table 2), and at the same time to exercise mutual control between the two blocks of variables (Table 3). Variables were incorporated into the model by means of the enter method. Sex was coded as 1 = men, 2 = women, while relationship status was coded as 1 = with partner, 2 = without partner. As shown in Table 2, age (b = .18) and relationship status (b = .18) played a role in the prediction of positive affect, and relationship status in the prediction of affect balance (b = .16). Nevertheless, when the Big Five dimensions were controlled (Table 3), only sex was a significant predictor of negative affect (b = .16) and affect balance (b = .13), respectively. On the other hand, before the control of demographic variables (Table 2), Extraversion (b = .29) and Openness (b = .21) were found to be significant predictors of positive affect, Neuroticism (b = .44) was a significant predictor of negative affect, and Extraversion (b = .25) and Neuroticism (b = .32) were significant predictors of affect balance. When demographic variables were controlled (Table 3), Extraversion (b = .23) and Openness (b = .21) were again statistically significant predictors of positive affect, Neuroticism (b = .49) and Openness (b = .13) played a role in the prediction of negative affect, and finally, Neuroticism (b = .37) and Extraversion (b = .20) were found to be significant predictors of affect balance. With the aim of analyzing the direction of the changes in the prediction of the demographic variables when simultaneous control of the Big Five dimensions was exercised, an additional multiple analysis regression was carried out. Demographic variables that changed when the Big Five dimensions were controlled (Table 3) were regressed separately on the subjective well-being dimensions with and without control of Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness (see Table 4), respectively. The predictive capacity of age over positive affect was lost as a consequence of the control of Extraversion and Openness. Similarly, the predictive capacity of relationship status over positive affect was significantly reduced as a consequence of the control of Extraversion. In addition, sex became statistically significant in the relationship with negative affect and with affect balance when neuroticism was controlled. Finally, the predictive capacity of relationship status over affect balance was significantly reduced as consequence of the control of Extraversion.
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1565
Table 2 Summary of multiple-regression analyses of demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions for subjective well-being (demographic variables and Big-Five personality variables entered independently) Regression coefficients
Determination coefficients
Beta
R2 cor.
t
Positive affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.07 .18 .18 .08 .29 .21 .05 .04
1.08 2.73** 2.74** 1.26 4.16** 3.21** .86 .65
Negative affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.04 .03 .05 .44 .08 .13 .01 .04
.56 .43 .83 6.54** 1.13 1.92 .23 .66
Affect balance Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.07 .11 .16 .32 .25 .07 .03 .00
1.08 1.62 2.39* 4.91** 3.65** 1.09 .47 .05
*
p < .05;
**
F
.05
5.38**
.22
14.09**
.01
.46
.18
11.52**
.03
3.23*
.23
15.43**
p < .01.
4. Discussion Once more, these results show that personality is an important correlate of subjective well-being. Neuroticism was the best predictor of affect balance, followed by Extraversion. At a dimensional level, Neuroticism was the dimension most closely linked to negative affect, while Extraversion was the dimension most strongly associated with positive affect. In addition, Openness was associated with both positive and negative affect. Within the perspective of the Big Five, these results support the findings of DeNeve and Cooper (1998), except for Agreeableness, since in the present study this dimension was not a significant predictor of positive affect, its place being occupied by Openness. Openness was found to be associated with both positive and negative affect, confirming the suggestions of McCrae and Costa (1991) about Openness as a characteristic that should lead the person to experience positive as well as
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1566
Table 3 Summary of multiple-regression analyses of demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions for subjective well-being (demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions entered simultaneously) Regression coefficients
Determination coefficients
Beta
R2 cor.
t
F
Positive affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.06 .11 .11 .11 .23 .21 .03 .03
.93 1.71 1.79 1.59 3.19** 3.29** .44 .42
.22
9.31**
Negative affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.16 .04 .02 .49 .06 .13 .03 .06
2.48* .59 .36 6.94** .87 1.98* .44 .86
.20
8.04**
Affect balance Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.13 .10 .06 .37 .20 .07 .00 .01
2.18* 1.58 1.04 5.41** 2.80** 1.11 .04 .23
.25
10.45**
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01.
negative affect. Nevertheless, in consequence, Openness was not associated with the affect balance, since this index reflects the difference between the positive and negative components of affect. In contrast to the findings of DeNeve and Cooper (1998), Extraversion and Neuroticism were not equally predictive of affect balance: Neuroticism was more strongly associated with this variable than Extraversion. Furthermore, the results show a close association between Neuroticism and sex in relation to subjective well-being. In the cases of negative affect and affect balance, control of Neuroticism gave rise to the appearance of an association effect between these two variables and sex, with the higher scores for women in affect balance. In other words, women tended to obtain lower scores than men in negative affect when effective control was exercised over Neuroticism, a variable in which women have been found to score significantly higher than men (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001), with the concomitant repercussions on their general affect balance.
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1567
Table 4 Summary of multiple-regression analyses of demographic variables for subjective well-being Regression coefficients (without control)
Regression coefficients (cont. Neuroticism)
Regression coefficients (cont. Extraversion)
Regression coefficients (cont. Openness)
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
t
t
t
t
Positive affect Age Relationship status
.17 .19
2.56* 2.93**
.19 .15
2.99** 2.44*
.08 .12
1.30 1.95
.12 .18
1.95 3.05**
Negative affect Sex
.05
.74
.13
2.20*
.04
.66
.05
.78
Affect balance Sex Relationship status
.07 .16
1.02 2.49*
.15 .10
2.48* 1.63
.05 .09
.88 1.54
.05 .16
.84 2.50*
*
p < .05; **p < .01. Demographic variables changing when control of the Big Five dimensions was exerted, regressed separately on the subjective well-being dimensions with and without the control of Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness, respectively.
It can be hypothesized, therefore, that the differences traditionally found between men and women, with slightly lower scores in well-being for women (Haring, Stock, & Okun, 1984), are due, at least in part, to the effect of Neuroticism and related variables, such as perceived control (Hickson, Housley, & Boyle, 1988). Eliminating the effect of Neuroticism, women seem to obtain lower scores than men in negative affect and higher scores in affect balance. Age was related initially to positive affect in the present study, but just before the effect of Extraversion and Openness was controlled. These results support the findings of Diener and Suh (1998), or Stacey and Gatz (1991), suggesting a slight decrease in positive affect with age. No relationship between age and negative affect or between age and affect balance was found. There is a well-known controversy concerning the role of this variable in subjective well-being, since the direction of the association changes depending on the specific component of subjective well-being that is analyzed (Andrews & McKennell, 1980), as well as on the effective control of other variables, such as income level, occupation, educational level, marital status or nationality (George, 1985; Inglehart & Rabier, 1986). The results of the present study indicate the need to take into account changes in the personality associated with ageing. In this regard, recently, Srivastava, John, Gosling, and Potter (2003) found a decrease in Openness with age in both men and women, with Extraversion declining only in women as they age. Since Openness and Extraversion are positively associated with positive affect, the inverse initial relationship between age and positive affect could be due to the decrease in these variables with age. Although Extraversion declines only for women (and not for men) as they age (Srivastava et al., 2003), the present sample was made up almost entirely of women. This makes more probable the existence of a significant relationship between age and Extraversion in the present study, but at the same time represents a threat to the generalizability of the results. Finally, relationship status was found to be initially associated with the positive component of affect and with the general affect balance, but not with the negative component of affect.
1568
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
Specifically, subjects with stable partners obtained higher scores in positive affect and general wellbeing than those without a partner or without a stable partner. In most previous studies, presence of a partner is positively associated with life satisfaction and general subjective well-being (Acock & Hurlbert, 1993; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976; Glenn & Weaver, 1981; Mastekaasa, 1993, Wood, Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989; Headey, Veenhoven, & Wearing, 1991). Nevertheless, in the present study, the presence of a partner does not seem to be relevant for general well-being, at least once the effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion are controlled. It is doubtful whether presence or absence of a partner finally influences general affect balance when Neuroticism and Extraversion are controlled. In short, personality would appear to be one of the most important correlates of subjective wellbeing, especially through Extraversion and Neuroticism. This study also supports the positive association between Openness and the positive and negative components of affect. Likewise, the most basic demographic variables (sex, age and relationship status) are found to be differentially associated with the different elements of subjective well-being, and the explanation for these associations is highly likely to be found in the links between demographic variables and personality. Just as control of the effect of demographic variables is necessary for isolating the effect of personality on subjective well-being, control of personality would allow more accurate analysis of the role of demographic variables in relation to the subjective well-being construct.
References Acock, A. C., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1993). Social networks, marital status, and well-being. Social Networks, 15(3), 309–334. Andrews, F. M., & McKennell, A. C. (1980). Measures of self-reported well-being: Their affective, cognitive and other components. Social Indicators Research, 8, 127–155. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press. Ball, R. E., & Robbins, L. (1986). Marital status and life satisfaction among Black Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 389–394. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of american life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfaction. New York: Russell. Charles, S., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136–151. Costa, P. T., & McRae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1999). Inventario de Personalidad NEO revisado (NEO PI-R) e Inventario NEO reducido de cinco factores (NEO-FFI) [NEO PI-R, Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)]. Madrid: TEA Editions. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229. Diener, E. & Suh, M. E. (1998). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. In Schaie, K. W. & Lawton, M. P. (Eds.), Annual Review of gerontology and geriatrics: Vol. 17. Focus on emotion and adult development. New York: Springer; 304–324.
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1569
George, A., & Landerman, A. (1985). Okun Age as a moderator of the determinants of life satisfaction. Research on Aging, 7(2), 209–233. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1981). The contribution of marital happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43(2), 161–168. Harding, S. D. (1982). Psychological well-being in Great Britain: An evaluation of the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 167–175. Haring, M. J., Stock, W. A., & Okun, M. A. (1984). A research synthesis of gender and social class as correlates of subjective well-being. Human Relations, 37, 645–657. Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 723–727. Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top–down versus bottom–up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 81–100. Hickson, J., Housley, W. F., & Boyle, C. (1988). The relationship of locus of control, age, and sex to life satisfaction and death anxiety in older persons. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 26(3), 191–199. Inglehart, R., & Rabier, J. R. (1986). Aspirations adapt to situations—but why are the Belgians so much happier than the French? A cross-cultural analysis of the subjective quality of life. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Research on the Quality of Life (pp. 1–56). Michigan: Ann Arbor. Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1980). The measurement of happiness: Development of the measurement of happiness: Development of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (M.U.N.S.H.). Journal of Gerontology, 35, 906–912. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–160. Lewis, C. A., McCollam, P., & Joseph, S. (2000). Convergent validity of the depression-happiness scale with the Bradburn Affect Scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 579–584. Macintosh, R. (1998). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Affect Balance Scale in 38 Nations: A research note. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 83–91. Mastekaasa, A. (1993). Marital status and subjective well-being: A changing relationship? Social Indicators Research, 29(3), 249–276. McCrae, R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 227–232. Srivastava, S., John, O., Gosling, S., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053. Stacey, C. A., & Gatz, M. (1991). Cross-sectional age differences and longitudinal change on the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 46, 76–78. Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., Haring, M. J., & Witter, R. A. (1983). Age differences in subjective well-being: A metaanalysis. In Light, R. J. (Ed.), Evaluation Studies: Review Annual, Vol. 8, Beverly: Sage, pp. 279–302. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: Reidel. Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 249–264.
Personality and subjective well-being: big five correlates and demographic variables Jose´ Luis Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez a,*, Bernardo Moreno Jime´nez b, Eva Garrosa Herna´ndez b, Cecilia Pen¨acoba Puente a a
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Avda. Atenas s/n, Alcorco´n 28922, Madrid, Spain b Facultad de Psicologı´a, Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid, Ctra. de Colmenar km. 15, 28049 Madrid, Spain Received 27 February 2004; received in revised form 9 July 2004; accepted 23 September 2004 Available online 30 November 2004
Abstract This work examines the association between the Big Five personality dimensions, the most relevant demographic factors (sex, age and relationship status), and subjective well-being. A total of 236 nursing professionals completed the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the Affect-Balance Scale (ABS). Regression analysis showed personality as one of the most important correlates of subjective well-being, especially through Extraversion and Neuroticism. There was a positive association between Openness to experience and the positive and negative components of affect. Likewise, the most basic demographic variables (sex, age and relationship status) are found to be differentially associated with the different elements of subjective well-being, and the explanation for these associations is highly likely to be found in the links between demographic variables and personality. In the same way as control of the effect of demographic variables is necessary for isolating the effect of personality on subjective well-being, control of personality should permit more accurate analysis of the role of demographic variables in relation to the subjective well-being construct. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Personality; Big Five; Subjective well-being; Demographic variables
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 4888879; fax: +34 91 4888831. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.015
1562
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1. Introduction In the late 1990s, the meta-analysis by DeNeve and Cooper (1998) showed the existence of a large number of studies on the relationship between personality and the two dimensions of subjective well-being (Veenhoven, 1984): affective (positive affect, negative affect and the balance between them) and cognitive (life satisfaction). In terms of the Big Five dimensions, the abovementioned study suggested Neuroticism as the most important predictor of negative affect and life satisfaction, while Extraversion and Agreeableness were identified as the dimensions with the greatest predictive capacity for positive affect. Responsibility has also been identified by some authors as a variable related to both positive affect and life satisfaction (Hayes & Joseph, 2003). McCrae and Costa (1991) have suggested that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness would increase the probability of positive experiences in social and achievement situations, respectively, and this, in turn, is directly related to subjective well-being. On the other hand, Openness to experience should lead the person to experience both more positive emotional states and more negative ones. The same authors argue that Extraversion has an influence on positive affect, while Neuroticism influences negative affect. This has led them to assert that these two basic dimensions of personality lead to positive and negative affect, respectively (Costa & McRae, 1980; McCrae & Costa, 1991). Nevertheless, it would appear interesting to make a systematic analysis of the way personality is linked to the most relevant demographic factors (age, sex, relationship status, etc.) in relation to subjective well-being, given the possible existence of crossed effects between these elements (Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001). Although control of demographic variables in the study of the correlates between personality and subjective well-being has become standard practice (e.g., Hayes & Joseph, 2003), simultaneous control of both personality and demographics appears necessary in order to explore the associations between them in relation to subjective well-being. In this regard, contradictory findings in the relation between demographics and subjective well-being (e.g., Andrews & Withey, 1976; Stock, Okun, Haring, & Witter, 1983; Acock & Hurlbert, 1993; Ball & Robbins, 1986) may be due to the relationship of demographics with external third variables, among which personality seems especially relevant. The aim of the present study is to analyze the correlates between the Big Five personality dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) and the demographic variables most relevant to subjective well-being, systematically controlling and examining the associations between them.
2. Method 2.1. Sample and procedure The sample was made up of 236 nursing professionals working in eight different departments at seven hospitals in Madrid (Spain). Thirty-two were men (13.6%) and 204 were women (86.4%). One hundred and seventy-one (72.5%) said they had a partner, and 65 (27.5%) said they had no partner. Mean age was 35.23 years (SD = 8.03). Mean age of the men was 32.28 years (SD = 6.56), and of the women, 35.70 (SD = 8.16). Mean number of years in the profession was 13.18 (SD = 7.80).
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1563
In each of the seven hospitals, questionnaires were given to the departmental supervisors. Questionnaires were delivered to each department according to the total number of possible participants, and respondents were given two weeks to complete them. A telephone follow-up to the departmental supervisors was maintained until all the questionnaires were completed. 2.2. Measures The Spanish version of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1999) was employed to assess the Big Five personality dimensions. NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 60-element version of the NEO PI-R (form S), which offers a rapid and general measure of the Big Five personality factors: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. The Spanish version was derived from the 180 items of the NEO PI-R (Spanish version). For each domain, the 12 items with the highest homogeneity and the lowest correlations with the rest of the factors were selected. When the NEO-FFI scales correlated with the domain scales of the NEO PIR (both Spanish versions), correlations ranged from .87 to .93. Internal consistency and factorial structure (varimax rotation) were also satisfactory (Costa & McCrae, 1999). CronbachÕs alpha values in the present sample were .73 (Agreeableness), .75 (Openness), .78 (Conscientiousness), .78 (Neuroticism) and .80 (Extraversion). Subjective well-being was assessed by means of BradburnÕs Affect Balance Scale (ABS; Bradburn, 1969). This scale was derived from BradburnÕs theoretical approach to subjective well-being, based on the concept of ‘‘happiness’’ defined as a preponderance of positive affect over negative affect. A form of obtaining this preponderance consists in subtracting the negative affect scores from the positive affect scores (Kozma & Stones, 1980). Five out of ten items refer to questions about positive feelings, and the other five items refer to questions about negative feelings. All items are formulated as questions about the subjectÕs feelings during the last few weeks, and answers are given using a dichotomous scale with two options: ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’. Thus, the score on each subscale (positive and negative affect, respectively) ranges from 0 to 5. In addition, a general score on affect balance can be computed as positive affect minus negative affect plus a constant of 5 (in order to avoid negative values). The instrument has satisfactory convergent validity, as well as a good test–retest correlation (Bradburn, 1969; Harding, 1982; Lewis, McCollam, & Joseph, 2000), though its internal consistency is less satisfactory. In the original study by Bradburn (1969), correlations among the items ranged from .19 to .75 for positive affect and from .38 to .72 for negative affect. In a sample collected in 38 countries, correlations among the items were between .29 and .73 for positive affect and between .41 and .60 for negative affect (Macintosh, 1998). Lewis et al. (2000) reported alpha coefficients of .67 for the positive affect subscale and .50 for the negative affect subscale. In the present study, KR20 values (Kuder & Richardson, 1937) of .55 and .56 were obtained for the positive affect and negative affect subscales, respectively.
3. Results Correlations between personality (raw scores on NEO-FFI dimensions) and subjective wellbeing were calculated (see Table 1). Neuroticism, Extraversion and Responsibility were correlated
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1564
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations for NEO-FFI and ABS scales M Positive affect Negative affect Affect balance Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness *
p < .05;
**
2.52 0.92 6.59 18.80 31.41 28.47 31.28 33.26
SD 1.34 1.16 1.92 7.11 7.07 6.87 6.20 6.18
Neurot. **
.21 .44** .41**
Extrav. **
.37 .18** .36**
Openn. **
.33 .01 .23**
Agree. .16 .01 .11
*
Cons. .19** .14* .21**
p < .01.
