Journal of Personality

ABSTRACT The five‐factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. This article summarizes the history of the model and its supporting evidence; discusses conceptions of the nature of the factors; and outlines an agenda for theorizing about the origins and operation of the factors. We argue that the model should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.

What good is self‐control? We incorporated a new measure of individual differences in self‐control into two large investigations of a broad spectrum of behaviors. The new scale showed good internal consistency and retest reliability. Higher scores on self‐control correlated with a higher grade point average, better adjustment (fewer reports of psychopathology, higher self‐esteem), less binge eating and alcohol abuse, better relationships and interpersonal skills, secure attachment, and more optimal emotional responses. Tests for curvilinearity failed to indicate any drawbacks of so‐called overcontrol, and the positive effects remained after controlling for social desirability. Low self‐control is thus a significant risk factor for a broad range of personal and interpersonal problems.

Self‐determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) posits that (a) people are inherently motivated to internalize the regulation of uninteresting though important activities; (b) there are two different processes through which such internalization can occur, resulting in qualitatively different styles of self‐regulation; and (c) the social context influences which internalization process and regulatory style occur. The two types of internalization are introjection, which entails taking in a value or regulatory process but not accepting it as one's own, and integration, through which the regulation is assimilated with one's core sense of self. Introjection results in internally controlling regulation, whereas integration results in self‐determination. An experiment supported our hypothesis that three facilitating contextual factors—namely, providing a meaningful rationale, acknowledging the behaver's feelings, and conveying choice—promote internalization, as evidenced by the subsequent self‐regulation of behavior. This experiment also supported our expectation that when the social context supports self‐determination, integration tends to occur, whereas when the context does not support self‐determination, introjection tends to occur.

ABSTRACT In this article, we examine subjective vitality, a positive feeling of aliveness and energy, in six studies. Subjective vitality is hypothesized to reflect organismic well‐being and thus should covary with both psychological and somatic factors that impact the energy available to the self. Associations are shown between subjective vitality and several indexes of psychological well‐being; somatic factors such as physical symptoms and perceived body functioning; and basic personality traits and affective dispositions. Subsequently, vitality is shown to be lower in people with chronic pain compared to matched controls, especially those who perceive their pain to be disabling or frightening. Subjective vitality is further associated with self‐motivation and maintained weight loss among patients treated for obesity. Finally, subjective vitality is assessed in a diary study for its covariation with physical symptoms. Discussion focuses on the phenomenological salience of personal energy and its relations to physical and psychological well‐being.

This paper provides a review of the main findings concerning the relationship between the cultural syndromes of individualism and collectivism and personality. People in collectivist cultures, compared to people in individualist cultures, are likely to define themselves as aspects of groups, to give priority to in‐group goals, to focus on context more than the content in making attributions and in communicating, to pay less attention to internal than to external processes as determinants of social behavior, to define most relationships with ingroup members as communal, to make more situational attributions, and tend to be self‐effacing.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the usefulness of factor analysis in developing and evaluating personality scales that measure limited domain constructs The approach advocated follows from several assumptions that a single scale ought to measure a single construct, that factor analysis ought to be applied routinely to new personality scales, and that the factors of a scale are important if it can be demonstrated that they are differentially related to other measures A detailed study of the Self‐Monitoring Scale illustrates how factor analysis can help us to understand what a scale measures A second example uses the self‐esteem literature to illustrate how factor analysis can clarify the proliferation of scales within a single content domain Both examples show how factor analysis can be used to identify important conceptual distinctions Confirmatory techniques are also introduced as a means for testing specific hypotheses It is concluded that factor analysis can make an important contribution to programmatic research in personality psychology

Abstract Individuals regulate their emotions in a wide variety of ways. Are some forms of emotion regulation healthier than others? We focus on two commonly used emotion regulation strategies: reappraisal (changing the way one thinks about a potentially emotion‐eliciting event) and suppression (changing the way one responds behaviorally to an emotion‐eliciting event). In the first section, we review experimental findings showing that reappraisal has a healthier profile of short‐term affective, cognitive, and social consequences than suppression. In the second section, we review individual‐difference findings, which show that using reappraisal to regulate emotions is associated with healthier patterns of affect, social functioning, and well‐being than is using suppression. In the third section, we consider issues in the development of reappraisal and suppression and provide new evidence for a normative shift toward an increasingly healthy emotion regulation profile during adulthood (i.e., increases in the use of reappraisal and decreases in the use of suppression).

ABSTRACT The assumption that there are innate integrative or actualizing tendencies underlying personality and social development is reexamined. Rather than viewing such processes as either nonexistent or as automatic, I argue that they are dynamic and dependent upon social‐contextual supports Pertaining to basic human psychological needs. To develop this viewpoint, I conceptually link the notion of integrative tendencies to specific developmental processes, namely intrinsic motivation; internalization; and emotional integration. These processes are then shown to be facilitated by conditions that fulfill psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and forestalled within contexts that frustrate these needs. Interactions between psychological needs and contextual supports account, in part, for the domain and situational specificity of motivation, experience, and relative integration. The meaning of psychological needs (vs. wants) is directly considered, as are the relations between concepts of integration and autonomy and those of independence, individualism, efficacy, and cognitive models of “multiple selves.”

TÓM TẮTThuật ngữtự dotheo nghĩa đen ám chỉ sự điều chỉnh bởi chính bản thân. Ngược lại,dịch điều khiển, chỉ sự điều chỉnh bị kiểm soát, hoặc sự điều chỉnh xảy ra mà không có sự thừa nhận của bản thân. Vào thời điểm mà các triết gia và nhà kinh tế ngày càng chi tiết hóa bản chất của sự tự do và nhận thức được tầm quan trọng xã hội và thực tiễn của nó, nhiều nhà tâm lý học đang đặt câu hỏi về thực tế và ý nghĩa của sự tự do và các hiện tượng liên quan mật thiết như ý chí, sự lựa chọn và tự do. Sử dụng khung lý thuyết về tự định hướng (Ryan & Deci, 2000), chúng tôi xem xét các nghiên cứu liên quan đến lợi ích của sự điều chỉnh mang tính tự do so với kiểm soát đối với hiệu suất mục tiêu, sự kiên trì, trải nghiệm cảm xúc, chất lượng mối quan hệ, và sự phát triển tốt đẹp ở các lĩnh vực và nền văn hóa khác nhau. Chúng tôi cũng đề cập đến một số tranh cãi và vấn đề thuật ngữ xung quanh cấu trúc của sự tự do, bao gồm các phê bình của các nhà nghiên cứu sinh học, các nhà nghiên cứu về tương đối văn hóa và các nhà hành vi học. Chúng tôi kết luận rằng có một giá trị phổ quát và phát triển chéo đối với sự điều chỉnh mang tính tự do khi cấu trúc được hiểu một cách nghiêm ngặt.