personality traits research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 22 May 2020

Assessing the Big Five personality traits using real-life static facial images

• Alexander Kachur   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1165-2672 1 ,
• Evgeny Osin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3330-5647 2 ,
• Denis Davydov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3747-7403 3 ,
• Konstantin Shutilov 4 &
• Alexey Novokshonov 4  

Scientific Reports volume  10 , Article number:  8487 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

149k Accesses

47 Citations

350 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computer science
• Human behaviour

There is ample evidence that morphological and social cues in a human face provide signals of human personality and behaviour. Previous studies have discovered associations between the features of artificial composite facial images and attributions of personality traits by human experts. We present new findings demonstrating the statistically significant prediction of a wider set of personality features (all the Big Five personality traits) for both men and women using real-life static facial images. Volunteer participants (N = 12,447) provided their face photographs (31,367 images) and completed a self-report measure of the Big Five traits. We trained a cascade of artificial neural networks (ANNs) on a large labelled dataset to predict self-reported Big Five scores. The highest correlations between observed and predicted personality scores were found for conscientiousness (0.360 for men and 0.335 for women) and the mean effect size was 0.243, exceeding the results obtained in prior studies using ‘selfies’. The findings strongly support the possibility of predicting multidimensional personality profiles from static facial images using ANNs trained on large labelled datasets. Future research could investigate the relative contribution of morphological features of the face and other characteristics of facial images to predicting personality.

Similar content being viewed by others

Facial recognition technology can expose political orientation from naturalistic facial images

Individual differences and the multidimensional nature of face perception

Professional actors demonstrate variability, not stereotypical expressions, when portraying emotional states in photographs

Introduction.

A growing number of studies have linked facial images to personality. It has been established that humans are able to perceive certain personality traits from each other’s faces with some degree of accuracy 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . In addition to emotional expressions and other nonverbal behaviours conveying information about one’s psychological processes through the face, research has found that valid inferences about personality characteristics can even be made based on static images of the face with a neutral expression 5 , 6 , 7 . These findings suggest that people may use signals from each other’s faces to adjust the ways they communicate, depending on the emotional reactions and perceived personality of the interlocutor. Such signals must be fairly informative and sufficiently repetitive for recipients to take advantage of the information being conveyed 8 .

Studies focusing on the objective characteristics of human faces have found some associations between facial morphology and personality features. For instance, facial symmetry predicts extraversion 9 . Another widely studied indicator is the facial width to height ratio (fWHR), which has been linked to various traits, such as achievement striving 10 , deception 11 , dominance 12 , aggressiveness 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , and risk-taking 17 . The fWHR can be detected with high reliability irrespective of facial hair. The accuracy of fWHR-based judgements suggests that the human perceptual system may have evolved to be sensitive to static facial features, such as the relative face width 18 .

There are several theoretical reasons to expect associations between facial images and personality. First, genetic background contributes to both face and personality. Genetic correlates of craniofacial characteristics have been discovered both in clinical contexts 19 , 20 and in non-clinical populations 21 . In addition to shaping the face, genes also play a role in the development of various personality traits, such as risky behaviour 22 , 23 , 24 , and the contribution of genes to some traits exceeds the contribution of environmental factors 25 . For the Big Five traits, heritability coefficients reflecting the proportion of variance that can be attributed to genetic factors typically lie in the 0.30–0.60 range 26 , 27 . From an evolutionary perspective, these associations can be expected to have emerged by means of sexual selection. Recent studies have argued that some static facial features, such as the supraorbital region, may have evolved as a means of social communication 28 and that facial attractiveness signalling valuable personality characteristics is associated with mating success 29 .

Second, there is some evidence showing that pre- and postnatal hormones affect both facial shape and personality. For instance, the face is a visible indicator of the levels of sex hormones, such as testosterone and oestrogen, which affect the formation of skull bones and the fWHR 30 , 31 , 32 . Given that prenatal and postnatal sex hormone levels do influence behaviour, facial features may correlate with hormonally driven personality characteristics, such as aggressiveness 33 , competitiveness, and dominance, at least for men 34 , 35 . Thus, in addition to genes, the associations of facial features with behavioural tendencies may also be explained by androgens and potentially other hormones affecting both face and behaviour.

Third, the perception of one’s facial features by oneself and by others influences one’s subsequent behaviour and personality 36 . Just as the perceived ‘cleverness’ of an individual may lead to higher educational attainment 37 , prejudice associated with the shape of one’s face may lead to the development of maladaptive personality characteristics (i.e., the ‘Quasimodo complex’ 38 ). The associations between appearance and personality over the lifespan have been explored in longitudinal observational studies, providing evidence of ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’-type and ‘self-defeating prophecy’-type effects 39 .

Fourth and finally, some personality traits are associated with habitual patterns of emotionally expressive behaviour. Habitual emotional expressions may shape the static features of the face, leading to the formation of wrinkles and/or the development of facial muscles.

Existing studies have revealed the links between objective facial picture cues and general personality traits based on the Five-Factor Model or the Big Five (BF) model of personality 40 . However, a quick glance at the sizes of the effects found in these studies (summarized in Table  1 ) reveals much controversy. The results appear to be inconsistent across studies and hardly replicable 41 . These inconsistencies may result from the use of small samples of stimulus faces, as well as from the vast differences in methodologies. Stronger effect sizes are typically found in studies using composite facial images derived from groups of individuals with high and low scores on each of the Big Five dimensions 6 , 7 , 8 . Naturally, the task of identifying traits using artificial images comprised of contrasting pairs with all other individual features eliminated or held constant appears to be relatively easy. This is in contrast to realistic situations, where faces of individuals reflect a full range of continuous personality characteristics embedded in a variety of individual facial features.

Studies relying on photographic images of individual faces, either artificially manipulated 2 , 42 or realistic, tend to yield more modest effects. It appears that studies using realistic photographs made in controlled conditions (neutral expression, looking straight at the camera, consistent posture, lighting, and distance to the camera, no glasses, no jewellery, no make-up, etc.) produce stronger effects than studies using ‘selfies’ 25 . Unfortunately, differences in the methodologies make it hard to hypothesize whether the diversity of these findings is explained by variance in image quality, image background, or the prediction models used.

Research into the links between facial picture cues and personality traits faces several challenges. First, the number of specific facial features is very large, and some of them are hard to quantify. Second, the effects of isolated facial features are generally weak and only become statistically noticeable in large samples. Third, the associations between objective facial features and personality traits might be interactive and nonlinear. Finally, studies using real-life photographs confront an additional challenge in that the very characteristics of the images (e.g., the angle of the head, facial expression, makeup, hairstyle, facial hair style, etc.) are based on the subjects’ choices, which are potentially influenced by personality; after all, one of the principal reasons why people make and share their photographs is to signal to others what kind of person they are. The task of isolating the contribution of each variable out of the multitude of these individual variables appears to be hardly feasible. Instead, recent studies in the field have tended to rely on a holistic approach, investigating the subjective perception of personality based on integral facial images.

The holistic approach aims to mimic the mechanisms of human perception of the face and the ways in which people make judgements about each other’s personality. This approach is supported by studies of human face perception, showing that faces are perceived and encoded in a holistic manner by the human brain 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 . Put differently, when people identify others, they consider individual facial features (such as a person’s eyes, nose, and mouth) in concert as a single entity rather than as independent pieces of information 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 . Similar to facial identification, personality judgements involve the extraction of invariant facial markers associated with relatively stable characteristics of an individual’s behaviour. Existing evidence suggests that various social judgements might be based on a common visual representational system involving the holistic processing of visual information 51 , 52 . Thus, even though the associations between isolated facial features and personality characteristics sought by ancient physiognomists have emerged to be weak, contradictory or even non-existent, the holistic approach to understanding the face-personality links appears to be more promising.

An additional challenge faced by studies seeking to reveal the face-personality links is constituted by the inconsistency of the evaluations of personality traits by human raters. As a result, a fairly large number of human raters is required to obtain reliable estimates of personality traits for each photograph. In contrast, recent attempts at using machine learning algorithms have suggested that artificial intelligence may outperform individual human raters. For instance, S. Hu and colleagues 40 used the composite partial least squares component approach to analyse dense 3D facial images obtained in controlled conditions and found significant associations with personality traits (stronger for men than for women).

A similar approach can be implemented using advanced machine learning algorithms, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs), which can extract and process significant features in a holistic manner. The recent applications of ANNs to the analysis of human faces, body postures, and behaviours with the purpose of inferring apparent personality traits 53 , 54 indicate that this approach leads to a higher accuracy of prediction compared to individual human raters. The main difficulty of the ANN approach is the need for large labelled training datasets that are difficult to obtain in laboratory settings. However, ANNs do not require high-quality photographs taken in controlled conditions and can potentially be trained using real-life photographs provided that the dataset is large enough. The interpretation of findings in such studies needs to acknowledge that a real-life photograph, especially one chosen by a study participant, can be viewed as a holistic behavioural act, which may potentially contain other cues to the subjects’ personality in addition to static facial features (e.g., lighting, hairstyle, head angle, picture quality, etc.).

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the associations of facial picture cues with self-reported Big Five personality traits by training a cascade of ANNs to predict personality traits from static facial images. The general hypothesis is that a real-life photograph contains cues about personality that can be extracted using machine learning. Due to the vast diversity of findings concerning the prediction accuracy of different traits across previous studies, we did not set a priori hypotheses about differences in prediction accuracy across traits.

Prediction accuracy

We used data from the test dataset containing predicted scores for 3,137 images associated with 1,245 individuals. To determine whether the variance in the predicted scores was associated with differences across images or across individuals, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) presented in Table  2 . The between-individual proportion of variance in the predicted scores ranged from 79 to 88% for different traits, indicating a general consistency of predicted scores for different photographs of the same individual. We derived the individual scores used in all subsequent analyses as the simple averages of the predicted scores for all images provided by each participant.

The correlation coefficients between the self-report test scores and the scores predicted by the ANN ranged from 0.14 to 0.36. The associations were strongest for conscientiousness and weakest for openness. Extraversion and neuroticism were significantly better predicted for women than for men (based on the z test). We also compared the prediction accuracy within each gender using Steiger’s test for dependent sample correlation coefficients. For men, conscientiousness was predicted more accurately than the other four traits (the differences among the latter were not statistically significant). For women, conscientiousness was predicted more accurately, and openness was predicted less accurately compared to the three other traits.

The mean absolute error (MAE) of prediction ranged between 0.89 and 1.04 standard deviations. We did not find any associations between the number of photographs and prediction error.

Trait intercorrelations

The structure of the correlations between the scales was generally similar for the observed test scores and the predicted values, but some coefficients differed significantly (based on the z test) (see Table  3 ). Most notably, predicted openness was more strongly associated with conscientiousness (negatively) and extraversion (positively), whereas its association with agreeableness was negative rather than positive. The associations of predicted agreeableness with conscientiousness and neuroticism were stronger than those between the respective observed scores. In women, predicted neuroticism demonstrated a stronger inverse association with conscientiousness and a stronger positive association with openness. In men, predicted neuroticism was less strongly associated with extraversion than its observed counterpart.

To illustrate the findings, we created composite images using Abrosoft FantaMorph 5 by averaging the uploaded images across contrast groups of 100 individuals with the highest and the lowest test scores on each trait. The resulting morphed images in which individual features are eliminated are presented in Fig.  1 .

Composite facial images morphed across contrast groups of 100 individuals for each Big Five trait.

This study presents new evidence confirming that human personality is related to individual facial appearance. We expected that machine learning (in our case, artificial neural networks) could reveal multidimensional personality profiles based on static morphological facial features. We circumvented the reliability limitations of human raters by developing a neural network and training it on a large dataset labelled with self-reported Big Five traits.

We expected that personality traits would be reflected in the whole facial image rather than in its isolated features. Based on this expectation, we developed a novel two-tier machine learning algorithm to encode the invariant facial features as a vector in a 128-dimensional space that was used to predict the BF traits by means of a multilayer perceptron. Although studies using real-life photographs do not require strict experimental conditions, we had to undertake a series of additional organizational and technological steps to ensure consistent facial image characteristics and quality.

Our results demonstrate that real-life photographs taken in uncontrolled conditions can be used to predict personality traits using complex computer vision algorithms. This finding is in contrast to previous studies that mostly relied on high-quality facial images taken in controlled settings. The accuracy of prediction that we obtained exceeds that in the findings of prior studies that used realistic individual photographs taken in uncontrolled conditions (e.g., selfies 55 ). The advantage of our methodology is that it is relatively simple (e.g., it does not rely on 3D scanners or 3D facial landmark maps) and can be easily implemented using a desktop computer with a stock graphics accelerator.

In the present study, conscientiousness emerged to be more easily recognizable than the other four traits, which is consistent with some of the existing findings 7 , 40 . The weaker effects for extraversion and neuroticism found in our sample may be because these traits are associated with positive and negative emotional experiences, whereas we only aimed to use images with neutral or close to neutral emotional expressions. Finally, this appears to be the first study to achieve a significant prediction of openness to experience. Predictions of personality based on female faces appeared to be more reliable than those for male faces in our sample, in contrast to some previous studies 40 .

The BF factors are known to be non-orthogonal, and we paid attention to their intercorrelations in our study 56 , 57 . Various models have attempted to explain the BF using higher-order dimensions, such as stability and plasticity 58 or a single general factor of personality (GFP) 59 . We discovered that the intercorrelations of predicted factors tend to be stronger than the intercorrelations of self-report questionnaire scales used to train the model. This finding suggests a potential biological basis of GFP. However, the stronger intercorrelations of the predicted scores can be explained by consistent differences in picture quality (just as the correlations between the self-report scales can be explained by social desirability effects and other varieties of response bias 60 ). Clearly, additional research is needed to understand the context of this finding.

We believe that the present study, which did not involve any subjective human raters, constitutes solid evidence that all the Big Five traits are associated with facial cues that can be extracted using machine learning algorithms. However, despite having taken reasonable organizational and technical steps to exclude the potential confounds and focus on static facial features, we are still unable to claim that morphological features of the face explain all the personality-related image variance captured by the ANNs. Rather, we propose to see facial photographs taken by subjects themselves as complex behavioural acts that can be evaluated holistically and that may contain various other subtle personality cues in addition to static facial features.

The correlations reported above with a mean r = 0.243 can be viewed as modest; indeed, facial image-based personality assessment can hardly replace traditional personality measures. However, this effect size indicates that an ANN can make a correct guess about the relative standing of two randomly chosen individuals on a personality dimension in 58% of cases (as opposed to the 50% expected by chance) 61 . The effect sizes we observed are comparable with the meta-analytic estimates of correlations between self-reported and observer ratings of personality traits: the associations range from 0.30 to 0.49 when one’s personality is rated by close relatives or colleagues, but only from −0.01 to 0.29 when rated by strangers 62 . Thus, an artificial neural network relying on static facial images outperforms an average human rater who meets the target in person without any prior acquaintance. Given that partner personality and match between two personalities predict friendship formation 63 , long-term relationship satisfaction 64 , and the outcomes of dyadic interaction in unstructured settings 65 , the aid of artificial intelligence in making partner choices could help individuals to achieve more satisfying interaction outcomes.

There are a vast number of potential applications to be explored. The recognition of personality from real-life photos can be applied in a wide range of scenarios, complementing the traditional approaches to personality assessment in settings where speed is more important than accuracy. Applications may include suggesting best-fitting products or services to customers, proposing to individuals a best match in dyadic interaction settings (such as business negotiations, online teaching, etc.) or personalizing the human-computer interaction. Given that the practical value of any selection method is proportional to the number of decisions made and the size and variability of the pool of potential choices 66 , we believe that the applied potential of this technology can be easily revealed at a large scale, given its speed and low cost. Because the reliability and validity of self-report personality measures is not perfect, prediction could be further improved by supplementing these measures with peer ratings and objective behavioural indicators of personality traits.

The fact that conscientiousness was predicted better than the other traits for both men and women emerges as an interesting finding. From an evolutionary perspective, one would expect the traits most relevant for cooperation (conscientiousness and agreeableness) and social interaction (certain facets of extraversion and neuroticism, such as sociability, dominance, or hostility) to be reflected more readily in the human face. The results are generally in line with this idea, but they need to be replicated and extended by incorporating trait facets in future studies to provide support for this hypothesis.

Finally, although we tried to control the potential sources of confounds and errors by instructing the participants and by screening the photographs (based on angles, facial expressions, makeup, etc.), the present study is not without limitations. First, the real-life photographs we used could still carry a variety of subtle cues, such as makeup, angle, light facial expressions, and information related to all the other choices people make when they take and share their own photographs. These additional cues could say something about their personality, and the effects of all these variables are inseparable from those of static facial features, making it hard to draw any fundamental conclusions from the findings. However, studies using real-life photographs may have higher ecological validity compared to laboratory studies; our results are more likely to generalize to real-life situations where users of various services are asked to share self-pictures of their choice.

Another limitation pertains to a geographically bounded sample of individuals; our participants were mostly Caucasian and represented one cultural and age group (Russian-speaking adults). Future studies could replicate the effects using populations representing a more diverse variety of ethnic, cultural, and age groups. Studies relying on other sources of personality data (e.g., peer ratings or expert ratings), as well as wider sets of personality traits, could complement and extend the present findings.

Sample and procedure

The study was carried out in the Russian language. The participants were anonymous volunteers recruited through social network advertisements. They did not receive any financial remuneration but were provided with a free report on their Big Five personality traits. The data were collected online using a dedicated research website and a mobile application. The participants provided their informed consent, completed the questionnaires, reported their age and gender and were asked to upload their photographs. They were instructed to take or upload several photographs of their face looking directly at the camera with enough lighting, a neutral facial expression and no other people in the picture and without makeup.

Our goal was to obtain an out-of-sample validation dataset of 616 respondents of each gender to achieve 80% power for a minimum effect we considered to be of practical significance ( r  = 0.10 at p < 0.05), requiring a total of 6,160 participants of each gender in the combined dataset comprising the training and validation datasets. However, we aimed to gather more data because we expected that some online respondents might provide low-quality or non-genuine photographs and/or invalid questionnaire responses.

The initial sample included 25,202 participants who completed the questionnaire and uploaded a total of 77,346 photographs. The final combined dataset comprised 12,447 valid questionnaires and 31,367 associated photographs after the data screening procedures (below). The participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 (59.4% women, M = 27.61, SD = 12.73, and 40.6% men, M = 32.60, SD = 11.85). The dataset was split randomly into a training dataset (90%) and a test dataset (10%) used to validate the prediction model. The validation dataset included the responses of 505 men who provided 1224 facial images and 740 women who provided 1913 images. Due to the sexually dimorphic nature of facial features and certain personality traits (particularly extraversion 1 , 67 , 68 ), all the predictive models were trained and validated separately for male and female faces.

Ethical approval

The research was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Open University for the Humanities and Economics. We obtained the participants’ informed consent to use their data and photographs for research purposes and to publish generalized findings. The morphed group average images presented in the paper do not allow the identification of individuals. No information or images that could lead to the identification of study participants have been published.

Data screening

We excluded incomplete questionnaires (N = 3,035) and used indices of response consistency to screen out random responders 69 . To detect systematic careless responses, we used the modal response category count, maximum longstring (maximum number of identical responses given in sequence by participant), and inter-item standard deviation for each questionnaire. At this stage, we screened out the answers of individuals with zero standard deviations (N = 329) and a maximum longstring above 10 (N = 1,416). To detect random responses, we calculated the following person-fit indices: the person-total response profile correlation, the consistency of response profiles for the first and the second half of the questionnaire, the consistency of response profiles obtained based on equivalent groups of items, the number of polytomous Guttman errors, and the intraclass correlation of item responses within facets.

Next, we conducted a simulation by generating random sets of integers in the 1–5 range based on a normal distribution (µ = 3, σ = 1) and on the uniform distribution and calculating the same person-fit indices. For each distribution, we generated a training dataset and a test dataset, each comprised of 1,000 simulated responses and 1,000 real responses drawn randomly from the sample. Next, we ran a logistic regression model using simulated vs real responses as the outcome variable and chose an optimal cutoff point to minimize the misclassification error (using the R package optcutoff). The sensitivity value was 0.991 for the uniform distribution and 0.960 for the normal distribution, and the specificity values were 0.923 and 0.980, respectively. Finally, we applied the trained model to the full dataset and identified observations predicted as likely to be simulated based on either distribution (N = 1,618). The remaining sample of responses (N = 18,804) was used in the subsequent analyses.

Big Five measure

We used a modified Russian version of the 5PFQ questionnaire 70 , which is a 75-item measure of the Big Five model, with 15 items per trait grouped into five three-item facets. To confirm the structural validity of the questionnaire, we tested an exploratory structural equation (ESEM) model with target rotation in Mplus 8.2. The items were treated as ordered categorical variables using the WLSMV estimator, and facet variance was modelled by introducing correlated uniqueness values for the items comprising each facet.

The theoretical model showed a good fit to the data (χ 2  = 147854.68, df = 2335, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.931; RMSEA = 0.040 [90% CI: 0.040, 0.041]; SRMR = 0.024). All the items showed statistically significant loadings on their theoretically expected scales (λ ranged from 0.14 to 0.87, M = 0.51, SD = 0.17), and the absolute cross-loadings were reasonably low (M = 0.11, SD = 0.11). The distributions of the resulting scales were approximately normal (with skewness and kurtosis values within the [−1; 1] range). To assess the reliability of the scales, we calculated two internal consistency indices, namely, robust omega (using the R package coefficientalpha) and algebraic greatest lower bound (GLB) reliability (using the R package psych) 71 (see Table  4 ).

Image screening and pre-processing

The images (photographs and video frames) were subjected to a three-step screening procedure aimed at removing fake and low-quality images. First, images with no human faces or with more than one human face were detected by our computer vision (CV) algorithms and automatically removed. Second, celebrity images were identified and removed by means of a dedicated neural network trained on a celebrity photo dataset (CelebFaces Attributes Dataset (CelebA), N > 200,000) 72 that was additionally enriched with pictures of Russian celebrities. The model showed a 98.4% detection accuracy. Third, we performed a manual moderation of the remaining images to remove images with partially covered faces, those that were evidently photoshopped or any other fake images not detected by CV.

The images retained for subsequent processing were converted to single-channel 8-bit greyscale format using the OpenCV framework (opencv.org). Head position (pitch, yaw, roll) was measured using our own dedicated neural network (multilayer perceptron) trained on a sample of 8 000 images labelled by our team. The mean absolute error achieved on the test sample of 800 images was 2.78° for roll, 1.67° for pitch, and 2.34° for yaw. We used the head position data to retain the images with yaw and roll within the −30° to 30° range and pitch within the −15° to 15° range.

Next, we assessed emotional neutrality using the Microsoft Cognitive Services API on the Azure platform (score range: 0 to 1) and used 0.50 as a threshold criterion to remove emotionally expressive images. Finally, we applied the face and eye detection, alignment, resize, and crop functions available within the Dlib (dlib.net) open-source toolkit to arrive at a set of standardized 224 × 224 pixel images with eye pupils aligned to a standard position with an accuracy of 1 px. Images with low resolution that contained less than 60 pixels between the eyes, were excluded in the process.

The final photoset comprised 41,835 images. After the screened questionnaire responses and images were joined, we obtained a set of 12,447 valid Big Five questionnaires associated with 31,367 validated images (an average of 2.59 images per person for women and 2.42 for men).

Neural network architecture

First, we developed a computer vision neural network (NNCV) aiming to determine the invariant features of static facial images that distinguish one face from another but remain constant across different images of the same person. We aimed to choose a neural network architecture with a good feature space and resource-efficient learning, considering the limited hardware available to our research team. We chose a residual network architecture based on ResNet 73 (see Fig.  2 ).

Layer architecture of the computer vision neural network (NNCV) and the personality diagnostics neural network (NNPD).

This type of neural network was originally developed for image classification. We dropped the final layer from the original architecture and obtained a NNCV that takes a static monochrome image (224 × 224 pixels in size) and generates a vector of 128 32-bit dimensions describing unique facial features in the source image. As a measure of success, we calculated the Euclidean distance between the vectors generated from different images.

Using Internet search engines, we collected a training dataset of approximately 2 million openly available unlabelled real-life photos taken in uncontrolled conditions stratified by race, age and gender (using search engine queries such as ‘face photo’, ‘face pictures’, etc.). The training was conducted on a server equipped with four NVidia Titan accelerators. The trained neural network was validated on a dataset of 40,000 images belonging to 800 people, which was an out-of-sample part of the original dataset. The Euclidean distance threshold for the vectors belonging to the same person was 0.40 after the training was complete.

Finally, we trained a personality diagnostics neural network (NNPD), which was implemented as a multilayer perceptron (see Fig.  2 ). For that purpose, we used a training dataset (90% of the final sample) containing the questionnaire scores of 11,202 respondents and a total of 28,230 associated photographs. The NNPD takes the vector of the invariants obtained from NNCV as an input and predicts the Big Five personality traits as the output. The network was trained using the same hardware, and the training process took 9 days. The whole process was performed for male and female faces separately.

Data availability

The set of photographs is not made available because we did not solicit the consent of the study participants to publish the individual photographs. The test dataset with the observed and predicted Big Five scores is available from the openICPSR repository: https://doi.org/10.3886/E109082V1 .

Kramer, R. S. S., King, J. E. & Ward, R. Identifying personality from the static, nonexpressive face in humans and chimpanzees: Evidence of a shared system for signaling personality. Evol. Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.005 (2011).

Walker, M. & Vetter, T. Changing the personality of a face: Perceived big two and big five personality factors modeled in real photographs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110 , 609–624 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J. & Gosling, S. D. Personality Judgments Based on Physical Appearance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35 , 1661–1671 (2009).

Borkenau, P., Brecke, S., Möttig, C. & Paelecke, M. Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. J. Res. Pers. 43 , 703–706 (2009).

Shevlin, M., Walker, S., Davies, M. N. O., Banyard, P. & Lewis, C. A. Can you judge a book by its cover? Evidence of self-stranger agreement on personality at zero acquaintance. Pers. Individ. Dif . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00356-2 (2003).

Penton-Voak, I. S., Pound, N., Little, A. C. & Perrett, D. I. Personality Judgments from Natural and Composite Facial Images: More Evidence For A “Kernel Of Truth” In Social Perception. Soc. Cogn. 24 , 607–640 (2006).

Little, A. C. & Perrett, D. I. Using composite images to assess accuracy in personality attribution to faces. Br. J. Psychol. 98 , 111–126 (2007).

Kramer, R. S. S. & Ward, R. Internal Facial Features are Signals of Personality and Health. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63 , 2273–2287 (2010).

Pound, N., Penton-Voak, I. S. & Brown, W. M. Facial symmetry is positively associated with self-reported extraversion. Pers. Individ. Dif. 43 , 1572–1582 (2007).

Lewis, G. J., Lefevre, C. E. & Bates, T. Facial width-to-height ratio predicts achievement drive in US presidents. Pers. Individ. Dif. 52 , 855–857 (2012).

Haselhuhn, M. P. & Wong, E. M. Bad to the bone: facial structure predicts unethical behaviour. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279 , 571 LP–576 (2012).

Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Penke, L. & Perrett, D. I. Judging a Man by the Width of His Face: The Role of Facial Ratios and Dominance in Mate Choice at Speed-Dating Events. Psychol. Sci . 25 , (2014).

Carre, J. M. & McCormick, C. M. In your face: facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275 , 2651–2656 (2008).

Carré, J. M., McCormick, C. M. & Mondloch, C. J. Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior: Research report. Psychol. Sci . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02423.x (2009).

Haselhuhn, M. P., Ormiston, M. E. & Wong, E. M. Men’s Facial Width-to-Height Ratio Predicts Aggression: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 10 , e0122637 (2015).

Lefevre, C. E., Etchells, P. J., Howell, E. C., Clark, A. P. & Penton-Voak, I. S. Facial width-to-height ratio predicts self-reported dominance and aggression in males and females, but a measure of masculinity does not. Biol. Lett . 10 , (2014).

Welker, K. M., Goetz, S. M. M. & Carré, J. M. Perceived and experimentally manipulated status moderates the relationship between facial structure and risk-taking. Evol. Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.03.006 (2015).

Geniole, S. N. & McCormick, C. M. Facing our ancestors: judgements of aggression are consistent and related to the facial width-to-height ratio in men irrespective of beards. Evol. Hum. Behav. 36 , 279–285 (2015).

Valentine, M. et al . Computer-Aided Recognition of Facial Attributes for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Pediatrics 140 , (2017).

Ferry, Q. et al . Diagnostically relevant facial gestalt information from ordinary photos. Elife 1–22 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02020.001 (2014).

Claes, P. et al . Modeling 3D Facial Shape from DNA. PLoS Genet. 10 , e1004224 (2014).

Carpenter, J. P., Garcia, J. R. & Lum, J. K. Dopamine receptor genes predict risk preferences, time preferences, and related economic choices. J. Risk Uncertain. 42 , 233–261 (2011).

Dreber, A. et al . The 7R polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (<em>DRD4</em>) is associated with financial risk taking in men. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30 , 85–92 (2009).

Bouchard, T. J. et al . Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science (80-.). 250 , 223 LP–228 (1990).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L. & Vernon, P. A. Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.55.10.941 (1998).

Bouchard, T. J. & Loehlin, J. C. Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012294324713 (2001).

Vukasović, T. & Bratko, D. Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychol. Bull. 141 , 769–785 (2015).

Godinho, R. M., Spikins, P. & O’Higgins, P. Supraorbital morphology and social dynamics in human evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0528-0 (2018).

Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W. & Peters, M. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol. Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.014 (2005).

Lefevre, C. E., Lewis, G. J., Perrett, D. I. & Penke, L. Telling facial metrics: Facial width is associated with testosterone levels in men. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34 , 273–279 (2013).

Whitehouse, A. J. O. et al . Prenatal testosterone exposure is related to sexually dimorphic facial morphology in adulthood. Proceedings. Biol. Sci. 282 , 20151351 (2015).

Penton-Voak, I. S. & Chen, J. Y. High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evol. Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.04.003 (2004).

Carré, J. M. & Archer, J. Testosterone and human behavior: the role of individual and contextual variables. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 19 , 149–153 (2018).

Swaddle, J. P. & Reierson, G. W. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci . https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2165 (2002).

Eisenegger, C., Kumsta, R., Naef, M., Gromoll, J. & Heinrichs, M. Testosterone and androgen receptor gene polymorphism are associated with confidence and competitiveness in men. Horm. Behav. 92 , 93–102 (2017).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kaplan, H. B. Social Psychology of Self-Referent Behavior . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2233-5 . (Springer US, 1986).

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the classroom. Urban Rev . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02322211 (1968).

Masters, F. W. & Greaves, D. C. The Quasimodo complex. Br. J. Plast. Surg . 204–210 (1967).

Zebrowitz, L. A., Collins, M. A. & Dutta, R. The Relationship between Appearance and Personality Across the Life Span. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24 , 736–749 (1998).

Hu, S. et al . Signatures of personality on dense 3D facial images. Sci. Rep. 7 , 73 (2017).

Kosinski, M. Facial Width-to-Height Ratio Does Not Predict Self-Reported Behavioral Tendencies. Psychol. Sci. 28 , 1675–1682 (2017).

Walker, M., Schönborn, S., Greifeneder, R. & Vetter, T. The basel face database: A validated set of photographs reflecting systematic differences in big two and big five personality dimensions. PLoS One 13 , (2018).

Goffaux, V. & Rossion, B. Faces are ‘spatial’ - Holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform . https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.1023 (2006).

Schiltz, C. & Rossion, B. Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex. Neuroimage https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.037 (2006).

Van Belle, G., De Graef, P., Verfaillie, K., Busigny, T. & Rossion, B. Whole not hole: Expert face recognition requires holistic perception. Neuropsychologia https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.04.034 (2010).

Quadflieg, S., Todorov, A., Laguesse, R. & Rossion, B. Normal face-based judgements of social characteristics despite severely impaired holistic face processing. Vis. cogn. 20 , 865–882 (2012).

McKone, E. Isolating the Special Component of Face Recognition: Peripheral Identification and a Mooney Face. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn . https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.181 (2004).

Sergent, J. An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. Br. J. Psychol . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01895.x (1984).

Tanaka, J. W. & Farah, M. J. Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401045 (1993).

Young, A. W., Hellawell, D. & Hay, D. C. Configurational information in face perception. Perception https://doi.org/10.1068/p160747n (2013).

Calder, A. J. & Young, A. W. Understanding the recognition of facial identity and facial expression. Nature Reviews Neuroscience https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1724 (2005).

Todorov, A., Loehr, V. & Oosterhof, N. N. The obligatory nature of holistic processing of faces in social judgments. Perception https://doi.org/10.1068/p6501 (2010).

Junior, J. C. S. J. et al . First Impressions: A Survey on Computer Vision-Based Apparent Personality Trait Analysis. (2018).

Wang, Y. & Kosinski, M. Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 114 , 246–257 (2018).

Qiu, L., Lu, J., Yang, S., Qu, W. & Zhu, T. What does your selfie say about you? Comput. Human Behav. 52 , 443–449 (2015).

Digman, J. M. Higher order factors of the Big Five. J.Pers.Soc.Psychol . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246 (1997).

Musek, J. A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. J. Res. Pers . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003 (2007).

DeYoung, C. G. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91 , 1138–1151 (2006).

Rushton, J. P. & Irwing, P. A General Factor of Personality (GFP) from two meta-analyses of the Big Five: Digman (1997) and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005). Pers. Individ. Dif. 45 , 679–683 (2008).

Wood, D., Gardner, M. H. & Harms, P. D. How functionalist and process approaches to behavior can explain trait covariation. Psychol. Rev. 122 , 84–111 (2015).

Dunlap, W. P. Generalizing the Common Language Effect Size indicator to bivariate normal correlations. Psych. Bull. 116 , 509–511 (1994).

Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J. & Viswesvaran, C. The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. Int. J. of Selection and Assessment. 15 , 110–117 (2007).

Harris, K. & Vazire, S. On friendship development and the Big Five personality traits. Soc. and Pers. Psychol. Compass. 10 , 647–667 (2016).

Weidmann, R., Schönbrodt, F. D., Ledermann, T. & Grob, A. Concurrent and longitudinal dyadic polynomial regression analyses of Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: Does similarity matter? J. Res. in Personality. 70 , 6–15 (2017).

Cuperman, R. & Ickes, W. Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psychol. 97 , 667–684 (2009).

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol. Bull. 124 , 262–274 (1998).

Brown, M. & Sacco, D. F. Unrestricted sociosexuality predicts preferences for extraverted male faces. Pers. Individ. Dif. 108 , 123–127 (2017).

Lukaszewski, A. W. & Roney, J. R. The origins of extraversion: joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37 , 409–21 (2011).

Curran, P. G. Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 66 , 4–19 (2016).

Khromov, A. B. The five-factor questionnaire of personality [Pjatifaktornyj oprosnik lichnosti]. In Rus. (Kurgan State University, 2000).

Trizano-Hermosilla, I. & Alvarado, J. M. Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front. Psychol . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769 (2016).

Liu, Z., Luo, P., Wang, X. & Tang, X. Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wild. in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) 3730–3738 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2015.425 (IEEE, 2015).

He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 770–778 https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 (IEEE, 2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the assistance of Oleg Poznyakov, who organized the data collection, and we are grateful to the anonymous peer reviewers for their detailed and insightful feedback.

Contributions

A.K., E.O., D.D. and A.N. designed the study. K.S. and A.K. designed the ML algorithms and trained the ANN. A.N. contributed to the data collection. A.K., K.S. and D.D. contributed to data pre-processing. E.O., D.D. and A.K. analysed the data, contributed to the main body of the manuscript, and revised the text. A.K. prepared Figs. 1 and 2. All the authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alexander Kachur or Evgeny Osin .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

A.K., K.S. and A.N. were employed by the company that provided the datasets for the research. E.O. and D.D. declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kachur, A., Osin, E., Davydov, D. et al. Assessing the Big Five personality traits using real-life static facial images. Sci Rep 10 , 8487 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65358-6

Download citation

Received : 12 April 2019

Accepted : 28 April 2020

Published : 22 May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65358-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Personality of organizational social media accounts and its relationship with characteristics of their photos: analyses of startups’ instagram photos.

• Yunhwan Kim

BMC Psychology (2024)

Seeing the darkness: identifying the Dark Triad from emotionally neutral faces

• Danielle Haroun
• Yaarit Amram
• Joseph Glicksohn

Current Psychology (2024)

A Richer Vocabulary of Chinese Personality Traits: Leveraging Word Embedding Technology for Mining Personality Descriptors

• Yigang Ding
• Feijun Zheng

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (2024)

Unravelling the many facets of human cooperation in an experimental study

• Victoria V. Rostovtseva
• Mikael Puurtinen
• Franz J. Weissing

Scientific Reports (2023)

Using deep learning to predict ideology from facial photographs: expressions, beauty, and extra-facial information

• Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen
• Steven G. Ludeke
• Robert Klemmensen

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 05 May 2020

Personality traits, emotional intelligence and decision-making styles in Lebanese universities medical students

• Radwan El Othman 1 ,
• Rola El Othman 2 ,
• Rabih Hallit 1 , 3 , 4   na1 ,
• Sahar Obeid 5 , 6 , 7   na1 &
• Souheil Hallit 1 , 5 , 7   na1  

BMC Psychology volume  8 , Article number:  46 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

58k Accesses

32 Citations

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study aims to assess the impact of personality traits on emotional intelligence (EI) and decision-making among medical students in Lebanese Universities and to evaluate the potential mediating role-played by emotional intelligence between personality traits and decision-making styles in this population.

This cross-sectional study was conducted between June and December 2019 on 296 general medicine students.

Higher extroversion was associated with lower rational decision-making style, whereas higher agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly associated with a higher rational decision-making style. More extroversion and openness to experience were significantly associated with a higher intuitive style, whereas higher agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly associated with lower intuitive style. More agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly associated with a higher dependent decision-making style, whereas more openness to experience was significantly associated with less dependent decision-making style. More agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were significantly associated with less spontaneous decision-making style. None of the personality traits was significantly associated with the avoidant decision-making style. Emotional intelligence seemed to fully mediate the association between conscientiousness and intuitive decision-making style by 38% and partially mediate the association between extroversion and openness to experience with intuitive decision-making style by 49.82 and 57.93% respectively.

Our study suggests an association between personality traits and decision-making styles. The results suggest that EI showed a significant positive effect on intuitive decision-making style and a negative effect on avoidant and dependent decision-making styles. Additionally, our study underlined the role of emotional intelligence as a mediator factor between personality traits (namely conscientiousness, openness, and extroversion) and decision-making styles.

Peer Review reports

Decision-making is a central part of daily interactions; it was defined by Scott and Bruce in 1995 as «the learned habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation. It is not a personality trait, but a habit-based propensity to react in a certain way in a specific decision context» [ 1 ]. Understanding how people make decisions within the moral domain is of great importance theoretically and practically. Its theoretical value is related to the importance of understanding the moral mind to further deepen our knowledge on how the mind works, thus understanding the role of moral considerations in our cognitive life. Practically, this understanding is important because we are highly influenced by the moral decisions of people around us [ 2 ]. According to Scott and Bruce (1995), there are five distinct decision-making styles (dependent, avoidant, spontaneous, rational, intuitive) [ 1 ] and each individuals’ decision-making style has traits from these different styles with one dominant style [ 3 ].

The dependent decision-making style can be regarded as requiring support, advice, and guidance from others when making decisions. Avoidant style is characterized by its tendency to procrastinate and postpone decisions if possible. On the other hand, spontaneous decision-making style is hallmarked by making snap and impulsive decisions as a way to quickly bypass the decision-making process. In other words, spontaneous decision-makers are characterized by the feeling of immediacy favoring to bypass the decision-making process rapidly without employing much effort in considering their options analytically or relying on their instinct. Rational decision-making style is characterized by the use of a structured rational approach to analyze information and options to make decision [ 1 ]. In contrast, intuitive style is highly dependent upon premonitions, instinct, and feelings when it comes to making decisions driving focus toward the flow of information rather than systematic procession and analysis of information, thus relying on hunches and gut feelings. Several studies have evaluated the factors that would influence an individual’s intuition and judgment. Rand et al. (2016) discussed the social heuristics theory and showed that women and not men tend to internalize altruism _ the selfless concern for the well-being of others_ in their intuition and thus in their intuitive decision-making process [ 4 ]. Additionally, intuitive behavior honesty is influenced by the degree of social relationships with individuals affected by the outcome of our decision: when dishonesty harms abstract others, intuition promotion causes more dishonesty. On the contrary, when dishonesty harms concrete others, intuition promotion has no significant effect on dishonesty. Hence, the intuitive appeal of pro-sociality may cancel out the intuitive selfish appeal of dishonesty [ 5 ]. Moreover, the decision-making process and styles have been largely evaluated in previous literature. Greene et al. (2008) and Rand (2016) showed that utilitarian moral judgments aiming to minimize cost and maximize benefits across concerned individuals are driven by controlled cognitive process (i.e. rational); whereas, deontological moral judgments _where rights and duties supersede utilitarian considerations_ are dictated by an automatic emotional response (e.g. spontaneous decision-making) [ 6 , 7 ]. Trémolière et al. (2012) found that mortality salience makes people less utilitarian [ 8 ].

Another valuable element influencing our relationships and career success [ 9 ] is emotional intelligence (EI) a cardinal factor to positive patient experience in the medical field [ 10 ]. EI was defined by Goleman as «the capacity of recognizing our feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions both in us and in our relationships» [ 11 ]. Hence, an important part of our success in life nowadays is dependent on our ability to develop and preserve social relationships, depict ourselves positively, and control the way people descry us rather than our cognitive abilities and traditional intelligence measured by IQ tests [ 12 ]. In other words, emotional intelligence is a subtype of social intelligence involving observation and analyses of emotions to guide thoughts and actions. Communication is a pillar of modern medicine; thus, emotional intelligence should be a cornerstone in the education and evaluation of medical students’ communication and interpersonal skills.

An important predictor of EI is personality [ 13 ] defined as individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving [ 14 ]. An important property of personality traits is being stable across time [ 15 ] and situations [ 16 ], which makes it characteristic of each individual. One of the most widely used assessment tools for personality traits is the Five-Factor model referring to «extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism». In fact, personality traits have an important impact on individuals’ life, students’ academic performance [ 17 ] and decision-making [ 18 ].

Extroversion is characterized by higher levels of self-confidence, positive emotions, enthusiasm, energy, excitement seeking, and social interactions. Openness to experience individuals are creative, imaginative, intellectually curious, impulsive, and original, open to new experiences and ideas [ 19 ]. Agreeableness is characterized by cooperation, morality, sympathy, low self-confidence, high levels of trust in others, and tend to be happy and satisfied because of their close interrelationships [ 19 ]. Conscientiousness is characterized by competence, hard work, self-discipline, organization, strive for achievement and goal orientation [ 20 ] with a high level of deliberation making conscientious individuals capable of analyzing the pros and cons of a given situation [ 21 ]. Neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, anger, insecurity, impulsiveness, self-consciousness,and vulnerability [ 20 ]. High neurotic individuals have higher levels of negative affect, are easily irritated, and more likely to turn to inappropriate coping responses, such as interpersonal hostility [ 22 ].

Multiple studies have evaluated the impact of personality traits on decision-making styles. Narooi and Karazee (2015) studied personality traits, attitude to life, and decision-making styles among university students in Iran [ 23 ]. They deduced the presence of a strong relationship between personality traits and decision-making styles [ 23 ]. Riaz and Batool (2012) evaluated the relationship between personality traits and decision-making among a group of university students (Fig. 1 ). They concluded that «15.4 to 28.1% variance in decision-making styles is related to personality traits» [ 24 ]. Similarly, Bajwa et al. (2016) studied the relationship between personality traits and decision-making among students. They concluded that conscientiousness personality trait is associated with rational decision-making style [ 25 ]. Bayram and Aydemir (2017) studied the relationship between personality traits and decision-making styles among a group of university students in Turkey [ 26 ]. Their work yielded to multiple conclusion namely a significant association between rational and intuitive decision-making styles and extroversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness personality traits [ 26 ]. The dependent decision-making style had a positive relation with both neuroticism and agreeableness. The spontaneous style had a positive relation with neuroticism and significant negative relation with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Extroversion personality traits had a positive effect on spontaneous style. Agreeableness personality had a positive effect on the intuitive and dependent decision-making style. Conscientiousness personality had a negative effect on avoidant and spontaneous decision-making style and a positive effect on rational style. Neuroticism trait had a positive effect on intuitive, dependent and spontaneous decision-making style. Openness to experience personality traits had a positive effect on rational style [ 26 ].

Schematic representation of the effect of the big five personality types on decision-making styles [ 24 ]

Furthermore, several studies have evaluated the relationship between personality traits and emotional intelligence. Dawda and Hart (2000) found a significant relationship between emotional intelligence and all Big Five personality traits [ 27 ]. Day and al. (2005) found a high correlation between emotional intelligence and extroversion and conscientiousness personality traits [ 28 ]. A study realized by Avsec and al. (2009) revealed that emotional intelligence is a predictor of the Big Five personality traits [ 29 ]. Alghamdi and al. (2017) investigated the predictive role of EI on personality traits among university advisors in Saudi Arabia. They found that extroversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience emerged as significant predictors of EI. The study also concluded that conscientiousness and neuroticism have no impact on EI [ 13 ].

Nonetheless, decision-making is highly influenced by emotion making it an emotional process. The degree of emotional involvement in a decision may influence our choices [ 30 ] especially that emotions serve as a motivational process for decision-making [ 31 ]. For instance, patients suffering from bilateral lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (interfering with normal processing of emotional signals) develop severe impairments in personal and social decision-making despite normal cognitive capabilities (intelligence and creativity); highlighting the guidance role played by emotions in the decision-making process [ 32 ]. Furthermore, EI affects attention, memory, and cognitive intelligence [ 33 , 34 ] with higher levels of EI indicating a more efficient decision-making [ 33 ]. In one study, Khan and al. concluded that EI had a significant positive effect on rational and intuitive decision-making styles and negative effect on dependent and spontaneous decision-making styles among a group of university students in Pakistan [ 35 ].

This study aims to assess the impact of personality traits on both emotional intelligence and decision-making among medical students in Lebanese Universities and to test the potential mediating role played by emotional intelligence between personality and decision-making styles in this yet unstudied population to our knowledge. The goal of the present research is to evaluate the usefulness of implementing such tools in the selection process of future physicians. It also aimed at assessing the need for developing targeted measures, aiming to ameliorate the psychosocial profile of Lebanese medical students, in order to have a positive impact on patients experience and on medical students’ career success.

Study design

This cross-sectional study was conducted between June and December 2019. A total of 296 participants were recruited from all the 7 faculties of medicine in Lebanon. Data collection was done through filling an anonymous online or paper-based self-administered English questionnaire upon the participant choice. All participants were aware of the purpose of the study, the quality of data collected and gave prior informed consent. Participation in this study was voluntary and no incentive was given to the participants. All participants were General medicine students registered as full-time students in one of the 7 national schools of medicine aged 18 years and above regardless of their nationality. The questionnaire was only available in English since the 7 faculties of medicine in Lebanon require a minimum level of good English knowledge in their admission criteria. A pilot test was conducted on 15 students to check the clarity of the questionnaire. To note that these 15 questionnaires related data was not entered in the final database. The methodology used in similar to the one used in a previous paper [ 36 ]

Questionnaire and variables

The questionnaire assessed demographic and health characteristics of participants, including age, gender, region, university, current year in medical education, academic performance (assessed using the current cumulative GPA), parental highest level of education, and health questions regarding the personal history of somatic, and psychiatric illnesses.

The personality traits were evaluated using the Big Five Personality Test, a commonly used test in clinical psychology. Since its creation by John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991) [ 37 ], the five factor model was widely used in different countries including Lebanon [ 38 ]; it describes personality in terms of five board factors: extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism according to an individual’s response to a set of 50 questions on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). A score for each personality trait is calculated in order to determine the major trait(s) in an individual personality (i.e. the trait with the highest score). The Cronbach’s alpha values were as follows: total scale (0.885), extroversion (0.880), openness to experience (0.718), agreeableness (0.668), conscientiousness (0.640), and neuroticism (0.761).

Emotional intelligence was assessed using the Quick Emotional Intelligence Self-Assessment scale [ 38 ]. The scale is divided into four domains: «emotional alertness, emotional control, social-emotional awareness, and relationship management». Each domain is composed of 10 questions, with answers measured on a 5-point Likert scale: 0 (never) to 4 (always). Higher scores indicate higher emotional intelligence [ 38 ] (α Cronbach  = 0.950).

The decision-making style was assessed using the Scott and Bruce General Decision-Making Style Inventory commonly used worldwide since its creation in 1995 for this purpose [ 1 ]. The inventory consists of 25 questions answered according to a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) intended to evaluate the importance of each decision-making style among the 5 styles proposed by Scott and Bruce: dependent, avoidant, spontaneous, rational and intuitive. The score for each decision-making style is computed in order to determine the major style for each responder (α Cronbach total scale  = 0.744; α Cronbach dependent style  = 0.925; α Cronbach avoidant style  = 0.927; α Cronbach spontaneous style  = 0.935; α Cronbach rational style  = 0.933; α Cronbach intuitive style  = 0.919).

Sample size calculation

The Epi info program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Epi Info™) was employed for the calculation of the minimal sample size needed for our study, with an acceptable margin of error of 5% and an expected variance of decision-making styles that is related to personality types estimated by 15.4 to 28.1% [ 24 ] for 5531 general medicine student in Lebanon [ 39 ]. The result showed that 294 participants are needed.

Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23 was used for the statistical analysis. The Student t-test and ANOVA test were used to assess the association between each continuous independent variable (decision-making style scores) and dichotomous and categorical variables respectively. The Pearson correlation test was used to evaluate the association between two continuous variables. Reliability of all scales and subscales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.

Mediation analysis

The PROCESS SPSS Macro version 3.4, model four [ 40 ] was used to calculate five pathways (Fig.  2 ). Pathway A determined the regression coefficient for the effect of each personality trait on emotional intelligence, Pathway B examined the association between EI and each decision-making style, independent of the personality trait, and Pathway C′ estimated the total and direct effect of each personality trait on each decision-making style respectively. Pathway AB calculated the indirect intervention effects. To test the significance of the indirect effect, the macro generated bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (CI) [ 40 ]. A significant mediation was determined if the CI around the indirect effect did not include zero [ 40 ]. The covariates that were included in the mediation model were those that showed significant associations with each decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Summary of the pathways followed during the mediation analysis

Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the participants

The mean age of the participants was 22.41 ± 2.20 years, with 166 (56.1%) females. The mean scores of the scales used were as follows: emotional intelligence (108.27 ± 24.90), decision-making: rationale style (13.07 ± 3.17), intuitive style (16.04 ± 3.94), dependent style (15.53 ± 4.26), spontaneous style (13.52 ± 4.22), avoidant style (12.44 ± 4.11), personality trait: extroversion (21.18 ± 8.96), agreeableness (28.01 ± 7.48), conscientiousness (25.20 ± 7.06), neuroticism (19.29 ± 8.94) and openness (27.36 ± 7.81). Other characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table  1 .

Bivariate analysis

Males vs females, having chronic pain compared to not, originating from South Lebanon compared to other governorates, having an intermediate income compared to other categories, those whose mothers had a primary/complementary education level and those whose fathers had an undergraduate diploma vs all other categories had higher mean rationale style scores. Those fathers, who had a postgraduate diploma, had a higher mean intuitive style scores compared to all other education levels. Those who have chronic pain compared to not and living in South Lebanon compared to other governorates had higher dependent style scores. Those who have chronic pain compared to not, those who take medications for a mental illness whose mothers had a primary/complementary education level vs all other categories and those whose fathers had a postgraduate diploma vs all other categories had higher spontaneous style scores (Table  2 ).

Higher agreeableness and conscientiousness scores were significantly associated with higher rational style scores, whereas higher extroversion and neuroticism scores were significantly associated with lower rational style scores. Higher extroversion, openness and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with higher intuitive scores, whereas higher agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism scores were significantly associated with lower intuitive style scores. Higher agreeableness and conscientiousness were associated with higher dependent style scores, whereas higher openness and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with lower dependent styles scores. Higher agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with lower spontaneous style scores. Finally, higher extroversion, neuroticism and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with lower avoidant style scores (Table  3 ).

Post hoc analysis: rationale style: governorate (Beirut vs Mount Lebanon p  = 0.022; Beirut vs South p  < 0.001; Mount Lebanon vs South p  = 0.004; South vs North p  = 0.001; South vs Bekaa p  = 0.047); monthly income (intermediate vs high p  = 0.024); mother’s educational level (high school vs undergraduate diploma p  = 0.048); father’s education level (undergraduate vs graduate diploma p = 0.01).

Intuitive style: father’s education level (high school vs postgraduate diploma p  = 0.046).

Dependent style: governorate (Beirut vs Mount Lebanon p  = 0.006; Beirut vs South p  = 0.003);

Avoidant style: mother’s educational level (high school vs undergraduate diploma p  = 0.008; undergraduate vs graduate diploma p  = 0.004; undergraduate vs postgraduate diploma p  = 0.001).

Mediation analysis was run to check if emotional intelligence would have a mediating role between each personality trait and each decision-making style, after adjusting overall covariates that showed a p  < 0.05 with each decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Rational decision-making style (Table  4 , model 1)

Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 0.91, 95% BCa CI [0.60, 1.23], t = 5.71, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.31). Higher extroversion was significantly associated with lower rational decision-making even with EI in the model, b = − 0.06, 95% BCa CI [− 0.11, − 0.02], t = − 2.81, p  = 0.003; EI was not significantly associated with rational decision-making, b = 0.02, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.93, p  = 0.054 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, higher extroversion was significantly associated with lower rational decision-making, b = − 0.05, 95% BCa CI [− 0.09, − 0.01], t = − 2.43, p  = 0.015 (R2 = 0.28). The mediating effect of EI was 21.22%.

Higher agreeableness was not significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.05, 95% BCa CI [− 0.40, 0.31], t = − 0.26, p  = 0.798 (R2 = 0.31). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher rational decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.07, 95% BCa CI [0.02, 0.11], t = 2.89, p  = 0.004; EI was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making, b = 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.92, p  = 0.055 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher rational decision-making, b = 0.07, 95% BCa CI [0.02, 0.11], t = 2.86, p = 0.004 (R2 = 0.28). The mediating effect of EI was 0.10%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.40, 95% BCa CI [1.04, 1.76], t = 7.62, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.31). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with the rational decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.09, 95% BCa CI [0.04, 0.14], t = 3.55, p < 0.001; EI was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making, b = 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.93, p  = 0.055 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, conscientiousness was significantly associated with the rational decision-making style, b = 0.11, 95% BCa CI [0.07, 0.16], t = 4.76, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.28). The mediating effect of EI was 22.47%.

Higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower EI, b = − 0.50, 95% BCa CI [− 0.80, − 0.20], t = − 3.26, p  = 0.001 (R2 = 0.31). Neuroticism was not significantly associated with rational decision-making style with EI in the model, b = − 0.09, 95% BCa CI [− 0.05, 0.03], t = − 0.43, p  = 0.668; EI was not significantly associated with rational decision-making, b = 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.93, p  = 0.055 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, neuroticism was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making style, b = − 0.02, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.02], t = − 0.81, p  = 0.418 (R2 = 0.28).

No calculations were done for the openness to experience personality traits since it was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Intuitive decision-making style (Table 4 , model 2)

Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 0.86, 95% BCa CI [0.59, 1.13], t = 6.28, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.41). Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making even with EI in the model, b = 0.05, 95% BCa CI [0.002, 0.11], t = 2.03, p  = 0.043; EI was significantly associated with intuitive decision-making style, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.003 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making, b = 0.08, 95% BCa CI [0.03, 0.13], t = 3.21, p  = 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 49.82%.

Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.33, 95% BCa CI [− 0.65, − 0.02], t = − 2.06, p  = 0.039 (R2 = 0.41). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower intuitive decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.15, 95% BCa CI [− 0.21, − 0.10], t = − 5.16, p  < 0.001; higher EI was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.004 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower intuitive decision-making, b = − 0.17, 95% BCa CI [− 0.22, − 0.11], t = − 5.48, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 6.80%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.18, 95% BCa CI [0.85, 1.51], t = 7.06, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.41). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with lower intuitive decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.10, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.03], t = − 2.95, p  = 0.003; higher EI was also significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.004 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, conscientiousness was not significantly associated with the intuitive decision-making style, b = − 0.06, 95% BCa CI [− 0.12, 0.0004], t = − 1.95, p  = 0.051 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 38%.

Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.44, 95% BCa CI [1.13, 1.75], t = 9.11, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.41). Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making style with EI in the model, b = 0.08, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.14], t = 2.38, p  = 0.017; higher EI was also significantly associated with intuitive decision-making style, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.004 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, higher openness to experience was significantly associated with intuitive decision-making style, b = 0.12, 95% BCa CI [0.06, 0.18], t = 4.22, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 57.93%.

No calculations were done for neuroticism personality trait since it was not significantly associated with the intuitive decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Dependent decision-making style (Table 4 , model 3)

Agreeableness was not significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.15, 95% BCa CI [− 0.49, 0.17], t = − 0.94, p  = 0.345 (R2 = 0.32). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher dependent decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.29, 95% BCa CI [0.23, 0.34], t = 10.51, p  < 0.001; higher EI was significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, − 0.02], t = − 4.50, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.40). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher dependent decision-making, b = 0.29, 95% BCa CI [0.24, 0.35], t = 10.44, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 2.38%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.04, 95% BCa CI [0.69, 1.38], t = 5.93, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.32). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher dependent decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.15, 95% BCa CI [0.09, 0.20], t = 4.88, p  < 0.001; higher EI was also significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, − 0.02], t = − 4.50, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.40). When EI was not in the model, higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with a higher dependent decision-making style, b = 0.10, 95% BCa CI [0.04, 0.16], t = 3.49, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.36). The mediating effect of EI was 30.25%.

Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.37, 95% BCa CI [1.05, 1.69], t = 8.41, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.32). Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.13, 95% BCa CI [− 0.19, − 0.08], t = − 4.55, p < 0.001; higher EI was also significantly associated with dependent decision-making style, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.19, − 0.08], t = − 4.50, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.40). When EI was not in the model, higher openness to experience was significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making style, b = − 0.19, 95% BCa CI [− 0.24, − 0.14], t = − 7.06, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.36). The mediating effect of EI was 43.69%.

No calculations were done for neuroticism and extroversion personality traits since they were not significantly associated with the dependent decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Spontaneous decision-making style (Table 4 , model 4)

Agreeableness was not significantly associated with EI, b = 0.17, 95% BCa CI [− 0.19, 0.53], t = 0.91, p  = 0.364 (R2 = 0.17). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.10, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.03], t = − 3.07, p  = 0.002; EI was not significantly associated with spontaneous decision-making, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.03, 0.01], t = − 0.71, p  = 0.476 (R2 = 0.15). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making, b = − 0.10, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.04], t = − 3.11, p = 0.002 (R2 = 0.15). The mediating effect of EI was 1.25%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.26, 95% BCa CI [0.88, 1.64], t = 6.56, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.17). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.16, 95% BCa CI [− 0.23, − 0.09], t = − 4.51, p  < 0.001; EI was not significantly associated with spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.03, 0.01], t = − 0.71, p  = 0.476 (R2 = 0.15). When EI was not in the model, higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.17, 95% BCa CI [− 0.23, − 0.10], t = − 5.11, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). The mediating effect of EI was 5.64%.

Neuroticism was not significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.22, 95% BCa CI [− 0.53, 0.08], t = − 1.43, p  = 0.153 (R2 = 0.17). Higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.11, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.06], t = − 4.05, p  < 0.001; EI was not significantly associated with spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.03, 0.01], t = − 0.71, p = 0.476 (R2 = 0.15). When EI was not in the model, higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.11, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.05], t = − 4.01, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). The mediating effect of EI was 1.49%.

No calculations were done for openness to experience and extroversion personality traits since they were not significantly associated with the spontaneous decision-making style in the bivariate analysis .

Avoidant decision-making style (Table 4 , model 5)

Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 0.88, 95% BCa CI [0.54, 1.21], t = 5.18, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). Extroversion was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.05], t = − 0.27, p  = 0.790; higher EI was significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.03], t = − 4.79, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.25). When EI was not in the model, extroversion was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.05, 95% BCa CI [− 0.1, 0.08], t = − 1.69, p  = 0.092 (R2 = 0.19).

Higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower EI, b = − 0.59, 95% BCa CI [− 0.91, − 0.27], t = − 3.60, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). Neuroticism was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.03, 95% BCa CI [− 0.09, 0.02], t = − 1.34, p  = 0.182; higher EI was significantly associated with lower avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, − 0.03], t = − 4.79, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.25). When EI was not in the model, neuroticism was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.09, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.04], t = − 0.33, p  = 0.739 (R2 = 0.19).

No calculations were done for openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness personality traits since they were not significantly associated with the avoidant decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

This study examined the relationship between personality traits and decision-making styles, and the mediation role of emotional intelligence in a sample of general medicine students from different medical schools in Lebanon.

Agreeableness is characterized by cooperation, morality, sympathy, low self-confidence, high levels of trust in others and agreeable individuals tend to be happy and satisfied because of their close interrelationships [ 19 , 20 ]. Likewise, dependent decision-making style is characterized by extreme dependence on others when it comes to making decisions [ 1 ]. Our study confirmed this relationship similarly to Wood (2012) [ 41 ] and Bayram and Aydemir (2017) [ 26 ] findings of a positive relationship between dependent decision-making style and agreeableness personality trait and a negative correlation between this same personality trait and spontaneous decision-making style. In fact, this negative correlation can be explained by the reliance and trust accorded by agreeable individuals to their surroundings, making them highly influenced by others opinions when it comes to making a decision; hence, avoiding making rapid and snap decisions on the spur of the moment (i.e. spontaneous decision-making style); in order to explore the point of view of their surrounding before deciding on their own.

Conscientiousness is characterized by competence, hard work, self-discipline, organization, strive for achievement, and goal orientation [ 20 ]. Besides, conscientious individuals have a high level of deliberation making them capable of analyzing the pros and cons of a given situation [ 21 ]. Similarly, rational decision-makers strive for achievements by searching for information and logically evaluating alternatives before making decisions; making them high achievement-oriented [ 20 , 42 ]. This positive relationship between rational decision-making style and conscientiousness was established by Nygren and White (2005) [ 43 ] and Bajwa et al. (2016) [ 25 ]; thus, solidifying our current findings. Furthermore, we found that conscientiousness was positively associated with dependent decision-making; this relationship was not described in previous literature to our knowledge and remained statistically significant after adding EI to the analysis model. This relationship may be explained by the fact that conscientious individuals tend to take into consideration the opinions of their surrounding in their efforts to analyze the pros and cons of a situation. Further investigations in similar populations should be conducted in order to confirm this association. Moreover, we found a positive relationship between conscientiousness and intuitive decision-making that lost significance when EI was removed from the model. Thus, solidifying evidence of the mediating role played by EI between personality trait and decision-making style with an estimated mediation effect of 38%.

Extroversion is characterized by higher levels of self-confidence, positive emotions, enthusiasm, energy, excitement seeking, and social interactions. Similarly, intuitive decision-making is highly influenced by emotions and instinct. The positive relationship between extroversion and intuitive decision-making style was supported by Wood (2012) [ 41 ], Riaz et al. (2012) [ 24 ] and Narooi and Karazee (2015) [ 23 ] findings and by our present study.

Neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, anger, self-consciousness, and vulnerability [ 20 ]. High neurotic individuals have higher levels of negative affect, depression, are easily irritated, and more likely to turn to inappropriate coping responses, such as interpersonal hostility [ 22 ]. Our study results showed a negative relationship between neuroticism and spontaneous decision-making style.

Openness to experience individuals are creative, imaginative, intellectually curious, impulsive and original, open to new experiences and ideas [ 19 , 20 ]. One important characteristic of intuitive decision-making style is tolerance for ambiguity and the ability to picture the problem and its potential solution [ 44 ]. The positive relationship between openness to experience and intuitive decision-making style was established by Riaz and Batool (2012) [ 24 ] and came in concordance with our study findings. Additionally, our results suggest that openness personality trait is negatively associated with dependent decision-making style similar to previous findings [ 23 ]. Openness to experience individuals are impulsive and continuously seek intellectual pursuits and new experiences; hence, they tend to depend to a lesser extent on others’ opinions when making decisions since they consider the decision-making process a way to uncover new experiences and opportunities.

Our study results showed that EI had a significant positive effect on intuitive decision-making style. Intuition can be regarded as an interplay between cognitive and affective processes highly influenced by tactic knowledge [ 45 ]; hence, intuitive decision-making style is the result of personal and environmental awareness [ 46 , 47 , 48 ] in which individuals rely on the overall context without much concentration on details. In other words, they depend on premonitions, instinct, and predications of possibilities focusing on designing the overall plan [ 49 ] and take responsibility for their decisions [ 46 ]. Our study finding supports the results of Khan and al. (2016) who concluded that EI and intuitive decision-making had a positive relationship [ 35 ]. On the other hand, our study showed a negative relationship between EI and avoidant and dependent decision-making styles. Avoidant decision-making style is defined as a continuous attempt to avoid decision-making when possible [ 1 ] since they find it difficult to act upon their intentions and lack personal and environmental awareness [ 50 ]. Similarly to our findings, Khan and al. (2016) found that avoidant style is negatively influenced by EI [ 35 ]. The dependent decision-making style can be regarded as requiring support, advice, and guidance from others when making decisions. In other words, it can be described as an avoidance of responsibility and adherence to cultural norms; thus, dependent decision-makers tend to be less influenced by their EI in the decision-making process. Our conclusion supports Avsec’s (2012) findings [ 51 ] on the negative relationship between EI and dependent decision-making style.

Practical implications

The present study helps in determining which sort of decision is made by which type of people. This study also represents a valuable contribution to the Lebanese medical society in order to implement such variables in the selection methods of future physicians thus recruiting individuals with positively evaluated decision-making styles and higher levels of emotional intelligence; implying better communication skills and positively impacting patients’ experience. Also, the present study may serve as a valuable tool for the medical school administration to develop targeted measures to improve students’ interpersonal skills.

Limitations

Even though the current study is an important tool in order to understand the complex relationship between personality traits, decision-making styles and emotional intelligence among medical students; however, it still carries some limitations. This study is a descriptive cross-sectional study thus having a lower internal validity in comparison with experimental studies. The Scott and Bruce General Decision-Making Style Inventory has been widely used internationally for assessing decision-making styles since 1995 but has not been previously validated in the Lebanese population. In addition, the questionnaire was only available in English taking into consideration the mandatory good English knowledge in all the Lebanese medical schools; however, translation, and cross-language validation should be conducted in other categories of Lebanese population. Furthermore, self-reported measures were employed in the present research where participants self-reported themselves on personality types, decision-making styles and emotional intelligence. Although, all used scales are intended to be self-administered; however, this caries risk of common method variance; hence, cross-ratings may be employed in the future researches in order to limit this variance.

The results suggest that EI showed a significant positive effect on intuitive decision-making style and a negative effect on avoidant and dependent decision-making styles. In addition, our study showed a positive relationship between agreeableness and dependent decision-making style and a negative correlation with spontaneous decision-making style. Furthermore, conscientiousness had a positive relationship with rational and dependent decision-making style and extroversion showed a positive relationship with intuitive decision-making style. Neuroticism had a negative relationship with spontaneous style and openness to experience showed a positive relationship with intuitive decision-making style and a negative relationship with dependent style. Additionally, our study underlined the role of emotional intelligence as a mediation factor between personality traits and decision-making styles namely openness to experience, extroversion, and conscientiousness personality traits with intuitive decision-making style. Personality traits are universal [ 20 ]; beginning in adulthood and remaining stable with time [ 52 ]. Comparably, decision-making styles are stable across situations [ 1 ]. The present findings further solidify a previously established relationship between personality traits and decision-making and describes the effect of emotional intelligence on this relationship.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available to maintain the privacy of the individuals’ identities. The dataset supporting the conclusions is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Scott SG, Bruce RA. Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55(5):818–31.

Article   Google Scholar  

Capraro V, Everett JA, Earp BD. Priming intuition disfavors instrumental harm but not impartial beneficence. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2019;83:142–9.

Allwood CM, Salo I. Decision-making styles and stress. Int J Stress Manag. 2012;19(1):34.

Rand DG, Brescoll VL, Everett JA, Capraro V, Barcelo H. Social heuristics and social roles: intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016;145(4):389–96.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kobis NC, Verschuere B, Bereby-Meyer Y, Rand D, Shalvi S. Intuitive honesty versus dishonesty: meta-analytic evidence. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019;14(5):778–96.

Greene JD, Morelli SA, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition. 2008;107(3):1144–54.

Rand DG. Cooperation, fast and slow: meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychol Sci. 2016;27(9):1192–206.

Tremoliere B, Neys WD, Bonnefon JF. Mortality salience and morality: thinking about death makes people less utilitarian. Cognition. 2012;124(3):379–84.

Brown C, George-Curran R, Smith ML. The role of emotional intelligence in the career commitment and decision-making process. J Career Assess. 2003;11(4):379–92.

Clancy C. The importance of emotional intelligence. Nursing Management (2014+). 2014;21(8):15.

Goleman D. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam; 1998.

Google Scholar  

Cotruş A, Stanciu C, Bulborea AA. EQ vs. IQ which is Most important in the success or failure of a student? Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;46:5211–3.

Alghamdi NG, Aslam M, Khan K. Personality traits as predictor of emotional intelligence among the university teachers as advisors. Educ Res Int. 2017;2017:1–6 https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9282565 .

Kazdin AE. Encyclopedia of psychology, vol. Vol 8. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000.

Bleidorn W, Klimstra TA, Denissen JJ, Rentfrow PJ, Potter J, Gosling SD. Personality maturation around the world: a cross-cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(12):2530–40.

Borkenau P, Riemann R, Spinath FM, Angleitner A. Genetic and environmental influences on person× situation profiles. J Pers. 2006;74(5):1451–80.

Hazrati-Viari A, Rad AT, Torabi SS. The effect of personality traits on academic performance: the mediating role of academic motivation. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;32:367–71.

Proceedings of the international conference on multiple academic disciplines. HanoiISBN: 978–1–943579-61-7 Hai Phong - . . Paper ID: VM714. 18–19, August: Vietnam (MAD17Vietnam Conference); 2017.

McCrae RR, John OP. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Pers. 1992;60(2):175–215.

McCrae R, Costa P Jr. Personality in adulthood. In: O envelhecimento. Uma abordagem psicológica . New York: Guilford; 1990. p. 2.

Johnson JA. Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.) Handbook of personality psychology : Elsevier; 1997. p. 73–93.

Camps J, Stouten J, Euwema M. The relation between supervisors’ big five personality traits and employees’ experiences of abusive supervision. Front Psychol. 2016;7:112.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Narooi ZS, Karazee F. Investigating the relationship among personality traits, decision-making styles, and attitude to life (Zahedan branch of Islamic Azad University as case study in Iran). Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2015;6(6 S6):311.

Riaz MN, Riaz MA, Batool N. Personality types as predictors of decision making styles. J Behav Sci. 2012;22(2):100–14.

Bajwa RS, Batool I, Asma M, Ali H, Ajmal A. Personality traits and decision making styles among university students (Pakistan). Pakistan J Life Soc Sci. 2016;14(1):38–41.

Bayram N, Aydemir M. Decision-making styles and personality traits. Int J Recent Adv Organizational Behaviour Decision Sci. 2017;3:905–15.

Dawda D, Hart SD. Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of the Bar-on emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personal Individ Differ. 2000;28(4):797–812.

Day AL, Therrien DL, Carroll SA. Predicting psychological health: assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelligence beyond personality, type a behaviour, and daily hassles. Eur J Personality. 2005;19(6):519–36.

Avsec A, Takšić V, Mohorić T. The relationship of trait emotional intelligence with the big five in Croatian and Slovene university student samples. Psihološka obzorja/Horizons Psychol. 2009;18(3):99–110.

Spicer DP, Sadler-Smith E. An examination of the general decision making style questionnaire in two UK samples. J Manag Psychol. 2005;20(2):137–49.

Zeelenberg M, Pieters R. Feeling is for doing: a pragmatic approach to the study of emotions in decision-makingManuscript under review; 2005.

Bechara A, Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behavior. 2005;52(2):336–72.

Kustubayeva A, Bagayeva E. Emotional intelligence and decision making. RUDN J Psychol Pedagogics. 2011;S5:104–9.

Jaušovec N, Jaušovec K. Sex differences in brain activity related to general and emotional intelligence. Brain Cogn. 2005;59(3):277–86.

Khan E, Riaz M, Batool N, Riaz M. Emotional intelligence as a predictor of decision making styles among university students. J Appl Environ Biol Sci. 2016;6(4S):93–9.

Sarkis A. Hallit S. Hajj A. Lebanese students’ motivation in medical school: does it change throughout the years? A cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 20, 94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02011-w .

John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality; 1991.

Mohapel P. The quick emotional intelligence self-assessment: San Diego City College MESA Program; 2015.

Soueid M, Ghanem S, Hariri Z, Yamout N, Nehme R. Analysis of Lebanon's education sector: BankMed Market & Economic Research Divisionupdated Nov 10; cited 2015 Apr 6; 2014. Available from: http://www.bankmed.com.lb/BOMedia/subservices/categories/News/20150515170635891.pdf . Accessed 17 Jan 2020.

Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Thomas E. Nygren, Rebecca J. White; 2005. Relating Decision Making Styles to Predicting Selfefficacy and a Generalized Expectationof Success and Failure. Article in Human Factors andErgonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 49(3):432–34.

Baiocco R, Laghi F, D'Alessio M. Decision-making style among adolescents: relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. J Adolesc. 2009;32(4):963–76.

Nygren TE, White RJ. Relating decision making styles to predicting selfefficacy and a generalized expectation of success and failure. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2005.

Bergstrand B. Situating the estimate: naturalistic decision-making as an alternative to analytical decision making in the Canadian forcesunpublished article. n. pag. http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/irc/nh/nh9798/0021.html ; 2001. p. 24.

Sinclair M, Ashkanasy NM. Intuition: myth or a decision-making tool? Manag Learn. 2005;36(3):353–70.

Harren VA. A model of career decision making for college students. J Vocat Behav. 1979;14(2):119–33.

Hablemitoglu S, Yildirim F. The relationship between perception of risk and decision making styles of Turkish university students: a descriptive study of individual differences. World Appl Sci J. 2008;4(2):214–24.

Singh R, Greenhaus JH. The relation between career decision-making strategies and person–job fit: a study of job changers. J Vocat Behav. 2004;64(1):198–221.

Miller CC, Ireland RD. Intuition in strategic decision making: friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century? Acad Manag Perspect. 2005;19(1):19–30.

Phillips SD, Pazienza NJ, Ferrin HH. Decision-making styles and problem-solving appraisal. J Couns Psychol. 1984;31(4):497.

Avsec A. Do emotionally intelligent individuals use more adaptive decision-making styles? Stud Psychol. 2012;54(3):209.

Soldz S, Vaillant GE. The big five personality traits and the life course: a 45-year longitudinal study. J Res Pers. 1999;33(2):208–32.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all students who agreed to participate in this study.

Author information

Rabih Hallit, Sahar Obeid and Souheil Hallit are last co-authors.

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Jounieh, Lebanon

Radwan El Othman, Rabih Hallit & Souheil Hallit

Department of Pediatrics, Bahman Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon

Rola El Othman

Department of Infectious Disease, Bellevue Medical Center, Mansourieh, Lebanon

Rabih Hallit

Department of Infectious Disease, Notre Dame des Secours University Hospital Center, Byblos, Lebanon

Research and Psychology departments, Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, P.O. Box 60096, Jal Eddib, Lebanon

Sahar Obeid & Souheil Hallit

Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Jounieh, Lebanon

Sahar Obeid

INSPECT-LB: Institut National de Santé Publique, Epidémiologie Clinique et Toxicologie – Liban, Beirut, Lebanon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

REO and REO were responsible for the data collection and entry and drafted the manuscript. SH and SO designed the study; SH carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; RH assisted in drafting and reviewing the manuscript; All authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent; SO, SH and RH were the project supervisors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sahar Obeid or Souheil Hallit .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Holy Spirit University of Kaslik – School of Medicine and Medical Sciences ethics committee approved the study protocol. A written consent was obtained from each student.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

El Othman, R., El Othman, R., Hallit, R. et al. Personality traits, emotional intelligence and decision-making styles in Lebanese universities medical students. BMC Psychol 8 , 46 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00406-4

Download citation

Received : 27 January 2020

Accepted : 12 April 2020

Published : 05 May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00406-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Personality traits
• Decision-making
• Decision-making style
• Emotional intelligence
• Medical students

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Five-Factor Model of Personality

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Michael S. Chmielewski 3 &
• Theresa A. Morgan 4  

6462 Accesses

1 Citations

Big five, The

The five-factor model (also referred to as “The Big Five”) is the most widely used and empirically supported model of normal personality traits. It consists of five main traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness (to experience), Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.

Description

The five-factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990 ), or the “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1993 ), consists of five broad trait dimensions of personality. These traits represent stable individual differences (an individual may be high or low on a trait as compared to others) in the thoughts people have, the feelings they experience, and their behaviors. The FFM includes Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions (e.g., sadness, anxiety, and anger) and to have negative thoughts (e.g., worry, self-doubt). In general, Neuroticism represents the predisposition to experience psychological distress. It has been...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References and Readings

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41 , 417–440.

Google Scholar  

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48 , 26–34.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Personality theories and models, Vol. 1, pp. 273–294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126 , 2–25.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, ON, M1C 1A4, Canada

Prof. Michael S. Chmielewski

Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Psychiatry, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA

Prof. Theresa A. Morgan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Chmielewski .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Behavioral Medicine Research Center, Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

Marc D. Gellman

Cardiovascular Safety, Quintiles, Durham, NC, USA

J. Rick Turner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, New York

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Chmielewski, M.S., Morgan, T.A. (2013). Five-Factor Model of Personality. In: Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_1226

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_1226

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-1004-2

Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-1005-9

eBook Packages : Medicine Reference Module Medicine

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Personality traits and academic performance: Correcting self-assessed traits with vignettes

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

• Johan Coenen, 
• Bart H. H. Golsteyn, 
• Tom Stolp, 
• Dirk Tempelaar

• Published: March 25, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629
• Reader Comments

In this study, we investigate whether Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Risk Preference relate to student performance in higher education. We employ anchoring vignettes to correct for heterogeneous scale use in these non-cognitive skills. Our data are gathered among first-year students at a Dutch university. The results show that Conscientiousness is positively related to student performance, but the estimates are strongly biased upward if we use the uncorrected variables. We do not find significant relationships for Emotional Stability but find that the point estimates are larger when using the uncorrected variables. Measured Risk Preference is negatively related to student performance, yet this is fully explained by heterogeneous scale use. These results indicate the importance of using more objective measurements of personality traits.

Citation: Coenen J, Golsteyn BHH, Stolp T, Tempelaar D (2021) Personality traits and academic performance: Correcting self-assessed traits with vignettes. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0248629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629

Editor: Nikolaos Askitas, IZA - Institute of Labor Economic, GERMANY

Received: October 20, 2020; Accepted: March 3, 2021; Published: March 25, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Coenen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The DOI associated with the data underlying our study's findings is https://doi.org/10.34894/LVXSKZ .

Funding: BG received funding by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (VIDI grant 452-16-006). URL of this organization: https://www.nwo.nl/en The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Personality is an important predictor of life outcomes (see, e.g., [ 1 , 2 ]). Personality is typically measured by asking individuals to evaluate self-reflective statements on subjective scales. One important issue with this approach is that people may systematically differ in scale use. If differences in scale use are correlated to outcomes, the relationship between measures of personality traits and such outcomes can be biased.

In this paper, we study whether people differ systematically in the values they attach to personality item scales and whether these systematic differences bias the relationship between measured personality traits and academic performance. We study biases with respect to Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, and Risk Preference. The first two are personality traits from the Big Five Inventory. Risk Preference is an economic preference parameter and not a personality trait. However, for the sake of brevity, we refer in this paper to Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Risk Preference as “personality.”

Scale use biases the relationship between self-reported personality and academic performance if it is related both to self-reported personality and to academic performance. The relationship between scale use and self-reported personality is obvious. The relationship between scale use and academic performance can occur, for instance, if students who score higher on achievement tests have different comparison groups in mind when completing the survey on personality traits than students who score lower on achievement tests.

To separate true differences in personality from differences in scale use, we employ anchoring vignettes (see [ 3 , 4 ]). We first ask questions to measure Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Risk Preference. Then, we ask the same questions for a fictive hairdresser, surgeon, firefighter, and bus driver. We use the answers on the latter questions to identify heterogeneity in scale use. In a final step, we analyze whether correlations with academic performance differ for the uncorrected and corrected answers on personality traits.

The main result of our analysis is that the relationship between uncorrected personality and academic outcomes is overestimated if differences in scale use are not taken into account. This conclusion holds for all traits we investigate.

There is a vast literature on the relationship between personality traits and academic performance. For an overview, see, e.g., [ 1 , 5 – 7 ]. Fig 3 in [ 1 ] (p. 1007) summarizes some of the main conclusions from this literature; of the Big Five traits, Conscientiousness is most strongly related to college grades. There is no strong correlation between Emotional Stability and grades. There is no consensus in the literature concerning the relationship between Risk Preference and academic performance (see the overviews in [ 1 , 8 ]).

Our paper contributes to the literature which studies whether answers on subjective scales differ from objectively measured indicators. For instance [ 9 ], investigate why workers in different Western countries report very different rates of work disability. They show that Dutch respondents have a lower threshold in reporting whether they have a work disability than American respondents [ 10 ] investigate the difference between stated physical activity and physical activity measured by accelerometers across different countries. The self-reported data show minor differences across countries while the accelerometer data show that the Dutch and English appeared to be much more physically active than Americans. Regarding life satisfaction [ 11 ], show that Americans are more likely to use the extremes of the scale than the Dutch, who are more inclined to stay in the middle of the scale.

As proposed in [ 12 ], an important challenge in personality psychology is finding objective measures or vignettes for personality traits to correct for bias due to scale use. Some previous research has applied anchoring vignettes to measure personality traits more accurately. [ 13 ] show that self-reports of non-cognitive skills are sensitive to survey administration conditions. Providing information about the importance of non-cognitive skills to students, for instance, directly affects their responses. [ 14 ] use anchoring vignettes to compare measures of Conscientiousness across 21 countries and show that country rankings of self-reported Conscientiousness to some degree result from differences in response styles. [ 15 ] show that the reliability of scales assessing Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience increases when using anchoring vignettes in a study of 12th-grade students in Brazil. [ 16 ] employ anchoring vignettes for the Big Five Inventory in Rwanda and the Philippines. They show that adjusted scores have better measurement properties relative to scores based on the original Likert scale. In their study, correlations of the Big Five personality factors with life satisfaction were essentially unchanged after the vignette-adjustment while correlations with counterproductive behavior were noticeably lower. We contribute to this literature by focusing on the relationship between personality traits and academic performance.

Our findings have important policy implications. The predictive power of personality and preferences for academic achievement found in earlier research may serve as a tool for policy makers. Personality and preferences can serve as signals for future performance and, therefore, policy makers can help children with adverse personality traits or preferences, e.g. by providing more support to such children. Virtually all papers studying the relationship between personality and achievement have used subjective measures of personality. Our paper indicates that the predictive power of subjective measures of personality may be overestimated. The correlations between personality and academic performance will be more useful for policy makers if more objective measures of personality traits are employed.

The set-up of this paper is as follows. Section 2 discusses the data. Section 3 shows the empirical strategy. Section 4 reports the results. Section 5 concludes.

2.1. Ethics statement

Ethics approval was obtained by the Ethical Review Committee Inner City faculties of Maastricht University (ERCIC_044_14_07). Participants of the research all provided written consent.

2.2. Sample

We collected data among students at a Dutch Economics and Business school in the first course of the first year. In the Netherlands, curricula of Economics and Business programs typically share several introductory courses, giving rise to classes counting 1000 students or more. The data collection consisted of two parts. The first was held as a mandatory assignment in an introductory course in quantitative methods. This implied that all active students participated in the survey. In this first part, questions about Risk Preference were included. As a result, we have information on Risk Preference of 1056 students. We also have information on the grade obtained in this course of all these students. Risk Preference was measured twice: in week 1 and week 6 of the seven-weeks course. Because we measure Risk Preference vignettes in week 6, we also use data on Risk Preference from week 6. Using the data on Risk Preference from week 1, however, yields very similar results. This implies that Risk Preference remains relatively stable during this education period (the correlation between the measures is 0.555, p<0.0000) and therefore, that reverse causality does not appear to play a role. In the analyses on Risk Preference, we furthermore restrict the sample to those who also answered the questions on Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability in order to show estimations on the same sample for all traits. If we do not restrict the sample, we again find very similar results.

A second survey was held one week after the course ended. Participation in this survey was voluntary. We gave every fifth participant 10 euros and held a lottery among all participants with a 1000 euros prize. In total, 625 students participated. We have information about these students on their Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability.

Table A in S1 File , presents summary statistics on the differences between respondents who participated in the first and second survey and respondents who participated in the first but not the second survey. For the observables we investigate, the groups appear to be comparable although grades are significantly higher in the in-sample and there are slightly more women in the in-sample than in the out of sample group. Note that we cannot compare the level of Conscientiousness or Neuroticism between these two groups since this information was only collected in the second survey.

2.3. Measuring personality

We follow the non-parametric approach developed by [ 3 ] and in more detail described by [ 4 ]. In their non-parametric approach, they use anchoring vignettes to adjust for respondents’ scale use. In this way, it is possible to recode variables such that respondents’ answers are on the same scale.

We first measure personality of a respondent. For Conscientiousness, we pose the statement: “I am always prepared.” For Emotional Stability, we pose the statement “I get stressed out easily.” For Risk Preference, we ask: “Are you generally willing to take risks, or do you try to avoid risks?” Response categories on all statements and questions range from 1 “I fully disagree” to 7 “I fully agree.” The question we use to measure Risk Preference is taken from the German Socio-Economic Panel and validated by [ 17 ]. They show that responses to the survey question predict behavior in incentivized choices under risk. The items we use to measure Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are taken from standard questionnaires to measure Big Five constructs [ 18 ]. In personality psychology, it is common to use more than one question to measure a trait. However, it is important to assess the differences in scale use for personality items separately. Different items may induce different response mechanisms. The wording of items can evoke different interpretations between groups, for example. Grouping items together to reduce measurement error presupposes a common error structure (e.g., all measurement error is independent) of the items. In this paper, we argue the opposite and focus on the item-level to analyze scale use that is specific to the item. As such, we need a vignette for each question we pose. Due to space limitations in the survey, we can therefore only include one item to measure the trait.

Secondly, we ask the same questions, but for fictive persons. For instance, for Conscientiousness, we state the following: “Imagine a surgeon. To what extent does the following statement apply: A surgeon is always prepared.” We have two vignettes for this item of Conscientiousness: “A hairdresser/surgeon is always prepared.” For Emotional Stability, we have two vignettes on one item of the trait: “A hairdresser/surgeon gets stressed out easily.” For Risk Preference, we have three vignettes: “Is a bus driver/firefighter/hairdresser generally willing to take risks, or does (s)he try to avoid risks?”

We then use the answers for the fictive persons as anchoring vignettes for the answers on the subjective question about oneself. The idea is that the way in which subjects report about their own latent trait coincides with the way they report about the latent trait of a “generic” other (e.g. hairdresser). For example, individuals may differ in their interpretation of the trait or answer categories as described in the self-assessment. As the vignette contains the same description of the trait, the vignette presumably captures the same scale use as the self-assessment. In addition, the tendency to agree with statements independent of their content–i.e. acquiescence bias–is captured by both types of assessments. Moreover, the use of vignettes allows us to correct for reference bias. In particular, an individual may evaluate his or her personality in comparison to a reference group (e.g., those who are close like friends, family and colleagues) such that the response portrays an individual’s stance within the reference group. If personality traits in the group are correlated, then someone might report a low score even though they have a high value at the population-level. By introducing a vignette, such errors are corrected.

To do so, we assume a logical order of the vignettes. In the case of Conscientiousness, we assume that surgeons are more conscientious than hairdressers. For the respondents who rated the vignettes in this logical order, we can correct the personality trait by recoding the variable in the following way: C = 1 if y < v1; C = 2 if y = v1; C = 3 if v1 < y < v2; C = 4 if v1 < y = v2; C = 5 if y > v2, where y is the respondents’ self-assessment on the personality trait, v 1 is the response for the same respondent for a fictive hairdresser and v 2 is the response for the fictive surgeon. For Emotional Stability, we assume that a surgeon is emotionally more stable than a hairdresser. For Risk Preference, we assume that a firefighter is more willing to take risks than a bus driver.

In principle, it is an interesting question whether surgeons are observed to be on average more conscientious/emotionally stable. However, for our paper, this is not very important. Crucial for our analyses is that students perceive surgeons to be more conscientious/emotionally stable than hairdressers, or at least they perceive themselves to be on a different level of Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability than those occupations, because the vignettes are mainly about putting everyone’s answers on the same scale. The following percentage of the students indeed do perceive the surgeons to be more conscientious/emotionally stable than the hairdressers: 79.6% of the sample (Conscientiousness) and 56.2% (Emotional Stability). When we allow for a different ordering, these percentages increase to: 94.8% of the sample (Conscientiousness) and 86.0% (Emotional Stability).

Perceptions of the vignettes may differ depending on the occupation of the respondent. E.g., a hairdresser might perceive a hairdresser’s Conscientiousness differently than a surgeon. These influences may be somewhat weaker in the sample, as the respondents are economics students. This firstly means that they are very much alike such that they would all suffer the same “misperception.” Differences between students can then still be interpreted as differences in scale use. Secondly, because we focus on first-year students of Economics and Business, these respondents are not in an occupation yet, besides some small jobs on the side, which are very unlikely to include hairdressing, let alone work as a surgeon. Therefore, we expect that the vast majority of the students will indeed consider service occupations and medical occupations in general.

Respondents do not always follow the intended rank of the vignettes: i.e., either they tie vignettes (e.g., hairdressers are equally conscientious as surgeons) or they misplace them (e.g., surgeons are less conscientious as hairdressers). This leads to the 13 options in Table 1 . For Risk Preference, we show two sets of two vignettes in this table: (A) bus driver and firefighter; and (B) hairdresser and firefighter. Alternatively, we can use all three vignettes, but we do not show this in Table 1 since using three vignettes yields 75 ordering options.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t001

The bottom rows of the table show how many respondents order vignettes in a logical way. Using the strictest definition of logical order, 80.6% of the respondents ordered the vignettes for the Conscientiousness item “Always prepared” in a logical way. For Risk Preference, both sets of vignettes are ordered logically by almost all respondents (94.4% for set A and 93.4% for set B). For Emotional Stability, we find that fewer respondents logically order their answers. A reason may be that some respondents do not think about a person when answering the questions but about a profession. So, they think for instance, about surgeons working in a stressful environment instead of that a surgeon may be more stress-resistant.

This rescaling technique uses the ordering of the answer relative to the vignettes, which is more objective than the answers on the subjective question. The anchoring corrected personality trait has 5 values: the value 1 if row 1 applies, 2 if row 2 applies, etc.

Besides the most logical ordering of the first five rows, rows 6, 8, 9, and 13 may also be plausible answers since the own value and the vignettes are also separable in these rows. In rows 6 and 8, respondents value the vignettes similarly, but because the own value is above (below) both vignettes, one can still conclude that the own value is lower (higher) than both vignettes. Therefore, for these rows, we can scale the anchoring corrected variable to 1 (5). In rows 9 and 13, the vignettes have been reversed by the respondent, but because the own value is lower (higher) than both vignettes, one can conclude that this is lower (higher) than both vignettes, and therefore we can rescale the answer to 1 (5).

Using this additional insight, we define two samples. The baseline sample contains only respondents with answers 1–5, and the extended sample additionally includes rows 6, 8, 9, and 13. All other answers are less plausible and will be excluded from the analyses.

Tables B-D in S1 File , give summary statistics of the samples for respectively Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Risk Preference.

3. Empirical strategy

3.1. subjective and anchoring vignette corrected measures of personality.

We run this type of regressions separately for subjective personality traits, and for anchoring vignette corrected personality measures. We do this both for the baseline and the extended sample. We make use of ordered probit models due to the ordinal nature of the dependent variable. The results indicate if relationships between subjective personality and explanatory variables are robust when using the anchoring vignette corrected personality measures.

3.2. Relation between grade and personality

The first part of the empirical results shows whether the student characteristics are related differently to corrected and uncorrected personality measures. Tables 2 – 4 give the results of two regressions: One between the uncorrected personality measures and characteristics X′, and another between the corrected personality measures and X′. By doing so, we follow [ 3 ] and [ 9 ] who show that background characteristics explain both the latent trait and scale use. It follows that scale use can differ structurally between individuals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t004

In the tables, column 1 shows the results for the full sample. We focus on comparing results of corrected and uncorrected measures of the personality traits in the baseline (columns 2 and 3) and the extended sample (columns 4 and 5). Regarding the results for Emotional Stability ( Table 3 ), for instance, Column 2 shows that Belgian students report lower scores of Emotional Stability than Dutch students in the baseline sample (given other characteristics). However, column 3 reveals that this relationship is not robust when using the corrected measure for Emotional Stability. In the extended sample, we also find that this relationship is less strong when using the corrected measure than when we use the uncorrected measure.

These results are important as they reveal that people differ in their scale use systematically. For example, nationality may affect how you interpret the scale or the text that describes traits and behaviors. If such systematic differences exist, it becomes questionable whether the relationship between uncorrected personality measures and outcomes such as academic performance represents the true underlying relationship. Academic performance in itself may alter one’s scale use, for example, such that the linear relation is under- or overestimated. Moreover, any other covariates used to predict academic performance may yield biased estimates as they covary both with the latent trait and scale use. In sum, showing that people differ in scale use depending on their background characteristics provides evidence that using uncorrected measures as predictors may be unwarranted.

Tables 5 – 7 report the relationships between grades and personality traits. For instance, Table 7 , column 2, shows that willingness to take risks appears to be strongly related to grades. One standard deviation higher willingness to take risks is related to a grade around 0.26 points lower on a scale of 1–10. However, column 3 reveals that the relationship is no longer significant when using the corrected measure of Risk Preference. Therefore, there is a large overestimation (i.e., in absolute sense) of the relationship of Risk Preference and grades if the vignette is not used. These results also hold if we use the extended sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t005

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t007

Tables 5 and 6 show the results for Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability. Comparing columns 2 and 3 in these tables reveals a similar pattern as we find for Risk Preference; the point estimates of the relationships between these personality traits and grades are much larger if the vignette is not used than if it is used.

In this analysis, we allow “incorrect” orderings by students to be included. In Tables 5 – 7 we compare (a) the original Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference measure for all respondents, (b) the original Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference measure for those respondents with the correct ordering on the vignette (Conscientiousness: 79.6% of the sample; Emotional Stability: 56.2%; Risk Preference: 94.0%), (c) the new vignette-adjusted measure of Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference for those respondents with the correct ordering on the vignette (Same proportion as (b)), (d) the original Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference measure for the respondents from (b) plus those respondents with a more lenient ordering on the vignette (‘mistakes’ are allowed as long as a clear separation between own answer and the vignettes can still be made; Conscientiousness: 94.8% of the sample; Emotional Stability: 86.0%; Risk Preference: 97.4%), and (e) the new vignette-adjusted measure of Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference for those respondents with the correct ordering on the vignette plus those respondents with a more lenient ordering on the vignette (Same proportion as (d)).

The results remain robust independent of the usage of the baseline sample or the extended sample, with the exception of Conscientiousness, for which the coefficient becomes somewhat larger and the p-value turns below 0.05 (reassuringly, the two coefficients are not statistically different from each other).

5. Conclusions

This paper investigates the relationship between student performance in higher education and Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Risk Preference. We employ anchoring vignettes to correct for heterogeneous scale use in these non-cognitive skills. Our main result is that if scale use is not taken into account, the relationship between academic achievement and personality traits is overestimated. This holds for all traits we investigated.

Our results have important implications for the literature studying the relationship between personality and outcomes such as school achievement. Previous research has shown strong correlations between personality and such outcomes, but our paper suggests that these correlations may be overestimated. Using vignettes or more objective personality measures is important to get unbiased estimates of the predictive power of personality for outcomes in life.

One of our research limitations is that our sample of college students is not representative of the full Dutch population. Future research is needed to see if the results are robust in representative samples. A second limitation is that the anchors we use may in themselves also be subject to bias. For instance, students who have hairdressers in their direct environment may judge hairdressers’ personality traits to be different from students who do not have hairdressers in their direct environment. Moreover, having a hairdresser in the direct environment may be related to their academic outcomes. In this case, the relationship between corrected traits and academic outcomes may be biased. We control for parental education levels so this issue may not lead to much bias in our estimations, but the example does point out that future work needs to focus on finding anchors which are more objective than ours and are not susceptible to structural differences in vignette perception. Finding the perfect anchors has not been our focus. Our work, instead, serves as a first step in investigating the extent to which using more objective measures of personality traits influences the estimated relationships between traits and outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 file. appendix..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Arjan Non and seminar participants at Maastricht University for their valuable comments.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Almlund M, Duckworth AL, Heckman JJ, Kautz T. Personality psychology and economics. In: Hanushek E, Machin S, Woessman L, editors. Handbook of the economics of education. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011. pp. 1–181.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 11. Kapteyn A, Smith J, van Soest A. Life satisfaction. In: Diener E, Helliwell JE, Kahneman D, editors. International differences in well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 70–104.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The relationship between big five personality and social well-being of chinese residents: the mediating effect of social support.

• 1 School of Public Finance and Management, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, China
• 2 Tourism and Cultural Industry Research Institute, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, China
• 3 International College, National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, Thailand
• 4 National Centre for Borderlands Ethnic Studies in Southwest China at Yunnan University (NaCBES), Yunnan University, Kunming, China

Previous studies have noted that personality traits are important predictors of well-being, but how big five personality influences social well-being is still unknown. This study aims to examine the link between big five personality and five dimensions of social well-being in the Chinese cultural context and whether social support can play the mediating effect in the process. This study included 1,658 participants from different communities in China, and regression analyses were conducted. Results revealed that five personality traits were significantly related to overall social well-being; extraversion was significantly related to social integration; agreeableness was positively related to all five dimensions of social well-being; conscientiousness was positively related to social actualization, social coherence, and social contribution; neuroticism was negatively related to social integration, social acceptance, social actualization, and social coherence; openness was positively related to social integration, social acceptance, social coherence, and social contribution. Social support plays mediating roles in the relationships between extraversion/agreeableness/conscientiousness/neuroticism/openness and social well-being, respectively.

Introduction

Personality variables are strong predictors of well-being, a large body of research has explored the associations between big five personality and subjective well-being ( DeNeve and Cooper, 1998 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2005 ). Unfortunately, the psychological construct of well-being portrays adult well-being as a primarily private phenomenon largely neglecting individuals’ social lives ( Keyes, 2002 ; Hill et al., 2012 ). Individuals are embedded in social structures and communities; as such, it is necessary to evaluate one’s circumstance and functioning in a society; more attention needs to be devoted on the topic of social well-being ( Keyes, 1998 ). Previous studies focused on the social well-being from the perspective of interpersonal factors, such as sense of community ( Sohi et al., 2017 ), and civic engagement ( Albanesi et al., 2010 ). However, less work has examined social well-being from the level of the individual ( Keyes and Shapiro, 2004 ).

Although there are few studies focusing on the relationship between five personality traits and social well-being ( Hill et al., 2012 ; Joshanloo et al., 2012 ), their data come from United States or Iran; Chinese cultural background has been conducted to a lesser extent. Different countries have different cultural traditions. Personality is created through the process of enculturation ( Hofstede and McCrae, 2004 ). The interplay of personality and cultural factors was found to predict residents’ well-being significantly ( Diener and Diener, 1995 ). Confucius culture has embedded itself in the daily life of the Chinese, however, studies about the relationship between personality and social well-being under the context of Chinese culture are largely overlooked.

In addition, present studies ( Hill et al., 2012 ; Joshanloo et al., 2012 ) examine only the direct effect of personality on social well-being. The mechanism between big five personality and five dimensions of social well-being has been neglected. Additionally, social support can help individuals protect against the health consequences of life stress and increase their well-being ( Cobb, 1976 ; Siedlecki et al., 2014 ). Thus, following a social support perspective, the present study examined not only the relationship between five personality traits and domains of social well-being, but also whether social support can play a mediating effect in the relationship between big five personality and social well-being.

Literature Review and Hypothesis

Big five personality and social well-being.

The big five personality consists of five general traits: extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness ( John and Srivastava, 1999 ). Extraversion refers to the degree to which one is energetic, social, talkative, and gregarious. Agreeableness reflects the extent to which one is warm, caring, supportive, and cooperative and gets along well with others. Conscientiousness involves the extent to which one is well-organized, responsible, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Neuroticism means the degree to which one is worry, anxious, impulsive, and insecure. Openness reflects the degree to which one is imaginative, creative, curious, and broad-minded ( Barrick et al., 2001 ; Funder and Fast, 2010 ). Many scholars assessed personality under different culture context by a combined emic–etic approach ( John and Srivastava, 1999 ; Cheung et al., 2001 ). Even if there were researches that demonstrated several unique dimensions of personality under the Chinese culture ( Cheung et al., 2001 ; Cheung, 2004 ), the generalizability of the big five trait taxonomy in China is still confirmed ( Li and Chen, 2015 ; Minkov et al., 2019 ). Previous studies have consistently demonstrated that the big five are associated with subjective well-being ( DeNeve and Cooper, 1998 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2005 ), however, the findings are mixed under different cultural context. For instance, Ha and Kim (2013) found openness has a positive effect on subjective well-being in South Korea residents, whereas another study by Hayes and Joseph (2003) in England found that openness was not associated with each of the three measures of subjective well-being.

Culture variables can explain differences in mean levels of well-being ( Diener et al., 2003 ). With the uniqueness of Confucian cultural tradition and social setting, it is noteworthy to discuss the relationship between personality and well-being in Chinese cultural background, especially social-well-being.

Individuals are embedded in social structures. They need to face social challenges and evaluate their life quality and personal functioning by comparison to social criteria ( Keyes and Shapiro, 2004 ). However, the research about social well-being has been almost completely neglected in the hedonic and psychological well-being models ( Keyes, 2002 ; Joshanloo et al., 2012 ). Keyes (1998) proposed social well-being, which indicates to what degree individuals are functioning well in the social world they are embedded in. Social well-being can be described on multiple dimensions, including social integration, social contribution, social acceptance, social coherence, and social actualization. Social integration is the extent to which people feel commonality and connectedness to their neighborhood, community, and society. Social contribution refers to a value evaluation that one can provide to the society. Social acceptance entails a positive view of human nature and believes that people are kind. Social coherence refers to the perception of the quality and operation of the social world and reflects a belief that society is meaningful. Social actualization is the evolution of the potential and of society and includes a sense that social potentials can be realized through its institutions and citizens. In summary, social well-being emphasizes individuals’ perceptions of and attitudes toward the whole society. Prior studies have found the effect of sense of community ( Sohi et al., 2017 ), and social participation ( Albanesi et al., 2010 ) on social well-being, Also, some studies have shown the outcomes of social well-being, such as anxiety problems ( Keyes, 2005 ), general mental and physical health ( Zhang et al., 2011 ), and prosocial behaviors ( Keyes and Ryff, 1998 ). Personality traits and cultural factors are important predictors of well-being ( Diener et al., 2003 ). However, the only studies about personality and social well-being were conducted in Iran or United States. It is still not known whether the association would be similar in a different cultural context ( Hill et al., 2012 ; Joshanloo et al., 2012 ). For example, with the data from the MIDUS sample, Hill et al. (2012) found social well-being is positively related to extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. In addition, previous studies did not test the correlation between five personality traits and five domains of social well-being entirely ( Joshanloo et al., 2012 ). Personality shapes many of the attitudes and behaviors that form Keyes’ different dimensions of social well-being. Thus, certain personalities would predict social well-being; for example, extraverted persons should be more socially integrated, whereas agreeable individuals should possess higher levels of social acceptance. Based on the above, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1 a : Extraversion is positively related to social well-being.

Hypothesis 1 b : Agreeableness is positively related to social well-being.

Hypothesis 1 c : Conscientiousness is positively related to social well-being.

Hypothesis 1 d : Neuroticism is negatively related to social well-being.

Hypothesis 1 e : Openness is positively related to social well-being.

The Mediating Effect of Social Support

Social support refers to individuals’ psychological or material resources from their own social networks that can assist them to cope with stressful challenges in daily lives ( Cohen, 2004 ). It comes from a variety of sources, such as friends, family, and significant others ( Taylor, 2011 ). Social support comprised both received and perceived social support ( Oh et al., 2014 ; Hartley and Coffee, 2019 ). However, many studies showed that perceived social support is more effective at predicting residents’ mental health than the received social support ( Cohen and Syme, 1985 ). Perceived social support indicates recipients’ perceptions concerning the general availability of support ( Sarason et al., 1990 ), which fosters a sense of social connectedness in a network and provides resources with which to overcome obstacles in their lives ( Lee et al., 2001 ; Chen, 2013 ). Social support theory emphasizes that social support is an important resource that can help individuals protect against life stress and increase their quality of lives ( Cobb, 1976 ; Cohen and Wills, 1985 ). Numerous studies have explored the associations between social support and well-being, including subjective well-being ( Brannan et al., 2013 ; Siedlecki et al., 2014 ) and psychological well-being ( Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006 ; Wong et al., 2007 ). Although Inoue et al. (2015) found social support mediated the effect of team identification on community coherence, little research has addressed the effect of social support on social well-being. The benefits of social support come into play when individuals have to deal with social challenges and problems. Individuals with high level of social supports will better face social tasks ( Cox, 2000 ). Harmonious social relationships can help residents to satisfy their social needs, better understand, and be confident of the social world. Therefore, their social well-being will increase.

Personality traits are stable predictors of social support ( Swickert et al., 2010 ; Udayar et al., 2018 ; Barańczuk, 2019 ). Big five personality traits are found to be related to social support. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism report greater vulnerability to stress and negative affectivity, which could decrease the availability of social support ( Ayub, 2015 ). Individuals who score high on extraversion always seek social interactions and tend to be cheerful and friendly. The positive emotions could increase their social support ( Swickert et al., 2010 ). Individuals with high openness to experience are characterized by greater openness to emotions, appreciation of art and beauty, intellect, and liberalism. These characteristics would be significantly related to social support ( Barańczuk, 2019 ). Agreeableness characteristics, such as modesty, compliance, and trust, may facilitate individuals building a more extensive social support network ( Barańczuk, 2019 ). Conscientiousness are characterized by achievement-striving, self-discipline, orderliness, and dutifulness. These tendencies can help individuals better cope with life stress, so it is positively related to social support ( Ayub, 2015 ). Culture is an important moderator between big five personality traits and social support association, but it has been largely overlooked in previous studies ( Barańczuk, 2019 ). Therefore, studies about the relationship between five personality traits and social support under Chinese background are needed.

Previous studies discuss only the direct effect of personality on social well-being, but it remains unknown what mechanism(s) may explain this relation. Social support plays an important stress-buffering role when individuals are under high levels of life stress ( Cohen, 2004 ). Individuals with different levels of personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness) will form different types of social support network. Further, social support will help individuals cope with social challenges and increase their social well-being. Based on the above, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2 a : Social support mediates the relationship between extraversion and social well-being.

Hypothesis 2 b : Social support mediates the relationship between agreeableness and social well-being.

Hypothesis 2 c : Social support mediates the relationship between conscientiousness and social well-being.

Hypothesis 2 d : Social support mediates the relationship between neuroticism and social well-being.

Hypothesis 2 e : Social support mediates the relationship between openness and social well-being.

Materials and Methods

Participants and procedure.

Community residents from five different districts in Kunming, Yunnan Province, were selected as participants by stratified random sampling technique. Four hundred questionnaires were distributed to each district. Participants would complete the questionnaires in a face-to-face interaction with an enumerator who helped them to answer the questionnaire that was in paper format. When we administered the survey, we emphasized that the data were collected for research purposes. Participants were encouraged to answer all the questions honestly and were reminded that their responses would be anonymous. Upon completion of answering the questionnaire, participants received a small gift (e.g., tissue) as compensation for their participation. A total of 2,000 questionnaires were distributed, and 1,721 responded. After dropping incomplete and invalid data, 1,658 respondents remained. The final sample consisted of 932 females (56.2%) and 726 males (43.8%), aged 18–81 years (mean = 30.73 years, SD = 11.98 years).

Big Five Personality

The 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991 ) was used to measure the five broad personality traits. All items were evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Coefficient α reliabilities for the five trait scales in the present study were 0.707 for extraversion, 0.712 for agreeableness, 0.729 for conscientiousness, 0.706 for neuroticism, and 0.733 for openness. The Chinese version of BFI we used had been translated from English using common back-translation procedures ( Brislin, 1970 ; Li and Chen, 2015 ), and the validity had been conformed in previous studies ( Zhou, 2010 ; Li and Chen, 2015 ).

Social Support

Participants rated their social support from Chen and Yu (2019) using scales that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The measure comprised three items, such as “It is easy for me to find someone to help when I meet with difficulties.” The entire survey demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.733).

Social Well-Being

Social well-being was measured through Keyes’s (1998) 15-item scale composed of five dimensions: social actualization, social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, and social coherence. Responses to this measure were assessed on a 5-point scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” An example of measure items was “I believe that people are kind.” The reliabilities of five dimensions were good (ranging from 0.702 to 0.725), and overall α reliability for the present sample was 0.791. Previous studies had confirmed the validity of social well-being measurement of Chinese version we used ( Miao and Wang, 2009 ; Chen and Yu, 2019 ; Chen et al., 2020 ).

The Common Method Bias Examination

As one of the main sources of measurement error, common method variance is a potential problem, which may be a threat to the validity of the conclusions. We tested for common method bias with a single-factor measurement model by combining all items into a single factor ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ; Rhee et al., 2017 ). Results showed a poor model fit [Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.763, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.695, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.719, Root Mean square Residual (RMR) = 0.025, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.109]. The above results suggested that there was no common method bias effect.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between the Study Variables

There is no significant difference between the five different districts in Kunming. The correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations are shown in Table 1 . All the big five personality traits were correlated significantly with social support and five domains of social well-being (expect agreeableness and social coherence). Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness were correlated positively with domains of social well-being (expect agreeableness and social coherence) and social support, whereas neuroticism correlated negatively with domains of social well-being and social support.

Table 1. Correlations, means, and standard deviations of all study variables.

Regression Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22.0). Based on preliminary analyses, multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the big five personality domains and dimensions of social well-being. Both gender and age were statistically controlled during the regression analysis, because there is evidence to show that social well-being likely increases with one’s age ( Chen and Li, 2014 ) and that men generally score higher on well-being than women do ( Miao and Wang, 2009 ). OLS regression was used to test the hypothesis. In each regression analysis, one social well-being dimension was entered as the dependent variable; gender, age, and all five personality domains were entered as potential predictors. Results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 2 . Five personality traits were significant predictors of overall social well-being. Extraversion (β = 0.052, p ≤ 0.05), agreeableness (β = 0.197, p ≤ 0.001), conscientiousness (β = 0.138, p ≤ 0.001), and openness (β = 0.156, p ≤ 0.001) are positively related to social well-being, whereas neuroticism (β = −0.171, p ≤ 0.001) is negatively related to social well-being. H1 a , H1 b , H1 c , H1 d , and H1 e are supported. Extraversion (β = 0.118, p ≤ 0.001), agreeableness (β = 0.162, p ≤ 0.001), neuroticism (β = −0.065, p ≤ 0.05), and openness (β = 0.086, p ≤ 0.001) were significant predictors of social integration. Agreeableness (β = 0.268, p ≤ 0.001), neuroticism (β = −0.102, p ≤ 0.001), and openness (β = 0.089, p ≤ 0.001) were significantly associated with social acceptance. Agreeableness (β = 0.168, p ≤ 0.001), conscientiousness (β = 0.111, p ≤ 0.001), and neuroticism (β = −0.110, p ≤ 0.001) predicted social actualization significantly. Agreeableness (β = −0.088, p ≤ 0.001), conscientiousness (β = 0.060, p ≤ 0.05), neuroticism (β = −0.241, p ≤ 0.001), and openness (β = 0.125, p ≤ 0.001) were found to be predicting social coherence. Agreeableness (β = 0.120, p ≤ 0.001), conscientiousness (β = 0.191, p ≤ 0.001), and openness (β = 0.164, p ≤ 0.001) were found to be predictors of social contribution.

Table 2. Results of regression analyses for five personality traits predicting dimensions of social well-being.

Mediation Analyses

Further, mediation analysis was performed to determine whether the effect of big five personality on social well-being was mediated by social support. Mediation analyses were conducted following the recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2004) , using the PROCESS macro (version 3.0), developed by Hayes (2013) . The current study used 5,000 bootstrapped samples with a 95% confidence interval. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3 . The results suggested five personality traits are related to social support significantly, and social support is positively related to social well-being. In addition, social support mediated the relationship between five personality traits and social well-being. H2 a , H2 b , H2 c , H2 d , and H2 e are supported.

Table 3. Summary of mediation analyses on five personality traits and social well-being (5,000 bootstraps).

Discussion and Conclusion

The results obtained from the survey of 1,658 Chinese residents demonstrated the effects of five personality traits on five dimensions of social well-being and the mediating role of social support in the associations between big five personality and social well-being.

Theoretical Contributions

Research on linkages between big five personality domains and five dimensions of social well-being conducted in China will likely contribute to the extant personality and well-being literature. First, this study provides empirical evidence about the relationship between big five personality and social well-being. The association between the big five personality and social well-being was evidenced in our study. However, our research also showed some inconsistencies with previous researches ( Joshanloo et al., 2012 ). From our results, extraversion was significantly related to social integration; agreeableness was positively related to all five dimensions of social well-being; conscientiousness was positively related to social actualization, social coherence, and social contribution; neuroticism was negatively related to social integration, social acceptance, social actualization, and social coherence; openness was positively related to social integration, social acceptance, social coherence, and social contribution. This inconsistency may be explained by the fact that the differences between Iran and China. For instance, Iran is a non-Arab Muslim country; the interactions in Iran are regulated partly by religious norms ( Joshanloo et al., 2012 ). In China, with the Reform and Opening, the way of thinking and behavior of Chinese are becoming more and more open and innovative ( Ma, 2013 ). The goal of community construction in China is to establish the autonomous system of community residents ( Fei, 2002 ). Community residents’ committee is an important organization of residents’ self-governing and self-service ( Sun, 2016 ). Thus, most community residents can participate in community management and satisfy their own service needs via residents’ committee, which will benefit residents’ life quality.

Second, the study highlights the effect of social support on social well-being. The existing literature has shown the relationship between social support and subjective well-being or psychological well-being ( Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006 ; Brannan et al., 2013 ). Further, our study demonstrated social support is positively related to social well-being. Well-being is increasingly being associated with social and cultural relationships ( Helliwell and Putnam, 2004 ). Community in China is increasingly becoming a place for residents to integrate into urban society ( Chen et al., 2020 ). One of the most important responsibilities of the community is to achieve the society reconstruction ( Fei, 2002 ). Thus, during the development of community, the Chinese government was committed to improving the quality of community services, which may provide more opportunities for residents to get more social support. Individuals having high social support means they had selected and built large and effective social networks, which can help to overcome difficulties in lives. With the help from their social relations, they will give a high appraisal to their circumstances and functioning in society; their social well-being also increases.

Third, the mediating effects were found for social support for relation between extraversion/agreeableness/conscientiousness/neuroticism/openness and social well-being. This may contribute to the literature on the relationship between big five personality and social well-being ( Hill et al., 2012 ; Joshanloo et al., 2012 ). Previous studies neglected to examine the relationship and the mechanism between big five personality and social well-being from the perspective of the community. Community is an important place for residents’ daily activities. Individuals with different personality traits may build their social relations in different ways. Friends or family or neighbors around them may behave with different reactions. The different levels of social support will influence their evaluation of the social world, which may cause different levels of social well-being.

Practical Implications

Our study provides valuable insight into how individuals of different traits to improve their social well-being. Social support serves as a mediator in the relationship between big five personality and social well-being. The results also affirm the importance of social support that can enhance social well-being. When one’s psychological, social, and/or resource needs are met, one is likely to experience greater social support, which is important for their well-being. Therefore, it is possible for residents to promote social support. Individuals should spend more time participating in community public affairs or other social activities that could offer opportunities for them to establish meaningful relationship with neighbors or friends.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite these findings, our research is not without limitations. First, culture is an important factor that can influence both personality traits and well-being ( Diener et al., 2003 ; Hofstede and McCrae, 2004 ). Our study just discussed the mediating effect of social support between personality and social well-being. Future research should explore the effects of different cultural variables (such as power distance, collectivism/individualism etc.,). In addition, comparative studies among different countries or regions are needed. Second, the cross-sectional design means that no causal conclusions for the found relationship can be made. Consequently, future researches should adopt longitudinal or experimental design to ascertain the relationship. Third, social support has usually been classified into several specific forms, such as informational support, emotional support, perceived social support ( Taylor, 2011 ). In current study, we just regarded perceived social support as the mediating variable. So, future research should examine the effects of different forms of social support.

The research used a sample drawn from 1,658 Chinese residents to investigate the relationship between big five personality and social well-being and the mediating effect of social support in the relationship between big five personality and social well-being. Results of this study support previous studies that highlighted the relationship between big five personality and social support ( Swickert et al., 2010 ; Barańczuk, 2019 ). In addition, this study demonstrated the effects of five personality traits on five dimensions of social well-being. Lastly, the results demonstrated the mediating role of social support in the associations between extraversion/agreeableness/conscientiousness/neuroticism/open ness and social well-being, respectively.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Yunnan University of Finance and Economics. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

YY, YZ, and JL designed the research and wrote the manuscript. YY and YZ are co-first authors of the article. All authors planned and conducted the data collection. YZ, JZ, and DL analyzed the data and revised the manuscript. All authors listed have made direct and intellectual contribution to the article and approved the final version for publication.

This study was supported by the Chinese National Natural Science Fund (72064042), the Post-project of Chinese Ministry of Education (18JHQ080), the Philosophy and Social Science Research Project in Yunnan Province (QN202026), and the Science Research Fund of Yunnan Provincial Department of Education (2020J0384).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E., and Zani, B. (2010). Sense of community, civic engagement and social well-being in italian adolescents. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 17, 387–406. doi: 10.1002/casp.903

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayub, N. (2015). Predicting suicide ideation through intrapersonal and interpersonal factors: the interplay of Big-Five personality traits and social support. Pers. Ment. Health 9, 308–318. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1301

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barańczuk, U. (2019). The five factor model of personality and social support: a meta-analysis. J. Res. Pers. 81, 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.002

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., and Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next? Intern. J. Select. Assess. 9, 9–30. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Brannan, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Mohr, C. D., Mortazavi, S., and Stein, N. (2013). Friends and family: a cross-cultural investigation of social support and subjective well-being among college students. J. Posit. Psychol. 8, 65–75. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.743573

Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1, 185–216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301

Chen, L. H. (2013). Gratitude and adolescent Athletes’ well-being: the multiple mediating roles of perceived social support from coaches and teammates. Soc. Indic. Res. 114, 273–285. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0145-2

Chen, Z., Liu, S., Yu, Y., Bwanali, T. R., and Douangdara, V. (2020). Community satisfaction, sense of community, and social well-being in China. Soc. Behav. Pers. Intern. J. 48:e8648.

Google Scholar

Chen, Z. X., and Li, Q. M. (2014). Verification of integrated model of well-being in different age and gender groups. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 5, 78–83.

Chen, Z. X., and Yu, Y. H. (2019). Urban social management, social support and social well-being: an empirical study of 2284 Chinese in 41 Cities, Northwest population. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 40, 44–56.

Cheung, F. M. (2004). Use of Western-and indigenously-developed personality tests in Asia. Appl. Psychol. Intern. Rev. 53, 173–191. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00167.x

Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., et al. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: is the five-factor model complete? J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 32, 407–433. doi: 10.1177/0022022101032004003

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosom. Med. 38, 300–314. doi: 10.1097/00006842-197609000-00003

Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. Am. Psychol. 59, 676–684.

Cohen, S., and Syme, S. L. (1985). “Issues in the study and application of social support,” in Social Support and Health , eds S. Cohen and S. L. Syme (Orlando, FL: Academic Press), 3–22.

Cohen, S., and Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 98, 310–357. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

Cox, E. (2000). Creating a more civil society: community level indicators of social capital. Just Policy J. Austr. Soc. Policy 19, 100–107.

DeNeve, K. M., and Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 124, 197–229. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197

Diener, E., and Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 653–663. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653

Diener, E., Oishi, S., and Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 54, 403–425. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056

Fei, X. T. (2002). Autonomy of resident: new target of community construction in urban China. Jianghai Acad. J. 3, 15–18.

Funder, D. C., and Fast, L. A. (2010). “Personality in social psychology,” in Handbook of Social Psychology , 5th Edn, eds S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, and G. Lindsey (New York, NY: Wiley), 668–697.

Gutiérrez, J. L. G., Jiménez, B. M., Hernández, E. G., and Pcn, C. (2005). Personality and subjective well-being: big five correlates and demographic variables. Pers. Individ. Differ. 38, 1561–1569. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.015

Ha, S. E., and Kim, S. (2013). Personality and subjective well-being: evidence from South Korea. Soc. Indic. Res. 111, 341–359. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0009-9

Hartley, C., and Coffee, P. (2019). Perceived and received dimensional support: main and stress-buffering effects on dimensions of burnout. Front. Psychol. 10:1724. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01724

Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

Hayes, N., and Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Pers. Individ. Differ. 34, 723–727. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00057-0

Helliwell, J. F., and Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 359, 1435–1446.

Hill, P. L., Turiano, N. A., Mroczek, D. K., and Roberts, B. W. (2012). Examining concurrent and longitudinal relations between personality traits and social well-being in adulthood. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 3, 698–705. doi: 10.1177/1948550611433888

Hofstede, G., and McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross Cult. Res. 38, 52–88. doi: 10.1177/1069397103259443

Inoue, Y., Funk, D. C., Wann, D. L., Yoshida, M., and Nakazawa, M. (2015). Team identification and postdisaster social well-being: the mediating role of social support. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 19:31. doi: 10.1037/gdn0000019

Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Jaakkola, M., and Reuter, A. (2006). Perceived discrimination, social support networks, and psychological well-being among three immigrant groups. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 37, 293–311. doi: 10.1177/0022022106286925

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., and Kentle, R. L. (1991). The ‘Big Five’ Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Technical Report. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality Assessment and Research.

John, O. P., and Srivastava, S. (1999). “The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives,” in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research , eds L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 102–138.

Joshanloo, M., Rastegar, P., and Bakhshi, A. (2012). The Big Five personality domains as predictors of social wellbeing in Iranian university students. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 29, 639–660. doi: 10.1177/0265407512443432

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Soc. Psychol. Q. 61, 121–140.

Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J. Health Soc. Behav. 43, 207–222. doi: 10.2307/3090197

Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental health and/or mental illness? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 73, 539–548. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.73.3.539

Keyes, C. L. M., and Ryff, C. D. (1998). “Generativity in adult lives: social structural contours and quality of life consequences,” in Generativity and Adult Development: Perspectives on Caring for and Contributing to the Next Generation , eds D. McAdams and E. de St. Aubin (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 227–263. doi: 10.1037/10288-007

Keyes, C. L. M., and Shapiro, A. D. (2004). “Social well-being in the United States: a descriptive epidemiology,” in How Healthy are We? A National Study of Well-Being at Midlife , eds O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, and R. C. Kessler (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 350–372.

Lee, R. M., Draper, M., and Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: testing a mediator model. J. Counsel. Psychol. 48, 310–318. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310

Li, Q. M., and Chen, Z. X. (2015). Development level of big five personality in five dimensions and ten aspects: based on cross-sectional sample survey of 15–75 years old in China. Psychol. Sci. 1, 131–138.

Ma, X. (2013). The thinking way of Chinese and its transformation of modernity. J. Liaoning Administ. Coll. 15, 157–158.

Miao, Y. J., and Wang, Q. H. (2009). Investigation and Research on College Students’ social well-being. J. Gannan Norm. Univer. 30, 76–81.

Minkov, M., Fons, J. R., van de Vijver, O., and Michael, S. (2019). A test of a new short big-five tool in large probabilistic samples from 19 countries. Pers. Individ. Differ. 151:109519. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109519

Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., and LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 30, 69–78. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.053

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instr. Comput. 36, 717–731. doi: 10.3758/bf03206553

Rhee, J., Seog, S. D., Bozorov, F., and Dedahanov, A. T. (2017). Organizational structure and employees’ innovative behavior: the mediating role of empowerment. Soc. Behav. Pers. Intern. J. 45, 1523–1536. doi: 10.2224/sbp.6433

Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., and Pierce, G. R. (1990). “Traditional views of social support and their impact on assessment,” in Social Support: An Interactional View , eds B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, and G. R. Pierce (New York, NY: Wiley), 9–25. doi: 10.1080/07349165.1982.9725924

Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S., and Jeswani, S. (2014). The relationship between social support and subjective well-being across age. Soc. Indic. Res. 117, 561–576. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0361-4

Sohi, K. K., Singh, P., and Bopanna, K. (2017). Ritual participation, sense of community, and social well-being: a study of seva in the sikh community. J. Relig. Health 57, 2066–2078. doi: 10.1007/s10943-017-0424-y

Sun, B. Y. (2016). Why is it possible for the urban community residents’ committees to “de-administrate”? Nanjing Soc. Sci. 7, 51–58.

Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., and Foster, A. (2010). Big Five traits interact to predict perceived social support. Pers. Individ. Differ. 48, 736–741. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.018

Taylor, S. E. (2011). “Social support: a review,” in Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology , ed. H. S. Friedman (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 189–214.

Udayar, S., Urbanaviciute, I., and Rossier, J. (2018). Perceived social support and Big Five personality traits in middle adulthood: a 4-year cross-lagged path analysis. Appl. Res. Q. Life 15, 395–414. doi: 10.1007/s11482-018-9694-0

Wong, S. T., Yoo, G. J., and Stewart, A. L. (2007). An empirical evaluation of social support and psychological well-being in older Chinese and Korean immigrants. Ethn. Health 12, 43–67. doi: 10.1080/13557850600824104

Zhang, W., Chen, Q., McCubbin, H., McCubbin, L., and Foley, S. (2011). Predictors of mental and physical health: individual and neighborhood levels of education, social well-being, and ethnicity. Health Place 17, 238–247. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.10.008

Zhou, J. (2010). Structural validity analysis of Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI). Manag. Observ. 30, 252–253.

Keywords : big five personality, social support, social well-being, China, mediating effect

Citation: Yu Y, Zhao Y, Li D, Zhang J and Li J (2021) The Relationship Between Big Five Personality and Social Well-Being of Chinese Residents: The Mediating Effect of Social Support. Front. Psychol. 11:613659. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613659

Received: 03 October 2020; Accepted: 31 December 2020; Published: 05 March 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Yu, Zhao, Li, Zhang and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jiewei Li, [email protected]

† These authors share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Power of Personality

Brent w. roberts.

University of Illinois

Nathan R. Kuncel

University of Minnesota

Rebecca Shiner

Colgate University

Avshalom Caspi

Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, London, United Kingdom

Duke University

Lewis R. Goldberg

Oregon Research Institute

The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.

Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound renaissance and has now become an extraordinarily diverse and intellectually stimulating field ( Pervin & John, 1999 ). However, just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is practical or useful—one would need to show that personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as health and longevity, marital success, and educational and occupational attainment. In fact, two recent reviews have shown that different personality traits are associated with outcomes in each of these domains ( Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005 ; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006 ). But simply showing that personality traits are related to health, love, and attainment is not a stringent test of the utility of personality traits. These associations could be the result of “third” variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES), that account for the patterns but have not been controlled for in the studies reviewed. In addition, many of the studies reviewed were cross-sectional and therefore lacked the methodological rigor to show the predictive validity of personality traits. A more stringent test of the importance of personality traits can be found in prospective longitudinal studies that show the incremental validity of personality traits over and above other factors.

The analyses reported in this article test whether personality traits are important, practical predictors of significant life outcomes. We focus on three domains: longevity/mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment in work. Within each domain, we evaluate empirical evidence using the gold standard of prospective longitudinal studies—that is, those studies that can provide data about whether personality traits predict life outcomes above and beyond well-known factors such as SES and cognitive abilities. To guide the interpretation drawn from the results of these prospective longitudinal studies, we provide benchmark relations of SES and cognitive ability with outcomes from these three domains. The review proceeds in three sections. First, we address some misperceptions about personality traits that are, in part, responsible for the idea that personality does not predict important life outcomes. Second, we present a review of the evidence for the predictive validity of personality traits. Third, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and recommendations for future work in this area.

THE “PERSONALITY COEFFICIENT”: AN UNFORTUNATE LEGACY OF THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE

Before we embark on our review, it is necessary to lay to rest a myth perpetrated by the 1960s manifestation of the person–situation debate; this myth is often at the root of the perspective that personality traits do not predict outcomes well, if at all. Specifically, in his highly influential book, Walter Mischel (1968) argued that personality traits had limited utility in predicting behavior because their correlational upper limit appeared to be about .30. Subsequently, this .30 value became derided as the “personality coefficient.” Two conclusions were inferred from this argument. First, personality traits have little predictive validity. Second, if personality traits do not predict much, then other factors, such as the situation, must be responsible for the vast amounts of variance that are left unaccounted for. The idea that personality traits are the validity weaklings of the predictive panoply has been reiterated in unmitigated form to this day (e.g., Bandura, 1999 ; Lewis, 2001 ; Paul, 2004 ; Ross & Nisbett, 1991 ). In fact, this position is so widely accepted that personality psychologists often apologize for correlations in the range of .20 to .30 (e.g., Bornstein, 1999 ).

Should personality psychologists be apologetic for their modest validity coefficients? Apparently not, according to Meyer and his colleagues ( Meyer et al., 2001 ), who did psychological science a service by tabling the effect sizes for a wide variety of psychological investigations and placing them side-by-side with comparable effect sizes from medicine and everyday life. These investigators made several important points. First, the modal effect size on a correlational scale for psychology as a whole is between .10 and .40, including that seen in experimental investigations (see also Hemphill, 2003 ). It appears that the .30 barrier applies to most phenomena in psychology and not just to those in the realm of personality psychology. Second, the very largest effects for any variables in psychology are in the .50 to .60 range, and these are quite rare (e.g., the effect of increasing age on declining speed of information processing in adults). Third, effect sizes for assessment measures and therapeutic interventions in psychology are similar to those found in medicine. It is sobering to see that the effect sizes for many medical interventions—like consuming aspirin to treat heart disease or using chemotherapy to treat breast cancer—translate into correlations of .02 or .03. Taken together, the data presented by Meyer and colleagues make clear that our standards for effect sizes need to be established in light of what is typical for psychology and for other fields concerned with human functioning.

In the decades since Mischel’s (1968) critique, researchers have also directly addressed the claim that situations have a stronger influence on behavior than they do on personality traits. Social psychological research on the effects of situations typically involves experimental manipulation of the situation, and the results are analyzed to establish whether the situational manipulation has yielded a statistically significant difference in the outcome. When the effects of situations are converted into the same metric as that used in personality research (typically the correlation coefficient, which conveys both the direction and the size of an effect), the effects of personality traits are generally as strong as the effects of situations ( Funder & Ozer, 1983 ; Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975 ). Overall, it is the moderate position that is correct: Both the person and the situation are necessary for explaining human behavior, given that both have comparable relations with important outcomes.

As research on the relative magnitude of effects has documented, personality psychologists should not apologize for correlations between .10 and .30, given that the effect sizes found in personality psychology are no different than those found in other fields of inquiry. In addition, the importance of a predictor lies not only in the magnitude of its association with the outcome, but also in the nature of the outcome being predicted. A large association between two self-report measures of extraversion and positive affect may be theoretically interesting but may not offer much solace to the researcher searching for proof that extraversion is an important predictor for outcomes that society values. In contrast, a modest correlation between a personality trait and mortality or some other medical outcome, such as Alzheimer’s disease, would be quite important. Moreover, when attempting to predict these critical life outcomes, even relatively small effects can be important because of their pragmatic effects and because of their cumulative effects across a person’s life ( Abelson, 1985 ; Funder, 2004 ; Rosenthal, 1990 ). In terms of practicality, the −.03 association between taking aspirin and reducing heart attacks provides an excellent example. In one study, this surprisingly small association resulted in 85 fewer heart attacks among the patients of 10,845 physicians ( Rosenthal, 2000 ). Because of its practical significance, this type of association should not be ignored because of the small effect size. In terms of cumulative effects, a seemingly small effect that moves a person away from pursuing his or her education early in life can have monumental consequences for that person’s health and well-being later in life ( Hardarson et al., 2001 ). In other words, psychological processes with a statistically small or moderate effect can have important effects on individuals’ lives depending on the outcomes with which they are associated and depending on whether those effects get cumulated across a person’s life.

PERSONALITY EFFECTS ON MORTALITY, DIVORCE, AND OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Selection of predictors, outcomes, and studies for this review.

To provide the most stringent test of the predictive validity of personality traits, we chose to focus on three objective outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Although we could have chosen many different outcomes to examine, we selected these three because they are socially valued; they are measured in similar ways across studies; and they have been assessed as outcomes in studies of SES, cognitive ability, and personality traits. Mortality needs little justification as an outcome, as most individuals value a long life. Divorce and marital stability are important outcomes for several reasons. Divorce is a significant source of depression and distress for many individuals and can have negative consequences for children, whereas a happy marriage is one of the most important predictors of life satisfaction ( Myers, 2000 ). Divorce is also linked to disproportionate drops in economic status, especially for women ( Kuh & Maclean, 1990 ), and it can undermine men’s health (e.g., Lund, Holstein, & Osler, 2004 ). An intact marriage can also preserve cognitive function into old age for both men and women, particularly for those married to a high-ability spouse ( Schaie, 1994 ).

Educational and occupational attainment are also highly prized ( Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004 ). Research on subjective well-being has shown that occupational attainment and its important correlate, income, are not as critical for happiness as many assume them to be ( Myers, 2000 ). Nonetheless, educational and occupational attainment are associated with greater access to many resources that can improve the quality of life (e.g., medical care, education) and with greater “social capital” (i.e., greater access to various resources through connections with others; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002 ; Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ). The greater income resulting from high educational and occupational attainment may also enable individuals to maintain strong life satisfaction when faced with difficult life circumstances ( Johnson & Krueger, 2006 ).

To better interpret the significance of the relations between personality traits and these outcomes, we have provided comparative information concerning the effect of SES and cognitive ability on each of these outcomes. We chose to use SES as a comparison because it is widely accepted to be one of the most important contributors to a more successful life, including better health and higher occupational attainment (e.g., Adler et al., 1994 ; Gallo & Mathews, 2003 ; Galobardes, Lynch, & Smith, 2004 ; Sapolsky, 2005 ). In addition, we chose cognitive ability as a comparison variable because, like SES, it is a widely accepted predictor of longevity and occupational success ( Deary, Batty, & Gottfredson, 2005 ; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998 ). In this article, we compare the effect sizes of personality traits with these two predictors in order to understand the relative contribution of personality to a long, stable, and successful life. We also required that the studies in this review make some attempt to control for background variables. For example, in the case of mortality, we looked for prospective longitudinal studies that controlled for previous medical conditions, gender, age, and other relevant variables.

We are not assuming that personality traits are direct causes of the outcomes under study. Rather, we were exclusively interested in whether personality traits predict mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment and in their modal effect sizes. If found to be robust, these patterns of statistical association then invite the question of why and how personality traits might cause these outcomes, and we have provided several examples in each section of potential mechanisms and causal steps involved in the process.

The Measurement of Effect Sizes in Prospective Longitudinal Studies

Before turning to the specific findings for personality, SES, and cognitive ability, we must first address the measurement of effect sizes in the studies reviewed here. Most of the studies that we reviewed used some form of regression analysis for either continuous or categorical outcomes. In studies with continuous outcomes, findings were typically reported as standardized regression weights (beta coefficients). In studies of categorical outcomes, the most common effect size indicators are odds ratios, relative risk ratios, or hazard ratios. Because many psychologists may be less familiar with these ratio statistics, a brief discussion of them is in order. In the context of individual differences, ratio statistics quantify the likelihood of an event (e.g., divorce, mortality) for a higher scoring group versus the likelihood of the same event for a lower scoring group (e.g., persons high in negative affect versus those low in negative affect). An odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of the event for one group over the odds of the same event for the second group. The risk ratio compares the probabilities of the event occurring for the two groups. The hazard ratio assesses the probability of an event occurring for a group over a specific window of time. For these statistics, a value of 1.0 equals no difference in odds or probabilities. Values above 1.0 indicate increased likelihood (odds or probabilities) for the experimental (or numerator) group, with the reverse being true for values below 1.0 (down to a lower limit of zero). Because of this asymmetry, the log of these statistics is often taken.

The primary advantage of ratio statistics in general, and the risk ratio in particular, is their ease of interpretation in applied settings. It is easier to understand that death is three times as likely to occur for one group than for another than it is to make sense out of a point-biserial correlation. However, there are also some disadvantages that should be understood. First, ratio statistics can make effects that are actually very small in absolute magnitude appear to be large when in fact they are very rare events. For example, although it is technically correct that one is three times as likely (risk ratio = 3.0) to win the lottery when buying three tickets instead of one ticket, the improved chances of winning are trivial in an absolute sense.

Second, there is no accepted practice for how to divide continuous predictor variables when computing odds, risk, and hazard ratios. Some predictors are naturally dichotomous (e.g., gender), but many are continuous (e.g., cognitive ability, SES). Researchers often divide continuous variables into some arbitrary set of categories in order to use the odds, rate, or hazard metrics. For example, instead of reporting an association between SES and mortality using a point-biserial correlation, a researcher may use proportional hazards models using some arbitrary categorization of SES, such as quartile estimates (e.g., lowest versus highest quartiles). This permits the researcher to draw conclusions such as “individuals from the highest category of SES are four times as likely to live longer than are groups lowest in SES.” Although more intuitively appealing, the odds statements derived from categorizing continuous variables makes it difficult to deduce the true effect size of a relation, especially across studies. Researchers with very large samples may have the luxury of carving a continuous variable into very fine-grained categories (e.g., 10 categories of SES), which may lead to seemingly huge hazard ratios. In contrast, researchers with smaller samples may only dichotomize or trichotomize the same variables, thus resulting in smaller hazard ratios and what appear to be smaller effects for identical predictors. Finally, many researchers may not categorize their continuous variables at all, which can result in hazard ratios very close to 1.0 that are nonetheless still statistically significant. These procedures for analyzing odds, rate, and hazard ratios produce a haphazard array of results from which it is almost impossible to discern a meaningful average effect size. 1

One of the primary tasks of this review is to transform the results from different studies into a common metric so that a fair comparison could be made across the predictors and outcomes. For this purpose, we chose the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. We used a variety of techniques to arrive at an accurate estimate of the effect size from each study. When transforming relative risk ratios into the correlation metric, we used several methods to arrive at the most appropriate estimate of the effect size. For example, the correlation coefficient can be estimated from reported significance levels ( p values) and from test statistics such as the t test or chi-square, as well as from other effect size indicators such as d scores ( Rosenthal, 1991 ). Also, the correlation coefficient can be estimated directly from relative risk ratios and hazard ratios using the generic inverse variance approach ( The Cochrane Collaboration, 2005 ). In this procedure, the relative risk ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) are first transformed into z scores, and the z scores are then transformed into the correlation metric.

For most studies, the effect size correlation was estimated from information on relative risk ratios and p values. For the latter, we used the r equivalent effect size indicator ( Rosenthal & Rubin, 2003 ), which is computed from the sample size and p value associated with specific effects. All of these techniques transform the effect size information to a common correlational metric, making the results of the studies comparable across different analytical methods. After compiling effect sizes, meta-analytic techniques were used to estimate population effect sizes in both the risk ratio and correlation metric ( Hedges & Olkin, 1985 ). Specifically, a random-effects model with no moderators was used to estimate population effect sizes for both the rate ratio and correlation metrics. 2 When appropriate, we first averaged multiple nonindependent effects from studies that reported more than one relevant effect size.

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Mortality

Before considering the role of personality traits in health and longevity, we reviewed a selection of studies linking SES and cognitive ability to these same outcomes. This information provides a point of reference to understand the relative contribution of personality. Table 1 presents the findings from 33 studies examining the prospective relations of low SES and low cognitive ability with mortality. 3 SES was measured using measures or composites of typical SES variables including income, education, and occupational status. Total IQ scores were commonly used in analyses of cognitive ability. Most studies demonstrated that being born into a low-SES household or achieving low SES in adulthood resulted in a higher risk of mortality (e.g., Deary & Der, 2005 ; Hart et al., 2003 ; Osler et al., 2002 ; Steenland, Henley, & Thun, 2002 ). The relative risk ratios and hazard ratios ranged from a low of 0.57 to a high of 1.30 and averaged 1.24 (CIs = 1.19 and 1.29). When translated into the correlation metric, the effect sizes for low SES ranged from −.02 to .08 and averaged .02 (CIs = .017 and .026).

SES and IQ Effects on Mortality/Longevity

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r rr = Correlation estimated from the rate ratio; r hr = correlation estimated from the hazard ratio; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r e = r equivalent —correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size; BMI = body mass index; FEV = forced expiratory volume; ADLs = activities of daily living; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; CPS = Cancer Prevention Study; RIFLE = risk factors and life expectancy.

Through the use of the relative risk metric, we determined that the effect of low IQ on mortality was similar to that of SES, ranging from a modest 0.74 to 2.42 and averaging 1.19 (CIs = 1.10 and 1.30). When translated into the correlation metric, however, the effect of low IQ on mortality was equivalent to a correlation of .06 (CIs = .03 and .09), which was three times larger than the effect of SES on mortality. The discrepancy between the relative risk and correlation metrics most likely resulted because some studies reported the relative risks in terms of continuous measures of IQ, which resulted in smaller relative risk ratios (e.g., St. John, Montgomery, Kristjansson, & McDowell, 2002 ). Merging relative risk ratios from these studies with those that carve the continuous variables into subgroups appears to underestimate the effect of IQ on mortality, at least in terms of the relative risk metric. The most telling comparison of IQ and SES comes from the five studies that include both variables in the prediction of mortality. Consistent with the aggregate results, IQ was a stronger predictor of mortality in each case (i.e., Deary & Der, 2005 ; Ganguli, Dodge, & Mulsant, 2002 ; Hart et al., 2003 ; Osler et al., 2002 ; Wilson, Bienia, Mendes de Leon, Evans, & Bennet, 2003 ).

Table 2 lists 34 studies that link personality traits to mortality/longevity. 4 In most of these studies, multiple factors such as SES, cognitive ability, gender, and disease severity were controlled for. We organized our review roughly around the Big Five taxonomy of personality traits (e.g., Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience; Goldberg, 1993b ). For example, research drawn from the Terman Longitudinal Study showed that children who were more conscientious tended to live longer ( Friedman et al., 1993 ). This effect held even after controlling for gender and parental divorce, two known contributors to shorter lifespans. Moreover, a number of other factors, such as SES and childhood health difficulties, were unrelated to longevity in this study. The protective effect of Conscientiousness has now been replicated across several studies and more heterogeneous samples. Conscientiousness was found to be a rather strong protective factor in an elderly sample participating in a Medicare training program ( Weiss & Costa, 2005 ), even when controlling for education level, cardiovascular disease, and smoking, among other factors. Similarly, Conscientiousness predicted decreased rates of mortality in a sample of individuals suffering from chronic renal insufficiency, even after controlling for age, diabetic status, and hemoglobin count ( Christensen et al., 2002 ).

Personality Traits and Mortality

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r rr = correlation estimated from the rate ratio; r hr = correlation estimated from the hazard ratio; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r B = correlation estimated from a beta weight and standard error; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); FEV = forced expiratory volume; CHD = coronary heart disease; SES =socioeconomic status; BMI =body-ass index; ADLs =activities of daily living; MMSE =Mini Mental State Examination.

Similarly, several studies have shown that dispositions reflecting Positive Emotionality or Extraversion were associated with longevity. For example, nuns who scored higher on an index of Positive Emotionality in young adulthood tended to live longer, even when controlling for age, education, and linguistic ability (an aspect of cognitive ability; Danner, Snowden, & Friesen, 2001 ). Similarly, Optimism was related to higher rates of survival following head and neck cancer ( Allison, Guichard, Fung, & Gilain, 2003 ). In contrast, several studies reported that Neuroticism and Pessimism were associated with increases in one’s risk for premature mortality ( Abas, Hotopf, & Prince, 2002 ; Denollet et al., 1996 ; Schulz, Bookwala, Knapp, Scheier, & Williamson, 1996 ; Wilson, Mendes de Leon, Bienias, Evans, & Bennett, 2004 ). It should be noted, however, that two studies reported a protective effect of high Neuroticism ( Korten et al., 1999 ; Weiss & Costa, 2005 ).

The domain of Agreeableness showed a less clear association to mortality, with some studies showing a protective effect of high Agreeableness ( Wilson et al., 2004 ) and others showing that high Agreeableness contributed to mortality ( Friedman et al., 1993 ). With respect to the domain of Openness to Experience, two studies showed that Openness or facets of Openness, such as creativity, had little or no relation to mortality ( Osler et al., 2002 ; Wilson et al., 2004 ).

Because aggregating all personality traits into one overall effect size washes out important distinctions among different trait domains, we examined the effect of specific trait domains by aggregating studies within four categories: Conscientiousness, Positive Emotion/Extraversion, Neuroticism/Negative Emotion, and Hostility/Disagreeableness. 5 Our Conscientiousness domain included four studies that linked Conscientiousness to mortality. Because only two of these studies reported the information necessary to compute an average relative risk ratio, we only examined the correlation metric. When translated into a correlation metric, the average effect size for Conscientiousness was −.09 (CIs = −.12 and −.05), indicating a protective effect. Our Extraversion/Positive Emotion domain included six studies that examined the effect of extraversion, positive emotion, and optimism. The average relative risk ratio for the low Extraversion/Positive Emotion was 1.04 (CIs = 1.00 and 1.10) with a corresponding correlation effect size for high Extraversion/Positive Emotion being −.07 (−.11, −.03), with the latter showing a statistically significant protective effect of Extraversion/Positive Emotion. Our Negative Emotionality domain included twelve studies that examined the effect of neuroticism, pessimism, mental instability, and sense of coherence. The average relative risk ratio for the Negative Emotionality domain was 1.15 (CIs = 1.04 and 1.26), and the corresponding correlation effect size was .05 (CIs = .02 and .08). Thus, Neuroticism was associated with a diminished life span. Nineteen studies reported relations between Hostility/Disagreeableness and all-cause mortality, with notable heterogeneity in the effects across studies. The risk ratio population estimate showed an effect equivalent to, if not larger than, the remaining personality domains (risk ratio = 1.14; CIs = 1.06 and 1.23). With the correlation metric, this effect translated into a small but statistically significant effect of .04 (CIs = .02 and .06), indicating that hostility was positively associated with mortality. Thus, the specific personality traits of Conscientiousness, Positive Emotionality/Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Hostility/Disagreeableness were stronger predictors of mortality than was SES when effects were translated into a correlation metric. The effect of personality traits on mortality appears to be equivalent to IQ, although the additive effect of multiple trait domains on mortality may well exceed that of IQ.

Why would personality traits predict mortality? Personality traits may affect health and ultimately longevity through at least three distinct processes ( Contrada, Cather, & O’Leary, 1999 ; Pressman & Cohen, 2005 ; Rozanski, Blumenthal, & Kaplan, 1999 ; T.W. Smith, 2006 ). First, personality differences may be related to pathogenesis or mechanisms that promote disease. This has been evaluated most directly in studies relating various facets of Hostility/Disagreeableness to greater reactivity in response to stressful experiences (T.W. Smith & Gallo, 2001 ) and in studies relating low Extraversion to neuroendocrine and immune functioning ( Miller, Cohen, Rabin, Skoner, & Doyle, 1999 ) and greater susceptibility to colds ( Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, & Skoner, 2003a , 2003b ). Second, personality traits may be related to physical-health outcomes because they are associated with health-promoting or health-damaging behaviors. For example, individuals high in Extraversion may foster social relationships, social support, and social integration, all of which are positively associated with health outcomes ( Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000 ). In contrast, individuals low in Conscientiousness may engage in a variety of health-risk behaviors such as smoking, unhealthy eating habits, lack of exercise, unprotected sexual intercourse, and dangerous driving habits ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). Third, personality differences may be related to reactions to illness. This includes a wide class of behaviors, such as the ways individuals cope with illness (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1993 ), reduce stress, and adhere to prescribed treatments ( Kenford et al., 2002 ).

These processes linking personality traits to physical health are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, different personality traits may affect physical health via different processes. For example, facets of Disagreeableness may be most directly linked to disease processes, facets of low Conscientiousness may be implicated in health-damaging behaviors, and facets of Neuroticism may contribute to ill-health by shaping reactions to illness. In addition, it is likely that the impact of personality differences on health varies across the life course. For example, Neuroticism may have a protective effect on mortality in young adulthood, as individuals who are more neurotic tend to avoid accidents in adolescence and young adulthood ( Lee, Wadsworth, & Hotopf, 2006 ). It is apparent from the extant research that personality traits influence outcomes at all stages of the health process, but much more work remains to be done to specify the processes that account for these effects.

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Divorce

Next, we considered the role that SES, cognitive ability, and personality traits play in divorce. Because there were fewer studies examining these issues, we included prospective studies of SES, IQ, and personality that did not control for many background variables.

In terms of SES and IQ, we found 11 studies that showed a wide range of associations with divorce and marriage (see Table 3 ). 6 For example, the SES of the couple in one study was unsystematically related to divorce ( Tzeng & Mare, 1995 ). In contrast, Kurdek (1993) reported relatively large, protective effects for education and income for both men and women. Because not all these studies reported relative risk ratios, we computed an aggregate using the correlation metric and found the relation between SES and divorce was −.05 (CIs = −.08 and − .02), which indicates a significant protective effect of SES on divorce across these studies. Contradictory patterns were found for the two studies that predicted divorce and marital patterns from measures of cognitive ability. Taylor et al. (2005) reported that IQ was positively related to the possibility of male participants ever marrying but was negatively related to the possibility of female participants ever marrying. Data drawn from the Mills Longitudinal study ( Helson, 2006 ) showed conflicting patterns of associations between verbal and mathematical aptitude and divorce. Because there were only two studies, we did not examine the average effects of IQ on divorce.

SES and IQ Effects on Divorce

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r z = correlation estimated from the z score and sample size; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r B = correlation estimated from the reported unstandardized beta weight and standard error; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; NLSY = National Longitudinal Study of Youth; NLSYM = National Longitudinal Study of Young Men; NLSYW = National Longitudinal Study of Young Women.

Table 4 shows the data from thirteen prospective studies testing whether personality traits predicted divorce. Traits associated with the domain of Neuroticism, such as being anxious and overly sensitive, increased the probability of experiencing divorce ( Kelly & Conley, 1987 ; Tucker, Kressin, Spiro, & Ruscio, 1998 ). In contrast, those individuals who were more conscientious and agreeable tended to remain longer in their marriages and avoided divorce ( Kelly & Conley, 1987 ; Kinnunen & Pulkkenin, 2003 ; Roberts & Bogg, 2004 ). Although these studies did not control for as many factors as the health studies, the time spans over which the studies were carried out were impressive (e.g., 45 years). We aggregated effects across these studies for the trait domains of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness with the correlation metric, as too few studies reported relative risk outcomes to warrant aggregating. When so aggregated, the effect of Neuroticism on divorce was .17 (CIs = .12 and .22), the effect of Agreeableness was − .18 (CIs = −.27 and −.09), and the effect of Conscientiousness on divorce was −.13 (CIs = −.17 and −.09). Thus, the predictive effects of these three personality traits on divorce were greater than those found for SES.

Personality Traits and Marital Outcomes

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r d = Correlation estimated from the d score; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IHS = Institute of Human Development.

Why would personality traits lead to divorce or conversely marital stability? The most likely reason is because personality traits help shape the quality of long-term relationships. For example, Neuroticism is one of the strongest and most consistent personality predictors of relationship dissatisfaction, conflict, abuse, and ultimately dissolution ( Karney & Bradbury, 1995 ). Sophisticated studies that include dyads (not just individuals) and multiple methods (not just self reports) increasingly demonstrate that the links between personality traits and relationship processes are more than simply an artifact of shared method variance in the assessment of these two domains ( Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004 ; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000 ; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000 ). One study that followed a sample of young adults across their multiple relationships in early adulthood discovered that the influence of Negative Emotionality on relationship quality showed cross-relationship generalization; that is, it predicted the same kinds of experiences across relationships with different partners ( Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002 ).

An important goal for future research will be to uncover the proximal relationship-specific processes that mediate personality effects on relationship outcomes ( Reiss, Capobianco, & Tsai, 2002 ). Three processes merit attention. First, personality traits influence people’s exposure to relationship events. For example, people high in Neuroticism may be more likely to be exposed to daily conflicts in their relationships ( Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995 ; Suls & Martin, 2005 ). Second, personality traits shape people’s reactions to the behavior of their partners. For example, disagreeable individuals may escalate negative affect during conflict (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998 ). Similarly, agreeable people may be better able to regulate emotions during interpersonal conflicts ( Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001 ). Cognitive processes also factor in creating trait-correlated experiences ( Snyder & Stukas, 1999 ). For example, highly neurotic individuals may overreact to minor criticism from their partner, believe they are no longer loved when their partner does not call, or assume infidelity on the basis of mere flirtation. Third, personality traits evoke behaviors from partners that contribute to relationship quality. For example, people high in Neuroticism and low in Agreeableness may be more likely to express behaviors identified as detrimental to relationships such as criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling ( Gottman, 1994 ).

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Educational and Occupational Attainment

The role of personality traits in occupational attainment has been studied sporadically in longitudinal studies over the last few decades. In contrast, the roles of SES and IQ have been studied exhaustively by sociologists in their programmatic research on the antecedents to status attainment. In their seminal work, Blau and Duncan (1967) conceptualized a model of status attainment as a function of the SES of an individual’s father. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin added what they considered social-psychological factors ( Sewell, Haller, & Portes, 1969 ). In this Wisconsin model, attainment is a function of parental SES, cognitive abilities, academic performance, occupational and educational aspirations, and the role of significant others ( Haller & Portes, 1973 ). Each factor in the model has been found to be positively related to occupational attainment ( Hauser, Tsai, & Sewell, 1983 ). The key question here is to what extent SES and IQ predict educational and occupational attainment holding constant the remaining factors.

A great deal of research has validated the structure and content of the Wisconsin model ( Sewell & Hauser, 1980 ; Sewell & Hauser, 1992 ), and rather than compiling these studies, which are highly similar in structure and findings, we provide representative findings from a study that includes three replications of the model ( Jencks, Crouse, & Mueser, 1983 ). As can be seen in Table 5 , childhood socioeconomic indicators, such as father’s occupational status and mother’s education, are related to outcomes, such as grades, educational attainment, and eventual occupational attainment, even after controlling for the remaining variables in the Wisconsin model. The average beta weight of SES and education was .09. 7 Parental income had a stronger effect, with an average beta weight of .14 across these three studies. Cognitive abilities were even more powerful predictors of occupational attainment, with an average beta weight of .27.

SES, IQ, and Status Attainment

Note. SES = socioeconomic status.

Do personality traits contribute to the prediction of occupational attainment even when intelligence and socioeconomic background are taken into account? As there are far fewer studies linking personality traits directly to indices of occupational attainment, such as prestige and income, we also included prospective studies examining the impact of personality traits on related outcomes such as long-term unemployment and occupational stability. The studies listed in Table 6 attest to the fact that personality traits predict all of these work-related outcomes. For example, adolescent ratings of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness predicted occupational status 46 years later, even after controlling for childhood IQ ( Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999 ). The weighted-average beta weight across the studies in Table 6 was .23 (CIs = .14 and .32), indicating that the modal effect size of personality traits was comparable with the effect of childhood SES and IQ on similar outcomes. 8

Personality Traits and Occupational Attainment

Note. SES = socioeconomic status; IHD = Institute of Human Development.

Why are personality traits related to achievement in educational and occupational domains? The personality processes involved may vary across different stages of development, and at least five candidate processes deserve research scrutiny ( Roberts, 2006 ). First, the personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “attraction” effects or “active niche-picking,” whereby people choose educational and work experiences whose qualities are concordant with their own personalities. For example, people who are more conscientious may prefer conventional jobs, such as accounting and farming ( Gottfredson, Jones, & Holland, 1993 ). People who are more extraverted may prefer jobs that are described as social or enterprising, such as teaching or business management ( Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 ). Moreover, extraverted individuals are more likely to assume leadership roles in multiple settings ( Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002 ). In fact, all of the Big Five personality traits have substantial relations with better performance when the personality predictor is appropriately aligned with work criteria ( Hogan & Holland, 2003 ). This indicates that if people find jobs that fit with their dispositions they will experience greater levels of job performance, which should lead to greater success, tenure, and satisfaction across the life course ( Judge et al., 1999 ).

Second, personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “recruitment effects,” whereby people are selected into achievement situations and are given preferential treatment on the basis of their personality characteristics. These recruitment effects begin to appear early in development. For example, children’s personality traits begin to influence their emerging relationships with teachers at a young age ( Birch & Ladd, 1998 ). In adulthood, job applicants who are more extraverted, conscientious, and less neurotic are liked better by interviewers and are more often recommended for the job ( Cook, Vance, & Spector, 2000 ).

Third, personality traits may affect work outcomes because people take an active role in shaping their work environment ( Roberts, 2006 ). For example, leaders have tremendous power to shape the nature of the organization by hiring, firing, and promoting individuals. Cross-sectional studies of groups have shown that leaders’ conscientiousness and cognitive ability affect decision making and treatment of subordinates ( LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997 ). Individuals who are not leaders or supervisors may shape their work to better fit themselves through job crafting ( Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ) or job sculpting ( Bell & Staw, 1989 ). They can change their day-to-day work environments through changing the tasks they do, organizing their work differently, or changing the nature of the relationships they maintain with others ( Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ). Presumably these changes in their work environments lead to an increase in the fit between personality and work. In turn, increased fit with one’s environment is associated with elevated performance ( Harms, Roberts, & Winter, 2006 ).

Fourth, some personality-to-achievement associations emerge as consequences of “attrition” or “deselection pressures,” whereby people leave achievement settings (e.g., schools or jobs) that do not fit with their personality or are released from these settings because of their trait-correlated behaviors ( Cairns & Cairns, 1994 ). For example, longitudinal evidence from different countries shows that children who exhibit a combination of poor self-control and high irritability or antagonism are at heightened risk of unemployment ( Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998 ; Kokko, Bergman, & Pulkkinen, 2003 ; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000 ).

Fifth, personality-to-achievement associations may emerge as a result of direct effects of personality on performance. Personality traits may promote certain kinds of task effectiveness; there is some evidence that this occurs in part via the processing of information. For example, higher positive emotions facilitate the efficient processing of complex information and are associated with creative problem solving ( Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999 ). In addition to these effects on task effectiveness, personality may directly affect other aspects of work performance, such as interpersonal interactions ( Hurtz & Donovan, 2000 ). Personality traits may also directly influence performance motivation; for example, Conscientiousness consistently predicts stronger goal setting and self-efficacy, whereas Neuroticism predicts these motivations negatively ( Erez & Judge, 2001 ; Judge & Ilies, 2002 ).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is abundantly clear from this review that specific personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as mortality, divorce, and success in work. Depending on the sample, trait, and outcome, people with specific personality characteristics are more likely to experience important life outcomes even after controlling for other factors. Moreover, when compared with the effects reported for SES and cognitive abilities, the predictive validities of personality traits do not appear to be markedly different in magnitude. In fact, as can be seen in Figures 1 – 3 , in many cases, the evidence supports the conclusion that personality traits predict these outcomes better than SES does. Despite these impressive findings, a few limitations and qualifications must be kept in mind when interpreting these data.

Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low IQ, low Conscientiousness (C), low Extraversion/Positive Emotion(E/PE), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on mortality. Error bars represent standard error.

Average effects (in the standardized beta weight metric) of high socioeconomic status (SES), high parental income, high IQ, and high personality trait scores on occupational outcomes.

The requirement that we only examine the incremental validity of personality measures after controlling for SES and cognitive abilities, though clearly the most stringent test of the relevance of personality traits, is also arbitrarily tough. In fact, controlling for variables that are assumed to be nuisance factors can obscure important relations ( Meehl, 1971 ). For example, SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits may determine life outcomes through indirect rather than direct pathways. Consider cognitive abilities. These are only modest predictors of occupational attainment when “all other factors are controlled,” but they play a much more important, indirect role through their effect on educational attainment. Students with higher cognitive abilities tend to obtain better grades and go on to achieve more in the educational sphere across a range of disciplines ( Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2007 ; Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001 , 2004 ); in turn, educational attainment is the best predictor of occupational attainment. This observation about cumulative indirect effects applies equally well to SES and personality traits.

Furthermore, the effect sizes associated with SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits were all uniformly small-to-medium in size. This finding is entirely consistent with those from other reviews showing that most psychological constructs have effect sizes in the range between .10 and .40 on a correlational scale ( Meyer et al., 2001 ). Our hope is that reviews like this one can help adjust the norms researchers hold for what the modal effect size is in psychology and related fields. Studies are often disparaged for having small effects as if it is not the norm. Moreover, small effect sizes are often criticized without any understanding of their practical significance. Practical significance can only be determined if we ground our research by both predicting consequential outcomes, such as mortality, and by translating the results into a metric that is clearly understandable, such as years lost or number of deaths. Correlations and ratio statistics do not provide this type of information. On the other hand, some researchers have translated their results into metrics that most individuals can grasp. As we noted in the introduction, Rosenthal (1990) showed that taking aspirin prevented approximately 85 heart attacks in the patients of 10,845 physicians despite the meager −.03 correlation between this practice and the outcome of having a heart attack. Several other studies in our review provided similar benchmarks. Hardarson et al., (2001) showed that 148 fewer people died in their high education group (out of 869) than in their low education group, despite the effect size being equal to a correlation of −.05. Danner et al. (2001) showed that the association between positive emotion and longevity was associated with a gain of almost 7 years of additional life, despite having an average effect size of around .20. Of course, our ability to draw these types of conclusions necessitates grounding our research in more practical outcomes and their respective metrics.

There is one salient difference between many of the studies of SES and cognitive abilities and the studies focusing on personality traits. The typical sample in studies of the long-term effect of personality traits was a sample of convenience or was distinctly unrepresentative. In contrast, many of the studies of SES and cognitive ability included nationally representative and/or remarkably large samples (e.g., 500,000 participants). Therefore, the results for SES and cognitive abilities are generalizable, whereas it is more difficult to generalize findings from personality research. Perhaps the situation will improve if future demographers include personality measures in large surveys of the general population.

Recommendations

One of the challenges of incorporating personality measures in large studies is the cost–benefit trade off involved with including a thorough assessment of personality traits in a reasonably short period of time. Because most personality inventories include many items, researchers may be pressed either to eliminate them from their studies or to use highly abbreviated measures of personality traits. The latter practice has become even more common now that most personality researchers have concluded that personality traits can be represented within five to seven broad domains ( Goldberg, 1993b ; Saucier, 2003 ). The temptation is to include a brief five-factor instrument under the assumption that this will provide good coverage of the entire range of personality traits. However, the use of short, broad bandwidth measures can lead to substantial decreases in predictive validity ( Goldberg, 1993a ), because short measures of the Big Five lack the breadth and depth of longer personality inventories. In contrast, research has shown that the predictive validity of personality measures increases when one uses a well-elaborated measure with many lower order facets ( Ashton, 1998 ; Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988 ; Paunonen, 1998 ; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001 ).

However, research participants do not have unlimited time, and researchers may need advice on the selection of optimal measures of personality traits. One solution is to pay attention to previous research and focus on those traits that have been found to be related to the specific outcomes under study instead of using an omnibus personality inventory. For example, given the clear and consistent finding that the personality trait of Conscientiousness is related to health behaviors and mortality (e.g., Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ; Friedman, 2000 ), it would seem prudent to measure this trait well if one wanted to control for this factor or include it in any study of health and mortality. Moreover, it appears that specific facets of this domain, such as self-control and conventionality, are more relevant to health than are other facets such as orderliness ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). If researchers are truly interested in assessing personality traits well, then they should invest the time necessary for the task. This entails moving away from expedient surveys to more in-depth assessments. Finally, if one truly wants to assess personality traits well, then researchers should use multiple methods for this purpose and should not rely solely on self-reports ( Eid & Diener, 2006 ).

We also recommend that researchers not equate all individual differences with personality traits. Personality psychologists also study constructs such as motivation, interests, emotions, values, identities, life stories, and self-regulation (see Mayer, 2005 , and Roberts & Wood, 2006 , for reviews). Moreover, these different domains of personality are only modestly correlated (e.g., Ackerman & Heggested, 1997 ; Roberts & Robins, 2000 ). Thus, there are a wide range of additional constructs that may have independent effects on important life outcomes that are waiting to be studied.

Conclusions

In light of increasingly robust evidence that personality matters for a wide range of life outcomes, researchers need to turn their attention to several issues. First, we need to know more about the processes through which personality traits shape individuals’ functioning over time. Simply documenting that links exist between personality traits and life outcomes does not clarify the mechanisms through which personality exerts its effects. In this article, we have suggested a number of potential processes that may be at work in the domains of health, relationships, and educational and occupational success. Undoubtedly, other personality processes will turn out to influence these outcomes as well.

Second, we need a greater understanding of the relationship between personality and the social environmental factors already known to affect health and development. Looking over the studies reviewed above, one can see that specific personality traits such as Conscientiousness predict occupational and marital outcomes that, in turn, predict longevity. Thus, it may be that Conscientiousness has both direct and indirect effects on mortality, as it contributes to following life paths that afford better health, and may also directly affect the ways in which people handle health-related issues, such as whether they exercise or eat a healthy diet ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). One idea that has not been entertained is the potential synergistic relation between personality traits and social environmental factors. It may be the case that the combination of certain personality traits and certain social conditions creates a potent cocktail of factors that either promotes or undermines specific outcomes. Finally, certain social contexts may wash out the effect of individual difference factors, and, in turn, people possessing certain personality characteristics may be resilient to seemingly toxic environmental influences. A systematic understanding of the relations between personality traits and social environmental factors associated with important life outcomes would be very helpful.

Third, the present results drive home the point that we need to know much more about the development of personality traits at all stages in the life course. How does a person arrive in adulthood as an optimistic or conscientious person? If personality traits affect the ways that individuals negotiate the tasks they face across the course of their lives, then the processes contributing to the development of those traits are worthy of study ( Caspi & Shiner, 2006 ; Caspi & Shiner, in press ; Rothbart & Bates, 2006 ). However, there has been a tendency in personality and developmental research to focus on personality traits as the causes of various outcomes without fully considering personality differences as an outcome worthy of study ( Roberts, 2005 ). In contrast, research shows that personality traits continue to change in adulthood (e.g., Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006 ) and that these changes may be important for health and mortality. For example, changes in personality traits such as Neuroticism have been linked to poor health outcomes and even mortality ( Mroczek & Spiro, 2007 ).

Fourth, our results raise fundamental questions about how personality should be addressed in prevention and intervention efforts. Skeptical readers may doubt the relevance of the present results for prevention and intervention in light of the common assumption that personality is highly stable and immutable. However, personality traits do change in adulthood ( Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006 ) and can be changed through therapeutic intervention ( De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006 ). Therefore, one possibility would be to focus on socializing factors that may affect changes in personality traits, as the resulting changes would then be leveraged across multiple domains of life. Further, the findings for personality traits should be of considerable interest to professionals dedicated to promoting healthy, happy marriages and socioeconomic success. Some individuals will clearly be at a heightened risk of problems in these life domains, and it may be possible to target prevention and intervention efforts to the subsets of individuals at the greatest risk. Such research can likewise inform the processes that need to be targeted in prevention and intervention. As we gain greater understanding of how personality exerts its effects on adaptation, we will achieve new insights into the most relevant processes to change. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that it may be possible to improve individuals’ lives by targeting those processes without directly changing the personality traits driving those processes (e.g., see Rapee, Kennedy, Ingram, Edwards, & Sweeney, 2005 , for an interesting example of how this may occur). In all prevention and intervention work, it will be important to attend to the possibility that most personality traits can have positive or negative effects, depending on the outcomes in question, the presence of other psychological attributes, and the environmental context ( Caspi & Shiner, 2006 ; Shiner, 2005 ).

Personality research has had a contentious history, and there are still vestiges of doubt about the importance of personality traits. We thus reviewed the comparative predictive validity of personality traits, SES, and IQ across three objective criteria: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. We found that personality traits are just as important as SES and IQ in predicting these important life outcomes. We believe these metaanalytic findings should quell lingering doubts. The closing of a chapter in the history of personality psychology is also an opportunity to open a new chapter. We thus invite new research to test and document how personality traits “work” to shape life outcomes. A useful lead may be taken from cognate research on social disparities in health ( Adler & Snibbe, 2003 ). Just as researchers are seeking to understand how SES “gets under the skin” to influence health, personality researchers need to partner with other branches of psychology to understand how personality traits “get outside the skin” to influence important life outcomes.

Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on divorce. Error bars represent standard error.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported by National Institute of Aging Grants AG19414 and AG20048; National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH49414, MH45070, MH49227; United Kingdom Medical Research Council Grant G0100527; and by grants from the Colgate Research Council. We would like to thank Howard Friedman, David Funder, George Davie Smth, Ian Deary, Chris Fraley, Linda Gottfredson, Josh Jackson, and Ben Karney for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

1 This situation is in no way particular to epidemiological or medical studies using odds, rate, and hazard ratios as outcomes. The field of psychology reports results in a Babylonian array of test statistics and effect sizes also.

2 The population effects for the rate ratio and correlation metric were not based on identical data because in some cases the authors did not report rate ratio information or did not report enough information to compute a rate ratio and a CI.

3 Most of the studies of SES and mortality were compiled from an exhaustive review of the literature on the effect of childhood SES and mortality ( Galobardes et al., 2004 ). We added several of the largest studies examining the effect of adult SES on mortality (e.g., Steenland et al., 2002 ), and to these we added the results from the studies on cognitive ability and personality that reported SES effects. We also did standard electronic literature searches using the terms socioeconomic status, cognitive ability , and all-cause mortality . We also examined the reference sections from the list of studies and searched for papers that cited these studies. Experts in the field of epidemiology were also contacted and asked to identify missing studies. The resulting SES data base is representative of the field, and as the effects are based on over 3 million data points, the effect sizes and CIs are very stable. The studies of cognitive ability and mortality represent all of the studies found that reported usable data.

4 We identified studies through electronic searches that included the terms personality traits, extroversion, agreeableness, hostility, conscientiousness, emotional stability, neuroticism, openness to experience , and all-cause mortality . We also identified studies through reference sections of the list of studies and through studies that cited each study. A number of studies were not included in this review because we focused on studies that were prospective and controlled for background factors.

5 We did not examine the domain of Openness to Experience because there were only two studies that tested the association with mortality.

6 We identified studies using electronic searches including the terms divorce, socioeconomic status , and cognitive ability . We also identified studies through examining the reference sections of the studies and through studies that cited each study.

7 We did not transform the standardized beta weights into the correlation metric because almost all authors failed to provide the necessary information for the transformation (CIs or standard errors). Therefore, we averaged the results in the beta weight metric instead. As the sampling distribution of beta weights is unknown, we used the formula for the standard error of the partial correlation (√ N −k−2) to estimate CIs.

8 In making comparisons between correlations and regression weights, it should be kept in mind that although the two are identical for orthogonal predictors, most regression weights tend to be smaller than the corresponding zero-order validity correlations because of predictor redundancy (R.A. Peterson & Brown, 2005 ).

• Abas M, Hotopf M, Prince M. Depression and mortality in a high-risk population. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2002; 181 :123–128. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abelson RP. A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin. 1985; 97 :129–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ackerman PL, Heggestad ED. Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin. 1997; 121 :219–245. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adler NE, Boyce T, Chesney MA, Cohen S, Folkman S, Kahn RL, Syme SL. Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :15–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adler NE, Snibbe AC. The role of psychosocial processes in explaining the gradient between socioeconomic status and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2003; 12 :119–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allison PJ, Guichard C, Fung K, Gilain L. Dispositional optimism predicts survival status 1 year after diagnosis in head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003; 21 :543–548. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Almada SJ, Zonderman AB, Shekelle RB, Dyer AR, Daviglus ML, Costa PT, Stamler J. Neuroticism and cynicism and risk of death in middle-aged men: The Western Electric Study. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1991; 53 :165–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR, Rogers SJ. A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997; 59 :612–624. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review. 1999; 106 :529–550. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton MC. Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19 :289–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of personality. In: Pervin LA, John OR, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 154–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. Hostility, CHD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1983; 45 :59–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Dodge KA, Peterson BL, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. The Cook-Medley hostility scale: Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1989; 51 :46–57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Larsen S, von der Lieth L, Schroll M. Hostility, incidence of acute myocardial infarction, and mortality in a sample of older Danish men and women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1995; 142 :477–484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Maynard KE, Beckham JC, Brummett BH, Hooker K, Siegler IC. Trust, health, and longevity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1998; 21 :517–526. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Siegler IC, Nowlin JB, Peterson BL, Haney TL, Williams RB. Suspiciousness, health, and mortality: A follow-up stuffy of 500 older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1987; 49 :450–457. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassuk SS, Berkman LF, Amick BC. Socioeconomic status and mortality among the elderly: Findings from four U.S. Communities. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 155 :520–533. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beebe-Dimmer J, Lynch JW, Turrell G, Lustgarten S, Raghunathan T, Kaplan GA. Childhood and adult socioeconomic conditions and 31-year mortality risk in women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 159 :481–490. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell NE, Staw BM. People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In: Arthur MB, Hall DT, Lawrence BS, editors. Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. pp. 232–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler PM, Newcomb MD. Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1978; 46 :1053–1070. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health. Social Science Medicine. 2000; 51 :843–857. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch SH, Ladd GW. Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology. 1998; 34 :934–946. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau PM, Duncan OD. The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogg T, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004; 130 :887–919. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolger N, Zuckerman A. A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :890–902. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornstein RF. Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment. 1999; 11 :48–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosworth HB, Schaie KW. Survival effects in cognitive function, cognitive style, and sociodemographic variables in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Experimental Aging Research. 1999; 25 :121–139. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Barefoot JC. Hostility, age, and mortality in a sample of cardiac patients. American Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 96 :64–66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Helms MJ, Barefoot JC. Hostility as a predictor of survival in patients with coronary artery disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2004; 66 :629–632. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53 :371–399. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bucher HC, Ragland DR. Socioeconomic indicators and mortality from coronary heart disease and cancer: A 22-year follow-up of middle-aged men. American Journal of Public Health. 1995; 85 :1231–1236. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cairns RB, Cairns BD. Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology. 1987; 23 :308–313. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology. 1988; 24 :824–831. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Roberts BW, Shiner R. Personality development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2005; 56 :453–484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Shiner RL. Personality development. In: Damon W, Lerner R, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 300–365. (Vol. Ed.) [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Shiner RL. Temperament and personality. In: Rutter M, Bishop D, Pine D, Scott S, Stevenson J, Taylor E, Thapar A, editors. Rutter’s child and adolescent psychiatry. 5th ed. London: Blackwell; (in press) [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Wright BR, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Preview. 1998; 63 :424–451. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christensen AJ, Ehlers SL, Wiebe JS, Moran PJ, Raichle K, Ferneyhough K, Lawton WJ. Patient personality and mortality: A 4-year prospective examination of chronic renal insufficiency. Health Psychology. 2002; 21 :315–320. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Claussen B, Davey-Smith G, Thelle D. Impact of childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position on cause specific mortality: The Oslo Mortality Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003; 57 :40–45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. 2005 May; Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf .
• Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Emotional style and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003a; 65 :652–657. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Sociability and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychological Science. 2003b; 14 :389–395. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :175–199. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Contrada RJ, Cather C, O’Leary A. Personality and health: Dispositions and processes in disease susceptibility and adaptation to illness. In: Pervin LA, John OR, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 576–604. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook KW, Vance CA, Spector RE. The relation of candidate personality with selection-interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2000; 30 :867–885. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis S, Southall H, Congdon P, Dodgeon B. Area effects on health variation over the life-course: Analysis of the longitudinal study sample in England using new data on are of residence in childhood. Social Science & Medicine. 2004; 58 :57–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danner DD, Snowden DA, Friesen WV. Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the Nun Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80 :804–813. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davey-Smith G, Hart C, Blane D, Hole D. Adverse socioeconomic conditions in childhood and cause specific adult mortality: Prospective observational study. British Medical Journal. 1998; 316 :1631–1635. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deary IJ, Batty D, Gottfredson LS. Human hierarchies, health, and IQ: Comment. Science. 2005; 309 :703. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deary IJ, Der G. Reaction time explains IQ’s association with death. Psychological Science. 2005; 16 :64–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Fruyt F, Denollet J. Type D personality: A five-factor model perspective. Psychology and Health. 2002; 17 :671–683. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Fruyt F, Van Leeuwen K, Bagby RM, Rolland J, Rouillon F. Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychological Assessment. 2006; 18 :71–80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denollet J, Sys SU, Stroobant N, Rombouts H, Gillebert TC, Brutsaert DL. Personality as independent predictor of long-term mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Lancet. 1996; 347 :417–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnellan MB, Conger RD, Bryant CM. The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality. 2004; 38 :481–504. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doornbos G, Kromhout D. Educational level and mortality in a 32-year follow-up study of 18-year old men in the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1990; 19 :374–379. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eid M, Diener E. Handbook of psychological assessment: A multimethod perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erez A, Judge TA. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86 :1270–1279. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Everson SA, Kauhanen J, Kaplan GA, Goldberg DE, Julkunen J, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT. Hostility and increased risk of mortality and acute myocardial infarction: The mediating role of behavioral risk factors. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1997; 146 :142–152. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Shannon FT. A proportional hazards model of family breakdown. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1984; 46 :539–549. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiscella K, Franks P. Individual income, income inequality, health, and mortality: What are the relationships? Health Services Research. 2000; 35 :307–318. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman HS. Long-term relations of personality and health: Dynamisms, mechanisms, tropisms. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :1089–1108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman HS, Tucker JS, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Schwartz JE, Wingard DL, Criqui MH. Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 65 :176–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funder DC. The personality puzzle. New York: Norton; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 44 :107–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallo LC, Matthews KA. Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :10–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galobardes B, Lynch JW, Smith GD. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances and cause-specific mortality in adulthood: Systematic review and interpretation. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2004; 26 :7–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ganguli M, Dodge HH, Mulsant BH. Rates and predictors of mortality in an aging, rural, community-based cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002; 59 :1046–1052. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giltay EJ, Geleijnse JM, Zitman EG, Hoekstra T, Schouten EG. Dispositional optimism and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly Dutch men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2004; 61 :1126–1135. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg LR. The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In: Funder DC, Parke RD, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Widaman K, editors. Studying lives through time: Personality and development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993a. pp. 169–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist. 1993b; 48 :26–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson GD, Jones EM, Holland JL. Personality and vocational interests: The relation of Holland’s six interest dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1993; 40 :518–524. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM. What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM, Coan J, Carrere S, Swanson C. Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1998; 60 :5–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grossarth-Maticek R, Bastianns J, Kanazir DT. Psychosocial factors as strong predictors of mortality from cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke: The Yugoslav prospective study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1985; 29 :167–176. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haller AO, Portes A. Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education. 1973; 46 :51–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardarson T, Gardarsdottir M, Gudmundsson KT, Thorgeirsson G, Sigvaldason H, Sigfusson N. The relationship between educational level and mortality: The Reykjavik Study. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2001; 249 :495–502. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harms PD, Roberts BW, Winter D. Becoming the Harvard man: Person-environment fit, personality development, and academic success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006; 32 :851–865. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart CL, Taylor MD, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Starr JM, Hole DJ, et al. Childhood IQ, social class, deprivation, and their relationships with mortality and morbidity risk in later life: Prospective observational study linking the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan Studies. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003; 65 :877–883. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauser RM, Tsai S, Sewell WH. A model of stratification with response error in social and psychological variables. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56 :20–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hearn MD, Murray DM, Luepker RV. Hostility, coronary heart disease, and total mortality: A 33-year follow-up study of university students. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1989; 12 :105–121. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helson R. [Unpublished data from the Mills Longitudinal Study] Berkeley: University of California; 2006. Unpublished raw data. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helson R, Roberts BW. Personality of young adult couples and wives’ work patterns. Journal of Personality. 1992; 60 :575–597. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helson R, Roberts BW, Agronick G. Enduringness and change in creative personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :1173–1183. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitude of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist. 2003; 58 :78–79. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heslop P, Smith GD, Macleod J, Hart C. The socioeconomic position of employed women, risk factors and mortality. Social Science and Medicine. 2001; 53 :477–485. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirokawa K, Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Shimizu H. The relationships of a rationality/antiemotionality personality scale to mortalities of cancer and cardiovascular disease in a community population in Japan. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2004; 56 :103–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan J, Holland B. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 :100–112. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holley P, Yabiku S, Benin M. The relationship between intelligence and divorce. Journal of Family Issues. 2006; 27 :1723–1748. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollis JF, Connett JE, Stevens VJ, Greenlick MR. Stressful life events, Type A behavior, and the prediction of cardiovascular and total mortality over six years. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1990; 13 :263–280. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hosegood V, Campbell OMR. Body mass index, height, weight, arm circumference, and mortality in rural Bangladeshi women: A 19-year longitudinal study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2003; 77 :341–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurtz GM, Donovan JJ. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85 :869–879. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, George LJ. The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80 :237–252. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iribarren C, Jacobs DR, Kiefe CI, Lewis CE, Matthews KA, Roseman JM, Hulley SB. Causes and demographic, medical, lifestyle and psychosocial predictors of premature mortality: the CARDIA study. Social Science & Medicine. 2005; 60 :471–482. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jalovaara M. Socio-economic status and divorce in first marriages in Finland 1991–1993. Population Studies. 2001; 55 :119–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jencks C, Crouse J, Mueser P. The Wisconsin model of status attainment: A national replication with improved measures of ability and aspiration. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56 :3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen-Campbell LA, Graziano WG. Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality. 2001; 69 :323–361. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jockin V, McGue M, Lykken DT. Personality and divorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 71 :288–299. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson W, Krueger RF. How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90 :680–691. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :765–780. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Barrick MR. The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology. 1999; 52 :621–652. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :797–807. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan GA, Wilson TW, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wu M, Salonen JT. Social functioning and overall mortality: Prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Epidemiology. 1994; 5 :495–500. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin. 1995; 118 :3–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly EL, Conley JJ. Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987; 52 :27–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenford SL, Smith SS, Wetter DW, Jorenby DE, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Predicting relapse back to smoking: Contrasting affective and physical models of dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2002; 70 :216–227. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khang Y, Kim HR. Explaining socioeconomic inequality in mortality among South Koreans: An examination of multiple pathways in a nationally representative longitudinal study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 34 :630–637. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kinnunen U, Pulkkinen L. Childhood socio-emotional characteristics as antecedents of marital stability and quality. European Psychologist. 2003; 8 :223–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokko K, Bergman LR, Pulkkinen L. Child personality characteristics and selection into long-term unemployment in Finnish and Swedish longitudinal samples. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2003; 27 :134–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokko K, Pulkkinen L. Aggression in childhood and long-term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaptation and some protective factors. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36 :463–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korten AE, Jorm AF, Jaio Z, Letenneur L, Jacomb PA, Henderson AS, et al. Health, cognitive, and psychosocial factors as predictors of mortality in an elderly community sample. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999; 53 :83–88. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J, Rose RJ, Kesaniemi A, Sarna S, Heikkila K, Langinvainio H. Hostility as a risk factor for mortality and ischemic heart disease in men. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1988; 50 :330–340. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuh D, Hardy R, Langenberg C, Richards M, Wadsworth MEJ. Mortality in adults aged 26–54 years related to socioeconomic conditions in childhood and adulthood: Post war birth cohort study. British Medical Journal. 2002; 325 :1076–1080. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuh D, Maclean M. Women’s childhood experience of parental separation and their subsequent health and socioeconomic status in adulthood. Journal of Biosocial Science. 1990; 22 :121–135. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuh D, Richards M, Hardy R, Butterworth S, Wadsworth MEJ. Childhood cognitive ability and deaths up until middle age: A post-war birth cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 33 :408–413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuncel NR, Crede M, Thomas LL. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2007; 6 :51–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127 :162–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004; 86 :148–161. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64 :221–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998; 279 :1703–1708. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawrence E, Bradbury TN. Physical aggression and marital dysfunction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15 :135–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee WE, Wadsorth MEJ, Hotopf M. The protective role of trait anxiety: S longitudinal cohort study. Psychological Medicine. 2006; 36 :345–351. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LePine JA, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Hedlund J. Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g . Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997; 82 :803–811. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis M. Issues in the study of personality development. Psychological Inquiry. 2001; 12 :67–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loeb J. The personality factor in divorce. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1966; 30 :562. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lund R, Holstein BE, Osler M. Marital history from age 15 to 40 years and subsequent 10-year mortality: A longitudinal study of Danish males born in 1953. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 33 :389–397. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luster T, McAdoo H. Family and child influences on educational attainment: A secondary analysis of the High/Scope Perry preschool data. Developmental Psychology. 1996; 32 :26–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wilson TW, Smith NL, Salonen JT. Childhood and adult socioeconomic status as predictors of mortality in Finland. Lancet. 1994; 343 :424–527. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maier H, Smith J. Psychological predictors of mortality in old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1999; 54B :44–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin LT, Friedman HS. Comparing personality scales across time: An illustrative study of validity and consistency in life-span archival data. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :85–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin LT, Kubzansky LD. Childhood cognitive performance and risk of mortality: A prospective cohort study of gifted individuals. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 162 :887–890. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maruta T, Colligan RC, Malinchoc M, Offord KP. Optimists vs. pessimists: Survival rate among medical patients over a 30-year period. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2000; 75 :140–143. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maruta T, Hamburgen ME, Jennings CA, Offord KP, Colligan RC, Frye RL, Malinchoc M. Keeping hostility in perspective: Coronary heart disease and the hostility scale on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1993; 68 :109–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer JD. A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate psychology? American Psychologist. 2005; 60 :294–307. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarron P, Gunnell D, Harrison GL, Okasha M, Davey-Smith G. Temperament in young adulthood and later mortality: Prospective observational study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003; 57 :888–892. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCranie EW, Kahan J. Personality and multiple divorce. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1986; 174 :161–164. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrainie EW, Watkins LO, Brandsma JM, Sisson BD. Hostility, coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence, and total mortality: Lack of association in a 25-year follow-up study of 478 physicians. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1986; 9 :119–125. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meehl RE. High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1971; 77 :143–148. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mershon B, Gorsuch RL. Number of factors in personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 55 :675–680. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer GJ, Finn SE, Eyde LD, Kay GG, Moreland KL, Dies RR, et al. Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist. 2001; 56 :128–165. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller GE, Cohen S, Rabin BS, Skoner DR, Doyle WJ. Personality and tonic cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune parameters. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 1999; 13 :109–123. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mroczek DK, Spiro A. Personality change influences mortality in older men. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :371–376. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murberg TA, Bru E, Aarsland T. Personality as predictor of mortality among patients with congestive heart failure: A two-year follow-up study. Personality and Individual Differences. 2001; 30 :749–757. [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers DG. The American paradox: Spiritual hunger in an age of plenty. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orbuch TL, Veroff J, Hassan H, Horrocks J. Who will divorce: A 14-year longitudinal study of black couples and white couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2002; 19 :179–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osler M, Andersen AN, Due P, Lund R, Damsgaard MT, Holstein BE. Socioeconomic position in early life, birth weight, childhood cognitive function, and adult mortality. A longitudinal study of Danish men born in 1953. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health. 2003; 57 :681–686. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osler M, Prescott E, Gronbaek M, Christensen U, Due P, Enghorn G. Income inequality, individual income, and mortality in Danish adults: Analysis of pooled data from two cohort studies. British Medical Journal. 2002; 324 :1–4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozer DJ, Benet-Martinez V. Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006; 57 :401–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul AM. The cult of personality. New York: Free Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paunonen SV. Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 74 :538–556. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paunonen SV, Ashton MC. Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 81 :524–539. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pervin LA, John OP. Handbook of personality theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson C, Seligman MER, Yurko KH, Martin LR, Friedman HS. Catastrophizing and untimely death. Psychological Science. 1998; 2 :127–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson RA, Brown SR. On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90 :175–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131 :925–971. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pudaric S, Sundquist J, Johansson S. Country of birth, instrumental activities of daily living, self-rated health and mortality: A Swedish population-based survey of people aged 55–74. Social Science and Medicine. 2003; 56 :2439–2503. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rapee RM, Kennedy S, Ingram M, Edwards S, Sweeney L. Prevention and early intervention of anxiety disorders in inhibited preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005; 73 :488–497. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiss HT, Capobianco A, Tsai FT. Finding the person in personal relationships. Journal of Personality. 2002; 70 :813–850. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW. Blessings, banes, and possibilities in the study of childhood personality. Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 2005; 51 :367–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW. Personality development and organizational behavior. In: Staw BM, editor. Research on organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press; 2006. pp. 1–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Bogg T. A 30-year longitudinal study of the relationships between conscientiousness-related traits, and the family structure and health-behavior factors that affect health. Journal of Personality. 2004; 72 :325–354. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Caspi A, Moffitt T. Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84 :582–593. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Robins RW. Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of the Big Five dimensions and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000; 26 :1284–1296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Walton K, Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2006; 132 :1–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Wood D. Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In: Mroczek D, Little T, editors. Handbook of personality development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 11–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of a relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 79 :251–259. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. It’s not just who you’re with, it’s who you are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality. 2002; 70 :925–964. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roisman GE, Masten AS, Coatsworth D, Tellegen A. Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development. 2004; 75 :123–133. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R. How are we doing in soft psychology. American Psychologist. 1990; 45 :775–777. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Rev. ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R. Effect sizes in behavioral and biomedical research. In: Bicman L, editor. Validity and social experimentation: Don Campbell’s legacy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2000. pp. 121–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. R equivalent : A simple effect size indicator. Psychological Methods. 2003; 8 :492–496. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross L, Nisbett RE. The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbart MK, Bates JE. Temperament. In: Damon W, Lerner R, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 99–166. (Vol. Ed.) [ Google Scholar ]
• Rozanski A, Blumenthal JA, Kaplan J. Impact of psychological factors on the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease and implications for therapy. Circulation. 1999; 99 :2192–2217. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sapolsky RM. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science. 2005; 308 :648–652. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarason IG, Smith RE, Diener E. Personality research: Components of variance attributable to the person and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975; 32 :199–204. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saucier G. An alternative multi-language structure for personality attributes. European Journal of Personality. 2003; 76 :179–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaie KW. The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :304–313. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheier MF, Carver CS. On the power of positive thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1993; 2 :26–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin. 1998; 124 :262–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz R, Bookwala J, Knapp JE, Scheier M, Williamson GM. Pessimism, age, and cancer mortality. Psychology and Aging. 1996; 11 :304–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seibert SE, Kraimer ML, Crant JM. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology. 2001; 54 :845–874. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Haller AO, Portes A. The educational and early occupational process. American Sociological Review. 1969; 34 :82–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The Wisconsin longitudinal study of social and psychological factors in aspirations and achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. 1980; 1 :59–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The influence of The American Occupational Structure on the Wisconsin model. Contemporary Sociology. 1992; 21 :598–603. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shiner RL. An emerging developmental science of personality: Current progress and future prospects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2005; 51 :379–387. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shipley BA, Der G, Taylor MD, Deary IJ. Cognition and all-cause mortality across the entire adult age range: Health and lifestyle survey. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2006; 68 :17–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skolnick A. Married lives: Longitudinal perspectives on marriage. In: Eichorn DH, Clausen JA, Haan N, Honzik MP, Mussen PH, editors. Present and past in midlife. New York: Academic Press; 1981. pp. 270–300. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith AW, Meitz JEG. Vanishing supermoms and other trends in marital dissolution, 1969–1978. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1985; 47 :53–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TW. Personality as risk and resilience in physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2006; 15 :227–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TW, Gallo L. Personality traits as risk factors for physical illness. In: Baum A, Evenson T, Singer J, editors. Handbook of health psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. pp. 139–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder M, Stukas A. Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999; 50 :273–303. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steenland K, Henley J, Thun M. All-cause and cause-specific death rates by educational status for two million people in two American Cancer Society cohorts, 1959–1996. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 156 :11–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• St. John PD, Montgomery PR, Kristjansson B, McDowell I. Cognitive scores, even with the normal range, predict death and institutionalization. Age and Ageing. 2002; 31 :373–378. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suls J, Martin R. The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality. 2005; 73 :1485–1509. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Day NE, Khaw K. Prospective cohort study of hostility and the risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. International Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 100 :155–161. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Khaw K, Day NE. Sense of coherence and mortality in men and women in the EPIC-Norfolk United Kingdom prospective cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 158 :1202–1209. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor MD, Hart CL, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Hole DJ, Wilson V, Deary IJ. Childhood IQ and marriage by mid-life: The Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 38 :1621–1630. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tenconi MT, Devoti G, Comelli M RIFLE Research Group. Role of socioeconomic indicators in the prediction of all causes and coronary heart disease mortality in over 12,000 men—The Italian RIFLE pooling project. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2000; 16 :565–571. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tharenou P. Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management? Academy of Management Journal. 2001; 44 :1005–1017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucker JS, Kressin NR, Spiro A, Ruscio J. Intrapersonal characteristics and the timing of divorce: A prospective investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998; 15 :211–225. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tzeng JM, Mare RD. Labor market and socioeconomic effects on marital stability. Social Science Research. 1995; 24 :329–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vagero D, Leon D. Effect of social class in childhood and adulthood on adult mortality. Lancet. 1994; 343 :1224–1225. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson D, Hubbard B, Wiese D. General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self-and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :413–449. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiss A, Costa PT. Domain and facet personality predictors of all-cause mortality among Medicare patients aged 65 to 100. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67 :1–10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whalley LJ, Deary IJ. Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. British Medical Journal. 2001; 322 :1–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RS, Bienias JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA, Bennet DA. Negative affect and mortality in older persons. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 9 :827–835. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Gu L, Bienas JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA. Neuroticism, extraversion, and mortality in a defined population of older persons. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67 :841–845. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RS, Mendes de Leon CF, Bienias JL, Evans DA, Bennett DA. Personality and mortality in old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 2004; 59 :110–116. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review. 2001; 26 :179–201. [ Google Scholar ]

• Create new account

The Big Five Personality Test

Accurately measure your key personality traits.

This free personality test gives you accurate scores for the Big Five personality traits . See exactly how you score for Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism with this scientific personality assessment.

To take the Big Five personality assessment, rate each statement according to how well it describes you. Base your ratings on how you really are, not how you would like to be.

Big Five Personality Test FAQ

Q. what is the big five personality test based on.

A. The Big Five personality test is a comprehensive personality inventory based on decades of psychological research. Psychologists and academic researchers investigating the fundamental traits of personality found repeatedly that people's personality differences naturally sort into five broad dimensions, referred to as the Big Five.

Today, the consensus among the scientific community is that human personality is most accurately described in terms of these Big Five personality traits. The Big Five model of personality is widely considered to be the most scientifically valid way to describe personality differences and is the basis of most current personality research.

Q. What are the Big Five personality traits?

A. The "Big Five" or Five Factors refers to the five major personality dimensions that psychologists have determined are core to our individual makeup. The Big Five personality traits are:

• Openness - How open a person is to new ideas and experiences
• Conscientiousness - How goal-directed, persistent, and organized a person is
• Extraversion - How much a person is energized by the outside world
• Agreeableness - How much a person puts others' interests and needs ahead of their own
• Neuroticism - How sensitive a person is to stress and negative emotional triggers

Each of the Big Five personality traits is considered to drive a significant aspect of cognition (how we think) and behavior (how we act). Each trait is completely distinct and independent of the other four traits; for instance, a highly Extraverted person is no more or less likely to be highly Conscientious as well.

For an individual, each of the Big Five personality traits is measured along a spectrum, so that one can be high, medium, or low in that particular trait. This makes the Big Five model distinct from many pop psychology systems that classify people in terms of personality "types." In the Big Five framework, rather than being sorted into types, people are described in terms of how they compare with the average across each of the five personality traits.

Q. How long is the Big Five test?

A. The test consists of 60 questions and takes about 5-10 minutes to complete.

Q. What will my Big Five test results look like?

A. You will first see a brief, free report showing the basic findings of your personality test. Then, you have the option of unlocking your full report for a small fee. To see what you can expect from your full report, check out this sample Big Five report .

Q. How can I access my Big Five personality test results?

A. After you take a test, you will have the option to create an account by entering your email address. If you create an account, you can view your test results at any time by returning to Truity.com and logging into your account. We do not email your results to you.

Q. Do I need to complete this personality test all at once?

A. If you’ve created an account and are logged in when you take the test, your responses will be saved as you go through the test. If you do not log in to a Truity account before starting the test, your progress will not be saved and you will need to complete the test all at once.

Q. Is this personality test really free?

A. You do not need to purchase or register to take this test and view an overview of your results. If you would like, you can purchase a more comprehensive full report for a small fee.

Q. Is this Big Five personality test accurate?

A. This test has been researched extensively to ensure it is valid and reliable. It is based on psychological research into the core of personality and Truity’s own psychometric research. Your scores show you how you compare to the other people in a large, international sample for each of the Big Five personality traits. You can learn more in the Big Five Personality Test Technical Documentation .

Q. What does it mean that the Big Five test is clinically reviewed?

A. Truity's Big Five test has been reviewed by a psychologist to ensure that it has been developed according to rigorous standards of reliability and validity. Our clinical reviewer, Dr. Steven Melendy, holds a doctoral degree in clinical psychology and specializes in using evidence-based approaches to work with diverse populations.

Q. Can I have my employees, team or group take the Big Five test?

A. Absolutely. Our Truity @ Work platform is designed to make it easy to give the Big Five personality test to your team or group. See discounted group pricing and learn how to quickly and easily set up testing for your group on the Testing for Business page.

Q. What is the difference between Big Five, Five Factor, and the OCEAN model of personality?

A. Big Five , Five Factor, and OCEAN are all ways of describing the same theory of personality. Multiple psychological studies have arrived at the conclusion that the differences between people's personalities can be organized into five broad categories, called the Big Five or Five Factors. These are sometimes referred to as the five broad dimensions of personality.

Q. Are you going to sell my data?

A. . We do not sell your email or other data to any third parties, and we have a zero-spam policy. We carefully comply with applicable privacy laws in handling your personal information. You can read more in our privacy policy .

Get Our Newsletter