with both dimensions of affect (positive and negative) and affect balance. Openness was found to correlate only with positive affect (r = .33) and affect balance (r = .23). Agreeableness correlated only with positive affect (r = .16). Two multiple-regression analyses (MRA) were conducted to allow an examination of the variance in subjective well-being (positive affect, negative affect and affect balance) accounted for separately by demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions, respectively (Table 2), and at the same time to exercise mutual control between the two blocks of variables (Table 3). Variables were incorporated into the model by means of the enter method. Sex was coded as 1 = men, 2 = women, while relationship status was coded as 1 = with partner, 2 = without partner. As shown in Table 2, age (b = .18) and relationship status (b = .18) played a role in the prediction of positive affect, and relationship status in the prediction of affect balance (b = .16). Nevertheless, when the Big Five dimensions were controlled (Table 3), only sex was a significant predictor of negative affect (b = .16) and affect balance (b = .13), respectively. On the other hand, before the control of demographic variables (Table 2), Extraversion (b = .29) and Openness (b = .21) were found to be significant predictors of positive affect, Neuroticism (b = .44) was a significant predictor of negative affect, and Extraversion (b = .25) and Neuroticism (b = .32) were significant predictors of affect balance. When demographic variables were controlled (Table 3), Extraversion (b = .23) and Openness (b = .21) were again statistically significant predictors of positive affect, Neuroticism (b = .49) and Openness (b = .13) played a role in the prediction of negative affect, and finally, Neuroticism (b = .37) and Extraversion (b = .20) were found to be significant predictors of affect balance. With the aim of analyzing the direction of the changes in the prediction of the demographic variables when simultaneous control of the Big Five dimensions was exercised, an additional multiple analysis regression was carried out. Demographic variables that changed when the Big Five dimensions were controlled (Table 3) were regressed separately on the subjective well-being dimensions with and without control of Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness (see Table 4), respectively. The predictive capacity of age over positive affect was lost as a consequence of the control of Extraversion and Openness. Similarly, the predictive capacity of relationship status over positive affect was significantly reduced as a consequence of the control of Extraversion. In addition, sex became statistically significant in the relationship with negative affect and with affect balance when neuroticism was controlled. Finally, the predictive capacity of relationship status over affect balance was significantly reduced as consequence of the control of Extraversion.
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1565
Table 2 Summary of multiple-regression analyses of demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions for subjective well-being (demographic variables and Big-Five personality variables entered independently) Regression coefficients
Determination coefficients
Beta
R2 cor.
t
Positive affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.07 .18 .18 .08 .29 .21 .05 .04
1.08 2.73** 2.74** 1.26 4.16** 3.21** .86 .65
Negative affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.04 .03 .05 .44 .08 .13 .01 .04
.56 .43 .83 6.54** 1.13 1.92 .23 .66
Affect balance Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.07 .11 .16 .32 .25 .07 .03 .00
1.08 1.62 2.39* 4.91** 3.65** 1.09 .47 .05
*
p < .05;
**
F
.05
5.38**
.22
14.09**
.01
.46
.18
11.52**
.03
3.23*
.23
15.43**
p < .01.
4. Discussion Once more, these results show that personality is an important correlate of subjective well-being. Neuroticism was the best predictor of affect balance, followed by Extraversion. At a dimensional level, Neuroticism was the dimension most closely linked to negative affect, while Extraversion was the dimension most strongly associated with positive affect. In addition, Openness was associated with both positive and negative affect. Within the perspective of the Big Five, these results support the findings of DeNeve and Cooper (1998), except for Agreeableness, since in the present study this dimension was not a significant predictor of positive affect, its place being occupied by Openness. Openness was found to be associated with both positive and negative affect, confirming the suggestions of McCrae and Costa (1991) about Openness as a characteristic that should lead the person to experience positive as well as
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1566
Table 3 Summary of multiple-regression analyses of demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions for subjective well-being (demographic variables and NEO PI-R dimensions entered simultaneously) Regression coefficients
Determination coefficients
Beta
R2 cor.
t
F
Positive affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.06 .11 .11 .11 .23 .21 .03 .03
.93 1.71 1.79 1.59 3.19** 3.29** .44 .42
.22
9.31**
Negative affect Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.16 .04 .02 .49 .06 .13 .03 .06
2.48* .59 .36 6.94** .87 1.98* .44 .86
.20
8.04**
Affect balance Sex Age Relationship status Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
.13 .10 .06 .37 .20 .07 .00 .01
2.18* 1.58 1.04 5.41** 2.80** 1.11 .04 .23
.25
10.45**
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01.
