Search

The present study investigated whether personality judgments involve different processes in a family setting than in a nonfamily setting. We used the Social Relations Model to distinguish the effects of perceiver, target, perceiver-target relationship, and family on personality judgments. Family members of families with adolescents judged their own and the other members' Big Five factors. Judgments were found to depend on the relevance of personality factors within the family setting: Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were judged most consistently. Large relationship variance indicated that parents adjust their judgments to the target family member; large perceiver variance indicated that adolescents judge family members' personalities rather similarly. However, a comparison of self- and other-judgments showed adolescents' judgments to be no more related to their self-perceptions than parents' judgments. We concluded that the relevance of personality factors may differ on specific tasks within a setting.

The search for dispositional factors that influence the course and conduct of close relationships has long and popular roots. No cogent theory of interpersonal processes would deny that dispositional factors matter, and, furthermore, both scholarly and lay analyses often emphasize them. Although existing research has made progress in understanding how dispositions affect behavior in ongoing relationships, when all is said and done, this progress has been modest. In this paper, we discuss several interlocking theoretical and methodological principles that may facilitate movement to the next (and more sophisticated) generation of theory and research. We draw particularly on interdependence theory to discuss the concepts of relationship and persons-in-relationship. Central to our analysis is the principle that interaction in relationships is an inherently dynamic, temporal, and thoroughly interdependent process that cannot be properly understood from examination of the static, global dispositions of one of its members. To provide grounding for our analysis, we also discuss several specific implications of these concepts for the conduct of research seeking to understand personality in relationships.

This special issue of the Journal of Personality is predicated on the assumption that close relationships provide the central stage for the drama of human experience. This all-important context both shapes and conditions the expression of personality, and thus must play an integral role in any truly adequate account of human behavior. The importance of this agenda is perhaps overshadowed only by its difficulty. Contributions to the present issue, therefore, take stock of past research, highlight current state-of-the-art research, and offer a vision of the next generation of research on personality and close relationships. The conceptual and methodological approaches highlighted in this issue remain faithful to the dynamic, interdependent, and multilayered nature of the processes linking personality and close relationships.

The paper presents a methodological approach for assessing the personality of a dyad or a group, a concept that is not equivalent to the sum, or mean, of the individual scores. We illustrate how the logic of the multitrait multimethod approach, which is a familiar technique for establishing construct validity, can be extended to assess the construct of a relationship 'personality.' The model, which we call the latent group model, provides a decomposition and comparison of individual-level and group-level variance in a given trait, and the individual-level and group-level covariance or correlation between two traits. The model is also extended to the assessment of stability of the individual and group level traits. Throughout the paper, we draw connections between related methods and show how the latent group model can be estimated through hierarchical linear modeling.

The present review is based on a quantitative analysis of the abstracts for 477 studies published since 1932 on the topic of personality and close (romantic) relationships. This approach enables a 'bird's-eye' view of the content and methods that have characterized research in this area and an examination of publication trends over time. Results showed that 60% of all published studies in this area relied exclusively on cross-sectional and self-report methods; that nearly all used convenience samples, though more than half used nonstudent samples; and that more than one-third relied exclusively on data from individuals rather than couples. Few studies appeared to include elaborated networks of constructs in either the personality or relationship domain or to attempt to integrate an elaborated model of personality with an elaborated relationship model. Examination of trends over time revealed a mixed picture, with increasing use of the least informative designs balanced by evidence of increasingly complex conceptual models.

Two studies explored the extent to which dispositions influence the attributions individuals make about the type of conflict they experience. Traits from the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM) were linked to the tendency to experience task-and relationship-oriented conflict. Results provide some support for the idea that individuals have stable tendencies in the attributions they make about their conflict experiences across time, partners, and situations. Agreeableness and openness were related to reports of relationship conflict at the individual level. However, the strongest effects of personality on conflict attributions were found in the analysis of dyads. This analysis revealed that partner levels of extraversion and conscientiousness were associated with individuals' tendencies to report relationship conflict. Moreover, mean levels of extraversion and conscientiousness in a pair were associated with reports of relationship conflict. Differences between partners in extraversion were associated with more frequent conflict and a greater likelihood of reporting task-related conflict. Implications of these findings with respect to the role of personality in interpersonal relationships are discussed. Finally, these studies provide confirmatory evidence that conflict attributions have a meaningful impact on relationship satisfaction.

Recent research has established the structural robustness of the Big Seven across samples and targets. In this study we analyze a diverse pool of Spanish personality terms to assess the cross-cultural and cross-language robustness of the Big Seven model. Trait terms were culled from an unabridged Spanish dictionary following the nonrestrictive selection criteria previously used by Tellegen and Waller. Self-ratings on 299 descriptors by 894 Spanish university students yielded a seven-factor solution that was clearly recognizable-with important cultural-specific differences - as the Big Seven. These indigenous dimensions were compared with factors from Spanish-translated Big Seven and Big Five questionnaires. Our results demonstrate that the Big Seven are cross-culturally and cross-linguistically robust personality dimensions that are not subsumable by the Big Five.

Two experiments tested hypotheses derived from an interpersonal model of embarrassment. According to this model, people who have suffered a self-presentational predicament are motivated to convey to others that they feel embarrassed as a way of repairing their social image and lowering subjective embarrassment in such situations. In Experiment 1, participants who performed an embarrassing task subsequently expressed greater embarrassment if the researcher did not already know that they were embarrassed than if she was aware of their embarrassment. Experiment 2 showed that embarrassed participants who thought that the researcher did not interpret their blushing as a sign of embarrassment subsequently engaged in alternative self-presentational tactics to improve their damaged social image.

This research had three basic goals: (a) to identify manipulation tactics used in close relationships; (b) to document empirically the degree of generality and specificity of tactical deployment across relationship types (mates, friends, parents); and (c) to identify links between five major personality dimensions and the usage of manipulation tactics. Twelve manipulation tactics were identified through separate factor analyses of two instruments based on different data sources: Charm, Reason, Coercion, Silent Treatment, Debasement, and Regression (replicating Buss et al., 1987), and Responsibility Invocation, Reciprocity, Monetary Reward, Pleasure Induction, Social Comparison, and Hardball (an amalgam of threats, lieS, and violence). The Big Five personality factors were assessed through three separate data sources: self-report, spouse report, and two independent interviewers. Personality factors showed coherent links with tactics, including Surgency (Coercion, Responsibility, Invocation), Desurgency (Debasement), Agreeableness (Pleasure Induction), Disagreeableness (Coercion), Conscientiousness (Reason), Emotional Instability (Regression), and Intellect-Openness (Reason). Discussion focuses on the consequences of the five personality factors for social interaction in close relationships.

It was predicted that approach social motives and goals would be linked to outcomes characterized by the presence of positive social features, and avoidance social motives and goals would be linked to outcomes characterized by the presence of negative social features and that the link between approach motives and outcomes would be mediated by different processes than the link between avoidance motives and outcomes. These hypotheses were examined in three studies (two of them longitudinal) that measured participants' dispositional social motives, short-term social goals, and social outcomes (e.g., loneliness). Approach motives and goals were reliably associated with less loneliness and more satisfaction with social bonds, whereas avoidance motives and goals were reliably associated with more loneliness, negative social attitudes, and relationship insecurity. Results also suggested that these associations were mediated by different processes. Implications for the conceptualization of close relationships along these two dimensions are discussed.

This study explored the correlates of self-reported coping strategies from both an appraisal (e.g., severity, impact, desirability of the event, as well as perceived stress) and a dispositional (e.g., preferred/typical coping style, self-concept clarity, self-esteem, emotion regulation, problem-solving style, anxiety) perspective. Participants were 211 African American undergraduate and graduate students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. The results indicated that dispositional traits (especially problem-solving style) are associated uniquely with preferred/typical coping styles. The results also provided modest evidence that dispositional traits and subjects' appraisals (e.g., challenge, harm/threat, impact) are predictive of subjects' coping strategies in specific ongoing stressful situations. The general findings from this study appear to mirror research on Caucasian subjects.

Personality and social relationships play an important role in almost every aspect of stress and coping. Daily process methods are particularly useful in elucidating how these factors might influence both responses to and outcomes of stress. Our work has linked both dimensions of personality, particularly the Big Five, and aspects of social relationships, particularly social support, to the likelihood of engaging in certain coping strategies and the effectiveness or outcomes of these coping strategies. In addition, we have found the effect of personality on coping and stress outcomes to vary by the situational context in which stress occurs. We review findings from our recent daily process studies of stress, coping, and social support. Further, we discuss the costs and benefits of the daily process methodology for addressing these questions, highlighting the clinical utility of findings gleaned with the use of this approach. Finally, we discuss future directions and applications of daily process methods to the study of stress and coping.

Models of interpersonal traits have traditionally contained two independent dimensions, one referring to dominance as the opposite of submissiveness and the other referring to agreeableness as the opposite of quarrelsomeness. These models are primarily based on psychometric analyses of the co-occurrence of interpersonal characteristics. The present article reviews literature based on event-contingent recording studies that examine whether the structure of interpersonal behavior as revealed in its everyday occurrence is consistent with this model of interpersonal traits. Evidence from studies of the effects of hierarchical social role situations, the relations between behaviors and affect, and the effects of alterations in serotonin are used to evaluate whether dominance, submissiveness, agreeableness, and quarrelsomeness are related, opposite, or independent behavioral systems. The pattern of findings suggests that agreeableness and quarrelsomeness may be part of the same behavioral system while dominance and submissiveness may have separate underlying behavioral systems.

The study of daily events has been dominated by a focus on affective reactions to daily events. Although informative, this research needs to be complemented by research on non-affective and cognitive reactions to events. Although daily events are certainly related to how people feel, they are also related to how people think, particularly about themselves. The present article presents the results of a series of studies examining relationships between daily events and both affective and non-affective states. These results suggest that although affective and non-affective reactions to daily events may covary (e.g., when people feel badly, they may think more poorly about themselves and vice versa), this covariation is not perfect. Non-affective states covary with daily events above and beyond the covariation between events and affect, and affective states covary with events above and beyond the covariation between events and non-affective states.

A decade ago, Bolger and Zuckerman (1995) incorporated personality into the study of daily life events and psychological distress. Their approach put an entirely new cast on research and theorizing in this area. In their work, they focused on the predominantly negative personality trait of Neuroticism. In this article we extend their work to include theory and measurement of positive events and indicators of well-being. Integrating these research strands offers the possibility of a comprehensive yet highly sensitive and dynamic approach to the study of emotions, stress, and health in everyday life.

In this introduction to the special issue devoted to 'Advances in Personality and Daily Experience' we attempt to trace recent progress in the study of personality and daily life. We begin by comparing and contrasting the methods of daily experience research adopted by investigators who authored empirical articles in the 1991 and current special issues according to the mode, schedule, and sampling frame for data collection. We then compare data analytic strategies across the 14 years between the two special issues and conclude that although the nature of the questions addressed has not changed dramatically, newer analytic methods and associated software have enhanced our ability to answer these questions more precisely. Finally, we provide an overview of the special issue contributions organized around three broad themes: personal vulnerabilities and resources that predict reactions to everyday events, interpersonal manifestations of personality in daily experience, and how personality in daily life affects physical and mental health and relates to disease risk.

Seventy-one couples living in a stepfamily context reported interpersonal family stressors and related coping strategies daily for 1 week in a daily process study. The role of personality and of the stressful context in each of the spouse's coping was examined. Personality was assessed via the Five-Factor Model (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). Two types of stressors emerged as primary dimensions of stepfamily stress: marital conflict and child misbehavior. These were treated as contextual factors in multilevel modeling analyses examining the independent and interactive effects of personality and situation on coping. Nine subscales of coping were examined based on three main functions of coping: problem-, emotion- and relationship-focused. Both the situational context and the five dimensions of personality examined were significantly and independently related to coping-strategy use. Moreover, there were significant personality-by-context interactions. The present study highlights the importance of considering personality in context when examining coping behaviors.

Previous efforts to elucidate dispositional antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors have yielded equivocal results. The current study presents and tests a theoretical argument for expecting conscientiousness to interact with interpersonal dimensions of personality in predicting helping behaviors. As hypothesized, the responses of 374 women and their supervisors reveal significant interactions between conscientiousness, on the one hand, and agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability, on the other, in predicting helping behaviors. Clarifying the relationship between personality and helping, these results suggest that the impact of conscientiousness in a social context depends on a positive interpersonal orientation. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

Dispositional traits and life narratives represent two different levels of personality that have not previously been empirically linked. The current study tested five hypotheses connecting Big-Five traits to life-narrative indices of emotional tone, theme, and structure. Students (Study 1) and adults (Study 2) completed a self-report measure of the Big-Five traits and provided extended written accounts of either ten (students) or eight (adults) key life-narrative scenes, including life high points, low points, and turning points. Content analysis of the narrative data revealed that for both samples Neuroticism was positively associated with an emotionally negative life-narrative tone, Agreeableness was correlated with narrative themes of communion (e.g., friendship, caring for others), and Openness was strongly associated with the structural complexity of life narrative accounts. Contrary to prediction, however, Conscientiousness was not consistently associated with themes of agency (e.g., achievement, self-mastery) and Extraversion was unrelated to positive narrative tone. The results are discussed in the context of contemporary research and theorizing on the narrative study of lives and the relation of narrative research in personality to more conventional, trait-based approaches.