article happiness selfesteem

7/30/2019 Article Happiness Selfesteem

1/24

Individual D ifferences Research, 2005 ,3(2) 105ISSN: 1541-745X www.idr-journal.com

2005 Individual D ifferences Research G roup . All rights reserved.

D i f fe r en t ia t i ng H ap p in e s s a n d Se lf -e s te emR . Michael Fu rr*Wake Forest University

A BSTRA CT - R ecent interest in positive psychology is reflected in a host of co nstructs,but the empirical differences among many of these c onstructs are relatively unexamined.With a diverse set of data based on multiple rater perspectives, the differentiation betweentwo of the most basic constructs in positive psychology - happiness and self-esteem - wasexamined along core personality dimensions at different, levels of generality.Undergraduates (n = 146) reported their levels of happiness and self-esteem and providedwide-ranging personality descriptions. In addition, important people from the pa rticipan ts'social lives, including college fi^iends, hometown friends, and parents, providedpersonality descriptions of the participants. A lthough more clearly separable for malesthan for females, happiness was uniquely associated with communal, interpersonally-oriented traits and h igh po sitive affect, while self-esteem was primarily associated withage ntic, independence-oriented and achievement-oriented traits and a lack of negativeaffect.

Posi t ive psychology has genera ted increas ing in teres t in recen t years(Sel igman & Csikszen tmihaly , 2000; Sheldo n & King , 2001; Snyder & Lope z,2002; Snyder & McCul lou^ , 2000) . In the ques t to unders t and the pos i t ivefacets o f psycholog ica l exper ience, researchers have examined ind iv iduald i f ferences such as happ iness , se l f -es teem, se l f-ef f icacy, op t imism, hope,posi t ive af fec t , l i fe sa t i s fac t ion , locus o f con t ro l , a l t ru ism, competence, andcar ing , to name but a few. Typical ly , such const ructs are examinedindependen t ly , wi th resea rcher s on ly occas iona l ly s tudy ing the connec t ionsbe tween them.

To wha t deg ree a re such cons t ruc t s t ru ly concep tua l ly and empi r i ca l lyd is t inc t? To be sure , many of these const ructs are concep tual ly d is t inc t . Forexamp le, theore t ica l models o f hap p ine ss o r wel l -being are clea rly different fromtheore t ica l models o f se l f -es teem, and the var ious def in i t ions o f happ iness ared is t inc t from the var ious def in i t ions o f se l f -es teem. Less c lear howeve r are thefundamenta l empir ica l d is t inc t ion s amon g the const ruc ts . For example, to whatdeg ree d o happ iness and se l f-es t eem ov er l ap , and do they have mean ing fu l ly


2/24

106 Individual Differences Research ,2005, 3(2)For example, Judge and his colleagues examined the empirical overlap amonself-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of con trol, and neuroticism (em otional stability)and they conclude that "these traits are indistinct measures of the same cortrait," which they refer to as core self-evaluations (Judge & Bo no, 2001; p. 108Judge , Erez, Bon o, & Thoreson, 2 002 ). Similarly, Furr and Funder (1998) founthat measures of happiness, depression, life satisfaction, and self-esteemcorrelated w ith each other between .61 and .71 (absolute values) and loaded ona single factor.Acknowledging the empirical overlap among the various constructs related tpositive psychology, researchers have recently recognized the need to examinthe differences among the constructs. In a theoretical review of individuadifferences in happ iness, Lyubom irsky (2001) stated that an inpo rta nt questionfor researchers to consider is whether the empirical fmdings in the happiness (osubjective well-being) literature "reflect the role of chronic happiness per serather than that of self-esteem, optimism, extraversion, sensitivity to reward, oother individual difference constructs .. .. related to happ ines s" (p. 24 4). WhilLyubomirsky and her colleagues have exam ined the differentiation by includingmeasures of self-esteem and optimism in their research, most research has nobeen as inclusive. Similarly, S nyder and M cCullough (2000) note the need tointegrate the "grab-bag of interesting positive psychological con cep ts" (p. 159)An adequate integration must include clarifying the perhaps subtle en^iricadistinctions among such constructs. Also recognizing the need to examine thdifferentiation among positive psychology constructs, Lucas, Diener, and Suh(1996) examined the discriminant validity of measures of life satisfactionpositive affect, negative affect, optimism, hopelessness, and self-esteemAlthough Lucas et al. demonstrated that some of the positive psychologyconstructs are empirically distinguishable, their study was not designed toarticulate the nature of the differences. The deg ree and nature of differentiationamong positive psychology constructs remain open questions.

The current study examines the nature of the differences between two of thecentral constructs in positive ps yc ho lo gy - happiness and self-esteem. Althoughhappiness and self-esteem have independently attracted widespread attentionminimal attention has been paid to their differentiation. Of the nearly 14,000publications from 1970 to 2001 that have either happiness or self-esteem assubject words in the PsycFNFO database, less than one-half of one percenincluded both constructs. Among these few publications, the majority includemeasures of happiness and self-esteem in a set of measures correlated with an


3/24

Individual D ifferences Research, 2005, 3(2) 101Despite the widespread attention paid to happiness and self-esteemindependently, theoretical and empirical ambiguities within each literaturepreclude many clear predictions about the nature of their empirical distinction.

In terms of theory, no model has achieved consensus as a definitive theoreticalframework for either hap piness or self-esteem. Diener and his colleagues haveproposed that subjective well-being is composed of satisfaction with life,positive affect, and (a lack of) negative affect (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith,1999; M yers & Diener, 1995). Although discussions from this perspective oftenappear to equate subjective well-being with happiness (Diener et al, 1999;Myers & Diener, 1995), this perspective also appears to occasionallyconceptualize happiness as an affective subcomponent of the broader constructof subjective well-being (e.g.. Table 1 in Diener et al., 1999). Furthermore,within this model, self-esteem (i.e., satisfaction with self) might beconceptualized as a component of overall satisfaction with life, and thus as asub-sub-component of subjective well being. Despite the wide influence of thismodel, it is not the only model of happiness or well-being (Herm ans, 19 92). Forexam ple, Ryff and her colleagues (Key es, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002; Ryff, 1989;Ryff & Keyes, 1995) identify six aspects of psychological w ell-being, includingself-acceptance. Ryff and her colleagues suggest that happiness is a relatedconstruct, but is conceptually distinct from psycho logical w ell-being. Similarly,theOxford Happ iness Inven tory includes satisfaction with life, personal efficacy,sociability/empathy, positive outlook, physical well-being, cheeifulness, and self-esteem as "the major dimensions of well-being" (Hills & Argyle, 2001, p. 1359).Despite the lack of consensus regarding an overall model of happiness, it isusually defined in terms of pleasant affective experience that can occur as anemotional state or as a relatively stable individual difference.

A s with happiness, no single mo del of self-esteem has been adopted, and no neappears to integrate self-esteem with happiness. For example, Shavelson,Hubner, andStanton (1976) and Boh on (1991 ) present hierarchical models thatconceptualize " glob al" self-esteem as a function of components such as socialself-esteem, physical self-esteem, and moral self-esteem. Quite distinctly, Learyand Baumeister (2000) conceptualize self-esteem as a gauge of the degree towhich one belongs to groups and relationships, and Cast and Burke (2002)theorize that self-esteem is intrinsically linked to self-verification within groupprocesses. Despite the lack of consensus regarding an overall model of self-esteem, global self-esteem is usually defmed in terms of an evaluative con ^on entof one's self-concept - that is, the degree to which one feels satisfied with orapproves of the self


4/24

108 Individual D ifferences Research, 2005, 3(2)correlates. For exam ple, both happiness and self-esteem are positive correlatedwith Extraversion, negatively correlated with Neuroticism, and uncorrelated withOpenness to Experience (Brebner, Donaldson, K irby & W ard, 1995; Costa &M cCrae, 1980, Deneve & Cooper, 1998; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; Judge &Bono, 2001).

One exception to the general neglect of the differentiation between happinesand self-esteem is a study by Hermans (19 92), which prov ides som e insight intothe nature of the difference between the two constructs. Hermans noted thatalthough self-esteem and happiness are positively correlated with each other, thcorrelation is not perfect - some people have relatively high levels of self-esteembut relatively low levels of happiness (and vice versa). From the perspective ovaluation theory, Herm ans examined the psychological nature of such "unhappyself-esteem." Accord ing to valuation theory (Hermans, 1987, 1999), the selreflects a valuation process in which the individual makes meaning out opersonal events. Two basic motivations lie at the heart of the valuation process- the striving for self-enhancement and the striving for connections w ith othepeople. Using an idiographic m ethod of open-ended questions regarding personalevents and using a theoretically-based coding procedure, Hermans (1992)identified participants who reported experiencing events that elicited with thesomewhat counterintuitive combination of high self-esteem and low happinessAnalyses indicated that such unhappy self-esteem occurred on ly wh en there waslittle interpersonal contact or communion - it never occu rred when there was ahigh level of interpersonal contact. Th is finding suggests that hap piness , but noself-esteem, may partially rest on close interpersonal connections. In contrastself-esteem may rest more on self-enhancement, or advancement of the selfwithout regard for close connections to other peop le.

Hermans's (1992) fmdings inqjly that the difference between happiness andself-esteem might fall along the two fundamental interpersonal dimensions ofcommunion and agency (Bakan, 1966; W iggins & Tra pn ell, 1996). Communionrefers to the affiliative nature of people's motivations and behavioral patternswhere one end of the dimension reflects an orientation towards social warmthand acceptance or "getting along" while the other end represents a tendency tobe hostile, cold, and aloof. Agency refers to individuation, with one end of thedimension reflecting dominance and ambition or "getting ahe ad," and the otherend representing submissiveness (Hogan, Jones , &Cheek, 1985; W olfe, Lennox& Cutler, 1986). These two core dimensions have consistently appeared ingender difference research, including studies of gender differences in well-being,


5/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 109emerges from the very same idiographic "self-confrontation" assessment thatreflects valuations and m otivations. That is, there was no measurem ent of eitherself-esteem or happiness that was otherw ise well-validated and independent fromthe measuremen t of the basic motives. The current study addresses both of theseissues.Alongside the primary hypothesis that happiness and self-esteem will bealigned with communion and agency, several methodological and conceptualguiding issues should be cons idered in investigating the differentiation. First, theinvestigation should include a wide range of personality constructs from multiplelevels of generality. Happiness and self-esteem are both strongly related topersonality characteristics (Diener, 1996). Thus, core personality variablesprovide not only a common ground on which comparisons may be based, butalso a coherent framework within which they may be integrated. Since thecurrent literature offers few clear hypotheses about the differentiation betweenhappiness and self-esteem, aside from the distinction between agency andcomm union, it seems prudent to adopt models o f personality that cover a largedegree of content. Similarly, given the empirical overlap between happ iness andself-esteem, their differentiation is likely to be subtle. Broad constructs such asExtraversion and Neuroticism might be too general to reflect the potentiallysubtle differences between happiness and self-esteera Therefore, the explorationof their differentiation should include broad and narrow constructs. Toac co n^ lish this, the current investigation includes the broad F ive Factor Mode lof personality (McCrae & John, 1992) as well as the more focused variablesfrom the California Adu lt Q-set (CA Q; Block, 1978). Both frameworks are well-known and wide-ranging perspectives of personality, and provide informationabout characteristics such as communion, agency, extraversion, neuroticism,positive emotionality, interpersonal warmth, hostility, social comparisons,power-orientation, achievement, ego-resiliency, impulse control, and moralconsistency.Second, the investigation should include both self-report and peer-reportperspectives on personality, for at least two reasons . Happin ess and self-esteemare both rooted in subjective experience, but they also have implications forinterpersonal traits and behavior (Argyle & Lu, 1990; Bau m eister et al., 2003;Cast & Burke, 2002; Cooper, Okamura, & Gurka, 1992; Deneve & Cooper,1998; Leary & D ow ns, 1995; Lu & Yin , 1998). Therefore, the differentiationcould manifest itself in one's own internal experience differently from theimpression that one m akes on other peop le. By including both self-report andpeer-reports o f personality, this possibility can be examined (Diener et al., 1999).


6/24

110 Individual D ifferences Research, 2005, 3(2)consistent results are found across self-report and peer-reports of personalityresearchers can have stronger faith that they reflect the stable facets of happinessand self-esteem than the properties of temporary moods. The present studyincludes data from a variety of sources, including self-report and descriptionsfrom important people within participants' social lives - college peershometown peers , and parents. Although self-report data is the most w idespreadform of personality data and has been invaluable in the field, other sources ofdata allow investigations from perspectives that may be less encumbered bypsychological defenses and social desirability issues. Such concerns areparticularly important for evaluative traits (John & Robins, 1993), such ashappiness and self-esteem.

Third, the investigation should examine the nature of any gender differencesin the differentiation of happiness and self-esteem. Previous work has shownclear gender differences in the psychological experience and expression ofconstructs related to positive psyciiology (F urr & Funder, 1998; Helgeson, 1994Herman, 1992; Major, Barr, Zubeck, & Babey, 1999; Reise, Smith, & Furr,2001; Ryff, 1989), which indicates that gender is an important considerationwhen differentiating such constructs.

The present study is an exploration of the nature of the differentiation betweenhappiness and self-esteem, in terms of distinctive associations w ith a wide rangeof inportan t personality constructs, pa rticularly the constructs of comm union andagency. Articulating the nomological networks surrounding the two constructsprovides an evaluation of their discriminant validity and extends ourunderstanding of their unique psychological natures (Lucas et al., 1996). Thepresent study pursues this exploration by incorporating a wide variety ofpersonality variables from different levels of generality, by incorporatingmultiple sources of data, and by attending to gender differences.

MethodThe present analyses are based on data gathered as part of the RiversideAccuracy Project (Funder, 1995). These data have been used for, among othertopics, a study of gender differences in global self-esteem (Blackman & F under,1996) and a study of "Personal Negativity" - the common core of depressiveaffect, dissatisfaction with life, unhappiness, and low self-esteem (Furr &Funder, 1998). It has never been used to differentiate constructs as is the focus

of these analyses.


7/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 111provide personality descriptions from pe ers ' perspectives. Parents of the targetparticipants also provided personality descriptions of the targets, and theyreceived gift certificates for the campus bookstore.Procedures and MeasuresThe data in the present study come from self-reports of happiness, self-esteem,and two global measures of personality by the target participants, and frominformant-reports of global personality characteristics by college acqua intances,hometown acquaintances, and parents.

Happiness. Happiness was assessed using three measures from Fordyce'shappiness assessments, which are widely validated indicators of happiness(Fordyce, 1988). Respondents rate, on an 11 -point scale (0= Ex trem ely unhappy,10 = Extremely happy), how happy or unhappy they usually feel. In addition,they estimate the average percent of time that they feel happy and the averagepercen t of time they feel unhappy. Fo rdyce (19 88) reports strong short term andlong term reliability estimates for the the happiness measures. Short term test-retest correlations are .98 and .88 (2-day and 2-week period s, respectively), andlong term correlations are .62 to .67 for four months. Fordyce (1988) alsopresents evidence showing strong convergent validity between the happinessMeasures and a wide range of other measures of affect, depression, andhappiness. Based on a review of response bias research with the happinessmeasures, Fordyce (1988) concludes that the measures are relatively free of suchbias for research use. A more recent evaluation of measures of subjective well-being also revealed that the Fordyce happiness measures showed acceptableconvergent and discriminant validity (Sandvik, Diener, & Seidlitz, 1993).

Self-esteem. Two measures were used to assess global self-esteem. TheRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) includes ten itemsconcerning evaluation of the self, such as "On the whole, I am satisfied withm y s e lf and "A t times I think I am no good at all" (reversed). Each item wasrated on a 4-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater self-esteem. Areview of various measures of self-esteem found that the RSE was the mostwidely-used measure of global self-esteem and that the RSE appears to be the"gold s tandard" through which m ost other measures of self-esteem are validated(Blascovich & Tom aka, 1991). Blascovich and Tomaka report that the RSE hasacceptable reliability, with internal consistency estimates rang ing from .77 to .88and test-retest estimates of .85 for a two-week interval. In addition, they reportthat the RSE is clearly associated with many variables related to self-esteem,


8/24

112 Individual D ifferences Research, 2005, 3(2)estimates (ranging from .75 to .83), acceptable test-retest reliability (rangingfrom .70 to .80 over several weeks to a year, for a longer version of thequestionnaire), and evidence in favor of both convergent and disriminantvalidity.Self-report descriptions of personality. Participants completed the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985) and the CaliforniaAdult Q-Set (CAQ ; Block, 1978), as adapted by Bem and F under (1978). TheNEO-PI is a measure of the Five Factor Model of personality, which includesExtraversion, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, andConscientiousness. In this version of the NEO -PI, the N euroticism, Extraversion,and Openness to Experience factors each have six more specific facets (e.g.,Extraversion: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitementseeking, positive emotions). The NEO-P I contains 180 statements about the selfthat are rated on a 5-point scale for agreement (0 = Strongly disagree, 4 =Strongly agree). The factor scores and the facet sco res all have good evidence ofreliability and validity (Costa & M cCrae, 1985).

The interpersonal traits of Communion and Agency can be located within afive-factor model. Comm union maps onto A greeableness and onto the W armthfacet of Extraversion. Agency maps onto Extraversion, particularly theAssertiveness facet (Digman, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1989; Trapnell &W iggins, 1990). Th us, the NE O-PI can serve as a useful measure of Com munionand Agency.The CAQ is a set of 100 items reflecting a wide range of personalitycharacteristics. In its usual format, the CAQ consists of 100 cards, each with adescription of a personality characteristic printed on it (e.g., "Is basicallyanxious," "Is productive, gets things done"). Respondents p lace these cards intoa 9-step, symmetric, approximately normal, forced-choice distribution (1 = Notat all characteristic, 9 = Highly characteristic). The CAQ resu lts in 100 scoresreflecting a detailed profile of the target's personality.The interpersonal traits of Comm union and A gency can be located within theCAQ content. A number of the CA Q items have been judg ed to closely reflectCommunion (e.g., "Tends to arouse liking and acceptance in people," "Haswarmth; has the capacity for close relationships; compassionate," "Behaves ina giving way toward others" ) and a number of others have been jud ged to reflectAgency (e.g., "Is power oriented; values pow er in self and othe rs," "Ha s highaspirations level for self, "Va lues own independence and autonomy") (M arkey,2002; Markey & F under, 2004).These two m easures of personality are particularly useful in that they cover


9/24

Individual Differences Research,10QS, 3(2) 11of generality and specificity, the NEO-PI facet scores allow a mid-levelinvestigation of the distinction between happiness and self-esteem. Thedifferentiation of happiness and self-esteem can be examined along a widevariety of important personality characteristics from different levels ofgenerality.

Informant-report descriptions of personality. Target participants w ere askedto recruit two college acquaintances, two hometown acquaintances, and bothparents to provide informant-report personality descriptions. Collegeacqua intances were typically the same sex as the target and had know n the targetfor an average of 1.5 years. They described the targets using a third-person formof the NE O-PI and the CA Q. S imilarly, targets provided addresses of h ometow nacquaintances and parents, who also com pleted third-person forms of the NE O -PI-The descriptions by peers and parents reflect the way in which targetparticipants are viewed by some of the important people in their socialenvironment. Within each rater domain (college, hometown, parent) the tworaters' NEO-PI's were at least moderately correlated with each other and weretherefore averaged to form composite NEO-PI scores. This procedure wasconducted for each target subject for wh om both ratings were obtained, but fortargets for whom only one rating within the domain w as obtained, the sole ratingwas included in the informant-report data. Th is compositing procedure w as alsofollowed for the two college acquaintance CAQ ratings.

ResultsOverview of analysesThe three happiness measures are aggregated into an overall happinesscom posite, and the two self-esteem measures are aggregated into an overall self-

esteem composite. The unique natures of the two focal variables is thenexamined using a procedure similar to that used by Block and Kremen (1996)in their differentiation of IQ and ego-resiliency. Th is proced ure em ployees sem i-partial correlations to explore the unique relationships between the two focalvariables and each of the NEO -PI and CAQ personality variables. The uniquenature of happiness is examined by correlating the happiness composite witheach of the persona lity variables, partialling the self-esteem com posite from eachcorrelation. The semi-partial correlation between the happiness composite andeach of the personality variables can be interpreted as revealing "pure" happiness- the personality correlates of that part of happiness that is unrelated to self-


10/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)Table 1NE O-PI Correlates of Happiness Controlling for Self-esteem

FaaorlFuxlNcurot ic i smAnxietyHostilityDepressionSelfConsciousnessImpulsivenessVulnerabilityExtraversfonWannthGregariousnessAssertivenessActivityExcitement SeekingPositive EmotionsO pennes sFantasyAestheticsFeelingActionIdeasValuesAgreeablenessC onK i ent lous nes s

n

Self. .(..12- . I 7 t-.02.01-.04-.02.01.01.16

..12..12-.04.14-.09.16..13-.05-.17-.10-.08.04.0 }79

FemalesCP-.11..09..12..08.06-.14-.10.03II.09

-.02.06-.05-.07-.22--.07-.21--.07-.27-.03-.26.14.1178

HTP.13.03..01.14.15.15.20t

..01.06.10

..17-.15-.02.06- .27*-0 1-.20t-.14..18- .28*-.18.10.0171

Parent..10-1 6-.19.00.07

-.02-.08.02.09

-.02-.04.02-.15.18..12.04-.28-.05.01..02-.12.19. 1 !62

Self..11.01-.37 -.05.01.05-1 0. 23*. 3 7 ".06

-.14-.09.211. 4 5 * "

-.05-0 4-.04.08-.05-.15.04. 42***

..0264

MalesCP..OS-.11. .31 '-.04.14.03.20.18.38**.22t

..29"..02.19.31*.04.12

-.12.05.11.03.00.37**

..0752

HTP. .16-.22-.18-.21.09-.15.06.18.15.17.02.10.05.33'

-.07-.13.06-.05.07-.20.04.IS

. .2054

Parent..04-.04-.06.09-.02-.14..06.10.15.06

..01.06.12.10

. .03..17.00.03

..06.14-.15.02.0646

p < .001; p < .01; p < .05; f p < .10.Note: Self = Self-report NEO-PI correlates, CP = College Peer composite NEO-PI correlates, HTP = HometownPeer composite NEO-PI correlates. Parent = Parent composite NEO-PI correlates. Factors are emboldened, facetsare in normal fonL

When two focal variables are positively correlated with each other and arecorrelated in the same direction with an external variable (as is the case for mostanalyses of happiness and self-esteem in the current study ), then the partiallingprocedure essentially magnifies whatever differences exist in the zero-ordercorrelations betw een the focal variables and the external variable. Thus, theseanalyses highlight the empirically subtle differences between happ iness and self-esteem.Descriptive Information


11/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 115any happiness or self-esteem scale or either co n^ os ite , but females have slightlygreater variance than males on the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale (F= 1.86, p .05), this gender difference suggests that there is somewhat more overlapbetween happiness and self-esteem in females than in males. This implies thatthe two constructs may be easier to differentiate for males than for females.

Table 2CAQ Correlates of Happiness Controlling for Self-esteemFemales

CAQ I l e m

8 4 Che e i fu lS6 Responds to humor15 Socially sIdDed i t play, bultior59 Coticemed w ith fuoctioaitig of body31 Regards self at physically attractive88 Personalty chanrtitig14 Stibnvssive5 Giv ing2 Dependable and responsible7 Has conservative valties93 Sex.typed: Teinnine29 Sought For advice11 Protective of close ones62 Rebellious: non^o nforming61 Creates and exploits depcndeticy it) people37 Guileful atiddecdtfl i l34 Over .reactive to tnitior Ihistratiotu1 C ritica l skeptical52 Assertive49 Distrustful36 U ndermines and Mbotagesl2Sel f .defenl iveS3 Unable 10 delay patirtcatioo22 Lacks personal meaoing in life50 U npred icuble in behavior and attitudes45 Briu le, handles stress poorly

Seir

. 3 0 ".29 . 3 3 "1 8 t. 2 0 *.14. 2 5 *.02..10.04.05

..18 t..10

..28 " 21 t..II..18 f. .07. . 2 3 *.0 5.06. .06..03.03.17. . 2 6 '

MalesC P* C A Q Item

.34

.26.15.26.19.25.12.29.39.25.24.3 0.24. .22. 2 5. .35..25..28.09.26..23..22..23..21. 2 9.10

84 Cheerful5 Giv ingt9Seeksreusurance28 ArYMiiea liking4 Talkative35 ConsusiooAtcBS Pcreoni lly ch tm ing14 Subnisrivc56 Responds to huitaji43 Facialty/gcsttvally expressive73 E iotid zts situations* 3 Wid e range o f interests1 Criti cal skeptical49 Distrustful48 Keeps peopk at i distance* 38 Hostile owardsothers97 Bnotionally bland79 Worries or broods53 Unable to dehy gratificatioo70 EthicaOy consistent62 Rebellious: non


12/24

116 Individual D ifferences Research, 2005, 3(2)happiness is related to high Agreeableness from the self and college peerperspectives, but clearer findings emerge from facet-level analyses. Purehappiness is associated with high levels of Wannth and Positive Emotions, andit is associated with low levels of Angry Hostility. The effect sizes generallyreplicated across the self, college peer, and hometovra peer perspectives.

Table 3CAQ Comm union and Agency Prototype Mean Correlations of PureHappiness and Pure Self-esteem

Focal ViriaU e

FoTBksPure HagipinessP u r e S d f . e m ,

M e sPure HappinessPmSe l f .


13/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 11each CAQ item w as characteristic of the prototypical communal individual andof the prototypical agentic individual. The ju dg es ' ratings were then averaged foreach item to form highly reliable aggregated C AQ prototypes of communion andagency (see M arkey, 2002 for more details). To examine the degree to wh ich thepattern of CAQ correlations obtained in the current study (see Table 2) reflectcommunion and agency, the full profile of 100 CA Q correlates of pure happinesswas correlated with both of the 100-item prototypes. A positive comm union (oragency) profile correlation indicates that the CAQ items that were relativelyhighly correlated with pure happiness were also those judged to be relativelycharacteristic of communion (or agency). A profile correlation was confutedonce for the self-reported CAQ correlates and once for the peer-reported CAQcorrelates, and the mean of these two profile correlations is presented in Table3 . Results indicate that pure happiness is associated with communion but notwith agency, within the CAQ correlations. That is, the CAQ items that wererelatively highly correlated with pure happiness were also those that had beenjudged to be relatively prototypical of comm union.

Table 4NEO-PI Correlates of Self-esteem Controlling for HappinessFictor/FocctNe uroHds mAnxietyHostilityDepressionSelf ConsciousnessImpulsivenessVulnerabilityExtraversionWarmthGregariousnessAssertivenessActivityExcitement SeekingPositive EmotionsOpennessFantasyAestheticsFeelingActionIdeasValuesAgreeableness

Self- ,42 -.23 . .18 t. ,47 " - ,44 " .01

. .44 " ,42 " . 2 4 '. I 9 t.44 ". 3 0 ".27*. 2 6 ",23*

..07.18.211. 23 *, 2 5 *,201, 23 *

PenniesCP- , l 9 t- , l 9 t..07-.24*- . 3 2 ".13

-.17, 2 * '.17.16.18.10.25*. 3 3 ",26*.00.24 '.22t.19t.09. 3 2 ",os

HT P-,26 -.16-,09- .28*-.231- .27*.12.05

-.05.26*.15.06.10J l ".05. 2 7 '.24*.12, 3 6 ".19,00

Paicnt-,ia-.14.04

-.20- .33--.03-.18.14,00,17.24t.01.15.02,26-.07.25f.17.15.13.19

-.01

Self- ,50**-.4


14/24

118 Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)Table 5

CAQ Correlates of Self-esteem Controlling for Happiness

FeiraleiC A Q I t o n74S2Iisficd\MthsdfS2Assenive20 Rapid pcisanal tenpo75 Internally consistert personality26 Productive92 Socially poised71 A n M a E77 Suj j^ lAjM snl and fbrthnght60 Insi^^ mto OMTI iiLAivolion91 fbuer oriented96 Values wm indepaidencft58 Sensuous57 Interesting person2D:pendable

81 Physically atn ad vc8 I i>dl igafiJ22 Lads peiscnal meaning in life55 SelfKHeait78 Self-pitying89 Conpares seifto o th n72 Qxicemed W4di o w l adeqiQCy69 SCIEMUVC to doiBpds45 Brittlel4Subirissi>19 Seek5 tcasstnnce79VWiriesorlroods68NcrK>E56 Respond, to h i m r42 Awids action

9 U ncorrfertaUe with uncertainty

Se lfj 5 . . .J 5 ",24*. 4 0 * "J 3 * *.25*, 2 9 ",26*,24*JU *.25*-.02.22*3 0 * *i 2 *.24*13 *J O * *

-.191-.41 * * *. J 4 "- J l ".J9 " *- J 4 " *-.12-,oe-.14- , I5- , I6- ,25 *- ,25 *- ,24 *- .24 *

CP*i 5 *,16.24*.06,11.15.10,12,08.08.Ot.25*,00

-.09-,O I-.05-.06-.16- J 4 * *-.06-.12-.15-.06-,08- J 7 *- , 2 9 * *2i'-,211-,191-.09-.08-.05-,OI

MalKCA Q Item71 AirtitioiE52Asseitivt74 Satisfied with sd f

8 Intelligent26 FVoduct]\c9 8 Ve r tB l ly f l in t96 Values o w i indq iendenx94 Expresses hostility ditectly70El lnaDycas is tcn57 Interestingpencn

3 yM t rang : of irterests22 Lacks personal nraning in tile47Fedspi i l ty78Sdf-pitying19 Seeks reassmnceMSiiniss ive55SelfKlefealing30 G ives 14] when& x d wth fiussadon45 Brittle86 Denies unpleasant t h o u ^42 A vdds action87 Interprets situations in conplkated W3>s9 U nconionab le with uncertaittty

72 Concemed with oun adequacy21 Anuses nututxt feeling

Self,42 " *, 4 8 " *3S "J l *7 9 *,43 " *,16,28 *.29 *, 2 9 *.27 *

- J8 * "- .52 * * *- J 9 * * *- J 4 * *- J 7 * *-.211- J 6 *-,26*. J 9 * *- 3 5 * *-.25*- J O *-,24*-,05

CP"J 6 ",12,15,18J20,052T.11-.01

-,08- ,221-.28*-,I2- ,231- .27 *-.15- .29 *- . 2 2 1-.21-.07-.11-.18-.11-.13- .27 *

" p < ,001; * p < ,01; p < .05; t P < ,10,Note, Self = Self-report data, CP = C ollege P eer composite data, a n =59 . 82 , b n = 79, c n = 64, d n =

Pure Self-esteemSemi-partial correlations were computed between the self-esteem compositeand each of the NEO-PI factors and facets, with the happiness compositepartialled. Th is was done for self, college peer, hometown peer, and parent NEO-P I ratings. Table 4 presents the resu lts for all factor-level correlations, along withthe facet-level correlations that were statistically significant at/? < .05 for at least


15/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 119Experience, specifically the Aesthetics, Feelings, and Ideas facets. For males,pure self-esteem is most clearly revealed at the facet leve l. It is negatively relatedto the Depression, S elf-consciousness, and Vulnerability facets of Neuroticism,and it is positively related to the Assertiveness facet of Extraversion. Theseresults replicate across several rater domains.At the more focused CAQ level of analysis, semi-partial correlations werecomputed between self-esteem and each of the CAQ items, as rated by targetparticipants and by their college peers. Table 5 includes sem i-partial correlationsthat were significant at/? < .05 from at least one of the rater domains. The resultsshow a great degree of sim ilarity in the nature of pure self-esteem for femalesand males, although this is more clearly revealed in the self-report correlates thanin the college peer correlates for females. For both sexes, pure self-esteem ispositively related to characteristics such as assertiveness, am bition, productivity,independence, and of course self-satisfaction, and it is negatively related tocharacteristics such as self-pity, a brittle psychological constitution,submissiveness, avoiding action, and having a lack of personal meaning.

Again, a more formal evaluation of the CAQ correlations reveals that pureself-esteem is associated with the interpersonal trait of agency but not withcommunion. To examine the degree to which pure self-esteem in the currentstudy reflects communion and agency, the full profile of 100 CAQ correlates ofpure self-esteem (Table 5) was co rrelated with both of the 100-item comm unionand agency prototypes (Markey, 2002 ; Markey & Funder, 2004). Again, a profilecorrelation was compu ted once for the self-reported C AQ co rrelates and once forthe peer-reported CA Q correlates, and the mean of these two profile correlationsis presented in Table 3. Results indicate that pure self-esteem is associated withagency but not with comm union, within the CA Q co rrelations. That is , the CAQitems that were relatively highly correlated with pure self-esteem were also thosethat had been judged to be relatively prototypical of agency.

DiscussionTo differentiate happiness and self-esteem, the current analysis includedmultiple judges of personality using multiple measures of core personalityconstructsfi^omdifferent levels of generality. The inclusion of multiple judgesand the use of multiple instruments provides important information regardingreplicability and generalizability of findings across data sources and m ethods. Inaddition, the breadth of important and well-known constructs enables theintegration of the results within familiar social psychological fiamew orks. M ostclearly apparent for males, the differentiation between happiness and self-esteem


16/24

' 20 Individual D ifferences Research, 2005, 3(2)and cheerfulness than participants with low levels of pure happiness. Areflected in all the data sources for both sexes, participants with high levels opure self-esteem experience less anxiety, depression, stress, and self-pity thanparticipants with low levels of pure self-esteem. In addition, they are less selfdefeating, less concerned about themselves and the ir adequacy, and feel a greatemeaning in their lives than do participants with low levels of pure self-esteemThe alignment of happiness and self-esteem along affective dimensions parallelresearch in positive and negative affect. Such research has posited that P ositivAffect and Negative Affect are relatively independent dimensions, and it hasshown that P ositive Affect is strongly related to Extraversion and the NegativeAffect is strongly related to Neuroticism (Watson & Clark, 1984,1997).

Interpersonal differentiation parallels the two basic interpersonal dimensionsof communion and agency, which confirming hypotheses based on Hermans(1992) findings. The present analyses suggest that pure happiness is associatedwith a socially-focused, comm unal orientation, particularly for males . For malescorrelates of pure happiness from all raters and instruments includedcharacteristics such as warmth, compassion, agreeableness, and low hostilityAlthough not reflected strongly for females, these same com munal characteristicswere found in the females' college peer CA Q correlates of pure happiness. Incontrast, self-esteem for both males and females is characterized more stronglyby an agentic orientation. For both sexes, correlates of pure self-esteem includedassertiveness, ambition, productivity, and independence. The results suggest thahappiness is aligned with "getting along" and self-esteem is aligned with "gettingahead".Happ iness and self-esteem were less clearly interpersonally differentiated forfemales than for males. Not only were the happiness and self-esteem com positessomewhat more highly correlated for females than for males (though thedifference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance), but thesemi-partial correlations w ith personality variables w ere also less revea ling forfemales than for males. In males, each rater domain - self, college peerhometown peer, and parents - showed similar patterns of results for bothhappiness and self-esteem. For females, however, there was less consistentreplication across raters, primarily for happiness. Finally, the CAQ prototypecorrelations presented in Table 3 show clearer differentiation for males - formales the difference between the mean communion profile correlation withhappiness and the mean agency correlation with happiness was .63, but forfemales the difference between the mean communion profile correlation with


17/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 121differentiated for females? Given the relatively exploratory nature of the currentstudy and its correlational design, answers at this point are speculative. Bearingthis in mind, at least one provisional answer can be offered, based on theemerging evidence that facets of psychological well-being are clearly tied tosocial and cultural forces (e.g., Diener & Diener, 1995; Diener, Suh, Smith &Shao, 1995; Eid & D iener, 2001).Much social psychological research emphasizes the socially constructednature of the self and, by extension, of self-esteem (J. H. Block, 1984; Eagly,1987; Josephs, et al, 1992). One's self-esteem may be based largely on one'ssuccess at meeting the goals that are socially prescribed for one's role. That is,we will have high self-esteem if we accom plish what society expects of us. Sincefemales and males are typically exposed to different socio-cultural ex pecta tions,their self-esteem may be based on different domains, roles, and expectations(Josephs et al., 1992). In western cu ltures, the traditional female social role hasbeen that of nurturance and interpersona l affiliation, wh ile the male role has beenprimarily that of achievement and individuation. The social psychologicalapproach to self-esteem then suggests that, traditionally speaking, a woman'sself-esteem would be relatively high if she was successful at fostering affiliativerelationships, while a ma n's self-esteem would b e high if he had achieved statusand was relatively independent. Such gender-based differences in self-esteemhave indeed been found (Josep hs et al., 1992; Stein et al., 1992), although someresearch indicates that self-esteem in both sexes is based on more masculine-oriented traits (Whitley, 1983). As reflected in all the results for males and in theCAQ correlates for females, pure happiness appears to be associated withaffiliative, com munal tendenc ies. If these findings are accura te, then for females,happiness and self-esteem are primarily grounded in the same experiences -interpersonal relationships. That is, it is possible that a female's interpersonalrelationships may make her happy, and may also increase her self-esteem, asderivedfi-omher fulfilbnent of the traditional role expectations of wom en in theculture. In contrast, a ma le's interpersonal relationships m ay make him happy,but m ay not increase his self-esteem - his self-esteem may be based more onachievem ent and amb ition, as derived from his fulfillment of the traditional roleexpectations for men in the culture.

One direction for future research is to examine cultural influences on thedifferentiation of constructs such as happiness and self-esteem. For example,happ iness and self-esteem might be more clearly differentiated in some culturesthan in others. Diener and Diener (1995) found that self-esteem and life


18/24

122 Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)and self-esteem m ight becom e more highly intercorrelated - interpersonalrelationships m ight be the basis of both positive affectivity, wh ich is aligned w ith"pure happ iness" and of self-esteem, which is to some degree based on culturalroles and norms. Another research direction cou ld be the examination of changesin a single culture's norms across time. As a given culture shifts its gender-typical norms and roles, the differentiation between happiness and self-esteemmay show a corresponding shift.A second issue for further research is to replicate the current findings, for atleast two reasons. First, the current analyses are among the fu^st to explicitlyexamine the differentiation of happiness and self-esteem and are thus ratherexploratory in nature. Since the theoretical and empirical ambiguities in theexisting literatures preclude many clear hypotheses about the nature of thedifferentiation, the current findings and interpretations should be taken asgroundwork for more focused exam inations of the issues. Second , it is importantto bear in mind that the differences identified in the current study are actua llyquite subtle. Happ iness and self-esteem are strongly empirically related (Furr &Funder, 1998), and many of their zero-order correlates are quite similar. Theanalytic procedures adopted in the current study essentially serve to magnify thefine distinctions between the two highly related constructs. Thu s further researchcould help establish the degree to which the subtle differences are stable andreplicable. Despite the need for replication, the design in current study providesmethodological reasons for confidence in the current fmdings. The inclusion ofmultiple raters of personality and multiple measures of happiness, self-esteemand the other personality variables suggests that many of the results aregeneralizable across raters and measures, particularly for males.

More broadly, the messages of Lyubomirsky (2001), Lucas et al. (1996),Snyder and McCullough (2000), and Judge and Bono (2001) should be re-emphasized - the interrelationshps among the constructs related to positivepsychology merit serious attention. Positive psychology is well-stocked withconstructs that are conceptually and emp irically overlapping. Fu rthermore, mostof the research in psychological well-being focuses on one of these constructsin isolation without regard for the degree to which alternative constructs m ay bein operation. The current study focused on happiness and global self-esteem, tw oof the primary constructs in the study of positive psychology. But broaderexamination of discriminant validity and construct differentiation can advancethe clarification, integration, and understanding of positive psychologicalexperience.


19/24

Individual D ifferences Research, 2005, 3(2) 123effect sizes, can help focus attention on the important themes in the results. Indeed, thisis often the practice when examining tables of CAQ correlates (e.g.. Block & Kremen,1996). In addition, the APA Task Force suggests that replication of results should be ofprimary consideration in more exploratory analyses. As the results will demonstrate,themes do emerge in replications across multiple judges of personality and multiplemeasures. Tables of all NEO-PI correlates are available from the author.

Author NoteI thank Alexander Creed, Leslie Eaton, David Funder, and Tim Huelsman for theirvaluable com ments on previous versions of this article. Data gathering was supported byNIMH grant R01MH42427 to D. Funder.

ReferencesArgyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). Happiness and social skills. Personality andIndividual Differences. 11, 1255-1261.Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion inWestern man. Boston, M A: Beacon Press.Baum eister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & V ohs , K. D. (2003). Doeshigh self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness,or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.

Blackman, M.C., & Funder, D.C. (1996). Self-esteem as viewed from theoutside: A peer and gender perspective. Journal of Social Behavior andPersonality, 77, 115-126.Blascovich, J., & Tom aka, J. (1991). M easures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson,Phillip R. Shaver, and L. S. Wdg htsm an (Eds.) Measures of personality andsocial psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA : Academic Press.Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatricresearch. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (Originallypublished 1961).Block, J. & K remen, (1996 ). IQ and ego-resiliency: C onceptual and enq)iricalconnections and separateness. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,70,349-361.Block, J. H . (1984). How gender differences affect c hild ren 's orientations to theworld. In J. H. Block (Ed.) Sex role identity and ego development (pp. 182-206). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Bohon, L. M. (1991). Self-esteem: A theoretical and quantitative exploration.(Doctoral Dissertation, Un iversity of California, Rive rside, 1991) DissertationAbstracts International, 51 ^ 5625


20/24

124 Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 573-583.Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Fransisco, CA: WH. Freeman.Costa, P. T. & M cCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neu roticismon subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personaliand Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.Costa, P. T., & McC rae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manuaOdessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Deneve, K. M., & Cooper, H . (199 8). The happy personality: A meta-analysof 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin124, 197-229.Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons fromsubjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389-399.Diener, E., & Diener, M . (199 5). Cross-cultural correlates of life-satisfaction anself-esteem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.Diener, E., Suh, E. M ., Smith, H., Shao, L. & (1995 ). National differences ireported subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social-IndicatorsResearch, 34, 7-32.

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal oPersonality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretatioHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Eid, M. & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in differencultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality anSocial Psychology, 81, 869-885Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysisPsychological Bulletin, 116^ 429-456.Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: Asixty-second index of emotional well-being and mental health. SociaIndicators Research, 20, 355-381.Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistiapproach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (1998). A mulitmodal analysis of personanegativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1580-1591.

Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure as aintegrativeframework:An em pirical comparison with Eysenck's P-E-N mode


21/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 125dialogue with the person. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 10-19.

Hermans, H. J. M . (1992). Unhappy self-esteem: A meaningful exception to therule, ne Journal of Psychology, 126, 555-570.Hermans, H. J. M. (1999). Self-narrative as meaning construction: The dynamicsof self-investigation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1193-1211.Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension ofhappiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1357-1364.Hogan, R., Jones, W. H., & Cheek, J. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: Analternative to armadillo psychology. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self andsocial life (pp. 175-198). New York: McGraw-Hill.John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on

personality traits: The big five dom ains, observability, evaluativeness, and theunique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 57, 521 -551.Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,


22/24

126 Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)Association.Markey, P. M. (2002). The duality of personality: A gency and communion inpersonality traits, motivation, and behavior. Dissertation AbstractsInternational: Section-B: The Sciences andEngineering, 63(5-B), 2638.

Markey, P. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Behavior mapping: Relating observedbehaviors to the interpersonal circumplex. Manuscript under review.Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications forcognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological R eview, 98, llA-lSi.McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits:Wiggins's circun^lex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 56, 586-595.McCrae, R. R., & John, 0. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor modeland its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.M yers, D. G., & D iener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19.Reise, S. P., Smith, L. & Furr, R. M. (2001). Invariance on the NEO PI-RNeuroticism scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 83-110.Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent image. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Pre ss.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). H appiness is everything, or is it? Explorations in the m eaningof psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 1069-1081.

Ryff, C. D., & Ke yes, C. L. M . (1995). The structure of psychological well-beingrevisited. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 69,719-727.Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: Theconvergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. Journalof Personality, 61, 317-342.Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihaly, M. (2000). Positive psychology: Anintroduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.Shavelson, R. J., Hu bner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: V alidationof construct interpretation. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary.American Psychologist, 56, 216-217.Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of Positive Psychology.London, Oxford University PressSnyder, C. R. & M c C u l l o u ^ , M. E. (2000). A positive psychology field ofdreams: "If you build it, they will come.. ." Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 19, 151-160.


23/24

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2) 127W atson, D., & Clark, L. A. (198 4). Negative affectivity: Th e disposition toexperience negative affective states. Psycho logical Bulletin, 96,465-490.W atson, D., & C lark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core.

In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personalitypsychology (pp. 767-793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.W hitley, B . E., Jr. (1983) Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho logy, 44,765-778.W iggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A d yadic-interactional perspective onthe five-factor model. In J. S. W iggin s (Ed .), The five-factor model ofpersonality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88-162). New York: GuilfordPress.W ilkinson, L. & The A PA Task Fo rce on Statistical Inference (1999). Statisticalmethods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. AmericanPsychologist, 54, 594-604.W olfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D., & Cutler, B . L. (1986). Getting along and gettingahead: En^jirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 356-361.


24/24

article happiness selfesteem

Documents