negative affect. Nevertheless, in consequence, Openness was not associated with the affect balance, since this index reflects the difference between the positive and negative components of affect. In contrast to the findings of DeNeve and Cooper (1998), Extraversion and Neuroticism were not equally predictive of affect balance: Neuroticism was more strongly associated with this variable than Extraversion. Furthermore, the results show a close association between Neuroticism and sex in relation to subjective well-being. In the cases of negative affect and affect balance, control of Neuroticism gave rise to the appearance of an association effect between these two variables and sex, with the higher scores for women in affect balance. In other words, women tended to obtain lower scores than men in negative affect when effective control was exercised over Neuroticism, a variable in which women have been found to score significantly higher than men (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001), with the concomitant repercussions on their general affect balance.
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1567
Table 4 Summary of multiple-regression analyses of demographic variables for subjective well-being Regression coefficients (without control)
Regression coefficients (cont. Neuroticism)
Regression coefficients (cont. Extraversion)
Regression coefficients (cont. Openness)
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
t
t
t
t
Positive affect Age Relationship status
.17 .19
2.56* 2.93**
.19 .15
2.99** 2.44*
.08 .12
1.30 1.95
.12 .18
1.95 3.05**
Negative affect Sex
.05
.74
.13
2.20*
.04
.66
.05
.78
Affect balance Sex Relationship status
.07 .16
1.02 2.49*
.15 .10
2.48* 1.63
.05 .09
.88 1.54
.05 .16
.84 2.50*
*
p < .05; **p < .01. Demographic variables changing when control of the Big Five dimensions was exerted, regressed separately on the subjective well-being dimensions with and without the control of Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness, respectively.
It can be hypothesized, therefore, that the differences traditionally found between men and women, with slightly lower scores in well-being for women (Haring, Stock, & Okun, 1984), are due, at least in part, to the effect of Neuroticism and related variables, such as perceived control (Hickson, Housley, & Boyle, 1988). Eliminating the effect of Neuroticism, women seem to obtain lower scores than men in negative affect and higher scores in affect balance. Age was related initially to positive affect in the present study, but just before the effect of Extraversion and Openness was controlled. These results support the findings of Diener and Suh (1998), or Stacey and Gatz (1991), suggesting a slight decrease in positive affect with age. No relationship between age and negative affect or between age and affect balance was found. There is a well-known controversy concerning the role of this variable in subjective well-being, since the direction of the association changes depending on the specific component of subjective well-being that is analyzed (Andrews & McKennell, 1980), as well as on the effective control of other variables, such as income level, occupation, educational level, marital status or nationality (George, 1985; Inglehart & Rabier, 1986). The results of the present study indicate the need to take into account changes in the personality associated with ageing. In this regard, recently, Srivastava, John, Gosling, and Potter (2003) found a decrease in Openness with age in both men and women, with Extraversion declining only in women as they age. Since Openness and Extraversion are positively associated with positive affect, the inverse initial relationship between age and positive affect could be due to the decrease in these variables with age. Although Extraversion declines only for women (and not for men) as they age (Srivastava et al., 2003), the present sample was made up almost entirely of women. This makes more probable the existence of a significant relationship between age and Extraversion in the present study, but at the same time represents a threat to the generalizability of the results. Finally, relationship status was found to be initially associated with the positive component of affect and with the general affect balance, but not with the negative component of affect.
1568
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
Specifically, subjects with stable partners obtained higher scores in positive affect and general wellbeing than those without a partner or without a stable partner. In most previous studies, presence of a partner is positively associated with life satisfaction and general subjective well-being (Acock & Hurlbert, 1993; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976; Glenn & Weaver, 1981; Mastekaasa, 1993, Wood, Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989; Headey, Veenhoven, & Wearing, 1991). Nevertheless, in the present study, the presence of a partner does not seem to be relevant for general well-being, at least once the effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion are controlled. It is doubtful whether presence or absence of a partner finally influences general affect balance when Neuroticism and Extraversion are controlled. In short, personality would appear to be one of the most important correlates of subjective wellbeing, especially through Extraversion and Neuroticism. This study also supports the positive association between Openness and the positive and negative components of affect. Likewise, the most basic demographic variables (sex, age and relationship status) are found to be differentially associated with the different elements of subjective well-being, and the explanation for these associations is highly likely to be found in the links between demographic variables and personality. Just as control of the effect of demographic variables is necessary for isolating the effect of personality on subjective well-being, control of personality would allow more accurate analysis of the role of demographic variables in relation to the subjective well-being construct.
References Acock, A. C., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1993). Social networks, marital status, and well-being. Social Networks, 15(3), 309–334. Andrews, F. M., & McKennell, A. C. (1980). Measures of self-reported well-being: Their affective, cognitive and other components. Social Indicators Research, 8, 127–155. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press. Ball, R. E., & Robbins, L. (1986). Marital status and life satisfaction among Black Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 389–394. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of american life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfaction. New York: Russell. Charles, S., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136–151. Costa, P. T., & McRae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1999). Inventario de Personalidad NEO revisado (NEO PI-R) e Inventario NEO reducido de cinco factores (NEO-FFI) [NEO PI-R, Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)]. Madrid: TEA Editions. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229. Diener, E. & Suh, M. E. (1998). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. In Schaie, K. W. & Lawton, M. P. (Eds.), Annual Review of gerontology and geriatrics: Vol. 17. Focus on emotion and adult development. New York: Springer; 304–324.
J.L. Gonza´lez Gutie´rrez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1561–1569
1569
George, A., & Landerman, A. (1985). Okun Age as a moderator of the determinants of life satisfaction. Research on Aging, 7(2), 209–233. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1981). The contribution of marital happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43(2), 161–168. Harding, S. D. (1982). Psychological well-being in Great Britain: An evaluation of the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 167–175. Haring, M. J., Stock, W. A., & Okun, M. A. (1984). A research synthesis of gender and social class as correlates of subjective well-being. Human Relations, 37, 645–657. Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 723–727. Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top–down versus bottom–up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 81–100. Hickson, J., Housley, W. F., & Boyle, C. (1988). The relationship of locus of control, age, and sex to life satisfaction and death anxiety in older persons. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 26(3), 191–199. Inglehart, R., & Rabier, J. R. (1986). Aspirations adapt to situations—but why are the Belgians so much happier than the French? A cross-cultural analysis of the subjective quality of life. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Research on the Quality of Life (pp. 1–56). Michigan: Ann Arbor. Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1980). The measurement of happiness: Development of the measurement of happiness: Development of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (M.U.N.S.H.). Journal of Gerontology, 35, 906–912. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–160. Lewis, C. A., McCollam, P., & Joseph, S. (2000). Convergent validity of the depression-happiness scale with the Bradburn Affect Scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 579–584. Macintosh, R. (1998). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Affect Balance Scale in 38 Nations: A research note. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 83–91. Mastekaasa, A. (1993). Marital status and subjective well-being: A changing relationship? Social Indicators Research, 29(3), 249–276. McCrae, R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 227–232. Srivastava, S., John, O., Gosling, S., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053. Stacey, C. A., & Gatz, M. (1991). Cross-sectional age differences and longitudinal change on the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 46, 76–78. Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., Haring, M. J., & Witter, R. A. (1983). Age differences in subjective well-being: A metaanalysis. In Light, R. J. (Ed.), Evaluation Studies: Review Annual, Vol. 8, Beverly: Sage, pp. 279–302. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: Reidel. Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 249–264.