Personality, Positivity and Happiness: A Mediation Analysis Using a Bifactor Model
- 1.5k Downloads
Recent studies suggested an important role of neuroticism and extraversion facets as incremental predictors of subjective well-being outcomes. Research has shown that positive cognitions mediated the relation between personality traits and well-being. The present study examined the relationship between neuroticism and extraversion, measured as general and group factors, and subjective happiness through a general positivity factor. 770 community participants (69.4 % females; M = 55.34; SD = 16.01) completed personality, satisfaction with life, optimism, self-esteem, and subjective happiness scales. A bifactor model was used to parse general and specific variance components for multifaceted constructs. The general positivity factor completely mediated neuroticism-subjective happiness relationships and overlapped with general neuroticism, whilst it partially mediated extraversion-subjective happiness ones. Other paths to happiness involved cheerfulness and enthusiasm. Assertiveness, activity level and excitement-seeking had a weak relationship with subjective happiness and only through positivity. Gregariousness and friendliness had neither direct nor indirect effects on subjective happiness. Life satisfaction had a twofold role as a component of positivity as well as providing an independent contribution to variance in subjective happiness. In keeping with previous research, neuroticism acted as a sort of general negativity factor. Cheerfulness and extraversion made an incremental contribution to variance in subjective happiness. Our findings support the utility of a multifaceted approach to study pathways from personality to well-being. Theoretical and practical implications for promoting well-being were discussed.
KeywordsPositivity Life satisfaction Subjective happiness Mediation Bifactor model Personality facets
The authors would like to thank Lucrezia Bottiglieri, Federica Maria Gioia, Claudia Pucci for their essential contribution in data collection and for their active participation in the coding phase of this study. We are grateful to Federico Brugnoni, Valentina Cafaro, Erika Graci, Sara Pompili, and Maria Chiara Sabatino for their precious collaboration in data collection, and to Antonio Krase for English reviewing. We also thank Dr. Francesco Florenzano and Upter’s staff to allow and facilitate the data collection.
Marco Lauriola and Luca Iani equally contributed to the conception, design, analyses, and interpretation of data, and to the writing of this manuscript.
- Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Caprara, G. V. (2009). Positive orientation: Turning potentials into optimal functioning. The Bulletin of the European Health Psychologist, 11, 46–48.Google Scholar
- Lightsey, O. R., Jr., Boyraz, G., Ervin, A., Rarey, E. B., Gharibian Gharghani, G., & Maxwell, D. (2014). Generalized self-efficacy, positive cognitions, and negative cognitions as mediators of the relationship between conscientiousness and meaning in life. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46, 436–445. doi: 10.1037/a0034022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality theories and models (Vol. 1, pp. 273–295). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781849200462.n13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Raykov, T. (2012). Scale construction and development using structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 472–492). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Ruiz, M. Á., Sanjuan, P., Pérez-García, A. M., & Rueda, B. (2011). Relations between life satisfaction, adjustment to illness, and emotional distress in a sample of men with ischemic cardiopathy. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(01), 356–365. doi: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. doi: 10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weber, M., Ruch, W., Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Gai, O. (2013). Relationships among higher-order strengths factors, subjective well-being, and general self-efficacy—The case of Israeli adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 322–327. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Kite, M. E. (2013). Principles of research in behavioral science (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Zentner, M., & Bates, J. E. (2008). Child temperament: An integrative review of concepts, research programs, and measures. European Journal of Developmental Science, 2, 7–37.Google Scholar