Personality Traits and Dispositions Predicting Flourishing, Satisfaction with Life, Psychological Well-Being, Positive and Negative Affect, and Happiness ()
1. Introduction
Well-being can be described as a general term that refers to an optimal level of overall satisfaction and happiness. There are several approaches to the study of well-being: research of happiness from the perspective of eudaimonia and hedonic pleasure (Waterman, 1993; Seligman, 2011); subjective well-being (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect) (Diener, 1984, 2000; Diener et al., 2002, 2003), psychological well-being (personal growth, autonomy, self-acceptance, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, purpose in life) (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), social well-being (Keyes, 1998), flourishing (Seligman, 2011), happiness, positive affect and positive emotions (Veenhoven, 1984, 2017; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005a, 2005b). Wellbeing is considered a homeostatic process fluctuating around a relatively stable baseline (Fujita & Diener, 2005; Anglim et al., 2015). Flourishing has been proposed as a comprehensive and integrative theoretical framework for understanding well-being that encompasses subjective, psychological, and social well-being and refers to the optimal level of experienced well-being (Diener et al., 2010; Seligman, 2011).
A large body of research is devoted to well-being and personality traits and in particular, the Big Five. Extraversion and neuroticism have been pointed out to explain about half of the variance in happiness (Costa & McCrae, 1980a; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005b), and psychological well-being is predicted mainly by extraversion and neuroticism (Costa et al., 1987). The Big Five are robustly related to both subjective well-being and psychological well-being and happiness (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Steel et al., 2008; Anglim & Grant, 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Anglim et al., 2020). Predictive role of Big Five traits have been outlined with happiness (Steel et al., 2008; Gale et al., 2013), positive and negative affect (Diener et al., 2010; Pavot & Diener, 2011), satisfaction with life (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Diener & Lucas, 1999; Wood et al., 2008; Weber & Huebner, 2015). For psychological well-being a specific relationship of its components with individual personality traits have also been highlighted (Grant et al., 2009; Anglim & Grant, 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Meléndez et al., 2019). In summary, a review of the literature demonstrates that the Big Five, despite their effects, explain only a portion of the variance in subjective well-being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Diener & Lucas, 1999), as well as specific relationships, e.g., openness to experience is related to eudaemonic rather than to hedonic well-being (Mann et al., 2021). A new area of interest is the applicability of Cybernetic Big Five theory (DeYoung, 2015; DeYoung et al., 2002). Personality is considered a cybernetic system that evolves to make survival more efficient. In this line the two meta-traits, stability and plasticity, are the adaptive pathways and each of the five personality traits plays an independent but interactive role in goal-directed behavior. Stability is the mechanism, by which the cybernetic system maintains goal directedness when confronted with disruptive stimuli and includes emotional stability (low neuroticism), motivational stability (consciousness), and social stability (agreeableness). Plasticity is the mechanism, by which the cybernetic system evaluates and explores the new and unfamiliar cognitively (openness to experience) and behaviorally (extraversion) (DeYoung, 2006, 2015).
The relation of coping and psychological well-being has been confirmed for the active coping, assimilative and accommodative coping (Coffey et al., 2014; Arends et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2019). Despite the different approaches to mindfulness, the relationship of mindfulness with well-being has been confirmed (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Grossman et al., 2004; Carmody & Baer, 2008, Giluk, 2009; Ortet et al., 2020). Mindfulness is reported to be associated with higher levels of satisfaction with life, self-esteem, autonomy, competence, and positive affect (Brown & Ryan, 2003), consciousness (Giluk, 2009), low neuroticism (Giluk, 2009), satisfaction with life, autonomy, competence, positive affect, cooperation, consciousness, and neuroticism (Cheng et al., 2022). Self-esteem is stable construct, which has a specific role in adjustment and personal effectiveness and is related to the personality traits of the Big Five (Robins et al., 2001; Varanarasama et al., 2019), and there is a strong relationship between self-esteem and psychological well-being (Diener & Diener, 1995). The relation of the Big Five is demonstrated for learned helplessness (Maadikhah & Erfani, 2014; Ekeh & Chinenye, 2015) and self-handicapping (Ross et al., 2002; Bobo et al., 2013). There is a wealth of evidence for the strong predictive power of meaning in life for happiness (Park et al., 2010), satisfaction with life (Ryff, 1989), and psychological well-being (Zika & Chamberlain, 1992; Ryff & Keyes, 1995).
2. Research Design
Well-being is described by different models and concepts. They are related but also distinct, each with specific predictors. Our interest was to encompass the different approaches to well-being, in this article referred to as components of perceived well-being: flourishing, subjective well-being (satisfaction with life, positive and negative affect), happiness, and psychological well-being, and to examine the independent and aggregate effect of traits and dispositions as personality predictors of experienced well-being and on this basis to derive a model for the holistic integration of personality in the process of self-regulation.
Aim and hypotheses
The aim of the study was to examine the direct, mediated, and moderating effects of personality traits (extraversion and neuroticism (aggregated in plasticity) and agreeableness, consciousness, and openness to experience (aggregated in stability) and personality dispositions (self-esteem; mindfulness; meaning in life and search for meaning; proactive, preventive, accommodative, and problem-focused coping; learned helplessness; self-handicapping; rumination; and planning) on well-being and its components (Figure 1).
H1: Personality traits and personality dispositions predict well-being and its components to a low to moderate degree.
H2: Personality dispositions predict well-being and its components in a specific way and to a higher degree than personality traits.
Figure 1. Research model.
H3: Personality traits and personality dispositions have direct, mediated, and moderating effects on well-being and its components.
H4: The components of perceived well-being have common, but district predictors, that are relatively stable and flexible.
2.1. Sample and Instruments
The survey was realized between January 2021 and December 2022 vial e-platform survey.bg. The convenient sample was recruited by sending 2000 invitations, of which 493 fully completed forms were received. After removing the outliers, the results of 455 respondents were included in the analysis. All respondents were of full age and had given informed consent to participate. Of the 455 respondents, 300 (66%) were female, 105 (23%) were male; 152 (33%) were 18 - 25 years old, 152 (33%) were 25 - 35 years old, 198 (44%) were over 35 years old; 65 (14%) lived alone, 97 (21%) lived with a partner, 243 (54%) lived with family and 50 (11%) preferred not to answer; 94 (21%) only studied, 55 (12%) only worked, 256 (56%) worked and studied and 50 (11%) neither worked, nor studied; 218 (48%) assessed their income sufficient to meet their needs, 150 (33%) assessed their income insufficient to meet their needs and 87 (19%) did not answer.
13 scales were administered (comprising 219 items in total), all with 5-point Likert response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
1) Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) (Steger et al., 2006) is a 10-item scale that forms two subscales for meaning in life (α = 0.885) and search for meaning in life (α = 0.898), each one comprising 5 items.
2) Planning scale was created for this study and contains 10 items. The items were selected with an expert panel from a pool of 30 items, following the long- and short-term planning model (Lynch et al., 2009). Two subscales were formed, planning considered important (α = 0.636) and planning considered unimportant (α = 0.624).
3) Mistake Rumination Scale (Flett et al., 2020) is a 7-item scale (α = 0.838), forming a continuous variable for rumination.
4) Self-Handicapping Scale (Rhodewalt, 1990) is a 25-item scale, used as continuous variable for self-handicapping; in this study 9 items were removed (α = 0.775).
5) Learned Helplessness Scale (LHS) (Quinless & Nelson, 1988) is a 20-item unidimensional scale measuring the general construct learned helplessness. In this study 2-items were removed (α = 0.933).
6) Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10-item scale designed to measure global self-esteem (α = 0.821).
7) Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R) (Feldman et al., 2007) is a 10-item scale, measuring mindfulness (α = 0.863).
For the purposes of this study coping was measured with two subscales for proactive and preventive coping and two subscales for accommodative and problem-focused coping potential. The subscales for proactive and preventive coping are from the 55-items Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI): A Multidimensional Research Instrument (Greenglass et al., 1999). 8) proactive copying subscale contains 14 items (2 items were removed in this study) (α = 0.893), and
9) the preventive copying subscale contains 10 items (3 items were removed for this study) (α = 0.846).
10) Coping potential was measured as accommodative-focused coping potential (α = 0.903) and
11) problem-focused coping potential (α = 0.927), each scale includes 12 items (McLain, 2012). One item was removed from the problem-oriented coping scale and two items were removed from the proactive coping scale.
12) Big Five Inventory (BFI-2) (Soto & John, 2017a, 2017b) contains 30 items, 6 items for each of the five personality traits Extraversion (α = 0.733); Agreeableness (α = 0.613); Conscientiousness (α = 0.731); Neuroticism with 1 item removed (α = 0.780); Openness to Experience with 1 item removed (α = 0.687).
The perceived well-being was studied following the different approaches, referred to in this study as components of perceived well-being: flourishing, psychological well-being, happiness, satisfaction with life and positive and negative affect. Different scales were administered for each component:
13) Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010) is a unidimensional 8-item scale, measuring perceived success in significant life domains: relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism (α = 0.908).
14) Psychological Wellbeing Scale (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). The psychological well-being scale comprises 18-items, 3 items for each of the 6 domains: positive relations with others (α = 0.576), autonomy (α = 0.498), self-acceptance(α = 0.729), environmental mastery (α = 0.579), personal growth (α = 0.685), and purpose in life. In this study the items were reduced to 12 by removing the purpose in life sub-scale and one item from autonomy, personal growth, and environmental mastery subscales.
15) Satisfaction With Life Scale, (Diener et al., 1985) is a 5-item scale measuring global assessment of satisfaction with life (α = 0.848).
16) The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (SPANE-N) (Diener et al., 2010) is a 12-item scale formed by two subscales for positive affect (α = 0.897) and negative affect (α = 0.869), each containing 6 items.
17) General Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) is a 4-item scale, measuring happiness (α = 0.845).
2.2. Data Processing
Data were processed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and Process v.3. for descriptive statistics, reliability tests using Cronbach's alpha and item analysis, principal components analysis with rotation, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, analysis of variance, correlation analysis, regression analysis (multivariate linear and multivariate hierarchical with controlled variables), moderation and mediation analyses. All administered scales used were translated with three direct translations and one back-translation. Psychometric properties were validated for each scale used (factor analysis and reliability). Despite the prevalence of non-normal data, especially in the social sciences (Blanca et al., 2017), data were corrected when necessary (log transformation). The steps of the analysis were 1) reliability and component analysis of the scales; 2) correlation analysis (partial); 3) regression analysis; 4) moderation and mediation analyses.
Standard rules for component analysis and reliability were followed (Boateng et al., 2018; Moretti et al., 2019). For all scales, Cattell's scree plot and exploratory analysis by principal components method with varimax rotation were performed. The following rules were followed: the Kaiser-Meier-Olkin (KMO) test for the overall adequacy of the sample, to have a KMO value > 0.600; the result of the Bartlett's test of sphericity to test correlations between variables to be valid (accepted criterion for significance is p < 0.01); the generated component model to explain 50% of the total variance, given extracted factors with eigenvalue > 1.00 (Kaiser normalization criterion) and in view to the sample size, the value of the factor weight to be >0.400 (given the conservative criterion pattern matrix to include only items with factor weights of 0.600 and lower values depending on the sample size). In terms of reliability, the value of Cronbach’s alpha to be >0.700 (with adjustment for short scales to 0.600); the correlation between individual items and the entire scale should be greater than 0.400 (Spearman-Brown prediction formula).
Regression models used stepwise regression, starting with the strongest predictor and adding additional predictors that explained a significant amount of additional variance for the criterion, with an inclusion criterion of p = 0.01. All regression analyses had 95% confidence intervals; collinearity was accounted for and outliers were screened for (Cook’s distance). Verification for multicollinearity had been performed for the independent predictors, and all variables included in the analyses had small to moderate admissible values. For the mediation analysis, a preliminary screening of the data for assumptions of univariate normality was performed in view to determine the acceptable threshold for skewness (±2) and kurtosis (±7) as recommended (Hair et al., 2010). Mediation analysis followed the standard steps: 1) the independent variable to have a significant relationship with the dependent variable; 2) the independent variable to have a relationship with the putative mediators; 3) the mediator to have a significant relationship with the dependent variable; 4) when controlling for the mediator, there must be a significant change in the effect of the independent variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). If the effect is reduced to insignificant, there is full mediation, and if it is reduced or increased but remains significant, there is partial mediation. The total effect, which includes a combination of the direct and indirect effects of the variables and unstandardized coefficients were reported in light of the remarks outlined for both (Preacher & Kelley, 2011; Edwards, 2013). The significance of the mediation effect was assessed by the values of the confidence intervals (0 not to fall within the confidence interval). The moderation analysis followed the requirement that changes in the level of the independent variable cause significant changes in the level of the mediator variable (path “a”); variations in the mediator variable cause significant variations in the dependent variable (path “b”); when path “a” and path “b” are controlled, the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable (path “c”) to differ from the measured direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable (path “c”) by a residual, denoted by the equation c = c’ + ab, where the product “ab” is the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. For moderation, the procedure of confidence intervals and change in direction/strength of the relationship between predictor and dependent variable was also followed.
3. Results
3.1. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Flourishing
Individual variables family status, age, gender, subjective assessment of incomes and occupational status (working/studying, studying and working and neither studying, nor working) had small effect on the components of well-being and were not individual predictors in regression models, nor moderators of the relations between personality traits and dispositions and well-being. The overall variance of perceived well-being, accounted by the aggregate effect of individual variables is low (R2 = 0.058 for the psychological well-being; R2 = 0.090 for flourishing; R2 = 0.138 for satisfaction with life; R2 = 0.157 for happiness; R2 = 0.093 for positive affect and R2 = 0.123 for negative affect. Occupation at the highest level, subjective assessment of income and age have an effect on well-being. Gender and marital status have a limited partial effect. Higher well-being is experienced by people who are occupationally and developmentally engaged, assess their income is sufficient to cover their needs and are over 35 years of age. Overall, individual variables have small effect on well-being without explaining it to a high degree.
For flourishing, the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.682) had predictors self-esteem (β = 0.275), proactive coping (β = 0.270), mindfulness (β = 0.220), agreeableness (β = 0.138), and meaning in life (β = 0.131). Mediating effect was accounted for problem-oriented coping potential and moderating effects traits consciousness, stability and plasticity.
Agreeableness had a direct and indirect influence on flourishing, mediated by problem-focused coping potential. The direct effect of agreeableness on the mediator problem-focused coping potential was positive and significant (b = 0.4131; s.e. = 0.0691; p = 0.000, [0.2769; 0.5493] with an explained variance of 14%. The direct effect of the mediator problem-focused coping potential on flourishing was positive and significant (b = 0.7406; s.e. = 0.0561; p = 0.000, [0.6301; 0.8511]. The direct effect of agreeableness on flourishing was positive and significant (b = 0.2631; s.e. = 0.0626; p = 0.000, [0.1398; 0.3864]. The overall effect (R2 = 0.1939; F = 54.12; df = 453 (p = 0.001) revealed that agreeableness was significantly positively related to flourishing (b = 0.5691; se = 0.0774; p = 0.000 [LLCI = 0.4166; ULCI = 0.7215]). The indirect effect of agreeableness on flourishing, mediated by problem-focused coping potential on flourishing, was positive and significant (b = 0.3059; se = 0.0768 [0.1611; 0.4612]. The fully standardized indirect effect of agreeableness on flourishing mediated by problem-focused coping potential on flourishing was significant (b = 0.2367; [0.1331; 0.3364]. The direct effect of agreeableness on flourishing remained significant (b = 0.2631; s.e. = 0.0626; p = 0.0000, [0.1398; 0.3864]), implying that problem-focused coping potential partially mediates the relationship between agreeableness and flourishing (Figure 2).
The effect of proactive coping, self-esteem and mindfulness on flourishing was
Figure 2. The relationship between agreeableness and flourishing mediated by problem-focused coping. *р < 0.5, **р < 0.01, ***р < 0.001.
moderated by consciousness, stability and plasticity. All effects were positive irrespective the value of the moderator. Consciousness moderated the relation between proactive coping and mindfulness and flourishing, stability moderated the relation between proactive coping and mindfulness and flourishing, and plasticity moderated the relation between self-esteem and flourishing (Table 1).
Table 1. Moderating effects of consciousness, stability and plasticity.
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
constant |
−20.6576 |
0.8724 |
−3.0460 |
0.026 |
−4.3765 |
−0.9381 |
proactive coping |
1.5577 |
0.2293 |
60.7946 |
0.000 |
1.1059 |
2.0095 |
consciousness |
0.0522 |
0.2442 |
4.3096 |
0.000 |
0.5711 |
1.5333 |
proactive coping*consciousness |
− 0.2280 |
0.0621 |
−30.6715 |
0.003 |
−0.3504 |
−0.1056 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator consciousness |
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
3.17 |
0.8357 |
0.0624 |
13.0595 |
0.0000 |
0.7126 |
0.9587 |
3.83 |
0.6836 |
0.0592 |
11.1975 |
0.0000 |
0.5669 |
0.8004 |
4.50 |
0.5316 |
0.0809 |
60.9425 |
0.0000 |
0.3721 |
0.6911 |
constant |
−20.6008 |
0.7856 |
−3.3104 |
0.0011 |
−1.1489 |
−1.0527 |
mindfulness |
10.6483 |
0.2187 |
7.5364 |
0.0000 |
1.2173 |
2.0793 |
consciousness |
1.1978 |
0.2225 |
5.3838 |
0.0000 |
0.7594 |
10.6363 |
mindfulness*consciousness |
−0.2834 |
0.595 |
−40.7607 |
0.0000 |
−0.4007 |
−0.1661 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator consciousness |
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
3.17 |
0.7509 |
0.0589 |
120.75 |
0.0000 |
0.6349 |
0.8670 |
3.83 |
0.5620 |
0.0564 |
90.96 |
0.0000 |
0.4508 |
0.6732 |
4.50 |
0.3731 |
0.0778 |
40.80 |
0.0000 |
0.2198 |
0.5263 |
constant |
−20.7748 |
1.1864 |
−2.34 |
0.0202 |
−5.1127 |
−0.4369 |
self-esteem |
10.6241 |
0.3180 |
5.11 |
0.0000 |
0.9975 |
2.2508 |
plasticity |
1.1631 |
0.3360 |
3.46 |
0.0006 |
0.5009 |
10.8252 |
self-esteem*plasticity |
−0.2536 |
0.0879 |
−20.89 |
0.0043 |
−0.4268 |
−0.0804 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator plasticity |
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
3.08 |
0.8423 |
0.0699 |
12.04 |
0.0000 |
0.7044 |
0.9801 |
3.67 |
0.6943 |
0.0566 |
12.26 |
0.0000 |
0.5827 |
0.8059 |
4.17 |
0.5676 |
0.0771 |
7.36 |
0.0000 |
0.4156 |
0.7195 |
proactive coping |
10.8677 |
0.3542 |
5.27 |
0.0000 |
1.1696 |
2.5658 |
stability |
10.6600 |
0.3910 |
4.25 |
0.0000 |
0.8894 |
2.4306 |
proactive coping*stability |
−0.3285 |
0.0990 |
−3.32 |
0.0011 |
−0.5236 |
−0.1335 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator stability |
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
3.17 |
0.8272 |
0.0666 |
12.42 |
0.0000 |
0.6959 |
0.9585 |
3.61 |
0.6810 |
0.0564 |
12.07 |
0.0000 |
0.5699 |
0.7921 |
4.06 |
0.5353 |
0.0761 |
7.04 |
0.0000 |
0.3854 |
0.6853 |
constant |
−3.5725 |
1.2625 |
−20.8296 |
0.0051 |
−6.0605 |
−1.0845 |
mindfulness |
10.6817 |
0.3417 |
40.9216 |
0.0000 |
1.0083 |
2.3550 |
stability |
1.5508 |
0.3676 |
4.2191 |
0.0000 |
0.8265 |
2.2752 |
mindfulness*stability |
−0.3137 |
0.0970 |
−3.2340 |
0.0014 |
−0.5048 |
−0.1225 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator stability |
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
3.16 |
0.6881 |
0.0621 |
11.08 |
0.0000 |
0.5657 |
0.8105 |
3.61 |
0.5485 |
0.0559 |
90.82 |
0.0000 |
0.4384 |
0.6586 |
4.06 |
0.4094 |
0.0781 |
5.25 |
0.0000 |
0.2556 |
0.5632 |
For proactive coping moderating effect was positive—an increase of consciousness led to an increase in flourishing for the same values of the predictor proactive coping (R2 = 0.5610; MSE = 0.2010; F = 940.99; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0265; F = 13.48; р = 0.03). Consciousness had a significant effect that moderated the relationship of mindfulness with flourishing (R2 = 0.7335; MSE = 0.2116; F = 86.55; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0470; F = 220.66; р = 0.000). Plasticity had a significant positive effect that moderated the relationship of self-esteem with flourishing (R2 = 0.5555; MSE = 0.2035; F = 920.91; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0166; F = 8.33; р = 0.0043). Stability had a significant effect that moderated positively the relationship of proactive coping with flourishing (R2 = 0.5908; MSE = 0.1874; F = 107; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0202; F = 11.02; р = 0.0011). Stability had a significant effect that moderated positively the relationship of mindfulness with flourishing (R2 = 0.5415; MSE = 0.2100; F = 870.78; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0215; F = 10.46; р = 0.0014).
In the general model (Figure 3) flourishing was predicted by high self-esteem, proactive coping, mindfulness, agreeableness and meaning in life. Problem-oriented coping potential mediated the relationship between agreeableness and flourishing. Conscientiousness and stability moderated the relationship between proactive coping and mindfulness with flourishing, and plasticity moderated the relationship between self-esteem and flourishing.
3.2. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Satisfaction with Life
For satisfaction with life the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 =
Figure 3. General model of flourishing.
0.501) was predicted by self-esteem (β = 0.401), problem-focused coping potential (β = 0.207), and mindfulness (β = 0.195). Consciousness moderated the relation between problem-focused coping potential and mindfulness and satisfaction with life and plasticity moderated the relation between problem-focused coping potential and satisfaction with life.
Conscientiousness moderated the relationship of mindfulness and problem-focused coping potential with satisfaction with life (R2 = 0.3848; MSE = 0.3976; F = 46.49; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0247; F = 80.97; р = 0.03). Consciousness had a significant effect moderating the relationship of mindfulness with satisfaction with life. The moderating effect was negative for high values of mindfulness and positive for low and medium values of mindfulness. An increase in consciousness values for high mindfulness values led to a decrease in satisfaction with life values. Plasticity moderated the relationship of problem-focused coping potential with satisfaction with life (R2 = 0.3803; MSE = 0.4005; F = 450.61; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.00; X*W R2-chng = 0.0186; F = 60.70; р = 0.01). Plasticity had a significant effect that moderated the relationship of problem-focused coping potential with satisfaction with life. The moderating effect of plasticity for the effect on satisfaction with life revealed that high values of plasticity decreased the positive effect of problem-focused coping potential at high values of problem-focused coping potential and increased the effect of problem-focused coping potential as plasticity increased at medium and low values of problem-focused coping potential. Consciousness had a significant effect moderating the relationship of problem-focused coping potential with satisfaction with life (R2 = 0.3786; MSE = 0.4015; F = 45.29; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0313; F = 11.24; р = 0.09). The moderating effect was negative for high problem-focused coping potential—high values of consciousness led to lower satisfaction with life and accounted reverse effect for medium and low values of problem-focused coping potential—satisfaction with life was higher with increase of the value consciousness (Table 2).
Table 2. Moderating effects of consciousness and plasticity.
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
constant |
−3.2780 |
1.2269 |
−20.6718 |
0.0081 |
−50.6958 |
−0.8602 |
problem-focused coping potential |
10.7114 |
0.3224 |
5.3080 |
0.0000 |
1.0760 |
2.3467 |
consciousness |
1.0965 |
0.3434 |
3.1935 |
0.0160 |
0.4199 |
10.7732 |
problem-focused coping potential * consciousness |
− 0.2615 |
0.0873 |
−20.9945 |
0.0310 |
−0.4337 |
−0.0894 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator consciousness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.17 |
0.8832 |
0.0878 |
10.0597 |
0.0000 |
0.7102 |
1.0562 |
3.83 |
0.7088 |
0.0833 |
8.5082 |
0.0000 |
0.5446 |
0.8730 |
4.50 |
0.5345 |
0.1138 |
40.6958 |
0.0000 |
0.3102 |
0.7587 |
constant |
−20.6925 |
1.0823 |
−2.4878 |
0.0136 |
−40.8253 |
−0.5597 |
mindfulness |
10.6780 |
0.3013 |
5.5687 |
0.000 |
1.0842 |
2.27818 |
consciousness |
1.0686 |
0.3065 |
−3.4861 |
0.006 |
0.4645 |
10.6727 |
mindfulness*consciousness |
−0.2750 |
0.0820 |
−3.3533 |
0.009 |
−0.4366 |
−0.1134 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator consciousness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.17 |
0.8071 |
0.0811 |
90.9481 |
0.0000 |
0.6473 |
0.9670 |
3.83 |
0.6238 |
0.0777 |
8.0258 |
0.0000 |
0.4706 |
0.7770 |
4.50 |
0.4405 |
0.1071 |
4.1114 |
0.0001 |
0.2293 |
0.6516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PFCP |
−4.3633 |
10.7916 |
−2.4354 |
0.0157 |
−70.8940 |
−0.8326 |
plasticity |
10.9141 |
0.4561 |
4.1969 |
0.0000 |
1.0153 |
20.8129 |
PFCP*plasticity |
1.4375 |
0.5097 |
20.8168 |
0.0053 |
0.4313 |
2.4401 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator plasticity |
−0.3264 |
0.1261 |
−2.5882 |
0.0103 |
−0.5749 |
−0.0779 |
3.08 |
0.9077 |
0.1038 |
80.75 |
0.0000 |
0.7032 |
1.1122 |
3.67 |
0.7173 |
0.0864 |
8.30 |
0.0000 |
0.5469 |
0.8877 |
4.17 |
0.5541 |
0.1152 |
40.81 |
0.0000 |
0.3271 |
0.7810 |
In the general model direct predictors of satisfaction with life were only the personality dispositions self-esteem, problem-focused coping potential and mindfulness, whereas personality traits had indirect effect, with plasticity and consciousness as moderators. Consciousness moderated the relationship between mindfulness and problem-focused coping and life satisfaction, whereas plasticity moderated the relationship between problem-focused coping and satisfaction with life (Figure 4).
Figure 4. General model of life satisfaction.
3.3. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Happiness
For happiness the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.622) had predictors self-esteem (β =.316), meaning in life (β = 0.244), mindfulness (β = 0.199), and neuroticism (β = -0.195). Extraversion was moderator of the relationship of self-esteem, neuroticism and mindfulness with happiness. Plasticity moderated the relationship of self-esteem with happiness. Problem-focused coping and rumination mediated the relationship of neuroticism with happiness.
For the mediated effect of neuroticism on happiness the direct effect of the independent variable neuroticism on the mediator problem-focused coping potential was negative and significant (b = −0.8418; s.e. = 0.0515; p = 0.000, [−0.4162; −0.2123] with 14% explained variance. The direct effect of the independent variable neuroticism on the mediator rumination was positive and significant (b = 0.5461; s.e. = 0.0597; p = 0.000, [0.4285; 0.6638] with an explained variance of 27%. The direct effect of the mediator problem-focused coping potential on happiness was positive and significant (b = 0.5978; s.e. = 0.0727; p = 0.000, [0.4679; 0.7411]. The direct effect of the mediator rumination on happiness was negative and significant (b = −0.2416; s.e. = 0.0628; p = 0.0002, [−0.3652; −0.1179]. The direct effect of neuroticism on happiness was negative and significant (b = −0.3381; s.e. = 0.0659; p = 0.0000, [−0.4679; −0.2083]. The model was significant (R2 = 0.5251 F = 82.20; df = 451 (p = 0.000). The model for the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable was significant: R2 = = 0.3080; F = 100; df = 453 (p = 0.000). Neuroticism was significantly negatively related to happiness with a standardized regression coefficient of b = −0.2851. The direct effect of neuroticism on happiness was negative and significant (b = −0.3381; s.e. = 0.0659; p = 0.0000, [−0.4679; −0.2083]. The indirect effect of neuroticism on happiness mediated by problem-focused coping potential on flourishing was negative and significant (b = −0.1881; [0.2951; 0.0981]. The indirect effect of neuroticism on happiness mediated by rumination on happiness was negative and significant (b = −0.1319; [−0.2136; −0.0664]. The overall indirect effect was negative and significant (b = −0.3200; [−0.4591; −0.1974]. The overall effect of neuroticism on happiness was negative and significant (b = −0.6582; [−0.7878; −0.5285]. The direct effect of neuroticism on happiness remained significant, meaning problem-focused coping potential and rumination partially mediate the relationship between neuroticism and happiness (Figure 5).
![]()
Figure 5. Mediated effect of problem-focused coping potential and rumination on the relation between neuroticism and happiness. *р < 0.5, **р < 0.01, ***р < 0.001.
Rumination increased the strength of the negative effect of neuroticism on happiness, and problem-focused coping potential decreased the negative effect of neuroticism on happiness, with low values increasing the negative effect of neuroticism on happiness.
Extraversion moderated the relation between self-esteem and happiness, neuroticism, consciousness and plasticity—the relation between mindfulness and happiness. Extraversion had significant effect that moderated the relationship of self-esteem with happiness (R2 = 0.5460; MSE = 0.3131; F = 89.39; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0161; F = 70.93; р = 0.005). The moderating effect for the relationship with happiness indicated that a decrease in extraversion led to a decrease in happiness values, with the predictor self-esteem remaining unchanged. For the moderating effect of the relationship of mindfulness and happiness the effects of neuroticism and consciousness were accounted. Neuroticism had a significant effect that completely moderated the relationship of mindfulness to happiness (R2 = 0.4959; MSE = 0.3476; F = 73.13; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0157; F = 60.96; р = 0.005). Consciousness had a significant effect that moderated positively the relationship of mindfulness with happiness (R2 = 0.4082; MSE = 0.4081; F = 51.27; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0226; F = 8.50; р = 0.0039). Plasticity moderated positively the relationship of self-esteem with happiness ((R2 = 0.3286; 5236 = 0, 3286; F = 51.27; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0098; F = 4.57; р = 0.003) (Table 3).
Table 3. Moderating effects of extraversion, neuroticism, consciousness, and plasticity.
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
constant |
−20.9616 |
1.0996 |
−20.6932 |
0.007 |
−5.1286 |
−0.7946 |
self-esteem |
10.6886 |
0.3014 |
50.6032 |
0.000 |
1.0947 |
2.2825 |
extraversion |
1.1074 |
0.3222 |
3.4373 |
0.007 |
0.4725 |
10.7422 |
self-esteem*extraversion |
−0.2407 |
0.0855 |
−20.8162 |
0.045 |
−0.4092 |
−0.0723 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator extraversion |
2.83 |
1.0065 |
0.0860 |
110.6973 |
0.0000 |
0.8370 |
1.1761 |
3.67 |
0.8056 |
0.0721 |
11.1804 |
0.0000 |
0.6639 |
0.9480 |
4.33 |
0.6454 |
0.1036 |
6.2292 |
0.0000 |
0.4413 |
0.8496 |
constant |
5.5465 |
1.0017 |
5.5371 |
0.0000 |
−5.1286 |
−0.7946 |
mindfulness |
−0.0614 |
0.2568 |
−0.2393 |
0.8111 |
−0.5675 |
0.4446 |
neuroticism |
−1.1745 |
0.2911 |
−4.0347 |
0.0001 |
−10.7482 |
−0.6009 |
mindfulness*neuroticism |
0.2030 |
0.0769 |
20.6381 |
0.0089 |
0.513 |
0.3546 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator neuroticism |
2.17 |
0.3783 |
0.1056 |
3.5816 |
0.0004 |
0.1702 |
0.5864 |
3.00 |
0.5474 |
0.0699 |
70.8339 |
0.0000 |
0.4097 |
0.6851 |
3.83 |
0.7166 |
0.0826 |
80.6700 |
0.0000 |
0.5537 |
0.8794 |
constant |
−2.2740 |
1.0911 |
−2.0841 |
0.0383 |
−4.4241 |
−0.1238 |
mindfulness |
1.5802 |
0.3038 |
5.2020 |
0.0000 |
0.9816 |
2.1789 |
consciousness |
1.0177 |
0.3090 |
3.2931 |
0.0012 |
0.4087 |
10.6267 |
mindfulness*consciousness |
−0.2411 |
0.0827 |
−20.9157 |
0.0039 |
−0.4040 |
−0.0781 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator consciousness |
3.17 |
0.8169 |
0.0818 |
90.9868 |
0.0000 |
0.6557 |
0.9781 |
3.83 |
0.6562 |
0.0784 |
8.3739 |
0.0000 |
0.5017 |
0.8106 |
4.50 |
0.4955 |
0.1080 |
4.5873 |
0.0000 |
0.2826 |
0.7083 |
constant |
−3.1319 |
1.5074 |
−2.08 |
0.0389 |
−6.1025 |
−0.1613 |
self-esteem |
10.7554 |
0.4040 |
4.34 |
0.0000 |
0.9592 |
2.5516 |
plasticity |
1.0722 |
0.4269 |
2.51 |
0.0127 |
0.2309 |
10.9135 |
self-esteem*plasticity |
−0.2389 |
0.1117 |
−2.14 |
0.0335 |
−4.4589 |
−0.0188 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator plasticity |
3.08 |
1.0189 |
0.0889 |
11.47 |
0.0000 |
0.8437 |
1.1940 |
3.67 |
0.8795 |
0.0720 |
12.22 |
0.0000 |
0.7377 |
1.0213 |
4.17 |
0.7601 |
0.0980 |
70.76 |
0.0000 |
0.5670 |
0.9532 |
![]()
Figure 6. General model of happiness.
In the general model (Figure 6) happiness was predicted by high self-esteem, meaning in life, mindfulness and low neuroticism. Problem-focused coping and mistake rumination mediated the relationship between neuroticism and happiness. Low problem-focused coping and high mistake rumination increased the negative effect of neuroticism on happiness. Moderating effects were found for neuroticism and conscientiousness in the relationship between mindfulness and happiness, and for extraversion in the relationship between self-esteem and happiness. High extraversion and plasticity increased self-esteem. High neuroticism neutralizes the positive relationship between mindfulness and happiness and leads to lower perceived happiness. Higher values of consciousness increase the positive relationship between mindfulness and happiness.
3.4. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Positive Affect
For positive affect the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.398) had predictors problem-focused coping potential (β = 0.406), neuroticism (β = −0.207), and self-esteem (β = 0.151). Positive affect was predicted by problem-focused coping potential, low neuroticism and high self-esteem. In terms of the mediating effect of neuroticism on positive affect, such had mindfulness and proactive coping potential. Extraversion and plasticity moderated the relationship of problem-focused coping potential and self-esteem with positive affect.
For the mediating effect the direct effect of the independent variable neuroticism on the mediator proactive coping was negative and significant (b = −0.2827; s.e. = 0.0521; p = 0.000, [−0.3853; −0.1801] with explained variance of 12%. The direct effect of the independent variable neuroticism on the mediator mindfulness was negative and significant (b = −0.3949; s.e. = 0.0554; p = 0.000, [−0.5041; −0.286] with explained variance of 18%. The direct effect of the mediator proactive coping potential on positive affect was positive and significant (b = 0.3496; s.e. = 0.0875; p = 0.0001, [0.1771; 0.5221]. The direct effect of the mediator mindfulness on positive affect was positive and significant (b = 0.2341; s.e. = 0.0822; p = 0.004, [0.0721; 0.3961]. The direct effect of neuroticism on positive affect was negative and significant (b = −0.2566; s.e. = 0.0601; p = 0.000, [−0.3751; −0.1381]. The model was significant (R2 = 0.3665 F- = 43.00; df = 451 (p = 0.000). The model of the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent was significant (R2 = 0.1945 F- = 54.33; df = 453 (p = 0.000). Neuroticism was significantly negatively related to positive affect with a standardized regression coefficient of −0.4410. The overall effect of neuroticism on positive affect was negative and significant (b = −0.4479; s.e. =.0608; p = 0.000, [−0.5676; −0.3281]. The direct effect of neuroticism on positive affect was negative and significant (b = −0.2566; s.e. =.0601; p = 0.000, [−0.3751; −0.1381]. The indirect effect of neuroticism on happiness moderated by proactive coping on positive affect was negative and significant (b = -.0988; [−0.1769; −0.0375]. The indirect effect of neuroticism on positive affect moderated by mindfulness was negative and significant (b = −0.0924; [−0.1829; −0.0118]. The overall indirect effect was negative and significant (b = −0.1913; [−0.3175; −0.0814]. The direct effect of neuroticism on positive affect remained significant, meaning mindfulness partially mediates the relationship between neuroticism and positive affect.
There was a significant overall and direct effect of neuroticism on happiness and an indirect effect of neuroticism on happiness with proactive coping and mindfulness as mediators. The negative effect of neuroticism on positive affect was mediated by proactive coping and mindfulness—when these were low, this increased the negative effect (Figure 7).
Extraversion and plasticity moderated the relation between self-esteem and
Figure 7. Mediating effect of proactive coping and mindfulness on the relationship between neuroticism and positive affect. *р < 0.5, **р < 0.01, ***р < 0.001.
problem-focused coping. Extraversion had a significant effect moderating the relationship of self-esteem with positive affect (R2 = 0.3119; MSE = 0.3479; F = 330.69; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.00; X*W R2-chng = 0.0133; F = 4.32; р = 0.005). Extraversion had a significant effect moderating positively the relationship of problem-focused coping potential with positive affect. (R2 = 0.3627; MSE = 0.3222; F = 42.31; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0165; F = 50.77; р = 0.017). Plasticity had a significant effect that moderated the association of problem-focused coping potential with positive affect. High values of plasticity decreased positive affect at high values of problem-focused coping potential and increased positive affect as plasticity increased at medium and low values of problem-focused coping potential (R2 = 0.3674; MSE = 0.3212; F = 420.67; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0246; F = 80.63; р = 0.004). Plasticity had a significant effect that moderated the relationship of self-esteem with positive affect. The moderating effect of plasticity on the effect on positive affect revealed that high values of plasticity do not have significant effect at high values of self-esteem and increase positive affect as the value of plasticity increases at medium and low values of self-esteem (R2 = 0.3126; MSE = 0.3475; F = 330.81; df1 = 3; df2 = 451; р = 0.000; X*W R2-chng = 0.0254; F = 8.25; р = 0.0045) (Table 4).
3.5. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Positive Affect
In the general model positive affect was predicted by problem-focused coping potential, low neuroticism and high self-esteem. In relation to the mediated effect of the relationships between neuroticism and positive affect when mindfulness
Table 4. Moderating effects of extraversion and plasticity.
|
coeff |
SE Boot |
t |
p |
LLCI |
ULCI |
self-esteem |
1.1571 |
0.3177 |
30.6427 |
0.000 |
0.5311 |
10.7832 |
extraversion |
0.8826 |
0.3396 |
2.5990 |
0.010 |
0.2134 |
1.5518 |
self-esteem*extraversion |
−0.1873 |
0.0901 |
−2.0782 |
0.038 |
−0.3648 |
−0.0097 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator extraversion |
2.83 |
0.6266 |
0.0907 |
60.9083 |
0.0000 |
0.4479 |
0.8053 |
3.67 |
0.4706 |
0.0760 |
6.1929 |
0.0000 |
0.3208 |
0.6203 |
4.33 |
0.3457 |
0.1092 |
3.1653 |
0.0018 |
0.1305 |
0.5610 |
problem-focused coping potential |
1.3490 |
0.3052 |
4.4203 |
0.0000 |
0.7476 |
10.9504 |
extraversion |
0.9283 |
0.3462 |
20.6814 |
0.0079 |
0.2461 |
10.6105 |
problem-focused coping potential*extraversion |
−0.2070 |
0.0862 |
−2.4028 |
0.0171 |
−0.3768 |
−0.0372 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator extraversion |
2.89 |
0.7506 |
0.0892 |
8.41 |
0.0000 |
0.5748 |
0.9265 |
3.58 |
0.6083 |
0.0772 |
70.88 |
0.0000 |
0.4561 |
0.7605 |
4.27 |
0.4659 |
0.1048 |
4.45 |
0.0000 |
0.2594 |
0.6725 |
PFCP |
−30.7363 |
10.6045 |
−2.33 |
0.0208 |
−60.8981 |
−0.5745 |
plasticity |
10.8495 |
0.4034 |
4.53 |
0.0000 |
1.0446 |
20.6543 |
PFCP*plasticity |
1.3956 |
0.4564 |
3.06 |
0.0025 |
0.4961 |
2.2951 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator plasticity |
3.08 |
0.8262 |
0.0929 |
80.90 |
0.0000 |
0.6431 |
1.0094 |
3.67 |
0.6326 |
0.0774 |
8.17 |
0.0000 |
0.4801 |
0.7852 |
4.17 |
0.4667 |
0.1031 |
4.53 |
0.0000 |
0.2635 |
0.6700 |
self-esteem |
−3.2403 |
1.5503 |
−2.09 |
0.0377 |
−6.2954 |
−0.1852 |
plasticity |
10.7124 |
0.4155 |
4.12 |
0.0001 |
0.8935 |
2.5312 |
self-esteem*plasticity |
1.4280 |
0.4391 |
3.25 |
0.0013 |
0.5628 |
2.2933 |
conditional effects of the predictor at values of the moderator plasticity |
3.08 |
0.6951 |
0.0914 |
70.60 |
0.0000 |
0.5150 |
0.8753 |
3.67 |
0.5027 |
0.0740 |
60.79 |
0.0000 |
0.3569 |
0.6485 |
4.17 |
0.3377 |
0.1008 |
3.51 |
0.0009 |
0.1392 |
0.5363 |
and proactive coping potential have low values, this decreases the experienced positive affect. Moderators of the relationship between self-esteem and problem-focused coping with positive affect are extraversion and plasticity, especially for low values of self-esteem. Self-esteem and problem-focused coping prognosticate positive affect, depending on the level of extraversion. The effect of self-esteem on positive affect is determined by extraversion and plasticity. High extraversion and moderate plasticity moderate the relation between problem-focused coping and positive affect. Very high value of plasticity neutralizes the effect of high problem-focused coping and, at moderate values increase of plasticity increases the effect of problem-focused coping. For extraversion increase of values of extraversion increases the positive effect of problem-focused coping on positive affect (Figure 8).
Figure 8. General model of positive affect.
3.6. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Negative Affect
For negative affect the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.486) had predictors rumination (β = 0.413), neuroticism (β = 0.259), and meaning in life (β = −0.206). Negative affect was predicted by high rumination, neuroticism and low perceived meaning in life. Mediator for neuroticism was self-esteem. For neuroticism the direct effect of the independent variable neuroticism on the mediator self-esteem was negative and significant (b = −0.4606; s.e. = 0.0488; p = 0.000, [−0.5567; −0.3644] with explained variance of 28% and standardized coefficient of b = −0.5325. The direct effect of the mediator self-esteem on negative affect was negative and significant (b = −0.3852; s.e. = 0.0816; p = 0.000, [−0.5460; −0.2243] and standardized coefficient b = −0.2986. The direct effect of neuroticism on negative affect was positive and significant (b = 0.3565; s.e. = 0.0765; p = 0.000, [0.2057; 0.5072] and standardized coefficient b = 0.3196. The model was significant (R2 = 0.4090; MSE = 0.3605; F = 51.45; df = 451 (p = 0.000). The model of the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable was significant (R2 = 0.3174; MSE = 0.4127; F = 104; df = 453 (p = 0.000). Neuroticism was significantly positively related to negative affect with a standardized regression coefficient of b = 0.5634. The overall effect of neuroticism on negative affect was positive and significant (b = 0.6284; s.e. = 0.0614; p = 0.000, [0.5074; 0.7495]. The direct effect of neuroticism on negative affect was positive and significant (b = 0.3565; s.e. = 0.0765; p = 0.000, [0.2057; 0.5072]. The indirect effect of neuroticism on negative affect, moderated by self-esteem was positive and significant (b = 0.1774; [0.0702; 0.2937]. The overall indirect effect of neuroticism on negative affect moderated by self-esteem was positive and significant (b = 0.2720; [0.1382; 0.4141]. The indirect effect of neuroticism on negative affect moderated by self-esteem, was positive and significant (b = 0.1774; [0.0702; 0.2937]. The direct effect of neuroticism on negative affect remained significant, revealing that self-esteem partially mediates the relationship between neuroticism and negative affect. There was a significant general and direct effect of neuroticism on negative affect and an indirect effect of neuroticism on negative affect mediated by self-esteem.
Self-esteem has a partial mediating effect and its high values reduce the positive effect of neuroticism on negative affect (Figure 9).
In the general model high rumination, neuroticism and low perceived meaning in life predicted negative affect. Self-esteem has a mediating effect and its high levels reduce the positive effect of neuroticism on negative affect (Figure 10).
Figure 9. Mediating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between neuroticism and negative affect. *р < 0.5, **р < 0.01, ***р < 0.001.
Figure 10. General model of negative affect.
3.7. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Psychological Well-Being
For positive relations with others the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.337) had predictors self-effect problem-focused coping potential (β = 0.419) and self-handicapping (β = −0.219). For self-acceptance the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.487) had predictors self-efficacy self-esteem (β = 0.419), rumination (β = −0.201), and problem-focused coping potential (β = 0.170). For personal growth the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.449) had predictors proactive coping (β = 0.474) and learned helplessness (β = −0.293). For autonomy the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.260) had predictors accommodative coping potential (β = 0.337) and proactive coping (β = 0.209). For environmental mastery the model with the highest explanatory power (R2 = 0.564) had predictors problem-focused coping potential (β = 0.526) and self-handicapping (β = −0.365).
For autonomy learned helplessness was a partial mediator of proactive coping—low learned helplessness increased the relationship of proactive coping with autonomy. The direct effect of the independent variable proactive coping on the mediator learned helplessness was negative and significant (b = −0.6391; s.e. = 0.0541; p = 0.000, [−0.7456; −0.5325] with explained variance of 38%. The direct mediator effect of problem learned helplessness on autonomy was negative and significant (b = −0.2965; s.e. = 0.0874; p = 0.008, [−0.4687; −0.1244]. The direct effect of proactive coping on autonomy was positive and significant (b = 0.3145; s.e. = 0.0673; p = 0.0006, [0.1367; 0.4922]. The model was significant (R2 = 0.2172; F = 31.07; df = 452, p = 0.000). The model of the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable was significant (R2 = 0.1769; F = 48.36; df = 453 (p = 0.000). The proactive was significantly positively related to autonomy with a standardized regression coefficient b = 0.4206. The overall effect of proactive coping on autonomy was positive and significant (b = 0.5040; s.e. = 0.0725; p = 0.000, [0.3611; 0.6468]. The direct effect of proactive coping on autonomy was positive and significant (b = 0.3145; s.e. = 0.0902; p = 0.001, [0.1367; 0.4922]. The indirect effect of proactive coping on autonomy was positive and significant (b = 0.1895; s.e. = 0.0763 [0.0680; 0.3655], with a fully standardized indirect effect of b = 0.1581. There was a significant general and direct effect of proactive coping on autonomy and an indirect effect of proactive coping on autonomy mediated by learned helplessness (Figure 11).
![]()
Figure 11. Mediating effect of learned helplessness on the relationship between proactive coping and autonomy. *р < 0.5, **р < 0.01, ***р < 0.001.
4. Discussion
The aim of the study is to outline the common and different direct and indirect effect of personality predictors on the components of perceived well-being: flourishing, life satisfaction, happiness, positive and negative affect, and psychological well-being. Overall, our expectations are confirmed.
H1: Personality traits and dispositions directly and indirectly determine the level of perceived well-being.
H2: Personality traits have weak and moderate predictive effects, while at the same time moderate the relationships between personality dispositions and well-being.
H3: Personality dispositions are stronger independent predictors of experienced well-being than personality traits and mediate the effect of personality traits.
H4: The components of perceived well-being have common, but distinct predictors that are relatively stable and relatively flexible.
The findings support the conclusion that personality traits and dispositions are robustly related to both subjective and psychological well-being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Steel et al., 2008; Grant et al., 2009; Anglim & Grant, 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Meléndez et al., 2019; Anglim et al., 2020), and that dimensions of well-being are strongly related to each other while reflecting different aspects of well-being (Anglim & Grant, 2016; Sun et al., 2018). To some extent personality traits and to a greater extent personality dispositions determine the importance of personal adaptive potential and developmental resources. This replicates the position that behavior is predicted by evaluation of situations and coping preferences in addition to the accounted life-long and other changes in personality traits that need further research (Bleidorn et al., 2022).
Concerning the perceived well-being:
Flourishing is predicted by high self-esteem, proactive coping, mindfulness, agreeableness and meaning in life. Problem-oriented coping potential increases the relationship between agreeableness and flourishing. Conscientiousness and stability increase the relationship between proactive coping and mindfulness with flourishing. Plasticity increases the relationship between self-esteem and flourishing. Self-esteem is expected to be not only stable and rigid, but also flexible enough to be revised and validated as to fulfil its optimal relationship with self-perception, while proactive coping and mindfulness, as dispositions related to activity in cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspect, are supported by the balance, provided by stability.
Satisfaction with life is predicted by high self-esteem, problem-focused coping and mindfulness, whereas personality traits have moderating effect. Consciousness moderates the relationship between mindfulness and problem-focused coping and life satisfaction, and plasticity moderates the relationship between problem-focused coping and life satisfaction. High consciousness, mindfulness, and problem-focused coping combined with high plasticity do not promote life satisfaction, but hinder it. Satisfaction with life is highest when there is problem-focused coping potential, moderate plasticity, and high mindfulness with moderate consciousness. Excessive organization and distractibility appear to impede problem-focus and goal-directed problem-solving, leading to lower life satisfaction. In other cases, organization, consistency, and flexibility, provide a balanced attitude and steady and purposeful goal-directedness, maintaining at the same time sufficiently broad perspective.
Happiness is predicted by high self-esteem, meaning in life, mindfulness and low neuroticism. Problem-focused coping and mistake rumination mediate the relationship between neuroticism and happiness. Low problem-focused coping and high mistake rumination increase the negative effect of neuroticism on happiness. Neuroticism and conscientiousness moderate the relationship between mindfulness and happiness, and extraversion the relationship between self-esteem and happiness. High extraversion and plasticity increase the effect of self-esteem on happiness. High neuroticism neutralizes the positive relationship between mindfulness and happiness and leads to lower perceived happiness. Higher consciousness increases the positive relationship between mindfulness and happiness.
Positive affect is predicted by problem-focused coping, low neuroticism, and high self-esteem. Regarding the mediating effect of the relationships between neuroticism and positive affect, when mindfulness and proactive coping potential are low, positive affect is reduced. Moderators of the relationship between self-esteem and problem-focused coping with positive affect are extraversion and plasticity, especially for the lowest self-esteem. Self-esteem and problem-focused coping predict positive affect, depending on the level of extraversion. The effect of self-esteem on positive affect is determined by extraversion and plasticity. High extraversion and moderate plasticity are important in the relationship between problem-focused coping and positive affect. Very high levels of plasticity neutralize the effect of high problem-focused coping, whereas moderate and high extraversion increase the positive effect of problem-focused coping. The difference in the moderating effects of extraversion and plasticity appears to be due to the latent effect of openness to experience. Extraversion, which includes energy, assertiveness, and sociability, has only a positive effect, as opposed to the supposed distraction, as an effect of high openness to experience specifically for problem-focused coping, given its nature.
High rumination, neuroticism and low perceived meaning in life predict negative effect. Self-esteem has a mediating effect and its high levels reduce the positive effect of neuroticism on negative affect
For the domains of psychological well-being maintaining positive relationships with others and environmental mastery have identical predictors—low self-handicapping, but problem focused coping. Self-acceptance is predicted by high self-esteem, lack of rumination and problem focusing, and lack of self-defensive behaviors. Autonomy also excludes self-defensive behavior, which is represented as a predictor in other components and is related to anticipatory behavior and active adaptation to situations. The absence of learned helplessness is important for growth, as is proactive coping.
Self-esteem is the strongest predictor of perceived well-being—it is independent predictor of flourishing, happiness, satisfaction with life, positive affect and self-acceptance for the domains of psychological well-being and has mediating effect for negative affect. Problem-focused coping has also strong role as independent predictor of subjective well-being, psychological well-being and mediates happiness. Mindfulness is independent predictor of flourishing, satisfaction with life, and happiness, and mediates the positive affect. Defensive patterns—self-handicapping, learned helplessness, and rumination are independent predictors of psychological well-being. Proactive coping also predicts only psychological well-being. Meaning in life is independent predictor of negative affect, flourishing, and happiness. For personality traits agreeableness is independent predictor of flourishing neuroticism predicts negative and positive affect and happiness. Extraversion is moderator for positive affect, consciousness satisfaction with life and plasticity satisfaction with life and positive affect.
Personality dispositions and traits have their own independent effects and are also interrelated, so that each variable completes the explanatory model. Personality dispositions can support traits and personality traits have effect on dispositions and their interrelated effect contributes to understanding personality antecedents of self-regulation. The comprehensive model of the dynamic interaction of predictors of self-regulation (Figure 12) is based on several positions, outlined in this study and replicating previous research.
Figure 12. Dynamic model of self-regulation.
Personality traits, personality dispositions, and well-being are relatively stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1980, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1987, 2008; McCrae et al., 2005; Fujita & Diener, 2005; Schimmack & Oishi, 2005; Anglim et al., 2015). Personality traits influence well-being and dispositions (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Diener & Lucas, 1999; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005b; Steel et al., 2008; Weber & Huebner, 2015).
Personality traits can be viewed as moderately stable and moderately plastic constructs (Bleidorn et al., 2022). Adaptation to the environment leads to a change in personality dispositions due to what is perceived as the most adaptive solution for a given context (Anglim & Horwood, 2021; Foa et al., 2022; Ikizer et al., 2022; Kirby et al., 2022; Sutin et al., 2022). A growing number of publications report rapid changes in personality traits within one year in crisis situations (Sutin et al., 2022) and within three months after interventions (Stieger et al., 2021). In the long run personal dispositions, attitudes, and behaviors can modify or support traits (Van den Hurk et al., 2011; Keyes et al., 2015; Stieger et al., 2021).
Well-being is best explained by the inclusion of personality traits and dispositions not as mechanical aggregation, but considering the specificity of the interaction. The individual components of well-being are determined by distinct and common predictors, and their effects can be viewed along the general lines of the two perspectives, stability and plasticity, as determinants of effective personal self-regulation and optimal functioning from the viewpoint of a cybernetic system (DeYoung, 2006, 2015).
Not only does personality matter, but the opposite direction can also be assumed. According to the proposed positive reciprocity (Keyes et al., 2015), improvements in well-being, such as increases in self-acceptance and social integration, can lead to change in personality traits. Thus, perceived well-being itself can be seen not only as an outcome but also as part of the process of optimal self-regulation, since it determines the perspective of perception of the environment and the self, stimulating or inhibiting behaviors and attitudes, affecting personality dispositions and personality traits in long run. The model can be seen as a process of effective self-regulation that can be stimulated by learning how to balance flexibility and stability and ensure best accommodation depending on intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
The comprehensive view of reciprocal interrelations and the suggested dynamic model of self-regulation has practical implications. First, based on the individual personality profile, the personality traits, dispositions and perceived well-being can underlie tailored interventions, aimed at promotion of the overall optimal self-regulation. We consider plasticity and stability pathways, ensuring optimal performance. Irrespectively which of the domains is targeted it can promote the other ones. Support of any predictor—self-esteem, meaning in life, mindfulness, reducing avoidance and self-defenses and pursuing problem-focused behavior can promote perceived well-being and have effect on personality traits. Promotion of perceived well-being and any of its domains or components can lead to change in coping dispositions, behavioral patterns and attitudes and on their hand support or change traits as well. We have piloted training, involving volunteers who had no specific concern in view to test can learning as preventive and proactive step facilitate self-regulation. The training included 3 months and 10 sessions, aimed to promote reflection and self-reflection as proactive mindfulness. Compared to the participants in the control group after the training and six months after completion of the training the volunteers had significantly higher scores for meaning in life. This is just a first step, trying to test the role of training for people who are not interested in a change and do not need support, so we consider this a small piece of support for the suggested direction.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite the unavoidable limitations inherent to cross-sectional study with a convenient sample, in our opinion, this study leads to the suggestion of a general framework that outlines the specifics and commonalities in the interaction of personality factors in a general framework of perceived well-being as process in the course of self-regulation. In line with positive psychology and with a view to lifelong development, learning to flourish can be mastered, not as a need, but on a need-to-know basis, as part of education, like learning for life, based on conclusions for both a predetermined baseline of well-being and at the same time taking into account targeted and life changes. We see this possibility of the suggested model and promotion of meaning in life and proactive attitude and problem-focused coping, as well as in mindfulness: the parallel search for meaning and maintenance of meaning in life, proactive coping aimed at new possibilities, and problem-focused coping as providing stability, perception of all possibilities, and their acceptance of them, or the proactive mindfulness mindset. Training in forming these dispositions can be used to promote plasticity and stability as two mutually supportive lines of development. From research point of view personality dispositions can also be considered from these two perspectives.