Refining the Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being

1. Refining the Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008)

2. Previous meta –analyses have indicated that personality traits are one of the best predictors of Subjective Well-Being, but • Overall associations were weak • Associations in Extraversion were weaker than expected • .17 Extraversion (should be stronger than the later) • .17 Agreeableness • .21 Conscientiousness

3. Present research believe in a stronger Personality and Subjective Well-Being relationship Theoretical Linkages Construct Similarities Stability & Heritability of Subjective Well-Being

4. Theoretical Linkages • Direct path • Theories of biological components and supporting evidences from neuropsychological research (i.e. in particular Extraversion) • Indirect path • Life events (e.g. Sociability)

5. SWB (7 categories) Happiness Life Satisfaction Positive Affect Negative Affect Overall Affect Quality of Life Personality (3 inventories) ERI Neuroticism Extraversion EPQ Neuroticism Extraversion Psychoticism Defensiveness NEO Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Constructs

6. Construct Similarities Personality Subjective well-being Negative affect Positive affect • Neuroticism • Extraversion • Exact and similar descriptive terms were shared (Yik & Russell, 2011). • Facets either load onto the same factor or highly overlap, however results strongly counterintuitive

7. Stability & Heritability of SWB • SWB over long term is relatively stable • Twins study suggest • Genes account for 80% of this stability • Rooted in neurobiology • Heritable • This stability probably reflect personality

8. Piers et al. argued past meta analyses had underestimated Personality and Subjective Well-Being relationship Past meta analyses Current meta analysis Big sample Statistically stronger findings Minorcommon method variance Commensurability • Insufficient sample • Insufficient and inaccurate effect sizes • Univariate • Issues of commensurability • Construct variation in personality • Construct variation in SWB

9. Results • Neuroticism strongest predictor, particularly for negative affect (29% of variance account for) • Extraversiongood predictor, particularly for positive affect (19% of variance accounted for) and happiness

10. Commensurability addressed • Different measures of SWB are not interchangeable • Personality scales account for different amount of varianceand account for incremental variance above one another

11. DISCUSSION The findings support a strong relationship between Subjective Well Being and personality Findings show much stronger relationship that previously thought in both: - Individual personality measures and SWB - e.g. between SWB and E, and I - Combined personality measures and SWB - 39% of variance WHY? i. COMMENSURABILITY ii. POTENTIONAL MODERATOR EFFECTS

12. CONCLUSION - personality is an important factor in SWB - offers support for HAPPINESS PARADOX (e.g. Duncan, 2005; Easterlin, 2001) • challenge for economists (wealth = satisfaction), but does support direct and indirect relationship. • these effects of personality could then be used to increase well-being on a societal level.

13. FUTURE RESEARCH • Relationship at the facet level Is it: - few variables relate to SWB and other facets add error? - all the facets are relevant? - individual facets correlate with SWB in opposite directions? b. Interaction effects e.g. high scoring no both I and N lead to decreased SWB (e.g. Lynn + Steel, 2006). c. Control for scale differences

14. SUMMARY • The results indicate • Personality is greatly related to SWB • More so than previously suggested • These findings do not appear to be due to measurement error • However commensurability remains an issue Thus, caution must be taken when combining measures to ensure a reliable meta-analysis.