Traits, personal strivings and well-being

Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 535–546

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ j rp

Traits, personal strivings and well-being

Estrella Romero *, Paula Villar, M. Ángeles Luengo, José A. Gómez-FraguelaDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Facultad de Psicología, Campus Sur, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 28 March 2009

Keywords:TraitsStrivingsGoalsWell-beingAdults

0092-6566/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.006

* Corresponding author. Fax: +34 981 521581.E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Romero

a b s t r a c t

Traits and motivational units are two elements of widely acknowledged relevance in personality psychol-ogy. In fact, some multi-level models have stressed the differences between traits, which are the mostgeneric and decontextualized units of analysis, and middle-level units, which are more closely relatedto motivational processes and more contextualized in time, space or specific roles. Personal strivings,which are defined as what people typically intend to do, hold a prominent place among middle-levelunits. Nevertheless, surprisingly little is still known about the relationship between traits and strivingdimensions; likewise, little is known about the inter-relationships between traits, strivings and well-being. In this study, we used the NEO-PI-R, Personal Striving Assessment Packet (PSAP) and variouswell-being measures (viz., positive affect, negative affect, satisfaction with life and purpose in life) ona sample of 405 adults. We found Neuroticism and Extraversion to be related to perceived efficacy inthe struggle for strivings; Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness to relate to striving inten-sity dimensions, and a variety of striving dimensions to be significantly related to well-being. A jointanalysis of traits, strivings and well-being revealed that traits may indirectly affect well-being via specificstriving dimensions, although the mediational effects are slight and both traits and strivings appear tomake separate significant contributions to the prediction of well-being. Broadly speaking, the results sug-gest that units of analysis originating from rather disparate traditions should be integrated in order todevelop a consilient view of personality levels.

� 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tions are constructs representing the manner in which traits mate-

The identification of appropriate units for studying personalityhas been one of the most debated subjects in the history of person-ality psychology (see Little, 2005; McAdams, 1995; Pervin, 1994;Romero, 2005). The problem was first raised at the very inceptionof the discipline, when Allport (1940) asked himself What unitsshall we employ? and it has gone through repeated revision overtime.

In the last few decades, some authors have developed specificframeworks to articulate and integrate personality units. The mostoutstanding frameworks share a common interest in classifyingpersonality components in terms of contextualization and stability.One of the most popular models in this respect is that proposed byMcCrae and Costa (1999), who distinguish between ‘‘basic tenden-cies” and ‘‘characteristic adaptations”. Basic tendencies are viewedas the universal raw material of personality, with personality traitslying at their very core. Traits are defined as basic, endogenous, sta-ble, hierarchically structured basic dispositions governed by bio-logical factors such as genes and brain structures, and, accordingto McCrae and Costa, the domains in the Five-Factor Model lie atthe top of the hierarchy. On the other hand, characteristic adapta-

ll rights reserved.

).

rialize in a specific environment, culture or life stage; as such,characteristic adaptations encompass habits, attitudes, interests,acquired skills, beliefs, goals, expectations and plans.

One other widely known proposal in this context is that byMcAdams (1995), who distinguishes three levels of personalityunits; two such levels (I and II) are similar to the distinction madeby McCrae and Costa (1999) between basic tendencies and charac-teristic adaptations. Thus, Level I is occupied by traits, which aredefined as comparative, stable, relatively decontextualized unitsproviding a rough draft of a person (a scheme of his or her typicalbehavioral patterns). Level II consists of a heterogeneous body ofunits which McAdams (1995) originally termed ‘‘personal con-cerns”; such units are defined in terms of motivation, strategiesand development, and describe (a) what people seek during spe-cific periods or in specific areas of their lives and (b) what specificmethods (plans and strategies) they use to achieve it. Unlike traits,personal concerns are contextualized in time, space and/or specificroles. In addition, McAdams identified a third level in which heplaced personal narratives, via which people construct their iden-tities and provide integration and uniqueness to their lives.

The second level of personal concerns (McAdams, 1995) orcharacteristic adaptations (McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa,1999) is a body of fuzzily defined units for which other authorshave coined designations such as ‘‘middle-level units” (Buss &

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00926566

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

536 E. Romero et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 535–546

Cantor, 1989) or ‘‘personal action constructs” (PACs; Little, Lecci, &Watkinson, 1992). The variety of terms used for this concept re-flects the great interest these units have aroused among personal-ity psychologists in recent times, and also the lack of consensus ontheir essential features. Notwithstanding the disparity, it seemsclear that Level II has a prominent place for a body of units associ-ated with the concept of goal and with directionality in people’sbehavior. Some authors (e.g., Cantor, 1990), following Allport, haveillustrated the difference between traits and middle-level units bycomparing ‘‘having” with ‘‘doing” or what personality ‘‘is” withwhat personality ‘‘does” (i.e., goals, efforts and strategies broughtinto play to achieve them).

A sizeable amount of research, especially that conducted sincethe 1980s, has revived interest in motivation as a personality keyand has focused on the objectives people try to approach or avoid;concepts such as ‘‘current concerns” (Klinger, 1977), ‘‘life tasks”(Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987), ‘‘personal projects” (Little, 1983) and‘‘personal strivings” (Emmons, 1986) constitute a new generationof units intended to capture the intentions governing people’sbehavior in their everyday lives.

Within this amalgam of units encompassing the telic dimensionof personality, the ‘‘personal strivings” proposed by Emmons(1986), play a prominent role. According to Emmons, personalstrivings encapsulate ‘‘what individuals are characteristically aim-ing to accomplish through their behavior” (Emmons, 1986, p.1059). The concept of strivings stems from ‘‘teleonomic trends”, aconcept proposed by Floyd Allport (1937) and, unlike other mid-dle-level units, strivings do not represent anecdotal goals, whichcan be trivial objectives in the general dynamics of personality(e.g., ‘‘change the oil in the car”), but rather what individuals in-tend to do in a recurrent, frequent, typical manner (e.g., ‘‘make lifeeasier for my family”, ‘‘feel competent and efficacious”); therefore,they seemingly lie at a more dispositional level of analysis, one thatis more appropriate for studying regularities in personality.

Like other middle-level units, strivings have been dealt withidiographically and nomothetically. Initially, individuals generatetheir own strivings freely. Then, such strivings are rated in a com-mon body of appraisal dimensions (Striving Assessment Scales,SAS). The dimensions (17 in the version by Emmons (1999)) in-clude the affective tonality of strivings (Happiness, Unhappiness),Probability of Success, Clarity, Effort, perceived Progress and re-ceived Support; also, based on concepts derived from the self-determination theory (see Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kasser & Ryan,1993; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), assessments include the perceivedorigin of strivings (Extrinsic, Intrinsic, Introjected, Identified). Inaddition, individuals are asked to assess to what extent their striv-ings are mutually supportive or interfering in order to obtain a glo-bal measure of ‘‘Instrumentality” between strivings. The SASprobably require better clarification as regards structure (whatare the factors underlying these dimensions?) and comprehensive-ness (do they encompass all aspects relevant to goal appraisal?);however they constitute one of the goal assessment systems ofgreatest heuristic value in the study of middle-level units in recentyears.

Despite the interest focused on middle-level units in the lasttwo decades, little is known about their relationship with traits,a deficiency that substantially limits our knowledge about the inte-grative functions of personality. Although some studies have re-lated traits to motivational constructs such as personal projects,goals and values (Little et al., 1992; Roberts & Robins, 2000; Roccas,Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002; Turban, Tan, Brown, & Sheldon,2007; Wang & Erdheim, 2007), research into the relationships be-tween traits and personal strivings is particularly scarce. The pres-ent study was intended to bridge the gap by examining therelationships between traits as defined according to the Five-FactorModel and the appraisal dimensions of strivings; we determined to

what extent traits are connected with aspects such as the impor-tance given to strivings, the difficulty perceived in struggling fortheir achievement, the clarity with which they are establishedand, in general, the scales proposed by Emmons to characterizeindividual strivings. The original scheme of McCrae and Costa(1999) assumes that basic tendencies are a source of influencefor characteristic adaptations. Accordingly, one can assume thattraits, which are generalized dispositions, influence the way peopledefine, organize and pursue their strivings in everyday life; in otherwords, it seems reasonable to assume that ‘‘having” influences‘‘doing”.

In fact, some hypothesis about the relationships between theFive Factors and striving dimensions can be derived from previousliterature. Firstly, both the nature of Neuroticism itself and thefindings of previous studies involving personal projects (e.g., Littleet al., 1992) enable us to predict that Neuroticism will be related tothose dimensions that indicate little progress and high stress in thepursuit of strivings. Secondly, it is expected that Extraversion willbe associated with an optimistic perception of strivings: high prob-ability of success, good progress, and high level of happiness asso-ciated with achieving the strivings. Thirdly, Openness has beenfound in other studies to be correlated with goal dimensions thatindicate a high degree of congruence with values and with self-identity (Little et al., 1992); it may therefore be hypothesized, thatin the present study Openness will be related to the perception oflittle ambivalence in strivings, a high importance, and also a highself-identification with the strivings. Fourthly, it is expected thatindividuals high in Agreeableness, interpersonally oriented, willperceive a high level of support from others; in accordance withthe results of Little et al. (1992), it is also expected that Agreeable-ness will be associated with dimensions that are indicative of lowstress and, presumably also a high degree of efficacy in achievinggoals. In comparison with those individuals with low scores forAgreeableness, agreeable individuals might be more likely to re-ceive social support in the pursuit their goals, and this might trans-late into better results in achieving their goals, in a process of‘‘communal mastery” (Hobfoll, Jackson, Hobfoll, Pierce, & Young,2002) or shared efficacy, which appears particularly relevant tocollectivist cultures such as the Spanish culture. Fifthly, it ishypothesized that Conscientiousness will be related to dimensionsthat indicate organization, clarity and efficacy in achieving goals.

The present study also focuses on the relationships betweentraits, strivings and well-being. Well-being has been widely exam-ined by both trait (see Diener & Lucas, 1999) and middle-level unitresearchers (see Schmuck & Sheldon, 2001). The sizeable body ofresearch gathered so far in this context has revealed that traitscan be used as effective predictors of well-being (DeNeve & Cooper,1998); also, a number of studies have related well-being to the waypeople set their goals, the reasons for their pursuit, and progresstowards or conflict between them (Lecci, Okun, & Karoly, 1994;McGregor & Little, 1998; McGregor, McAdams, & Little, 2006; Shel-don, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004; Spence, Oades, & Caputi, 2004). Infact, research into personal strivings has invariably been closelybound to the study of well-being (Emmons, 1986, 1996, 1999).The aim of the present study was to contribute new knowledgeto the existing body of research by elucidating the relationships be-tween the appraisal dimensions of strivings and well-being.Although some authors have previously pursued a similar objec-tive (see the seminal study by Emmons (1986)), in the presentstudy we used the refined, expanded version of Emmons (1999),and compiled data about the relationships between such dimen-sions, in their current version, and well-being. Also, in analyzingwell-being, we used both ‘‘hedonic” measures (viz., negative andpositive affect, satisfaction with life) and a measure of purpose inlife, more representative of the ‘‘eudemonic” tradition (Deci &Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993). To our minds,

E. Romero et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 535–546 537

including eudemonic aspects related to meaning and purpose in astudy on strivings was especially pertinent since strivings may bethe vehicles whereby people give meaning to their lives (see Wong& Fry, 1998).

Based on previous research (e.g., Emmons, 1999; Schmuck &Sheldon, 2001), one can formulate a series of hypotheses regardingthe relationships between striving dimensions and well-being.Thus, it is expected that those dimensions that indicate progress,clarity and efficacy in achieving goals, will be positively relatedto well-being; it may also be expected that dimensions indicativeof social and environmental support will be related to well-being.It is expected, however, that conflict between strivings will have anegative effect on well-being (Emmons & King, 1988). As regardsthe perceived origin of strivings, it is hypothesized that a high levelof well-being will be associated with the perception that strivingshave an intrinsic origin and/or are consistent with the internal val-ues of the individual (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Sheldon, 2004). Further-more, in accordance with McGregor and Little (1998), we mayhypothesize that the dimensions that reflect efficacy in the pursuitof strivings will be more closely related with hedonic indicators ofwell-being; the dimensions most closely related to importance andself-congruence will be most closely related to eudemonicindicators.

One other objective of this study was to examine the network ofrelationships among traits, strivings and well-being. Specifically,because strivings are positioned at a more contextualized leveland more closely related to behavioral and emotional outcomesthan traits, our hypothesis is that strivings may function as medi-ators between traits and well-being. In fact, McCrae and Costathemselves believe that characteristic adaptations constitute vehi-cles that transfer the influence of traits to emotional reactions andbehavior. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand how traits,essentially distal units, affect such a consequential life criterionas well-being. The ways personal strivings are established, orga-nized and pursued may constitute good candidate mediators.

In summary, our starting questions were as follows: in whatway are traits related to striving appraisal dimensions? How aretraits and striving dimensions related to well-being? Is there a dif-ferential pattern of relationships when considering hedonic andeudemonic aspects or well-being separately? Finally, do strivingdimensions mediate the relationship between traits and well-being?

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 405 adults (247 females and 158 males) aged 21–55years (mean age 31.87, standard deviation 7.97) took part in thestudy. Ninety-nine (24.4%) were undergraduate students pursuinghigher courses in pedagogical studies at a public university in Gali-cia, NW Spain, and 308 were adults from the general population re-cruited for a voluntary personality study from the closeenvironment of psychology and pedagogy students. As regards le-vel of education, 11.3% of individuals in the latter group had ele-mentary studies, 68.1% secondary studies and 2.6% universitystudies. Participants were instructed to complete a questionnairebooklet and return it within one week, and received a brief person-ality report in reward.

2.2. Variables and instruments

2.2.1. TraitsTraits were evaluated in accordance with the Five-Factor Mod-

el, using the Spanish version of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae,1992) published by TEA Ediciones (1999). The NEO-PI-R is a

widely known personality assessment instrument that rates the‘‘big five” domains of personality, namely: Neuroticism (N), Extra-version (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A) andConscientiousness (C). In addition to these general domains, theNEO-PI-R also provides scores for 30 specific facets (six per do-main). The psychometric value of the NEO-PI-R and its previousversion, NEO-PI, have been widely studied and endorsed in Spain(Aluja, García, & García, 2002; Avia et al., 1995; Romero, Gómez-Fraguela, Luengo, & Sobral, 2003; Romero, Gómez-Fraguela, So-bral, & Luengo, 2002). In the present study, the coefficients ofinternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the domains rangedbetween .78 (Openness) and .92 (Neuroticism). For the facets,Cronbach’s alpha values ranged between .55 (O6-Values) and.81 (N3-Depression).

2.2.2. Personal strivingsParticipants completed Emmons’ version (1999) of the Per-

sonal Striving Assessment Packet (PSAP) as translated into Span-ish by two experts who were asked to reach completeagreement on the final document they were to produce. In thefirst part of the PSAP, participants were asked to generate at least15 strivings by completing the sentence ‘‘I typically try to. . .”.Once all strivings were elicited, participants chose the most repre-sentative 15 and rated each along 17 SAS, namely: Happiness(how much joy is anticipated from achieving the striving?),Unhappiness (how much sorrow will one feel if failing?), Ambiv-alence (how much unhappiness may accompany achievement ofthe striving?), Importance (how committed is one to strugglingfor each striving?), Past Attainment (how successful has one beenin attaining the striving in the past?), Probability of Success (howlikely is one to succeed in the future?), Environmental Opportu-nity (to what extent will one’s life circumstances facilitate suc-cess?), Effort (how much is usually invested in attaining thestriving?), Difficulty (how much is anticipated?), Social Desirabil-ity (is the striving perceived as desirable for others?), Clarity(does one have a clear idea of how to succeed?), Progress (howsatisfied is one in relation to the progress achieved?), Support(how supportive of our efforts towards achieving the strivingare the people we care for?), and the four dimensions relatingto the reasons people attach to their strivings: Extrinsic (a strivingis pursued for reward, praise or approval from others), Introjected(people strive for something basically because they feel theyought to strive for it), Identified (a striving may have been taughtby others, but now be freely endorsed and appraised as some-thing important) and Intrinsic (a striving is pursued for the funand enjoyment it provides). Each of the previous dimensionswas explained and exemplified following the protocol of Emmons(1999) in order to facilitate understanding by the participants.The SAS scores were calculated by averaging participants’ scoresacross all 15 strivings.

In addition to completing the appraisal dimension matrix forthe strivings, participants were asked to select 10 strivings andcompare them in pairs (Striving Instrumentality Matrix, SIM) in or-der to assess whether each striving had a helpful or harmful effecton the others; the SIM provides an average score representing thedegree of conflict-instrumentality between strivings.

2.2.3. Well-beingWe used two widely employed assessment instruments for sub-

jective well-being, namely; the Positive and Negative Affect Scale(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and the Satisfaction withLife Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The PA-NAS consists of 20 mood-related adjectives providing measures ofpositive (e.g., interested, excited, enthusiastic) and negative affect(e.g., afraid, nervous, ashamed) which are commonly regarded asemotional indicators of well-being. This scale can be applied to dif-

Table 1Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation restricted to a 3-factor solutionon the appraisal dimensions of the strivings (only those dimensions with loadingsequal to or greater than .40 are shown).

Factor I(Intensity)

Factor II(Efficacy)

Factor III(Externality)

Importance .79Happiness .74Unhappiness .50Social desirability .50Progress .65Past attainment .44 .63Probability of success .61Effort �.59Difficulty �.53Environmental

opportunity.50

Clarity .49Support .41Extrinsic .67Ambivalence .65Intrinsic �.42

Note: In order to ensure a closer fit to the definition of each dimension, Environ-mental Opportunity, clarity and support were reverse-scored with respect toEmmons (1999). Thus, the higher the scores for Environmental Opportunity, clarityand support, the more opportunities facilitated achievement of the strivings, thegreater was the clarity and the greater the support, respectively.


ferent periods in time; our participants were asked to rate theirmoods in the last year.

The SWLS is a short scale consisting in five items (e.g., ‘‘In mostways, my life is close to my ideals”) designed to capture global cog-nitive judgments of one’s life. Together with positive and negativeaffect, satisfaction with life is deemed one of the basic componentsof subjective well-being (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996).

In addition, we used the Purpose in Life (PIL) scale (Crumbaugh& Maholick, 1964) to measure the more ‘‘eudemonic” aspects of so-called ‘‘psychological well-being” (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002;Ryff & Keyes, 1995). This scale is based on the existential conceptsof Victor Frankl and comprises 20 items such as ‘‘As I view theworld in relation to my life, the world: completely confuses me/fitsmeaningfully with my life”. The PIL scale has been widely usedboth in early research (Padelford, 1974) and in recent studies(Richiro & Masahiko, 2006; Weisberg & Porter, 1994); it has alsobeen recommended for measuring personal meaning (Duckworth,Steen, & Seligman, 2005).

The three instruments employed to measure well-being herehad previously been translated and adapted for use in Spain (e.g.,Atienza, Pons, Balaguer, & García-Merita, 2000; Noblejas, 1998;Sandín et al., 1999), and proved valid and reliable measures forpsychometric purposes. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha val-ues ranged between .71 for Purpose in Life and .82 for NegativeAffect.

1 Note that Effort has a negative loading on the Efficacy factor, i.e., it is negativelyand not positively correlated with appraisals of Progress and Past Attainment. This isunexpected, considering the findings of other studies that analyze goal progress and/or attainment (e.g., Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999). The difference in results might berelated to age (samples of college students in the former compared with a moreheterogeneous sample in the present study): perhaps effort and progress would bepositively correlated in samples of students as academic tasks may involve a highdegree of control of success and failure (via effort), whereas in older subjects progressin achieving goals may be perceived as less controllable. However, an additionalanalysis to examine the role of age as a moderator revealed that, in the presentsample, the negative relationship was independent of age. Another plausibleexplanation is related to culture. Anglo-Saxon cultures are classically described ascultures where hard work and individual effort are rewarded (e.g., Weber, 1930),whereas Mediterranean and/or Latino cultures have been described as ‘‘fatalistic” andwith less value attached to individual effort (DeMiguel, 2000; Pelechano, 1991;Soriano, 1994). In the present sample, effort appears to be an indicator of stress ratherthan a vehicle for progress. Cultural differences in the processes related to goals is anintriguing topic, which is worthy of further study; particularities of Mediterraneancultures, including the Spanish culture, have scarcely been studied in relation to goalpursuit.

3. Results

3.1. Traits and strivings

The first question addressed in this study was: in what way aretraits related to striving appraisal dimensions? Prior to seekingcorrelations between traits and striving dimensions, we examinedthe latter in order to find how they grouped in factors.

Although we could have studied the dimensions only on anindividual basis, we thought it interesting to discover whether theycould be grouped in any way as previously done by other authorsinvestigating strivings (Emmons, 1986; Sutin & Robins, 2008) andrelated concepts (Cantor & Langston, 1989; Ruehlman & Wolchik,1988); in fact, as indicated in the Introduction, the structure ofthe goal assessment scales has not been adequately clarified. Tothis end, we factored the 17 dimensions in the SAS, and also theinstrumentality score. This provided valuable clues as to how peo-ple’s judgments of their goals are structured and allowed strivingsto be analyzed more parsimoniously. Table 1 shows the results ofthe Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation. Basedon the scree test, we retained the first three factors, which jointlyaccounted for 41% of the total variance. For improved fitting to thedimension definitions, two of the rating scales were reverse-scoredrelative to Emmons’ original proposal (1999): EnvironmentalOpportunity (the higher the score, the more the environmentalopportunities facilitated achievement of the strivings) and Clarity(the higher the score, the greater the clarity).

Fifteen of the eighteen variables studied had loadings above .40in some factor; the other three (Introjected, Identified and Instru-mentality) did not load in any of the three factors. As regards con-tent, the first factor seemingly represented commitment to one’sown goals and the intensity with which strivings are set in theindividual’s goal system: how important they are deemed, howmuch satisfaction is anticipated from their achievement, how dis-satisfied will the individuals be if they fail or how socially desirablethe goals are perceived to be. We designated this factor ‘‘Intensity”.The second factor encompassed dimensions associated with suc-cess and perceived efficacy in the achievement of strivings (e.g.,satisfaction with progress, achievements, prospects for future suc-

cess). This factor was designated ‘‘Efficacy”.1 The third factor wasmore ill-defined. It encompassed only three dimensions with load-ings above .40, the highest loading being that of the perception ofstrivings as ‘‘extrinsic”; the other two dimensions were ambivalencein the pursuit of strivings and, with a negative sign, the perception ofgoals as ‘‘intrinsic”. The perception of goals as extrinsic and hence,possibly, as generators of ambivalence, is seemingly at the core ofthis factor, which we designated ‘‘Externality”. Thus, two factorsbear some resemblance to others identified by research into mid-dle-level units (see Emmons, 1997), namely: the degree of commit-ment (Intensity) with which some strivings are pursued and theactual or anticipated success (Efficacy) in achieving strivings. Inaddition, a third component emerged (Externality), which was asso-ciated with the reasons people perceive as underlying their strivings,an aspect which is emphasized by the self-determination theory(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002) and related models such as the self-con-cordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). A conceptually similarthree factor solution has recently been found in an American sample(Sutin & Robins, 2008) using 10 of the SAS defined by Emmons(1999).

Given the heterogeneity in the sociodemographic characteris-tics of the sample, the relation between the study variables (traits,


strivings, well-being) and gender and age were also analyzed priorto analysis of the relationships between traits, strivings and well-being. The following relationships with gender and age were sig-nificant. Gender differences were detected in two of the domainsof NEO-PI-R: Neuroticism (F = 14.17 (1/401), p < .001), and Agree-ableness (F = 29.46 (1/400), p < .001), in both cases with higherscores in females. As regards striving dimensions, gender differ-ences were found in: Importance (F = 14.66 (1/400), p < .001), high-er in females; Effort (F = 10.44 (1/401), p < .01), higher in females;Social Desirability (F = 8.44 (1/399), p < .01), higher in females; andIdentified (F = 7.24 (1/399), p < .01), higher in males. Within themeasures of well-being, gender differences were found in NegativeEmotions (F = 6.22 (1/400), p < .05), with higher scores in females.As regards age, significant correlations were found for four NEO-PI-R domains: Extraversion (�.35, p < .001), Openness (�.25, p < .001),Agreeableness (.10, p < .05) and Conscientiousness (.13, p < .001).This pattern is consistent with the results of other cross-sectionalstudies with the Five-Factor Model (e.g., McCrae et al., 2000). With-in the striving dimensions, two were significantly correlated withage: Probability of Success (�.14, p < .01) and Identified (.13,p < .01). Within the measures of well-being, Positive Emotionswas correlated with age (�.21, p < .001). Given the wide range ofages of the participants in the study, possible curvilinear effectswere also analyzed; traits, strivings and well-being measures wereregressed against age (centered) and, as a second predictor, thesquare of the centered age (see Aiken & West, 1991). No significantcurvilinear effect emerged in these analyses.

Once the factors underlying the striving dimensions were iden-tified, and once the relationships with gender and age were ex-plored, the relation between traits and striving dimensions wasinvestigated.

Table 2 shows the correlations between the big five domains ofthe NEO-PI-R and the striving dimensions, both individually andgrouped by the previous three factors. The factor scores providedby SPSS were used. All correlations were calculated by partialingout the effects of gender and age. Given that we found significantassociations between the central variables in the study (traits,strivings dimensions, well-being) and gender and age, partial cor-

Table 2Correlations between the five NEO-PI-R domains and striving dimensions. Age andgender were partialed out.

N E O A C

Happiness �.01 .14* �.02 .14** .08Unhappiness �.01 .08 .01 .10* .07Ambivalence .01 .03 .02 .00 .00Importance .01 .15** .00 .15** .15**

Past attainment �.28*** .24*** �.02 .17** .23***

Probability of success �.27*** .30*** .00 .09 .19***

Environmental opportunity �.15* .05 �.01 .02 .15**

Effort .19*** .02 .01 �.01 .01Difficulty .19*** �.16** �.01 �.04 .02Social desirability �.03 .00 .02 .12* .07Clarity �.18*** .04 .00 .04 .11*

Progress –.32*** .21*** �.01 .08 .28***

Extrinsic .03 .07 .07 .04 �.01Introjected .06 .08 �.01 .08 .13**

Identified �.04 .16** .09 .07 .09Intrinsic �.02 .02 .02 .06 .01Support �.05 .05 �.06 .14** .23***

Instrumentality .02 .08 .06 .07 .05

Intensity �.02 .19** �.01 .18*** .16**

Efficacy �.38*** .19*** .02 �.08 .21***

Externality .02 .08 .08 .02 .01

* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

relations will be useful for controlling the effects of these sociode-mographic variables.2

As can be seen from the table, all personality domains exceptOpenness were significantly correlated with the strivingdimensions.

Neuroticism was associated with a reduced perception of suc-cess and greater stress in achieving goals. Specifically, the individ-uals low in N had lower scores in their perception of PastAttainment, Probability of Success, Environmental Opportunity,Clarity and Progress, and higher scores in their perceptions of Effortand Difficulty. With the appraisal dimensions grouped according tothree factors, N exhibited a significant correlation of �.38 (p < .001)with the Efficacy factor.

Extraversion was positively correlated with the Happiness theindividuals expected from achieving their strivings and the Impor-tance they attached to the strivings, and was associated with per-ceptions of greater success and progress towards achievement ofstrivings (specifically, there were positive correlations with PastAttainment, Probability of Success and Progress, and a negativecorrelation with Difficulty). There was also significant correlationwith the perception of goals as Identified (i.e., goals which mayhave been instilled by others, but now they are endorsed freelyand wholeheartedly). With the appraisal dimensions grouped byfactors, Extraversion was positively correlated with the Intensitywith which strivings were pursued and the Efficacy perceived intheir achievement.

The Agreeableness results revealed that the individuals high inthis personality domain perceived a high Happiness in achievingtheir strivings, attached a high Importance on them, perceived agood degree of Past Attainment and also high Social Desirabilityand high Support in their efforts to achieve their strivings. Withthe dimensions grouped by factors, Agreeableness was positivelycorrelated with the Intensity with which strivings were pursued.

Finally, Conscientiousness was positively correlated with theImportance attached to goals, the Support received in their pursuit,the Probability of Success, the perception that EnvironmentalOpportunity allowed strivings to be achieved, Clarity, Progress to-wards the strivings and the perception of strivings as Introjected(i.e., as strivings one ought to pursue). With the dimensionsgrouped by factors, the individuals high in Conscientiousness pur-sued their goals with a high Intensity and perceived a high Efficacyin their progress towards them.

Because the NEO-PI-R enables examination of specific facets ofthe five domains, we calculated correlations between such facetsand the striving factors for the appraisal dimensions in order toidentify the facets most deeply involved in the functioning of striv-ings. Based on the results, the Neuroticism facets most closely re-lated to strivings were N3 (Depression) and N6 (Vulnerability);both exhibited a correlation of �.28 (p < .001) with Efficacy. Thecorresponding Extraversion facets were E1 (Warmth), E2 (Gregari-ousness) and E6 (Positive Emotions), the correlations of which withIntensity were .14 (p < .01), .16 (p < .01) and .14 (p < .01), respec-tively. The facet Positive Emotions was also correlated with Effi-cacy (.14, p < .01). The Agreeableness facet most strongly relatedto strivings was A6 (Tender-Mindedness), which was correlatedwith Intensity (.20, p < .01). The corresponding Conscientiousnessfacets were C1 (Competence), C3 (Dutifulness) and C5 (Self-Disci-pline). Competence was correlated with Intensity (.13, p < .05)

2 Analyses were also carried out to determine whether or not age and gender aremoderators of the relationships analyzed in the study. For this, regression analysiswas performed: in step 1, the age (centered) or gender (dummy-coded) was enteredalong with the corresponding predictor (centered); the product term was entered instep 2. These analyses were carried out for the relationships between (1) traits andwell-being, (2) striving dimensions and well-being, and (3) traits and strivingdimensions. No significant interactions were detected; there was no evidence that therelationships analyzed were moderated by age or gender.

Table 4Correlations between striving dimensions and well-being measures. Age and genderwere partialed out.

Positiveemotions

Negativeemotions

Satisfactionwith life

Purposein life

Well-beinggeneral factor

Happiness .16** .02 .00 .08 .10*

Unhappiness .07 .01 .08 .07 .06Ambivalence .01 .00 �.03 .01 .01Importance .04 .02 .09 .09 .08Past

attainment.29*** �.30*** .33*** .35*** .41***

Probability ofsuccess

.30*** �.19*** .23*** .34*** .33***

Environmentalopportunity

.08 �.18*** .13** .14** .20***

Effort .09 .26*** �.15** �.22*** �.27***

Difficulty .04 .17** �.13** �.17*** �.19***

Socialdesirability

.09 �.06 .14* .15* .13*

Clarity .12* �.17*** .11* .17*** .21***

Progress .26*** �.29*** .37*** .37*** .43***

Extrinsic �.02 .11 �.06 �.08 �.10*

Introjected .08 �.00 .03 .08 .07Identified .08 .03 .07 .12* .10*

Intrinsic .07 �.10* .10* .11* .11*

Support .15** �.11* .16** .17** .19***

Instrumentality .09 .01 .04 .03 .04

Intensity .15** .01 .08 .10* .11*

Efficacy .28*** �.38*** .37*** .43*** .51***

Externality �.07 .08 �.08 �.08 �.08

* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.


and Efficacy (.28, p < .01); Dutifulness with Efficacy (.17, p < .01)and Self-Discipline also with Efficacy (.20, p < .01).

3.2. Traits, strivings and well-being

In order to elucidate structure in the well-being variables stud-ied, we factored them by Principal Component Analysis with Vari-max rotation. Based on the results of the scree test and on Kaiser’scriterion, all measures grouped along a single dimension. There-fore, all correlations of well-being with traits and strivings werecalculated in terms of both this general factor and the specific as-pects examined in this work. This allowed us to obtain a globalview of associations with well-being and also a more detailed pro-file of the relationships between the affective (positive emotions,negative emotions), cognitive (satisfaction with life) and pur-pose-in-life measures considered in this study.

Table 3 shows the correlations between domains and well-being. The results exhibited a relationship pattern essentially con-firming previous findings by other authors (see, for example,DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). As can be seen from the table, Neuroti-cism was strongly correlated with Negative Emotions, although italso correlated with the other well-being measures. Similarly,Extraversion was correlated with all well-being dimensions, butespecially strongly with Positive Emotions. Agreeableness andConscientiousness were most strongly correlated with Satisfactionwith Life and Purpose in Life. Purpose in Life behaved very simi-larly to Satisfaction with Life as regards its relation to traits. Neu-roticism was seemingly the domain of the big five most stronglycorrelated with well-being in terms of both the overall factor andits specific dimensions. Openness was only correlated with PositiveEmotions and was not significantly correlated with the general fac-tor well-being.

We also examined NEO-PI-R in order to identify those facetsexhibiting the highest correlations with well-being and found theNeuroticism facets N3 (Depression) and N6 (Vulnerability) to bethe most strongly correlated with well-being, both with �.44,p < .01. Those of Extraversion were E1 (Warmth) and E6 (PositiveEmotions), both with .25 (p < .05). The corresponding facets ofAgreeableness were A4 (Competence, .12, p < .05) and A5 (Mod-esty, �.12, p < .05); a negative correlation of Modesty with well-being was also obtained in previous studies (e.g., Romero et al.,2002). The most strongly correlated facets of Conscientiousnesswere C1 (Competence, .43, p < .001) and C5 (Self-Discipline, .31,p < .001). On the other hand, no Openness facet was correlatedwith well-being.

Once the relationships between traits and well-being wereexamined, we studied those between striving dimensions andwell-being. The results are shown in Table 4.

The strivings dimensions most closely related to well-being areseemingly those associated with perceived efficacy in achievingstrivings. Thus, a high degree of well-being was associated withhigh scores in Past Attainment, Probability of Success, Environ-

Table 3Correlations between the five NEO-PI-R domains and well-being measures. Age andgender were partialed out.

N E O A C

Positive emotions �.36*** .43*** .12** .05 .19***

Negative emotions .54*** �.19*** �.00 �.12** �.15***

Satisfaction with life �.39*** .30*** �.01 .17*** .25***

Purpose in life �.47*** .36*** .07 .20*** .23***

Well-being general factor �.57*** .34*** .04 .20*** .28***

*p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

mental Opportunity, Clarity and Progress, and also with low scoresin Effort and Difficulty. In addition, well-being was significantlycorrelated with the anticipated perception of Happiness, Supportand Social Desirability in strivings, and also, more weakly, withthree dimensions representing the perceived origin of strivings;thus, a high level of well-being was positively correlated withthe perception of strivings as Intrinsic and Identified, and nega-tively correlated with their perception as Extrinsic. There was nosignificant correlation between five of the striving dimensions(Unhappiness, Ambivalence, Importance, Introjected and Instru-mentality) and the well-being measures used.

With the dimensions grouped by factors, Efficacy was the indi-vidual factor most strongly correlated with all well-being mea-sures. The factor Intensity exhibited weaker, but still significant,correlations with the well-being general score, Positive Emotionsand Purpose in Life. On the other hand, correlations with External-ity were not statistically significant.3

With the aim of further exploring the relationships between thestriving dimensions and well-being, a measure of self-concordancewas calculated following the procedure described in previous stud-ies of the self-concordance model (Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon & Elliot,1999). In accordance with this model, self-concordance may beoperationally defined as the extent to which people pursue their

3 The data were analyzed to determine whether there were any significantinteractions between the striving factors in the prediction of well-being. None of theinteractions (Intensity � Efficacy; Efficacy � Externality; Intensity � Externality)were significant. Analyses were also performed to identify any interactions betweenthe five domains and striving factors in the prediction of well-being. No significantinteractions were found; only a trend towards significance was observed in theinteraction Neuroticism � Efficacy (Beta of the interaction term = .098, p = .054). Toexamine this trend in more detail, the sample was divided into high and low scoresfor Neuroticism (median split) and in both groups the correlation between Efficacyand well-being was examined. It was found that the correlation was somewhatgreater in individuals with high scores for Neuroticism (.49) than in those with lowscores (.38), but the Z resulting from the comparison of the two coefficients (Z = 1.03)was not significant.

Table 5Regression analyses performed in order to test for mediator effects in striving factors.

Well-beingregressedon traits

Strivingfactorsregressedon traits

Well-beingregressed ontraits andstriving factors

b b b

Intensity Efficacy ExternalityN �.47*** .06 �.33*** .03 �.36***

E .25*** .18* .15** .08 .19***

O �.05 �.06 �.07 .07 .04A .10* .18** .00 .02 .08C .16*** .15* .15* .01 .13**

Intensity .10*

Efficacy .30***

Externality .01

R2 .40 .11 .21 .02 .49Adjusted

R2.39 .10 .19 .01 .47

* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

Table 6Correlations, means and standard deviations of the variables included in thestructural equation analyses.

I II III IV V VI VII

I. Neuroticism 1II. Extraversion .04 1III. Agreeableness .05 .11** 1IV. Conscientiousness �.12*** .08* .23*** 1V. Intensity .00 .16** .15** .18*** 1


personal goals with feelings of intrinsic interest and identity con-gruence rather than feelings of introjected guilt and external com-pulsion. As in other studies (e.g., Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon &Kasser, 2001), the score for self-concordance was computed bysumming the Identified and the Intrinsic ratings and then subtract-ing the External and the Introjected ratings. This self-concordancescore was not related to gender, but was related to age (.13,p < .001)4. As regards the relationships with subjective well-being,significant correlations were obtained with Negative Emotions(�.11; �.10 when age was controlled), Satisfaction with Life (.11;same value when age was controlled), Purpose in Life (.15; .16 whenage was controlled) and with the general factor of well-being (.16;.15 when age was controlled).

On the basis of the previous results, traits are significantly cor-related with striving dimensions, and both are in turn related towell-being. The next step towards fulfilling the objectives of thisstudy was thus to determine whether strivings might function asmediators between traits and well-being. To this end, we followedthe procedure of Baron and Kenny (1986) for detecting mediatingeffects. On the basis of the corresponding guidelines, traits canbe assumed to have an effect mediated by striving dimensions pro-vided (a) traits predict well-being; (b) traits predict strivingdimensions; and (c) when traits and striving dimensions areincluded in the same regression, striving dimensions predictwell-being and the effect of traits is lessened or even disappears.In order to test the potential role of striving dimensions as media-tors, we used the scheme of Baron and Kenny (1986) to conductregression analyses, the results of which are shown in Table 4.We first regressed well-being on traits, then striving dimensionson traits and, finally, well-being on traits and striving dimensionsjointly. The regressions were carried out by the ordinary leastsquares method, and following the recommendations of Baronand Kenny, the variables were entered simultaneously. Analyseswere made more parsimonious by using the five domains of theNEO-PI-R, the three striving appraisal factors and the general factorwell-being.

As can be seen from the results of the first analysis, and previ-ously suggested by those of the correlation analysis, traits areeffective predictors of well-being (39% of explained variance). AllNEO-PI-R domains except Openness were involved in theprediction.

Based on the second regression equation, the NEO-PI-R domainssignificantly predicted two striving appraisal factors. As previouslyrevealed by the correlation analysis, Externality was not predictedby any specific domain; Intensity was predicted by Extraversion,Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; Efficacy was the factor withthe highest proportion of explained variance (19%) and was pre-dicted by Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientiousness.

Joint use of domains and striving factors to predict well-being(i.e., the third equation in Table 5) resulted in significantcoefficients for Intensity and Efficacy. The traits Neuroticism,Extraversion and Conscientiousness also had significant effectson well-being; however, in accordance with the presence of partialmediations, the values of the coefficients decreased slightly; in thecase of Agreeableness, this decrease meant that the coefficient wasno longer statistically significant.

Therefore, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousnessmight influence well-being via the Intensity of strivings; and somight Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientiousness via Effi-

4 As with the simple striving appraisals (see Footnote 2), additional analyses weredone to determine whether the relationship between self-concordance and well-being was moderated by gender and age; no significant moderation effects wereobserved. The effect of age had been analyzed in previous research (Sheldon & Kasser,2001); in the present study, as in the former research, the positive relationshipbetween self-concordance and well-being appeared to be independent of age.

cacy. Application of the Sobel test (see Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel,1982) to assess the significance of indirect effects provided signif-icant coefficients for all ranging from Z = 1.97 (p < .05) for the effectof Agreeableness via Intensity to Z = 4.82 (p < .001) for that of Neu-roticism via Efficacy. Overall, the results suggest that strivingdimensions may somehow capture the effects of traits on well-being, even though, as can be inferred from the third regressionequation, traits appear to have a direct effect on well-being beyondthat of striving dimensions.

Finally, in order to obtain a global picture of the relationshipsbetween traits, striving factors and well-being, the variables usedin the regressions were subjected to structural equation analysisas implemented in the AMOS v. 4.0 software (Arbuckle, 1999), withmaximum likelihood as estimation procedure. Table 6 shows thecorrelations, mean values and standard deviations for the variablesincluded in the analysis.

The tested model was constructed from the regression results,based on which Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientiousnessmay have a direct effect on well-being. However, there may alsobe some indirect effects such as those of Neuroticism via perceivedefficacy in the achievement of strivings, Agreeableness via theintensity with which people commit themselves to their strivings,and Extraversion and Conscientiousness via both Intensity and Effi-cacy. We excluded the domain Openness and the dimension Exter-nality from the model as they seemingly had no significant effectson other components. The results of the structural analysis areshown in Fig. 1.

VI. Efficacy �.30*** .13** .04 .19*** .00 1VII. Well-being �.38*** .25*** .12** .26*** .18*** .45*** 1

Mean 105.04 109.93 123.97 113.83 .00 .00 .00SD 39.88 26.01 19.86 23.03 1 1 1

* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

Conscientiousness

Well-Being

Efficacy

-.31*** Neuroticism

-.25***.14**

Extraversion

Intensity

.16***

.13*

Agreeableness

.14**

.15**

.23***

.19**

.11*

.31***

Fig. 1. Structural model relating traits, striving factors and well-being. Note: Standardized structural estimates between traits, strivings and well-being are shown. To simplifythe figure the correlations between the exogenous variables (traits) are not shown. Dashed lines represent direct paths from traits to well-being.


The goodness-of-fit measures revealed the overall model to ex-hibit a good fit, according to the usually accepted thresholds (e.g.,Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Carmines & McI-ver, 1981). Thus, v2 (3.31, df = 4), was not significant (p = .504), andthe ratio of v2 to df was 0.83; the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) .99,the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) .96 and the Root MeanSquare Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .00.

All structural paths used to model the effects between domains,striving factors and well-being were significant. Broadly speaking,the model confirmed that traits have both direct and indirect ef-fects on well-being. However, we should note that the direct ef-fects are stronger than the indirect effects; thus, the standardizeddirect effects ranged from .19 (Conscientiousness) to .25 (Neuroti-cism), whereas the standardized indirect effects ranged from .02(Agreeableness) to .10 (Neuroticism). Thus, the strivings appearedto capture only a small part of the effects that the traits have onwell-being.

In fact, an alternative model that included only indirect effects(see Holmbeck, 1997) displayed a worse fit (v2 = 83.08; df = 7;p < .001). Other fit indexes were GFI = .94; AGFI = .78 andRMSEA = .17. The indirect model restricts the direct paths betweentraits and well-being to zero, and therefore represents a scheme ofrelations between traits and well-being totally mediated by striv-ings. The chi-square difference between the two models (79.77,df = 3) was significant (p < .001). Inclusion of the direct effects sug-gested by the regression improved the fit with respect to the indi-rect model, which corroborates the idea that the effects of traits aremaintained beyond the mediational effects of the strivings.

It is possible that the sequence of variables (traits and strivings)considered in this study was not the most appropriate. In thisstudy we argue that traits predict striving dimensions, which inturn predict well-being. If another arrangement of the constructsshowed a better fit, then this would place into question the con-ceptual basis of the study. A model was therefore tested with thestriving dimensions as exogenous variables, which predict traits,and these predict well-being. This alternative model is not nestedwith the proposed model, thus the chi-square difference cannotbe used for comparison. However, the fit indices show that thisalternative arrangement did not improve the overall fit of the data.Chi-square was 86.25 (df = 7; p < .001); GFI = .94, AGFI = .78 andRMSEA = .16.

4. Discussion

The central themes of the study were: (1) the relationships be-tween constructs representative of two personality levels: traitsand strivings and (2) the relationships between traits, strivingsand well-being.

4.1. In what way are traits related to striving appraisal dimensions?

This was the first questioned addressed in the study. The resultshave allowed description of the pattern of correlations between thetraits of the Five-Factor Model and the SAS proposed by Emmons(1999).

The results exhibited a clear-cut pattern as regards Neuroticism.The individuals scoring high in this domain tended to perceivethemselves as less efficacious in struggling for their strivings, andalso that their past attainments were relatively low, their progresswas slow and their future success would be poor. On the otherhand, the individuals high in N perceived their struggle for striv-ings as more stressful and their strivings as less clear and more dif-ficult, needing a greater effort investment; in addition, theyperceived that their environment hindered progress towards theirgoals. This result pattern is consistent with previous findingsregarding other middle-level units such as personal projects: whenpeople are asked to appraise their projects, the individuals high inN perceive less progress, poorer expectations for the possible out-comes, and greater stress and difficulty (Little et al., 1992). Thispicture is consistent with the degree of sensitivity to negative out-comes in life, vulnerability to stress and low self-efficacy associ-ated with Neuroticism in existing literature (Costa & McCrae,1992; Judge & Ilies, 2002).

The Extraversion results reveal that extraverts are seeminglymore strongly committed to their strivings and perceive them-selves as more efficacious in their struggle. Regarding specificdimensions, their strivings are perceived as more important and,in accordance with their positive affectivity, extraverts tend toanticipate more Happiness from achieving their strivings. Inaddition, they exhibit a more positive and optimistic perceptionof their past attainment, current progress and future success, andalso of the difficulty involved in achieving their strivings.Moreover, extraverts tend to perceive their strivings as closely


identified with their interests. Overall, this pattern, which linksExtraversion with ‘‘positive” striving dimensions, is also consistentwith the results of Little et al. (1992) in a study on personal pro-jects where Extraversion was related to the significance of projects,their congruence with self-identity and the perception of efficacy.

Agreeableness is one other domain of the Five-Factor Modelthat allows the way people perceive their strivings to be predicted.On the basis of our results, the individuals scoring high in thisdimension are more strongly committed to their strivings, perceivethem as more important and anticipate more happiness from suc-cess in their achievement. Also, consistent with the other-directed-ness of agreeable people, they perceive relatively high supportfrom others and their goals as socially acceptable and desirable.The support received by others may be translated as a relativelyhigh perception of past attainment, as we hypothesized, althoughthe correlation with the overall Efficacy factor was not significant.It is possible that the relationship between Agreeableness and Effi-cacy is moderated by the type of goals pursued; whereas theachievement of interpersonal goals may be seen to be particularlyfavored by Agreeableness, other types of goals (e.g., academicgoals) may be less permeable to the influence of Agreeableness/so-cial support; some results have previously been reported along thisline (Little et al., 1992).

The results for the domain Conscientiousness were consistentwith those found in the personal project area. In fact, the centralcharacteristics of this domain were consistent with the way striv-ings were perceived. Conscientious (responsible, organized, disci-plined) people appear to be strongly committed, in an organized,efficacious manner, to their strivings. Also, by virtue of their highsense of duty and their being scrupulous individuals with a strongsuperego, conscientious people usually perceive their strivings asIntrojected (i.e., as inner duties they feel compelled to fulfill).

On the other hand, Openness does not appear to be associatedwith any particular striving dimension. Little et al. (1992) alsofound this trait to be the domain exhibiting least shared variancewith project dimensions. These results may have originated fromthe ill-defined nature of Openness, which has proved the weakestdomain in the Five-Factor Model in various studies including someconducted in Spain (Avia et al., 1995; Romero et al., 2002). How-ever, the dimensions routinely used to deal with middle-level unitsmay lack some aspects relevant to Openness such as experiencevariety or the degree of challenge associated to personal strivings.In fact, the appropriateness of striving appraisal dimensions andthe need for new dimensions should be systematically assessed infuture research if we are to acquire solid knowledge in this domain.

Therefore, traits (Level I, ‘‘basic tendencies”) are significantlyconnected with strivings (Level II, ‘‘characteristic adaptations”).The connections between the two are theoretically coherent, andhelp identify the consilience which emerges between different per-sonality zones. However, we should stress that the connections areonly fairly strong; thus, the most accurately predicted factor, Effi-cacy, showed 19% of variance explained by Five-Factor domains.Overall, the results suggest that striving dimensions can hardlybe considered mere reflections or by-products of traits; acknowl-edging the role of traits should not drive us to an oversimplisticreduction underestimating the relevance of situations and the so-cial ecology of everyday life to the shaping of middle-level units,as other authors have also emphasized (McAdams & Pals, 2006;Sheldon, 2004).

4.2. How were traits and striving dimensions related to well-being? Isthere a differential pattern when we consider the hedonic andeudemonic aspects of well-being separately?

Well-being, the other focus of this study, has generated a largebody of research fostered by the rise of positive psychology. Both

traits and middle-level units have traditionally been the subjectsof preferential attention in studies on well-being, although fewstudies have considered both levels simultaneously (see Sheldon& Hoon, 2007).

Our results for traits suggest a relational pattern that is consistentwith previous reports (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Hayes & Joseph,2003; Romero et al., 2002). Thus, Neuroticism and Extraversion weremost strongly related to well-being and, especially, affective dimen-sions; on the other hand, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness weremore closely related to one’s life appraisals and Openness was theindividual domain most weakly related to well-being.

Our results for strivings suggest a relational pattern also consis-tent with previous research findings as regards goals and relatedconcepts. Thus, some studies have shown that the efficacy inachieving goals and the perceived stress they generate are thetwo dimensions that most accurately predict well-being (Brun-stein, 1993; Christiansen, Backman, Little, & Nguyen, 1999; Koest-ner, Lekes, Powers, & Chicoine, 2002; Wiese, 2007; Wilson, 1990).In fact, the cognitive and functional perspectives on motivationhave stressed the relationship between well-being and perceivedefficacy in people’s progress towards goals (see, for example, Ban-dura, 1997; Carver & Scheier, 1998). As shown by our results, thedimensions concerned with progress, achievement and stress(i.e., with ‘‘Efficacy”) are the most closely related to well-being.Progressing towards strivings, perceiving that they have beenachieved, anticipating success, and perceiving clarity and little dif-ficulty, may facilitate well-being.

Our results also show relationships between well-being and agroup of dimensions concerned with the interpersonal and envi-ronmental facets of strivings. Perceiving that one’s environmentalconditions facilitate achievement of one’s strivings (EnvironmentalOpportunity), that the significant others help us achieve them(Support) and that our strivings are compatible with the valuesof society at large (Social Desirability) are related in a positivemanner to well-being. These results are consistent with reporteddata on social support, happiness and health (Cohen & Syme,1985), and also with other approaches emphasizing the coherencebetween goals and social environment in predicting well-being(Stromberg & Boehnke, 2001). In fact, the Social Ecological Model(see, for example, Little, Salmela-Aro, & Phillips, 2007) has high-lighted the interpersonal nature of projects, as well as the signifi-cance of harmonizing projects with socioecological contexts.Although strivings are seemingly assigned a more ‘‘internal” naturethan other middle-level units such as personal projects, the shared,interpersonal dimension of strivings warrants consideration inanalyzing well-being and human flourishing.

The underlying motivations of strivings acquire some relevance,however modest, when the striving appraisal dimensions areexamined in isolation. In fact, those strivings that are perceivedas intrinsic (i.e., pursued under no external pressure) areassociated with well-being, whereas those which are externallyimposed are usually associated with lower well-being levels. Theadvocates of the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985)have written widely the positive power of self-imposed goals; also,studies on flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) have revealed that peopleexperience the greatest satisfaction when they are committed tointeresting, challenging activities for their own sake. Our resultssupport these assumptions and also those of the self-concordancemodel (Sheldon, 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), which draws atten-tion to the goals that express people’s core values. The connectionbetween Identified strivings and well-being – interestingly,Purpose in Life – might be consistent with this line of thought.Likewise, in line with the self-concordance model, well-beingwas related to the aggregate measure of self-concordance, whichreflects the degree to which a person perceives their goals asintrinsic and self-integrated, rather than motivated by external


pushes or introjected sanctions. Feelings of ownership that peoplehave (or do not have) as regards their goals has been demonstratedin numerous previous studies as a fundamental ingredient of theprocesses that lead to well-being (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon& Kasser, 2001; Sheldon et al., 2004); the results of the presentstudy support their importance in a sociocultural context differentfrom those usually considered in this field of investigation.

On the other hand, we have found a highly similar overall rela-tional pattern for the different well-being measures. Based on theresults of studies such as that of McGregor and Little (1998) on per-sonal projects, one could expect striving dimensions to be differen-tially associated with the more hedonic and eudemonic facets (e.g.,Purpose in Life) of well-being. This relational pattern is quite appar-ent in the dimension Identified, which is associated with Purpose inLife, but not with any other well-being measure. Seemingly, whenpeople perceive that their goals reflect their most intimate values,they usually find purpose in their lives, even though they may notexperience great joy or pleasure in it. However, this is an exceptionto our correlation matrix since, as a rule, Purpose in Life is corre-lated with striving dimensions in much the same way as otherwell-being measures. We should also probably bear in mind thatmeaning, self-identity and existential value are poorly representedin striving dimensions. The concept of striving, which captures peo-ple’s recurrent intentions, appears to provide an effective path formeaning and purpose, which are being granted increasing impor-tance in the achievement of healthy personal functioning (Wong& Fry, 1998). However, the appraisal dimensions proposed by Em-mons (1999) seemingly focus more closely on efficacy, attainmentand anticipated affect than they do on meaning. This should beborne in mind in reformulating and/or expanding striving dimen-sions in the future. Placing greater emphasis on meaning-relatedaspects might facilitate fairer judgment of the impact of personalstrivings on identity and personality integration.

Oddly, instrumentality/conflict among strivings was found tohave no influence on well-being. Intuitively, one can anticipatethat conflict between goals would detract from well-being. In fact,goal conflict proved relevant to well-being in some previous stud-ies (Emmons & King, 1988; Palys & Little, 1983). However, a moreextensive literature search showed inconsistent results in this re-spect (King, Richards, & Stemmerich, 1998; Sheldon & Kasser,1995); such inconsistency has previously been noted by someauthors (Riediger & Freund, 2004) who exposed the restrictionsof using a single bipolar dimension (facilitation versus interference)to assess cross-impact between goals. As noted by Riediger andFreund (2004), facilitation and interference are not mutually exclu-sive and should therefore be assessed separately. In fact, a strivingsuch as ‘‘enjoy myself with my friends” can simultaneously facili-tate and interfere with another such as ‘‘do my best at work”. Forexample, enjoying one’s friends can facilitate doing well at workinasmuch as it relieves stress and yet interfere by requiring aninvestment of time which cannot be spent on work. Appraisingfacilitation and interference in isolation can help clarify the specificrole of conflict in well-being.

4.3. Do the striving dimensions act as mediators between traits andwell-being?

We constructed a predictive model relating traits and strivingsjointly to well-being. Our starting hypothesis, based on the frame-work of McCrae and Costa (1999), proposed that strivings maymediate the effects of traits on well-being. However, the resultsindicate only slight mediational effects; although some of the ef-fect of traits may be transferred via strivings, traits keep large di-rect effects. Likewise, the striving dimensions exert significanteffects on well-being even when the effect of traits is controlled.

The present results make more sense in the light of alternativeframeworks such as that proposed by Sheldon (2004). From thisperspective (see also McAdams & Pals, 2006), it is stressed thateach personality level provides relevant information, and that theconstructs of a level cannot be subsumed by other levels. In fact,a study on well-being by Sheldon and Hoon (2007), in which con-structs from different levels (including traits and goal-related vari-ables) were combined, found that each level has its own effects,which are unique and irreducible. These findings, like those ofthe present study, appear to support the idea that each part of per-sonality should be taken into account in understanding well-being;each part could tell us something about well-being that the otherpieces cannot. Dealing jointly with traits and strivings appears nec-essary for understanding the dynamics of personality and well-being.

4.4. Limitations and further directions

Although this study provides a rough draft of the relational flowbetween traits, strivings and well-being, a number of aspects stillrequire further investigation.

Firstly, striving content and other parameters associated withgoal orientation (e.g., generality/specificity) should be examinedin the predictive sequence from traits to well-being. Some studieshave already provided support for a relationship between these as-pects and various health indicators (see Emmons, 1999; Salmela-Aro, 1992); however, these relationships have not yet been placedin the more general context of personality units.

Secondly, the present results have not enabled us to draw aclear line between the subjective well-being (hedonic version)and purpose in life (eudemonic version). A considerable statisticaloverlap between both constructs has also been found by otherauthors (see Deci & Ryan, 2008). However, it must also be takeninto account that in the present study, Purpose in Life was the onlyeudemonic indicator of well-being. One other possible line for fu-ture exploration is the relationship between strivings and well-being, but with more eudemonic indicators. The ‘‘psychologicalwell-being” structure proposed by Ryff and Keyes (1995) couldbe a good starting point for acquiring an even more detailed pic-ture of relationships between strivings and well-being. Environ-mental Mastery, Personal Growth, Self-Acceptance, Autonomyand Positive Relations are all facets of a meaningful life warrantingconsideration.

Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the present study limits thescope of the results. In fact in this study, trait variance and stablegoal variance compete for the same stable well-being variance. Arepeated measures design would control the stable trait variance,enabling fluctuations in well-being to be explained by goal-relatedevents. This would allow a more complete vision of the effects ofthe strivings in daily life. On the other hand, a cross-sectional studyobviously does not provide unambiguous answers to the issue ofcausal priority between traits, strivings and well-being. The studyrelied on theoretical models assuming that the causal arrow goesfrom traits through middle-level units to life criteria such as well-being. But the possibility of a two-way causal arrow cannot be ex-cluded. In fact, reciprocal effects between strivings and well-beingremain an open issue (does well-being contribute to greater com-mitment to strivings and to efficacy in their achievement?) thatshould be carefully addressed via experimental and/or longitudinalstudies (see, for example, Salmela-Aro, 1992). Even the causal prior-ity of traits over middle-level units could be questioned in the lightof other theoretical approaches; there has been a long-lasting de-bate in our discipline over the descriptive or explanatory natureof traits (Cervone, 1999; Pervin, 1994; Romero, 2002, 2005; Romer-o, Luengo, Carrillo-de-la-Peña, & Otero, 1994): are traits genotypicunits or mere behavioral summaries? Social cognitive models have


been used repeatedly to show that traits are mere behavioral aggre-gates that should not be reified, but rather explained in terms ofsociocognitive components – the true ‘‘personal determinants” ofindividual differences; see, for example, Bandura (1999). Hence,traits would rather be a consequence of striving appraisals. For theirpart, authors such as Sheldon (2004) and McAdams and Pals (2006)proposed schemes involving reciprocal paths between traits andmiddle-level units. In the present study, we assumed traits to begenotypic in nature in the light of the Five-Factor Theory (McCrae& Costa, 1999) and the evidence in support of heritability and sta-bility in the big five factors. However, it may not be unreasonableto assume that strivings themselves may generate less stable char-acteristic behavioral patterns than the big five, such as the ‘‘freetraits” proposed by Little (Little, 1996; Little & Joseph, 2007), i.e.sets of acts strategically adopted by individuals to advance in theirgoal pursuits. In this respect, the Social Ecological Model may provea good heuristic model for more comprehensive exploration of theantecedents and consequences – both personal and contextual – ofmiddle-level units. Although a model of strivings influencing traitswas also tested in this study, the cross-sectional nature of the de-sign is not ideal for discerning the direction in which personalityprocesses flow.

For the moment, in response to the need to bridge the gap be-tween the different personality levels, this study has shown thatunits originating from rather disparate conceptual and methodo-logical traditions (generalized, nomothetic tendencies on the onehand and appraisals of idiosyncratic goal strivings on the other)can indeed be integrated.

Middle-level units themselves require some ordering and artic-ulation: the way strivings, projects and life tasks overlap and com-plement one another remains to be clarified, and appraisaldimensions have not been sufficiently consolidated; in fact, giventhe variety of systems of goal-appraisal available in the literature(see, for example, Little & Gee, 2007), researchers should first sys-tematically define which are the relevant dimensions. However,there is no doubt that the middle-level units provide a privilegedspace for examining personality coherence and simultaneouslyexploring intersections with social, cultural, cognitive and develop-mental psychology. Notwithstanding the difficulties involved, inte-grating personality components and processes is one of the mostexciting, meaningful and challenging strivings in our discipline,and no doubt warrants our commitment.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Allport, F. H. (1937). Teleonomic description in the study of personality. Characterand Personality, 5, 202–214.

Allport, G. W. (1940). What units shall we employ? In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Assessment ofhuman motives (pp. 239–260). New York: Holt.

Aluja, A., García, O., & García, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman’s threestructural 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.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). AMOS users guide, version 4.0. Chicago, IL: SmallWatersCorporation.

Atienza, F. L., Pons, D., Balaguer, I., & García-Merita, M. (2000). Propiedadespsicométricas de la escala de satisfacción con la vida en adolescentes.[Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale in adolescents].Psicothema, 12, 314–319.

Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., Sánchez, M. L., Martínez-Arias, R. M., Silva, F., & Graña, J. L.(1995). The five-factor model: II. Relations of the NEO-PI with other personalityvariables. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 81–97.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. New York: Freeman.Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John

(Eds.), Handbook of personality. Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). NewYork: Guilford.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statisticalconsiderations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in theanalysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit.Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230–258.

Buss, D. M., & Cantor, N. (Eds.). (1989). Personality psychology. Recent trends andemerging directions. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinalstudy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.

Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: ‘‘Having” and ‘‘doing” in the study ofpersonality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735–750.

Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Cantor, N., & Langston, C. A. (1989). ‘‘Ups and downs” of life tasks in a life transition.In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology(pp. 127–167). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables:Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.),Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Cervone, D. (1999). Bottom-up explanation in personality psychology. The case ofcross-situational coherence. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence ofpersonality. Social–cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization(pp. 303–343). New York: Guilford.

Cohen, S., & Syme, S. L. (Eds.). (1985). Social support and health. New York: AcademicPress.

Christiansen, C. H., Backman, C., Little, B. R., & Nguyen, A. (1999). Occupations andwell-being: A study of personal projects. American Journal of OccupationalTherapy, 53, 91–100.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-E) and NEO-five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crumbaugh, J., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism:The psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 20, 200–201.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:Harper & Row.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research.Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: Anintroduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11.

DeMiguel, A. (2000). El espíritu de Sancho Panza. El carácter español a través de losrefranes [The spirit of Sancho Panza. The Spanih character through the study ofproverbs]. Madrid: Espasa.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of143 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124,197–229.

Diener, D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with lifescale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

Diener, D., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D.Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being. The foundations of hedonicpsychology (pp. 213–229). New York: Rusell Sage.

Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Positive psychology inclinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 629–651.

Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjectivewell-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.

Emmons, R. A. (1996). Striving and feeling: Personal goals and subjective well-being. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linkingcognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 313–337). New York: Guilford.

Emmons, R. A. (1997). Motives and goals. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 486–508). New York: Academic Press.

Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns. Motivation and spiritualityin personality. New York: Guilford.

Emmons, R. A., & King, L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Immediateand long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 1040–1048.

Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big five correlates of three measures of subjectivewell-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 723–727.

Hobfoll, S. E., Jackson, A., Hobfoll, I., Pierce, C. A., & Young, S. (2002). The impact ofcommunal-mastery versus self-mastery on emotional outcomes duringstressful conditions: A prospective study of Native American women.American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 853–871.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual and statistical clarity inthe study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical andpediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4,599–610.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performancemotivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates offinancial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 645, 410–422.

Keyes, C., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empiricalencounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,1007–1022.


King, L. A., Richards, J. H., & Stemmerich, E. (1998). Daily goals, life goals, and worstfears: Means, ends, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 66, 713–744.

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’slives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining personal goals:Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 83, 231–244.

Lecci, L., Okun, O., & Karoly, P. (1994). Life regrets and current goals as predictors ofpsychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,731–741.

Little, B. R. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and method for investigation.Environment and Behaviour, 15, 273–309.

Little, B. R. (1996). Free traits, personal projects and idio-tapes: Three tiers forpersonality psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 7(4), 340–344.

Little, B. R. (2005). Personality science and personal projects: Six impossible thingsbefore breakfast. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 4–21.

Little, B. R., & Gee, T. L. (2007). The methodology of personal project analysis: Fourmodules and a funnel. In B. R. Little, K. Salmela-Aro, & S. D. Phillips (Eds.),Personal project pursuit. Goals, action and human flourishing (pp. 51–95).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Little, B. R., & Joseph, M. F. (2007). Personal projects and free traits: Mutable selvesand well beings. In B. R. Little, K. Salmela-Aro, & S. D. Phillips (Eds.), Personalproject pursuit. Goals, action and human flourishing (pp. 375–400). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Little, B. R., Lecci, L., & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and personal projects:Linking big five and PAC units of analysis. Journal of Personality, 60, 502–525.

Little, B. R., Salmela-Aro, K., & Phillips, S. D. (Eds.). (2007). Personal project pursuit.Goals, action, and human flourishing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-beingmeasures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal ofPersonality, 63, 365–396.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five. Fundamental principles from anintegrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality. Theory and research (2nd ed.,pp. 139–152). New York: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebícková, M., Avia, M. D.,et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and the life spandevelopment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.

McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: Ondoing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,494–512.

McGregor, I., McAdams, D. P., & Little, B. R. (2006). Personal projects, life stories, andhappiness: On being true to one’s traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 40,551–572.

Noblejas, M. A. (1998). Evaluación de los abandonos en las primeras fases de unprograma de tratamiento de drogadicción [Dropout study in the first stages of adrug abuse program]. NOUS: Boletín de Logoterapia y Análisis Existencial, 2,73–79.

Padelford, B. (1974). Relationship between drug involvement and purpose in life.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 303–305.

Palys, T. S., & Little, B. R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction and the organization ofpersonal project systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,1221–1230.

Pelechano, V. (1991). La psicología de los refranes [The psychology of proverbs].Psicologemas, 9, 37–64.

Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5,103–113.

Richiro, I., & Masahiko, O. (2006). Effects of a firm purpose in life on anxiety andsympathetic nervous activity caused by emotional stress: Assessment bypsycho-physiological method. Stress and Health, 22, 275–281.

Riediger, M., & Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personalgoals: Differential associations with subjective well-being and persistent goalpursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1511–1523.

Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: Theintersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 26, 1284–1296.

Roccas, L., Sagiv, S., Schwartz, H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factorsand personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801.

Romero, E. (2002). Investigación en psicología de la personalidad. Líneas deevolución y situación actual [Research in personality psychology.Developmental lines and current situation]. Boletín de Psicología, 74, 39–78.

Romero, E. (2005). ¢Qué unidades debemos emplear? Las ‘‘dos disciplinas” de laspsicología de la personalidad [What units should we employ? ‘‘Two disciplines”in personality psychology]. Anales de Psicología, 21, 244–258.

Romero, E., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., Luengo, M. A., & Sobral, J. (2003). The self-controlconstruct in the general theory of crime: An investigation in terms ofpersonality psychology. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 61–86.

Romero, E., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., Sobral, J., & Luengo, M. A. (2002). La estructura delos rasgos de personalidad en adolescentes: El Modelo de Cinco Factores y losCinco Alternativos [The structure of personality traits in adolescents: The five-factor model and the alternative five]. Psicothema, 14, 134–143.

Romero, E., Luengo, M. A., Carrillo-de-la-Peña, M. T., & Otero, J. M. (1994). The act-frequency approach to the study of impulsivity. European Journal of Personality,8, 119–133.

Ruehlman, L. S., & Wolchik, S. A. (1988). Personal goals and interpersonal supportand hindrance as factors in psychological distress and well-being. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 55, 293–301.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review ofresearch on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 141–166.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-beingrevisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.

Salmela-Aro, K. (1992). Struggling with self: The personal projects of studentsseeking psychological counselling. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 33,330–338.

Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Lostao, L., Joiner, T. E., Santed, M. A., & Valiente, R. M. (1999).Escalas PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: validación factorial y convergenciatranscultural [The PANAS scales of positive and negative affect: Factorvalidation and cross-cultural convergence]. Psicothema, 11, 37–51.

Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (Eds.). (2001). Life goals and well-being. Seattle, WA:Hogrefe & Huber.

Sheldon, K. M. (2001). The self-concordance model of healthy goal striving: Whenpersonal goals correctly represent the person. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon(Eds.), Life goals and well-being. Towards a positive psychology of human striving(pp. 18–35). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Sheldon, K. M. (2002). The self-concordance model of healthy goal-striving: Whenpersonal goals correctly represent the person. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 65–86). Rochester, NY: Universityof Rochester Press.

Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Optimal human being. An integrated multi-level perspective.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparingautonomous and controlled reasons as predictors of effort and attainment.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–557.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, andlongitudinal well-being: The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.

Sheldon, K. M., & Hoon, T. H. (2007). The multiple determination of well-being:Independent effects of positive traits, needs, goals, selves, social supports, andcultural contexts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 565–592.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects ofpersonality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivingsand personality development across the life-course. Developmental Psychology,37, 491–501.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects ofgoal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and whyyou pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 474–486.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equationsmodels. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Soriano, F. I. (1994). The Latino perspective. A sociocultural portrait. In J. Gordon(Ed.), Managing multiculturalism in substance abuse services (pp. 117–148).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Spence, G., Oades, L. G., & Caputi, P. (2004). Trait emotional intelligence and goalself-integration: Important predictors of emotional well-being? Personality andIndividual Differences, 37, 449–461.

Stromberg, C., & Boehnke, K. (2001). Person/society value congruent and well-being: The role of acculturation strategies. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.),Life goals and well-being. Towards a positive psychology of human striving(pp. 37–56). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2008). Going forward by drawing from the past:Personal strivings, personally meaningful memories, and personality traits.Journal of Personality, 76, 631–663.

TEA Ediciones (1999). Inventario de personalidad NEO revisado (NEO PI-R) eInventario NEO reducido de cinco factores (NEO-FFI). [Revised NEO personalityinventory and NEO five factor inventory]. Madrid: TEA.

Turban, D. B., Tan, H. H., Brown, D. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2007). Antecedents andoutcomes of perceived locus of causality: An application of self-determinationtheory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2376–2404.

Wang, M., & Erdheim, J. (2007). Does the five-factor model of personality relate togoal orientation? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1493–1505.

Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personalexpressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 64, 678–691.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of briefmeasures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: UnwinHyman.

Weisberg, J. L., & Porter, J. E. (1994). Purpose in life and outcome of treatment foralcohol dependence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 49–63.

Wong, P. T. P., & Fry, P. S. (Eds.). (1998). The human quest for meaning. A handbook ofpsychological research and clinical applications. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Wiese, B. (2007). Successful pursuit of personal goals and subjective well-being. InB. R. Little, K. Salmela-Aro, & S. D. Philips (Eds.), Personal project pursuit. Goals,action, and human flourishing (pp. 301–327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wilson, D. A. (1990). Personal project dimensions and perceived life satisfaction: Aquantitative synthesis. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Psychology,Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.

Traits, personal strivings and well-being

Documents

Transcript of Traits, personal strivings and well-being