Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1509–1523 | Cite as

Extraversion–Emotional Stability Circumplex Traits and Subjective Well-Being

  • Megan B. MorrisEmail author
  • Gary N. Burns
  • David A. Periard
  • Elizabeth A. Shoda
Research Paper


Drawing upon arguments for the interaction of extraversion and emotional stability in predicting subjective well-being (SWB), we examined the relationship between the extraversion–emotional stability International Personality Item Pool Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) traits and SWB (NA, PA, and life satisfaction). This AB5C circumplex measures emotional stability and extraversion as well as two positive blends and two negative blends of these traits. Results indicated that the positive blends of extraversion and emotional stability, happiness and poise, were not only correlated with SWB but also explained incremental validity over their Big Five factors. The negative blends of extraversion and emotional stability, talkativeness and impulse control, did not show the same pattern as the positive blends but did display some curvilinear relationships with SWB. While still fitting into the Big Five model, these circumplex traits offer a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between personality and SWB.


Circumplex Personality Extraversion Emotional stability Subjective well-being AB5C 


  1. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowling, N. A., Burns, G. N., Stewart, S. M., & Gruys, M. L. (2011). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as moderators of the relationship between neuroticism and counterproductive work behaviors: A constructive replication. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, G. N., Morris, M. B., & Wright, C. P. (2014). Conceptual and statistical interactions: An illustration with the ABC5 and CWBs. Journal of Business Psychology, 29, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. P. (1986). Labs, fields, and straw issues. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 269–279). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Costa, P. T, Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T, Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  8. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, T., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 249–268). London, UK: Routledge Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the big-five and circumplex approach to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hotard, S. R., McFatter, R. M., McWhirter, R. M., & Stegall, M. E. (1989). Interactive effects of extraversion, neuroticism, and social relationships on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the five factor model with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Judge, T. A., & Erez, A. (2007). Interaction and intersection: The constellation of emotional stability and extraversion in predicting performance. Personnel Psychology, 60, 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1980). The measurement of happiness: Development of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSH). Journal of Gerontology, 35, 906–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynn, M., & Steel, P. (2006). National differences in subjective well-being: The interactive effects of extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T, Jr. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McFatter, R. M. (1994). Interactions in predicting mood from extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 570–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Personality and life satisfaction: A facet-level analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tonidandel, S., LeBreton, J. M., & Johnson, J. W. (2009). Determining the statistical significance of relative weights. Psychological Methods, 14, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. E. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1992). Personality: Structure and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 473–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan B. Morris
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gary N. Burns
    • 1
  • David A. Periard
    • 1
  • Elizabeth A. Shoda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations