The Relationships Between Temperament, Character Strengths, and Resilience

  • Ann-Marie K. Hutchinson
  • Anita D. Stuart
  • Hester G. Pretorius
Chapter

Abstract

Although most modern psychologists and researchers agree that both nature and nurture play a role in the development of individuals, much research has focused on the role of nature and nurture in mental illness and has largely neglected investigating the interface of nature vs. nurture in psychological wellness. One psychological construct that focuses on the biological aspect of individuals is temperament. In the current study, the extent to which temperament is associated with character strengths, sense of coherence, and resilience was investigated. This was achieved by administering four self-report questionnaires on a sample of male and female young adults (N = 620) from a tertiary institution. The questionnaires used were the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Teta, Joireman & Kraft, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:757–768, 1993), the Values in Action – Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) (Peterson & Seligman, Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification, 2004), the Sense of Coherence Scale (Antonovsky, Unravelling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. 1987) and the Resilience Scale (Wagnild & Young, Journal of Nursing Measurement 1:165–178, 1993). Both Pearson’s and canonical correlations indicated statistically significant correlations between resilience (measured by the Sense of Coherence Scale and Resilience Scale) and temperament as well as between character strengths and temperament. Furthermore, logistic regression models indicated that dimensions of temperament were able to explain high or low levels of the dimensions of resilience and character strengths well, with percentage correctly predicted for the various models ranging from 64.6% to 76.3%.

References

  1. Aluja, A., Garcia, O., & Garcia, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman’s three structural models for personality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R, EPQ-RS and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, E. J., & Cohler, B. J. (Eds.). (1987). The invulnerable child. New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
  3. Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Antonovsky, A. (1993). Complexity, conflict, chaos, coherence, coercion, and civility. Social Science and Medicine Journal, 37(8), 969–981.Google Scholar
  5. Bates, J. E., & Wachs, T. D. (1994). Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohart, A. C., & Greening, T. (2001). Humanistic psychology and positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 81–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brdar, B., & Kashdan, T. (2009). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 151–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Cowen, E. L., & Kilmer, R. P. (2002). “Positive psychology”: Some plusses and some open issues. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erikkson, M., & Lindstrom, B. (2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(6), 460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacDonald, C., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the Big 5: An empirical indication of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 787–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. McLafferty, C. L., & Kirylo, J. D. (2001). Prior positive psychologists proposed personality and spiritual growth. American Psychologist, 56, 84–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murphy, L. B., & Moriarty, A. (1976). Vulnerability, coping and growth: From infancy to adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Santrock, J. W. (2003). Adolescence (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Positive psychology: Fundamental assumptions. The Psychologist, 16, 126–127.Google Scholar
  20. Shryack, J., Steger, M. F., Krueger, R. F., & Kallie, C. S. (2010). The structure of virtue: An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the virtues in action inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 714–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Steger, M. F., Hicks, B. M., Kashdan, T. B., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on the positive traits of the values in action classification: Findings from a twin study. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 524–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strelau, J., Farley, F. H., & Gale, A. (Eds.). (1986). The biological bases of personality and behaviour (Vol. I). Washington: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  24. Strümpfer, D. J. W. (1990). Salutogenesis: A new paradigm. South African Journal of Psychology, 20(4), 265–276.Google Scholar
  25. Strümpfer, D. J. W. (1995). The origins of health and strength: From ‘salutogenesis’ to ‘fortigenesis’. South African Journal of Psychology, 25(2), 81–87.Google Scholar
  26. Strümpfer, D. J. W. (2006). The strengths perspective: Fortigenesis in adult life. Social Indicators Research, 77, 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invisible: A study of resilient children. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Wissing, M. P., & Van Eeden, C. (2002). Empirical clarification of the nature of psychological well-being. South African Journal of Psychology, 32, 32–44.Google Scholar
  30. Zuckerman, M. (2002). Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ): An alternative five-factor model. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 377–396). Toronto: Hogrefe/Huber.Google Scholar
  31. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Teta, P., Joireman, J., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models of personality: The big three, the big five and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann-Marie K. Hutchinson
    • 1
  • Anita D. Stuart
    • 1
  • Hester G. Pretorius
    • 1
  1. 1.University of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations