Personality traits and life aspirations as predictors of subjective well-being and meaningfulness Correlational links between Big Five traits and aspirations and their effect on well-being and meaningfulness Alexandros Kousis Department of Psychology Degree 30 HE credits Motivation and personality Masters Program in general Psychology (120 Hp) Spring-Term 2021 Supervisor: Stefan Wiens

2

Personality traits and life aspirations as predictors of subjective well-being and meaningfulness

Alexandros Kousis

Well-being and meaningfulness in life are linked to the relative value that individuals place on various life goals or aspirations. The variation in the pursuit of these goals depend mainly on personality differences. This study investigated the relations between personality traits and aspirations and their effect on subjective well-being and meaningfulness. A questionnaire with four measures targeting the respective variable of interest were used. Data were analyzed through correlation analysis and multiple regression. Results showed strongest correlation for intrinsic aspirations with openess and agreeableness, and extrinsic aspirations with agreeableness. For well-being, the strongest predictors were extraversion and neuroticism, while aspirations showed no significant effect. For meaningfulness, openness and agreeableness had positive and negative effects respectively, whereas both intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations showed positive effect. In summary, personality traits seems to be a better predictor than aspirations of the effect on well-being. The valence of an aspiration however, indicate a clearer path towards meaningfulness than the categorization of aspirations per se. The findings support theories of affect and self-determination, but future replications are needed in order to clarify more distinct patterns. Keywords: Aspirations, personality, traits, well-being, meaningfulness

”He who has a why to live for, can bear almost any how” – Friedrich Nietzsche As individuals, we aspire different outcomes or paths in life, and the characteristics of these paths are mainly based on preferences for different type of end-term goals associated with different stages of life (Erikson, 1959). Some individuals aspire to become famous or create a well-known image, while others focus on building close relationships and creating a family with whom they found comfort and stability. The relative value that individuals place on various life goals have shown to be strongly associated with well-being (Kasser & Ryan, 1993). What is it then that drives aspirations and how do differences in motivation form the distinct paths individuals pursue? Essential to the undertanding of motivation is personality (e.g., Higgins & Scholer, 2008; McAdams, 1995; Allport, 1937). By understanding the traits or characteristics that forms individuals, it aids to the answering of the why of behavior. Motivation is about why people think, feel and act the way they do at a given time, and personality is how and why people differ from each other in their characteristic modes of thinking, feeling and acting. All classic theories of personality were built around motivation and in particular basic human needs. Differences in aspirations thus, depend mainly on personality differences, some of which are inherently predisposed and others that are acquired and developed through the interaction with the social environment. Although there are many theories characterizing personality traits as stable

3

patterns of affect, behavior and cognition, that are consistent across contexts (McCrae & Costa, 2008), considerable evidence suggest that traits may be dynamic and shift along developmental trajectories (Jackson et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2007). That enables the modification of personality traits through targeted interventions (Krasner et al., 2009, Roberts et al., 2006). Yet, there is no clear consensus regarding the integration of motivational processes and constructs into current conceptualizations of personality. Costa and McCrae (1994) indicated that goals are directly or indirectly expressions of personality traits. Robert and Robins (2000) called for a stronger integration of personality, in the light of the five factor model, and personality relevant structure such as long term goals or aspirations. Only a small amount of studies however have investigated the structural links between traits and aspirations highlighted by Roberts and Robins, which is in part the target of this study. There’s also a growing body of research demonstrating declines in subjective well-being and increase in mental health problems among adolescence and young adults (Marquez & Long, 2021). Research on the field of personality development has shown that traits can change over longer time periods and continue to change in adulthood into old age (Lucas & Donnelan, 2001; Roberts, Walton & Viechtbauer, 2006). The standing on traits and change in traits can be consequential as they predict greater mental health (Allemand, Stieger & Fend, 2015; Mroczek & Spiro, 2007). Numerous reviews of the subjective well-being literature suggest that personality may be one of the major determinants of well-being (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1991; Diener & Larsen, 1993; Myers & Diener, 1995). Research has mainly showed that the trait extraversion has a positive correlation with well-being (Lu & Shih, 1997; Brebner, Donaldson, Kirby and Ward, 1995) whilst negative correlation has been found with the trait neuroticism (Argyle & Lu, 1990; Hotard et al., 1989). However, due to conceptualization of personality as an relatively unchanging aspect of an individual‚ by itself it may offer limited implication for psychotherapeutic practice. A more recent approach is the focus and integration of the personal goals or aspirations (Kasser & Ryan, 1993;1996). This line of work suggests that the choices we make about what we want and what is important, and the relative value we place on different aspirations determines our level of well-being. Kasser and Ryan (1993) found that well-being was negatively associated with extrinsic goals and positively associated with intrinsic goals. Other studies (King & Napa, 1998; Kasser & Ryan, 1996) have provided support for these findings. An important component of well-being that has gained more focus in the research field is perceived meaning of life (Ryff, 1989). Through the course of peoples live, individuals have meaningful experiences that remarkably shapes their well-being (Lavigne et al., 2013). A link between well-being and meaningfulness is through personal affects (King et al., 2006) suggested to be the primary contributors to the perception of meaning when positive, while negative affects are triggered when individuals need for meaning are not satisfied (Pan et al., 2007). Also, the Big Five personality traits have in recent years been incorporated into studies focused on the concept of meaning in life (Henningsgard & Arnau, 2008; Halama, 2005) and in the developing field of positive psychology, meaningfulness is considered as one of the indicators of well-being (Fry, 2000). By combining the four variables of personality, aspirations, well-being and meaningfullness, an analysis is thought to examine potential relationships that could aid the understanding of their interrelation and reveal potential targets for interventional work for increased well-being and meaningfulness. Previous studies have only explored parts of these relationships or either targeted one aspect of well-being, and meaningfulness have not directly been explored in the light of aspirations. A better understanding of the dispositional differences of individuals and

4

their pursuits in life may shed some light into the effect of a specific trait or aspiration has on subjective well-being and meaningfulness. In doing so, it may yield implications for psychotherapy or social interventions, processes that can expand human growth.

Theoretical framework Motivation and aspirations A most common definition of motivation is forces or motives that drive and direct behavior (Myers, 2012). Theories of motivation are mainly separated into content and process theories, explaining what motivation is versus describing how motivation occurs. The well-known content theories are Maslows hierarchy of needs (1954) which states that five categories of human needs predict a persons behavior, and McClellans achievement motivation theory (1961) which categorizes needs or motives into achievement, affiliation and power seeing them as being influenced either by extrinsic factors or internal drives. For the process theories of motivation, the most common is Skinners reinforcement theory (1957) which categories behavior into reward seeking or punishment avoidance, and also Lockes goal-setting theory (1968) which sees goals as key determinants of behavior. A common aspect to most of the earlier motivation theories is that motivation is treated as a unitary concept that varies in amount rather than kind. The total motivation of a person could be determined by various factors, but represent a single variable that provides the basis for making predictions, how much motivation an individual has. Thus, the central motivational issue in most theories is the amount of motivation a persons has, not considering the type of motivation. One of the most influential theories of motivation in the last decades are the one by Deci and Ryan called the Self-Determination theory (SDT). Self-determination refers to a persons own ability to manage themselves and to make confident choices and think on their own (Deci, 1971). The previous theories of motivation attempted to control and shape motivation from the outside, while the self-determination theory shifted the focus on people’s inherent motivational predispositions for learning and growing and how they can be supported. A basic assumption for the SDT is that people are inherently prone towards psychological growth and connection with others, learning and mastery. However these tendencies are not automatic, rather they need support for basic psychological needs for healthy development. These psychological needs are a subset of these necessities and constitutes of three major needs, namely autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy refers to a sense of initiative and ownership in one’s own actions. It includes experiences of interest and personal value and is undermined by experiences of being externally controlled, either by reward or punishments. Competence concerns the feeling of mastery, that one can grow and succeed and is best satisfied in structured environments that afford optimal challenges and positive feedback in order to grow. Relatedness concerns our need for connection and sense of belonging and is facilitated by conveyance of caring and respect. The lack of any of these basic needs is damaging to motivation and wellness. If these needs are met, greater psychological health and development awaits. Goals are considered to be key factors in the regulation of behavior and integration of personality, and their effect in the determination of emotional and behavioral outcomes have been repeatedly underlined by personality psychologists (Little et al., 2007).The role of the type of goals in well-being is well emphasized in the SDT. In this regard, SDT has mostly focused

5

on aspirations or life goals that people pursue, value and attain. The relative importance placed on a life goal divided the goals into two factors that Kasser and Ryan (1996) referred to as intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations or life goals. The self-determination theory views motivation as a continuum with intrinsic motivation and amotivation at either end, and extrinsic in the middle. Amotivation involves not having an intention to act, whereas motivation involves intentionality. Extrinsic goals are dependent on the contingent reaction of others and are typically engaged in as means to some other end. It includes financial success (wealth), social recognition (fame) and image. These require some other person to judge whether one is worthy of praise or reward. In addition, the extrinsic goals don’t provide satisfaction by themselves, but their allure lies in the admiration that attends them or in the sense of worth derived by attending them. Intrinsic goals on the other hand are expressive of desires congruent with actualizing and growth tendencies natural to humans, hence likely to satisfy basic psychological needs. It includes relatedness, community feeling, health and self acceptance or personal growth, and these are congruent with the movement towards self-actualization. These intrinsic goals are inherently valuable or satisfying to the individual, rather than dependent on evaluation of others. The primary focus of SDT is hence on the ”why” of peoples behavior, but much have also been done in the contents of individual’s goals, the ”what” of behavior. A key point is that since the effects of any behavior is mediated by psychological need satisfactions, not all goals are created equal (Ryan et al., 1996). Some goals are more directly satisfying of basic needs and some are less satisfying or even thwarting, hence having different effects on psychological wellness. In essence, the aim for a certain aspiration could be argued to be due to the lack or attainment of a specific need. The aspirations are targeting underlying needs, e.g. personal growth is related to competence, wealth to autonomy while relationships and community to relatedness. Personality and traits For a general definition of personality, the APA (2021) states that it refers to individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, behaving and feeling. All classic theories of personality were built around basic human needs. Questions of what needs people are striving to meet, and how their personalities are organized to meet those needs has been met by theories of liberal drives (Freud, 1927), the need for meaning and self-coherence (Frankl, 1959) and the quest for self-actualization (Rogers, 1963), having needs as the foundation of human motivation and personality. Each of these theories depicts the consequences for personality and development of psychopathology, of the unsuccessful or successful meeting of these needs over time. There are two broad approaches for the understanding of personality. One focuses on the structure of personality and the number of traits, whereas the other one focuses on personality processes, as situational characteristics and social-cognitive mechanisms that produces behavior (Baumert et. al., 2017). The process-oriented side emphasizes the variability that exists in behavior, focusing on the social cognitive mechanisms such as motivations, thoughts, and emotions that affect how individuals respond, select and interpret situations. On the contrary, the structural approach emphasizes the cross-situational consistency that exists in behavior. It makes sense to focus on understanding personality traits since individuals are thought to engage in consistent patterns of behavior across situations and over time, and they are also easier to measure from an scientific point of view. Early attempts to try structuring and understand personality led to the generation of various taxonomies. At the start of the 90s, the field of personality research reached consensus of a

6

generalized taxonomy called the Big Five Model, which is the most used model for conceptualizing personality structure. The model has compressed all personality taxonomies into five major ones, including extraversion, agreeableness, consientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience. Extraversion is a combination of adjective or traits linked to a person being sociable, forceful, energetic, adventurous, enthusiastic and outgoing. Agreeableness consist of characteristics of a person being forgiving, not demanding, warm, not stubborn, modest and sympathetic. An individual that is conscientiousness is efficient, organized, dutiful, thorough, disciplined and not impulsive. Neuroticism is characterized of someone being tense, irritable, not contented, shy, moody and lacks self-confidence. Lastly, a person high in the trait openness is curious, imaginative, artistic, has wide interest, excitable and unconventional. Although these traits explain much of the personality structure, there are still limitations that exist in the personality research. One limitation is that traits are usually conceptualized as typical patterns of thoughts, behaviors and feelings that are aggregated across situations, with little consideration given to contextual features. Also, a structural approach for understanding personality is often unable to explain its functions (Hampson, 2012). These concerns pinpoints the importance of integrating process-oriented approaches for the understanding of personality such as motivation and more specifically aspirations, that may be crucial for the link personality has with various outcomes. Well-being Subjective well-being (SWB) could be defined as a persons affective and cognitive evaluations of the life as a whole (Oishi, Diener & Lucas, 2018). It is a broad concept including the experience of high levels of enjoyable moods and emotions and low levels of negative emotions. Generally, theories regarding individual differences in well-being have had either a situational or dispositional approach (Heller et al., 2004). For the situational approach, contextual factors are theorized to cause or affect well-being regardless of personality. On the other hand, the dispositional approach states that certain traits predisposes individuals to differences in well-being. These two approaches can be boild down into four main theories of well-being: needs and goals, process and activity, comparison standard, and trait/personality dispositions. The first group centers on the idea that the reduction of tensions leads to happiness. The pleasure principle (Freud, 1933) and hierarchical need model (Maslow, 1970) represent this approach. Activity theories on the other hand state that engagement in an activity itself provides happiness. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) suggested that when people engage in interesting activities that match their level of skill, they are the happiest. Theories based on standards of comparison suggest that there are no absolute factors influencing well-being but rather, if a persons life exceeds the standards to which they compare it, they will be happy (Diener & Lucas, 2000). These three theories suggest that SWB will change depending on circumstances and activities. Trait theory in contrast, suggest that there is a stability of well-being that is not explained by the conditions of peoples lives but rather that SWB is influenced by stable personality dispositions. Hence although life events can influence well-being, individuals eventually adapt to the changes and return to biologically determined ”adaptation levels” (Headey & Wearing, 1992). This assumption has been strenghtened by twin studies comparing separated monozygotic and dizygotic twins that estimates that approximately 50 % of the variance in SWB could be predicted by genetic variation (Tellegen et al., 1998; Stubbe et al., 2005). Recent research have focused on the dispositional approach based on findings on the relative stability of well-being and is hence reflecting internal person characteristics more likely (Nes et al., 2006). Noteworhy also, major life events have been found to exert little effect on the general sense of well-being (Heller et al., 2004). Two of the theories presented, the theory

7

of process and activity and the trait/personality disposition theory is of relevance for this study for the examination of the effect of personality traits and aspirations on well-being. Meaningfulness Meaningfulness or meaning in life is rooted in existential psychology and is recently adressed in modern positive psychology, considering it as an important element of happiness and satisfaction (Park, Peterson & Ruch, 2009). Meaning in life is generally regarded as a positive variable, an indicator of well-being (Ryff, 1989) and a marker of therapeutic growth (Frankl, 1965). Baumeister (1991) refers to meaning of life as lasting affects that helps the building of self-worth, and others defines it as a purpose, understanding and responsible action which encompasses motivational, cognitive and affective responses (Wong, 2010). Baumeister (1991) further concluded that the quest for meaningfulness can be understood in terms of four main needs for meaning, constituing patterns of motivation for making sense of one’s life. The first need is for purpose, the need for present events to draw meaning from the connection to future events, so that the present is seen as leading towards those eventual purposes. The second need is for values, lending a sense of positivity to life that justifies certain courses of action and helping people decide whether certain acts are right or wrong. By shaping actions by these values, people minimize guilt, anxiety and other forms of distress. The third need is of efficacy, that people seek control over their environment and a lack of it can have negative impact on physical and mental health (Baumeister, 1998). The fourth need is a basis of self-worth, which can be pursued collectively, when people draw meaningful self-esteem from belonging to some group or category of people regarded as worthy (Turner, 1975). Meaningfulness is also depicted as an integral motivation containing individual beliefs and goals that reflect individual’s attitude towards and perception of themselves, others around them and life in general (Steger, 2009). Steger pointed out that meaningfulness could be analyzed through two concepts, the presence of meaning and search for meaning in life. The presence refers to a state of being where there’s a full realization of oneself and the world, whilst search for meaning is the willingess to foster and build meaning, purpose and significance. Meaningfulness has also been linked to individuals creating and achieving something important and being open to experiences that in turn form the core of meaning in life (Frankl, 2010). Peterson (2018) recently argued that most closely linked to meaningfulness is responsibility, in the sense that a person is intentionally causing and chasing their own actions. Because of that, people are liable to being held accountable for them, and within that environment, develop a sense of purpose that is earned and valued. There’s extensive research evidence on the importance of being responsible in a world full of competition, dominance hierarchies and unequal distribution of resources, supported by findings in sociobiology, self-determination theory, studies of self-efficacy and self-regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Wilson, 2000, Bandura, 1991). Lastly, according to King et al. (2006), individuals refer to their affects as sources of information when they attempt to answer whether their lives are meaningful. Affects refers to the innate pattern of bodily reactions which colors the experiences with a particular feeling quality. When questioned about the quality of their lives, people evaluate their purpose based on their existing affects rather than considering all possible pieces of information. A positive affect includes the combination of willingness, mental alertness and determination where’s a negative affect consists of fear, anxiety, sadness and sense of guilt (Watson, 1988). Research on the concept of meaning and personal affects suggests that positive affects are the primary contributing factors to the perception of meaning of life and situations or states of positive affect could serve as a marker for meaning. They also imply that negative affects on the other end are triggered when peoples needs for meaning are dissatisfied.

8

Linking personality traits and aspirations What is the conceptual relation between personality traits and goals or aspirations? Motivation and motivational constructs have long been considered a vital part of the study of personality (Maslow, 1954; McCelland, 1961). As a descriptive taxonomy, the five factor model enables the organization and categorization of the large number of traits into smaller content categories. However, there is to date no taxonomy in the motivation domain, were motives or drives can be classified in the same way. Instead researchers have focused on the hierarchical structure of the motivation domain which divides motives into different levels (Rounds, 1995; Winnel, 1987). At the top, there are life aspirations and the idealized notion of self, which includes long-term visions or aims with what to do and who to become in life. At the second level there are values, more concrete principles of what is desirable that in turn affect important life goals such as relationships and career. At the lowest level of the hierarchy there are discrete events and goals of immediate action, such as wanting to have a good day at work. These different levels are intertwined, but the integration of the lower parts of the hierarchy to the dimensions of personality and the the five factor model is problematic. A reason for that is that they are conceptualized in different levels of breadth - while personality traits such as agreeableness are relatively wide, midlevel units such as e.g. striving for a good grade, are narrow. In order to have an overall pervading integration of concepts, the focus on the top of the hierarchical structures of motivation seems best at hand. These motivational units, are referred to as life goals or aspirations (Allport, 1961). Major life goals involves an individuals aspiration to shape their life context and establish general life structures such as having a family or career. They have a longer timeline and influence a persons life throughout years or decades in comparison to midlevel motivational units which is more for days or weeks. Roberts and Robins (2000), based on the Socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1983) conceptualized life goals as a central link between the social contexts that individuals choose and the their dispositions. Life goals or aspirations are argued to provide a link between individuals identities and the roles that they enact and people will choose roles that reinforce their identity and their current dispositions. For example, an individual that views himself as an intellectual will participate in more intellectual activities such as attending public lectures and pursue work that challenges his intellect. Previous research on the links of personality traits and life aspirations have shown relatively mixed results. Economic and influence goals that are extrinsic in nature were positively correlated with the personality trait extraversion (Roberts & Robin, 2000). Furthermore, Roberts and Robin showed that the traits of agreeableness and neuroticism had a positive relationship with aspirations regarding social relationship, linked to intrinsic aspirations. Intrinsic aspirations have also been characterized by high agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness (Visser & Pozzebon, 2013). Romero et al. (2012) found that extrinsic aspirations showed small positive correlations with extraversion and neuroticism and negative correlations with agreeableness and openness. They also showed that intrinsic aspirations had moderate positive correlations with all traits except neuroticism, most strongly with openness and agreeableness. High score on traits of extraversion, openess and agreeableness have demonstrated connections with personal growth and interpersonal relations, suggesting that characteristics such as curiosity, imagination and energy may drive individuals towards growth and self-improvement, characterstics related to intrinsic aspirations. Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos (2013) have also found that materialism, linked to extrinsic aspirations was positively correlated with extraversion and neuroticism, and negatively correlated with agreeableness and openness. Lastly, Nishimura Suzuki (2016) found extrinsic aspirations to be correlated to openess, and intrinsic aspirations to extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

9

All in all, the most consistent relationships in the findings were the positive relationship of extraversion with intrinsic aspirations, and neuroticism and agreeableness with extrinsic aspirations. Linking personality traits to well-being and meaningfulness Personality traits are shown to be among the most influential factors for well-being or life satisfaction (Gomez et al., 2009; McCrae & Costa, 1991; Steel et al., 2008). Sufficient research in this area has relied on the personality traits from the Big Five model. In general, personality types is thought to predispose an individual to experiencing certain life events that in turn affects a persons level of subjective well-being. Predictions regarding the pattern of association between the five factors and well-being were guided by the theoretical work of Costa and McCrae (1991). They distinguished between a temperamental and an instrumental view. The temperamental view suggests that certain personality traits, such as extraversion and neuroticism, represent enduring dispositions that directly lead to SWB. For example, extroverts are more cheerful and high-spirited than introverts whereas emotionally unstable individuals (high in neuroticism) are naturally more prone to negative affect. The state positive and negative affect measures are thought to correlate with the corresponding personality trait measures, which would lead to an expectation of strong correlation between neuroticism and state negative affect, and extraversion and state positive affect (Mccrae, 1983). Other traits, such as agreeableness and conscientiousness, have an indirect or instrumental role in SWB. These instrumental traits lead people to encounter specific life situations often being a function of environmental factors like reinforcements, facilitating more positive experiences in social or achievement situations, which in turn increase SWB (Seligman, 2011; Headey, 2008). This temperamental-instrumental distinction has been supported by both correlational and experimental evidence (McCrae & Costa, 1991). However, research on the relationship of agreeableness and conscientiousness with well-being have had mixed results, were some studies have found weak but significant relationships and others have suggested no connection. For the trait openess, people high in scores are characterized by both a broader and deeper scope of awareness and by a need to enlarge and examine experience positively correlated with both positive and negative affect. In this way, openness predisposes individuals to experience events with higher valence, both the good and the bad more deeply, amplifying both positive and negative experiences and reaction (Kling et al., 2003). This complicates the interpretation of its effect on subjective well-being. Extraversion and neuroticism has also been shown to play a central role in individuals perception of life as pleasurable and has been suggested to affect well-being through behavioral and biological pathways. Gray (1990) proposed a neuro-biological behavioral model with approach and avoidance systems associated with affect. The behavioral activation system (BAS) is linked to extraversion and influences behavioral approach by the promotion of positive affect, making extraverts more likely attending to rewards finding them more enjoyable. The behavioral inhibition system (BIS) is related to neuroticism and regulates behavioral avoidance by signaling the preteens of punishers through the endorsement of negative affect, leading to individuals that are emotionally unstable to be more prone to attend to punishers and avoiding them. In accordance to the affect theory, it has also been suggested that a dual set of mechanisms may be evident, where individuals view of life can have either a top-down or bottom up perspective, either intepreting life based on the colouring of affects, or that over time the recall of either a positive or negative inteprentation of events (Røysamb & Nes, 2018). General affect tendencies may color the evaluation of what life is like, and over time contribute to life

10

experiences. A person with high extraversion and positive affect would recall a higher number of positive episodes characterized by such experiences, in comparison to someone high in neuroticism, hence resulting in different perceptions of well-being. The assessment of the correlation between well-being and personality traits is mainly from large scale meta-analyses conducted at first by Deneve and Cooper (1998) and more recently by Steel et al. (2008). In summary, neuroticism has been shown to relate negatively with well-being while agreeableness, conscientiousness and extraversion have shown a positive relationship. Openness showed mixed correlations. Recently the Big Five personality traits have also been incorporated into studies focusing on meaningfulness (Henningsgaard & Arnau, 2008; Mascaro & Rosen, 2005). Meaning in life has been shown to be negatively correlated with neuroticism (Halama, 2005; Moomal, 1999) and positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Lavigne et al., 2013; Mascaro & Rosen, 2005; Steger et al., 2008). In other words, those who experience more meaning in life tends to experience less negative affect (i.e., neuroticism). Isik and Uzbe (2015) further replicated the negative effect of neuroticism, but also found that openness was positively correlated with meaningfulness, aligning with findings from Halama & Dedova (2017) and Schnell & Becker (2006). In the light of these theoretical insights, it can be asserted that personality traits and positive/negative affects are significant variables in interpreting meaning in life. Most consistent findings indicate a negative effect of neuroticism on meaningfulness and positive effect of extraversion and agreeableness. Linking aspirations to well-being and meaningfulness In accordance to the self-determination theory but also most other theories of motivation, placing greater importance to intrinsic relative to extrinsic goals is associated with greater well-being. Factors such as self-esteem, positive affect and life satisfaction are all associated with well-being (Niemiec et al., 2009). Kasser & Ryan (1993) compared the importance and likelihood of attaining aspirations of external value relative to internal and the results supported earlier hypothesis that the relative centrality of external aspirations such as financial success goals is linked to lower ratings and self-reports of well-being. Although most findings regarding the effect of type of aspiration on well-being links intrinsic aspirations positively to well-being whilst extrinsic to the opposite, some researchers have reported contradictory results. A cross-cultural study on U.S. and Russian samples showed that only the attainment of intrinsic aspirations predicted life satisfaction in the U.S. sample, and that in the Russian sample, both intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations enhanced life satisfaction (Ryan et al., 1999). Furthermore, Sabzehara et al. (2014) found that the attainment and likelihood of extrinsic aspiration correlated positively with self-esteem in an Iranian sample. Analogous results of a positive effect of extrinsic aspirations on well-being were found in both a Hungarian (Martos & Kopp, 2012) and Chinese sample (Lekes et al., 2010). These differences with regards to culture makes it interesting to include demographic of country of origin to examine if there’s any pattern related to ethnicity. Lastly, some researchers have found no significant correlation at all with extrinsic aspirations and well-being (Frost & Frost, 2000; Romero et. Al (2012). The fact that the extrinsic aspirations are a bit hard to categorize may have to do with the strength of each factor affecting well-being. Extrinsic aspirations may represent the means by

11

which they can achieve more important intrinsic aspirations. A confirmatory factor analysis on the Aspiration Index done by Nishimura and Suzuki (2016), showed a positive relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations, which was also found by Ryan et al. (1999). They argued that the attaintment of intrinsic aspiration may require some fullfilment of extrinsic aspirations first, mainly wealth or image. A Hungarian sample studied by Martos & Kopp (2012) showed that the participants might not be instill with the pursuit of only external rewards but rather represent an inner striving for achievement or a type of work ethic. An interesting finding by Grouzet et al. (2005) was that financial success was closely related to physical health and safety goals in poorer rather than wealthier countries, indicating that healthier countries might reflect the striving of making enough money in order to ensure basic welfare. The difference in priority between the two aspirations is hence affected due to economic, existential and interpersonal threats. Overall, according to self-determination theory, intrinsic aspirations are suggested to be more beneficial than extrinsic aspiration, since the three basic needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness are directly satisified (Kasser and Ryan 2001; Nickerson et al. 2003). For the relationship between aspirations and meaningfulness, there are not many studies that have investigated it specifically, but rather aspects of meaning linked to well-being. Zhang et al. (2018) examined whether meaning in work would vary to the extent individuals placed on intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations. They found a strong association with intrinsic aspirations and meaning in work, and a negative partial correlation with extrinsic aspirations. Additionally, it has been shown that the attainment of and investment in intrinsic goals boosts judgments of meaning (Morgan and Robinson 2013). The relationship with aspirations and meaningfulness have also been seen with the lens of age and gender. There is evidence for an increasing focus on intrinsic relative to extrinsic concerns across life. Older individuals have been shown to focus less on extrinsic aspirations in comparison with younger people (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). Yet, measures of meaningfulness don’t show this age gradient, which suggest different age trajectories for different sources of meaning (Pinquart, 2002). For sex differences, women has been found to place more importance on intrinsic aspirations (Ryan et al., 1999) and have generally greater psychological well-being and a comparable level for purpose in life (Ryff, 1995). All in all, intrinsic aspirations have shown positive effect on meaningfulness while extrinsic aspirations has mainly been linked to negative effect. Aim and hypotheses In regards to the relationships between the constructs, several correlations are presupposed from previous findings in the literature. Five different hypotheses were derived regarding the links of the different constructs and the relationship between them, illustrated in the conceptual model (see Figure 1). H1 are two-way indicating correlation while the other four are illustrating the direction of explored effect. Since interest lies in exploring the correlation between personality traits and aspirations, the first hypothesis targets that. The remaining four is derived from the exploration of personality traits and aspirations on well-being and meaningfulness respectively, giving rise to two hypothesis for each construct.

12

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the hypotheses tested and the relation between the constructs For the relationship between personality traits and aspirations, much of the previous findings indicate a positive correlation between extraversion and extrinsic aspirations. For intrinsic aspirations, the traits agreeableness and neuroticism have shown strongest links in most findings. Hypothesis 1: Extraversion should correlate positively with extrinsic aspirations, and agreeableness and neuroticism with intrinsic aspirations. For the effect of personality traits and aspirations on subjective well-being, two different hypothesis was derived. For the effect of personality traits on well-being, the most prominent findings indicate a positive effect of extraversion and a negative effect of neuroticism, mainly based on the affect system. Also small effect has been found for conscientiousness and agreeableness, although not directly. For aspirations effect on well-being, most findings have previously indicated a positive effect of intrinsic aspirations, but contradictory results on the effect of aspirations on well-being opens the floor alternative results. However, self-determination theory have also suggested the strong relationship with intrinsic aspirations, making it a prior hypothesis. Hypothesis 2: The personality traits extraversion and neuroticism have the strongest effect on well-being Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic aspirations should have stronger relative effect on well-being, than extrinsic aspirations. For the effect of personality traits and aspirations on meaningfulness, two last hypotheses was derived. For the effect of personality traits, most findings indicate a negative correlation with neuroticism and a positive correlation with conscientiousness and extraversion. The assumption

13

is based mainly on self-determination theory. For the effect of aspirations on meaningfulness, strong positive association has been found to intrisic aspirations, and negative effect of extrinsic aspirations on perceptions of meaning. Hypothesis 4: Personality trait neuroticism will have a negative effect on meaningfulness while extraversion and conscientiousness will have a positive effect. Hypothesis 5: Intrinsic aspirations have strong positive effect on meaningfulness while extrinsic asprations have negative effect In summary, the current study will expand on the literature by integrating personality traits, as ascribed by the Big Five model, and motivation, operationalized to aspirations, with well-being and meaningfulness. By gathering information of the different concepts, the ambition is to search for unified or distinct relationships between the constructs. All in all, the aim is to increase further knowledge of the Big Five personality construct, its relation to aspirations and the effect on well-being and meaningfulness, which can hopefully aid to the construction or improvement of interventions for incresead mental health. The main research question is: What’s the relation between personality traits and life aspirations and how do they affect subjective well-being and meaningfulness? The two underlying questions that is aimed to be answered are:

- How does personality traits correlate with life aspirations? - How do personality traits and aspirations affect(predict) subjective well-being and

meaningfulness?

Method Participants A total of 126 participants were recruited initially that carried out the link and answered at least one part of the survey. 56 were removed from analysis because of missing data, following list-wise deletion, resulting in a remaining of 70 (26 men, 42 women and two non-binary) participants, that carried out the complete survey with its three different parts. The age ranged from 18-53 years (M = 26.62, SD = 5.43). Procedure Data were obtained through an online questionnaire that was distributed in different university groups on social media and other social platforms, both privately and public, accessible to anyone. The aim of the study, structure and language was communicated beforehand, and a link was provided, without any compensation for participation. Ethical considerations of consent, confidentiality, data protection and that participants were free to quit the survey at any time, was presented in the preface, before starting the survey. The survey included a sequence of phases, starting with personality assesment, continuing with aspirations and ending with well-being and meaningfulness. There was no order difference in the presentation of items to the participants.

14

Measures The questionaire consisted of three parts. The first was a personality assesment scale, based on the Big Five model. The second one was based on the self-determination theory and was focusing on aspiration or life goals. The last part was questions regarding well-being and meaningfullness. The different items from the respective constructs were combined into variables representing the five personality traits, and the seven aspirations. For personality there were 60 items divided into the five dimensions, hence having 12 underlying items for each. For the aspirations, there were 35 items, five of each aspiration. One of the aspirations, health, has been shown to not load on either extrinsic nor intrinsic aspirations and was thus excluded. The six remaining aspirations was further combined into the two main groups, intrinsic and extrinsic. Inclusion of demographics of age, gender and country of origin was done in order to investigate if there was age, ethnicity or gender differences. To empirically validate the theoretical classifications of the variables of analysis, an examination of the internal consistency was done. Cronbach's alpha for the scales showed high internal consitency and were satisfactory at ranges between .72 and .91. NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) The NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) is a smaller version of the original NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R), developed by Costa and McCrae, that does not include measures of individual facets but is only 60 items and therefore can be completed in a shorter period of time. An almost identical inventory as the NEO-FFI was used to measure an individual on the Big Five factors of personality. Some of the items were considered very similar and was adjusted, replacing them with chosen items from the full inventory. Each of the items was further divided into five major personality facets, including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness. A number of characteristic or statements representing one of the five traits were presented and the participants scored on a scale from 1 to 7 if they agreed with that statement. Example of items included were ”worries a lot” and ”is full of energy”. A seven-point scale was used instead of five to arguably increase reliability due to broader and more precise scores. Some of the items were in reversed order which was then adjusted for the analysis. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was satisfactory at .73. Aspiration Index The aspiration index (Kasser and Ryan, 1996) is refering to people’s life goals built on self-determination theory research on aspiration which has focused on the relative strenght of intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations. The two-factor structure of these aspiration domains has been replicated across various cultures, and the subscales have demonstrated internal reliability in previous research (Grouzet et al., 2005). The intrisic scale constitute three factors, relationships, personal growth and community contributions, whilst the extrinsic is focusing on wealth, fame and image. The seventh factor, health, usually don’t load on none of the two scales and is often excluded (Kasser & Ryan,1996), which was also the case in this study. Further, the aspiration index usually includes three estimate for the aspiration construct - importance, likelihood and attainment of the aspirations. Due to the lenght of the survey, only the importance of the rated aspirations was inlcuded, excluding the likelihood and attainment subscales. The aspiration score was calculated by averaging the subscale scores for the three subgroups of each aspiration group. The index consisted of 35 statements, five for each aspiration. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each of the aspirations presented, from a scale ranging from 1 ”Not at all important” to 7 ”Very Important”. Examples of items included ”to grow and learn new things” and ”to be financially succesful”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .85

15

Oxford Happiness Questionnaire For the scores of subjective well-being, the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ) developed by Hills and Argyle (2002) was used. It has five scales including self-esteem, life satisfaction, positive mood, health and competency. The OHQ is a measure of personal happiness, and higher scores is an indication of greater psychological well-being and is thus commonly used in research as a well-being scale. Hills and Argyle have reported acceptable construct validity for the questionnaire by providing correlational data with other self-report scales of subjective well-being. Respondents answered each item on 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree. Examples of items included ”life is good” and ”I don’t feel particularly pleased with the way I am”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .91. Meaning in life Questionnaire The Meaning in life Questionnaire (MLQ) is 10-item measure developed by Steger (2009), that adresses two aspects. It integrates the search of meaning in life, which is an indication of how much respondents strive to find meaning and understanding in their lives, and the presence of meaning life, how much respondents feel their life has a meaning. Respondents answered each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 Untrue to 5 True. Example of items included ”I am searching for meaning in my life” and ”my life has no clear purpose”. Alpha score for the scale was .72. Demographics The inclusion of the demographics age, gender and country of origin was done in order to examine if there were differences in personality traits and aspirations but also in subjective well-being and meaningfulness with regards to the constructs. The first part of the survey began by asking participants this demographic information, it was in the context of pre-survey questions. For gender, there were male, female and other whereas for country of origin, there were ten alternatives covering all contintens of the world except Antarctica, and dividing Europe into four parts (North, Central, East, Meditteranian) and Asia into two parts (East Asia, Middle East). Statistical Analysis Data was firstly compiled through the Qualtrics software and later analyzed using the SPSS software. Reversed scale measures in the survey were recoded so that all scales ran consistently from (1) to (5 or 7). Data was analyzed by first running frequency and descriptive statistics showing means and standard deviations. Indices were created for scale measures of concepts by combining the scores and computing a mean for each index, after a Cronbach’s α was computed for each index to ensure reliability. Factor analysis was done in order to confirm the distinction of the concept of aspirations into two groups, and personality facets into five. Hypotheses were tested and research questions were explored primarily using Pearson’s r correlations for the correlational hypothesis and multiple regression analyses for the potential effect hypotheses. The hypotheses would be presented in line with the regression results, each regression targeting one of the hypothesis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), and independent t-tests were run to investigate the effects of certain demographic variables on the key concepts in the study and to show potential differences. Correlations were considered statistically significant at the alpha = .05.

16

Results The presentation of the results of the analysis will each be tied to the respective hypothesis generated. Hypothesis 1 is examined through the correlation analysis while the other four through multiple regression analysis. Pre-analysis of constructs Factor analysis of life aspirations For the analysis, the seventh aspiration, health, was excluded since it has shown to not load in any of the two intrinsic or extrinsic aspirations in previous studies. The six remaining aspiration subscale scores for each dimension were submitted to principle component higher order factor analysis with oblimin rotation, due to the assumption that the variables are correlated with one another. Two factors or eigenvalues emerged from the analysis, explaining 64 % of the variance. The results as shown in table 1 support previous research on the significant distinction of extrinsic versus intrinsic aspirations with the pattern matrix showing two factors or components for the 6 variables. KMO and Bartletts test of sphericity test showed a score of 0.541 with p = < .001. No correlation between the variables was over .8, hence multicollinearity was within an acceptable range. Table 1. Component matrix for the different aspirations

Factor analysis of personality items Factor analysis on the 60 personality items used in the survey revealed 17 factors with eigenvalue over 1, which is much higher than the presumed Big Five model. A scree plot however demonstrates that the point where the slope of the curve is clearly leveling off indicates the number of factors that should be included in the analysis. As shown in Figure 2, it correspond to aproximately the five components of the assumed model.

Figure 2. Scree plot of factor analysis of 60 personality items of the NEO-PPI

1 2 Personal Growth Wealth Relationships Fame Wealth Image

.713

.804

.687

.835 .765 .761

17

Correlation analysis Intrinsic aspirations were strongly related to high levels of Agreeableness and Openess and lower levels of extraversion and consientiousness. Neuroticism had the weakest correlation to intrinsic aspirations. For the extrinsic aspirations, agreeableness had the strongest correlation although negative. High openess and agreeableness were also linked to extrinsic aspirations. Extraversion and neuroticism had a weak correlation with extrinsic aspirations (see Table 2). The results did not align with hypothesis 1, except that agreeableness was shown to strongly correlate with extrinsic aspirations. Extraversion and neuroticism which was hypothesized to correlate to extrinsic and intriscic aspirations respectively showed the weakest correlation. For each aspiration group correlation to the personality construct, intrinsic aspiration had a strong positive significant correlation of .583 whilst extrinsic had -.129, non significant. Table 2. Correlations between intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations and Big 5 personality traits B5E B5A B5C B5N B5O Intrinsic Personal Growth Relationships Community Total Intrinsic Extrinsic Wealth Fame Image Total Extrinsic

.173 .282* .067 .199 .052 .177 -.029 .081

.281* .299* .321** .384** -.299* -.261* -.112 -.283*

.263* .125 .104 .197 .210 .220 .105 .225

-.246* .069 .017 .064 -.228 -.246* .101 -.154

.566** .267* .349* .491** -.303* -.072 -.150 -.225

Note: E = Extraversion; A = agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Neuroticism; O = Openess * p < .05 ; ** p < .01 Regression Analyses Regression analyses was done for all the different possible effects or relations, in order to determine whether specific aspirations or personality traits contributed to the prediction of subjective well-being and meaningfulness. All the beta values was for standardized B, since the scoring systems for the constructs differed in size and also in perception. The rate of least or most important on a 7-point scale and a well-being 5-point scale don’t correspond exactly to the same unit or value. Thus, the results from the regression analysis for subjective well-being as a dependent variable was focusing on the adjusted R square of .585, indicating that roughly 60 % of the variance could be explained by the different traits and aspiration factors. Table 3 show the beta coefficients and adjusted R squares for the different variables analyzed in relation to subjective well-being. Personality traits was a much better predictor for well-being than aspirations, with (R2=.599) and (R2=.023) respectively.

18

Table 3. Multiple regression results for the effect of personality traits and aspirations on subjective well-being

L = lower bound; U = upper bound; * p <.05 For meaningfulness, the adjusted Rsquare for all variables was .271, F =3.230, p = .002. The beta coefficients and confidence intervalls for the specific variables are summarized in table 4. Table 4. Multiple regression results for the effect of personality traits and aspirations on meaningfulness

L = lower bound; U = upper bound; * p <.05

Independents Well-being Personality traits Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Life aspirations Personal Growth Relationships Community Total Intrinsic Wealth Fame Image Total Extrinsic

B Std. e t adj. R2 L. CI U. CI 0.599* 1.869 4.025 .293* .053 3.187 .063 .276 .172* .052 1.930 -.004 .205 .101 .058 1.163 -.048 .183 -.487* .054 -4.895 -.375 -.157 -.060 .054 -.060 -.144 .071 0.023 1.033 3.813 -.043 .107 -.269 -.242 .184 .142 .098 1.442 -.055 .338 .028 .071 .184 -.129 .155 -.010 -.132 .244 -.022 .063 -.149 -.136 .117 .361* .069 2.362 .025 .303 -.256 .060 -1.748 -.226 .015 -.011 -.101 .171

Independents Meaningfulness Personality traits Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Life aspirations Personal Growth Relationships Community Total Intrinsic Wealth Fame Image Total Extrinsic

B Std. e t adj R2 Low. CI High. CI .129* .722 4.569 .154 .095 1.136 -.082 .297 -.307* .093 -2.337 -.404 -.031 .178 .103 1.390 -.063 .349 -.141 .097 -.959 -.287 .101 .276* .096 2.139 .013 .397 .205* .871 3.906 .170 .116 1.184 -.095 .370 -.156 .107 -1.214 -.345 .084 .174 .077 1.243 -.059 .251 .165 -,005 .421 -.136 .069 -1.013 -.208 .068 .373* .076 2.707 .054 .357 .111 .066 .844 -.076 .187 .104 .036 .345

19

Overlayed models of regression and hypothesis fit In order to more clearly illustrate or visualize the relationships and fit them to each hypothesis separately, scatterplots for the different relationships follows below. For all the models, the Y-axis represent the dependent variables (well-being or meaningfulness), and the X-axis represent the independent variables (aspirations or personality traits): For the personality traits effect on well-being, there’s a clear negative relationship with neuroticism (B = -.487, p = .002) and positive relationship with extraversion (B = .293, p =.002) and agreeableness (B= .172, p = .058). The traits of openness and consientiousness didn’t show any strong significant correlation. The steepnes of the curves indicate the strenght of the relationship. Figure 3 illustrates the different traits and their effect. The results was strongly aligned with hypothesis 2, predicting that extraversion and neuroticism have the strongest unique effect on well-being.

Figure 3. The effect of personality traits on subjective well-being visualized in a overlayed model with all the factors Figure 4 illustrates the groups of intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations and their effect on well-being. For the relationship with aspirations and well-being, no significant relationship was evident, indicated by the flat lines on the figure. The adjusted R2 = .023 indicate almost no effect of the different categorization of extrinsic and intrinsc aspirations on well-being, which makes it the weakest relationship between the different constructs. Separately the aspiration fame had the only significant relationship (B = .361, p =.021). The effect of aspirations on well-being was not at all congruent with hypothesis 3. Not only did the intrinsic aspirations not show stronger correlation than extrinsic, there was no significant effect at all of aspirations on well-being.

20

Figure 4. The effect of grouped extrinsic and intrinsic aspirations on well-being For the personality traits effect on meaningfulness, there was significant relationships for the traits agreeableness (B = -.307, p = .023) and openess (B = .276, p = .036). The other personality traits had a weak positive relationship with meaningfulness, but not significant. Figure 5 shows the lines of fit, indicating aflat lines overall. The results don’t aline with hypothesis 4. In fact, only the traits not predicted by the hypothesis showed a significant relationship, going against common findings.

Figure 5. The effect of personality traits on meaningfulness visualized in a overlayed model with all the factors

21

The effect of aspirations on meaningfulness, showed a significant relationship with an adjusted Rsquare of 0.192, p =.003. Figure 6 illustrates the groups of intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations and their effect on meaningfulness. The results partly aline with hypothesis 5 in that intrinsic aspirations have a positive relationship with meaningfulness. However, the effect of extrinsic aspirations is also positive, going against previous findings.

Figure 6. The effect of extrinsic and intrinsic aspirations on meaningfulness Demographics analysis Gender differences The was no significant differences in the score of the personality traits, except the trait neuroticism, were females showed a higher mean score (4.24) in comparison to males (3.35). The Levens test for equality of variance was significnt t 2,385 (p = 0.022). The result indicate that women tends to be more neurotic than men. An independent t-test on the gender differences regarding intrinsic or extrinsic aspiration reveald a significant difference in intrinsic aspirations. The mean score for intrinsic was higher for women (5.98) to the mens (5.54) with p = 0.025. For extrinsic aspirations, the opposite pattern was found with women with a mean of 3.48 while men had a mean score of 3.71, although not significant. Independent t-test was also done for subjective wellbeing and meaningfulness. None of the parameters had significant differences, with mean differences between the groups of 0.22 and 0.06 respectively on a 5 point scale. Country of origin differences In order to measure differences, only three of the eight alternatives had a reasonable percentage of participants, with Scandinavian or Northern Europe making up 65.8 % of the answers, Mediterranean at 11.8 % and Middle East at 13.2 %. All the other were under 5 %, thus making

22

them not comparable due to low validity. For the personality traits, no major difference was found. All the groups were around the same interval, except consientiousness, were people from the middle east scored 0.5 sd above the mean for all other groups. For the extrinsic and intrinsic aspirations, a one-way ANOVA was done. The mean scores for the different regions were 3.28 for Scandinavia and Northern Europe, 3.97 for Meditteranian and 4.23 for Middle East, roughly one standard deviation more than the first group. Significance levels for extrinsic and intrinsic aspiration were p= .080 and .131 respectively. Age differences All participants except two ranged between 18-33 years of age. Clear patterns or results of age differences could thus not be calculated due to limited variation in the sample. A division of the age distribution into categories of youth 17-24 and young adults 25-33 could be done but the difference was judged to be of no greater significance. Conceptual model with correlation and regression coefficients

23

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between personality traits and aspirations and their effect on subjective well-being and meaningfulness. In summary, the results showed strongest correlation for intrinsic aspirations with openess and agreeableness, and extrinsic aspirations with agreeableness. For well-being, the strongest predictors were extraversion and neuroticism, while aspirations showed no significant effect. For meaningfulness, openness and agreeableness had positive and negative effects respectively, whereas both intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations showed positive effect. For the assumption that extraversion should correlated positively with extrinsic aspirations, and agreeableness and neuroticism with intrinsic aspirations (hypothesis 1), the results was not aligned, due to relatively low correlation of extraversion with both extrinsic and intrinsic aspirations. Neuroticism also showed no strong correlation with neither of the aspiration clusters. That can be attributed to the fact that most aspirations reflect approach tendencies, which is more associated with positive and negative affect. For extrinsic aspiration, the trait that correlated strongest was agreeableness. That supports the characteristics of that of an agreeable person which tends to give in to others desires in expense of their own, but find pleasure for taking care and serving others, hence depending on praise or reward. These findings align with Socioanalytic theory in that people attempt to select roles that reinforce their identity. The close relationship to extrinsic aspirations may have to do with the importance individuals high in agreeableness place on primarly image, in order to be accepted and get along with everyone as a mean reinforcing their identity to favor social status. For intrinsic aspirations instead, openness to experience had a unusally strong correlation wich do align with findings by Romero et. Al (2012), who discussed that individuals high in openness emphasize autonomy, self-direction and change, which parallells with aspects of intrinsic aspiration. In relation to hypothesis 2, the results that neuroticism and extraversion had the strongest unique effect on well-being strongly align with the hypothesis and previous findings. One reason for the consistent results could be due to the fact that the effect of the traits extraversion and neuroticism on well-being has much empirical basis. The biological pathway operationalized into the BIS and BAS systems (Gray, 1990) indicate the role positive and negative affect play for well-being. Also, Costa and Mccrae (1980) distinction of temperamental and instrumental perspective explains the findings. Extrovers are more cheerful than introverts who are more prone to negative affect. This relationship seems to be one of the most consistent and is further strengthened here. In regards to the other traits, agreeableness and conscientiousness was found to have a positive relationship to well-being although not significant which aligns to the instrumental view of indirect effect on well-being and hence with the mixed results of previous research on those traits. For conscientiousness, there is theoretical reason to expect factors like goal attainement and accomplishment to be important for well-being, but they may act as an indirect source (Seligman, 2011; Headey, 2008). In general, biologically predetermined factors appears to play an important role in human characteristic with well-being being no exception. That intrinsic aspirations should have stronger relative effect on well-being than extrinsic (hypothesis 3) corresponded the least with the results from the study. Previous findings have found a significant positive effect of intrinsic aspirations with well-being and a negative effect of extrinsic aspirations. None of these assumptions was strenghten. The results align partly with findings of Frost & Frost (2000) and Romero et al. (2012) which found no effect of extrinsic aspirations on well-being. A possible explanation for the results could have to do with the interrelationship between the two constructs of aspirations. Nishimura and Suzuki (2016)

24

reported, through a confirmatory factor analysis on the Aspiration Index, that there was a positive relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations. They argued that a possible contributor to the results might be the hierarchical structure of the aspirations. In some instances, extrinsic aspirations might lay the foundation for achieving intrinsic aspirations. By satisfying parts of or all extrinsic aspirations, people are able to evolve and pursue intrinsic aspirations. Aquiring intrinsic aspirations is suggested to maybe require the attainment of extrinsic aspirations of wealth or social status, hence the interrelation. In relation to Hypothesis 4, the results on the present study were reversed. The assumption that neuroticism should correlate negatively with meaningfulness was not evident, likewise the positive relationship with conscientiousness and extraversion. Notably, the direction of the effect for all the traits except agreeableness was aligned with the hypothesis, although not significant. Instead, significant positive effect was found for openness on meaningfulness while agreeableness had a negative relationship. Thus, the relation to neuroticism was not replicated, but more importantly, the link of openness to meaningfulness was also found significant here. It seems reasonable given that openness to experience includes traits of curiosity, receptiveness to change and open-mindedness. Individuals with high levels of openness tends to be adventerous and productive and generate new ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1994). That is closely linked to achievement of goals and realization of potential, aspects related to meaning in life. Creating and achieving something important and being open to experiences forms the core of meaning in life (Frankl, 1959). For the negative effect of agreeableness on meaningfulness, the relationship is a bit tricky. Most previous findings have highlighted the relation of agreeablenss with intrinsic aspirations. Intrinsic aspirations in turn have been shown to relate positive to meaningfulness. That agreeableness should have negative effect may be linked to the lack of attainment of personal needs. An agreeable person characterized by traits such as forgiving, not demanding, not stubborn, modest and sympathetic, may be obstructed in the search for meaning due to the characteristics of their personality. By not being demanding and stubborn, it could impair growth and actualizing tendencies. This touches upon findings on the importance of being responsible in a world full of competition, dominance hierarchies, and unequal distribution of resources and aligns with the importance self-determination theory places on autonomy and individuals sense of initiative and ownership of one’s own actions (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Wilson, 2000; Bandura, 1991). Hence, by being at ease with everyone and avoiding conflict would arguably result in the neglection of one’s interest. That would may affect the perceived meaningfulness in that one lives in accordance to the demands and wishes of others. That in itself could be seen as meaningful, to be a part of a social group, but that only touches upon the subgroups of meaningfulness related to self-worth, not accounting for efficacy and purpose. Lastly, for the assumption that there should be a strong positive effect of intrinsic aspirations to meaningfulness, while extrinsic aspirations would have negative effect (hypothesis 5), the results were partly aligned. Intrinsic aspiration was shown to be positively correlated to meaningfulness as predicted. However also extrinsic aspirations showed to have a positive effect on meaningfulness. That goes against the bulk of previous research findings ascribing extrinsic aspirations as a depriving factor of meaning. The result that both groups of aspirations have a positive effect on meaningfulness, could be interpreted as, that it doesn’t matter what kind of end-term goal an individual aspires, as long as the aspiration is strong or of great interest, it gives meaning to ones life. Hence, the valence or strenght of an aspiration may be of greater importance to the sense of meaning in life than the relative aim of either intrinsic or extrinsic goals per se.

25

Overall, the findings was partly consistent with the presuppositions that laid the foundation for the hypotheses. However there were major differences for some constructs, making the general compliance to be of mixed character. Personality traits seems to be a much better predictor than life aspirations for the effect on subjective-wellbeing. The amount of variance that the two separate models could predict differ notably, with R2 values of 0.599 for personality traits and 0.023 for aspirations. The low score for aspiration indicate weak predictive value with regards to well-being. The personality traits that strongest correlated to well-being, extraversion and neuroticism, are consistent with previous research, strenghtening theories of the possible relationship, like the affect theory. Findings of Roysamb & Nes (2018) indicating a dual set of mechanisms may be linked to the results. First, from a top-down perspective, the general way of seeing life and perceiving the world affects life satisfaction. Positive and negative affective tendencies hence might color the ongoing evaluation of what life is like. Secondly, from a bottom-up perspective, positive and negative affect tendencies over time may contribute to life experiencies when evaluating well-being. A person with high extraversion and positive emotion, combined with low neuroticism and depression/anxiety, would recall a higher number of positive episodes characterized by such experiences, forming the overall evaluation of their well-being. The consistency of previous research on the positive effect of intrinsic aspirations and negative effect of extrinsic aspirations on well-being could not be replicated. It is not the first time that no significant relationship has been found (Frost & Frost, 2000; Romero et al., 2012), which opens the question for other interpretations or differences other than the constructs themselves. It could be that individuals aspiring for either extrinsic or intrinsic goals, differs in their threshold for perceived well-being. When an individual rates his or her subjective well-being, there is presumably a moment to moment feeling of positive or negative affect. A person that aims high or has some unfulfilled aim or goal, will probably feel less complete or satisfied with the current state of being. Hence, it could be that the level of wanting or desire affects the subjective feeling of well-being in a way that differs depending on the valence of that goal, not the object or aim itself. The aspiration of a specific type of goal don’t automatically mean that people lack or will not aspire to evolve and flurish in other areas of life, but focus on the strenght or aim towards an aspiration may have a more positive effect on well-being. Previous findings showing distinct effect of the differentiation of aspirations on well-being may have built upon the possibility that extrinsic aspirations are in general harder to attain. Kasser and Ryan (1996) adressed that issue suggesting lower success rate in the attainment of extrinsic goals, which can lead to detrimental psychological effects. Another explanation was that extrinsic aspirations was seen as are markers of a more general type of neuroticism and emotional insecurity. This claim has been supported by an earlier study by Kasser et al. (1995), were they found that younger individuals with low socioeconomic status were linked to increased emphasis of the attainment of wealth. Hence, wealth aspirations may represent a compensation for feelings of insecurity earlier in life, leading one to focus on external praise, recognition and rewards as a way of maintaining a sense of worth and gain approval. Extrinsic goals may also lead individuals to engage in more controlled, ego-involving and driven behaviors, and less to experiences of self-actualization. Sheldon & Kasser (1995) found that aspirations that help bring about extrinsic possible futures were associated with distracting daily activities such as watching tv or smoking whereas intrinsic aspirations were associated with meaningful daily activities of helping out or thinking about the future. Thus, people with extrinsic aspirations may have fewer experiences supportive of the growth tendencies leading to well-being. There could also have been methodological flaws, in that the aspiration index was only accounting for the importance of goals, not taking into account the likelihood and attainment

26

of aspirations which could have changed the overall score. It may not only be the importance of a aspiration that constitute to the feeling of well-being, but also the general sense of likelihood and attainment. Another hindrance and contributor for non-significant results with regards to aspirations could have to do with the sample size. Since there were 30 items in six different predictors, the power could be low due to the few number of participants in relation to each construct. For meaningfulness, both personality traits and aspirations had odd but interesting effects. The fact that neither extraversion or neuroticism had a significant effect discards the affect theory in regards to meaningfulness, at least for this study. Openness and its close linked to achievement of goals and realization of potential, aspects that is related to meaning in life indicate that there may not be a common state or attainment that needs to be reached, but rather a constant search for development and new ideas. To always be akin to new experiences and never stop growing may be more meaningful. That could also aline with the interesting finding of both aspiration groups positively related to meaningfulness. The higher the aspiration score regardless of group, the more perceived meaning. That goes in line with the presupposition that having responsibilities or virtues gives life meaning (Peterson, 2018). How does the results apply for interventional practice? Since personality traits showed to be a much better predictor of well-being than aspirations, a good starting point would be to look at characteristics or patterns of individuals scoring the highest on SWB and which traits are prominent. Neuroticism and extraversion was as previous findings have shown, the strongest predictors for SWB. Although, in current western societies, there is a great emphasise on achievement and wealth, more focus should be given to the characteristics of extraversion, mainly sociability and being outgoing. Assertiveness training could be used to be able to express thoughts, feelings and needs to others, as individuals high in neuroticism has a hard time doing. Increasing social exposure gradually and setting up practical goals for sociability could be another step for more extroverted behavior. Importantly also, to be specific and clear about the structure and the gradual increase in goals and exposure. For neuroticism in order to decrease it, since the relationships has been shown to be negative with well-being, patterns of behavior with regards to mainly moodiness and lack of self-confidence could be targeted and gain more focus. Important to note is that when talking about exaggerating characteristics of extraversion, that does not mean that introverted people can’t be happy or are always less happier. People characterized by introverted patterns isn’t automatically less sociable, but they found tranquility in being alone. But the valence of positive emotions that are characterized by a person high in extraversion aids to the subjective estimate of well-being as shown by the correlational results. Limitations The major weakness of this study were that all concepts was measured by self-reported measurement. Reliance on self-report of goals, values and well-being outcomes is prone to potential bias due to response tendencies or social desirability. Participants may rate themselves as more happy or rate a desired personality trait as higher than it actually is. Linked to that is another limitation, the data collection method. By enabling anyone to access the survey electronically it at any time, there is no control of the circumstances when the respondents answer the survey. Hence, multiple confounders could interact with the time of the response, altering the true value. Example would be to fill it with other people and be affected by their scores or thoughts, being on the way to somewhere or being at different places with different stress levels, hence doing it faster or inaccurately, or being in different kind of emotional or

27

affective states. Depending on the mood the respondent have on a particular day, it could skew the responses in both directions. All these aspects could impede the internal validity. The focus is mostly in Sweden, although some participants from Germany and Greece answered the survey. So the respondents are mainly from the same cultural and historical period, making the findings not being cross-culturally generalizable. As for the age differences, all participant except two were between 18-33 years of age, indicating a specific age group. As previously discussed, there is evidence for an increasing focus on intrinsic relative to extrinsic concerns across life. Older individuals have been shown to focus less on extrinsic aspirations in comparison with younger people (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). Hence, the results of equally distributed intrinsic and extrinsic aspiration could be due to the lower age sample in the study. The limited age span does also make the results non-representative for the popultation as a whole. For the different measurement scales, NEO-FFI, Oxford Happinnes Scale and Meaning in life Questionnaire are all replicated and used. However the Aspiration index may have been incomplete or non-representative. Due to the many personality questions and the inclusion of the other scales, the aspiration index was reduced to only include one of its three facets, focusing on importance of an aspiration and discarding likelihood and attainment. The sumscore could thus have been altered or not representative and therefore not align with most previous research findings. However, there are studies (Kasser & Ryan, 1996) that have adjusted the index aswell which still have congruent findings with other research. Additionally, a contributor to the non-significant results with regards to aspiration could have to do with the sample size. Since there were only 30 items for six different predictors, the power was low due to few number of participants in relation to each constructs. If there were more items or participants, a clearer pattern may had been evident. Furthermore, all data were correlational and cross-sectional, and conclusion of causality should be met with caution. For the personality dimension, the trait disposition approach was used, which do not account for social contexts. People in general behave differently in different situations. Introverted individuals often state that they are extroverted with family and friends. Hence, depending on the situational context and the individual differences in evaluation of personality traits, the results may be a bit skewed. NEO-FFI is a good assesment tool for personality but it cant take into account the social factor of personality traits. Future Research The interprentations based on the mixed results from the study, opens the stage for future studies to target uncommon or less replicated findings. Mainly, the interesting correlation of agreeableness with both aspirations and well-being indicates that there is a mixed outcome for a trait that on the one hand favors prosocial behavior but at the same type is deprived of meaningfulness. The strong correlation of openess to intrinsic aspirations does also not align with most previous findings but makes sense from a logical standpoint and is hence of interest to examine. The link between the type of aspirations and perceived meaning should be examined in depth and with a broader age span in the sample, to account for potential changes in aspiration and a clearer relationship between the importance of aspirations in life. More items for the different measurement scales and larger samples to enable generazability should also be taken into account, in order to provide results that more clearly distinguishes potential connections between the constructs. Lastly, given the importance of aspirations in shaping the

28

paths of individuals, there needs to be given more attention to longitudinal studies. Targeting changes in personality and well-being and meaningfulness in accordance to the aimed or fullfilled aspirations could better predict or explain the structuring and aims of peoples lives. Conclusions In summary, personality traits seems to be a much better predictor of subjective well-being than the categorization of aspirations. Most evident, extraversion has a positive effect while neuroticism has a negative effect on well-being. It supports the theory of affect and the temperamental view proposed by Costa & Mccrae suggesting that certain personality traits represent enduring dispositions that directly lead to well-being. With regards to meaningfulness, high scores in openess aids to perceived meaning in life while agreableness has a thwarting effect. Additionally, the valence or strenght of an aspiration seems to indicate a clearer path towards meaningfulness than the categorization of intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations per se. It appears as he who has a strong why to live for, can bear almost any how. It is yet hard to make claims of the targeting of a specific type of trait or aspiration category that would assure increases in subjective well-being and meaning. However, by replicating and adding aspects into the equation, the relationships will slowly clarify. Focusing on highlighting the subtraits of the extraversion construct and lessen the ones for neuroticism with focus on affect would be an approach for increased well-being. The definite or relative choice of either extrinsic or intrinsic aspirations may not be a crucial one, rather, targeting an end-term goal or aim that contains aspects of meaning that is sufficient for the pursuing of that aim may be enough in order to feel meaning in life. There is no one right path for all individuals, rather the personality differences could seen as a marker or indicator for the choice of the right path for each individual. Being open to new experiences, updating ones goals and aspirations in accordance with time could enhance the subjective experience of well-being and meaning for increased mental health.

29

References Allemand, M., Steiger, A. E. & Fend, H. A. (2015). Empathy development in adolescence predicts social outcomes in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 83, 229-241. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. American Psychology Association (2021). Psychology https://www.apa.org/topics/personality Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1011-1017. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York, NY: Guilford. Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680–740). New York: McGraw-Hill. Baumert, A., Schmitt, M., Perugini, M., Johnson, W., Blum, G., Borkenau, P., & Wrzus, C. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31, 503–528. Brebner, J., Donaldson, J., Kirby, N., & W ard, L. (1995). Relationships between happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 251-258. Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902. Cattell, R. B. (1943). Description and measurement of personality. Oxford, England: World Book Company. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In T. Heatherton & J. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21-40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229. Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1993). The experience of emotional well- being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

30

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. (2000). Explaining differences in societal levels of happiness: Relative standards, need fulfillment, culture, and evaluation theory. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Periodical on Subjective Well-Being, 1, 41–78. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities Press, Inc. Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Frankl, V. (1965). The doctor and the soul: From psychotherapy to logotherapy (R. Winston & C. Winston, Trans.). New York: Knopf. Freud, S. (1927). The ego and the id. London, England: Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Transl. New York: Norton, 1989. Frost, K. M., & Frost, C. J. (2000). Romanian and American life aspirations in relation to psychological well-being. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(6), 726–751. Fry, P. S. (2000). Religious involvement, spirituality and personal meaning for life: Existential predictors of psychological wellbeing in community residing and institutional care elders. Aging & Mental Health, 4(4), 375- 387. Gomez, V., Krings, F., Baugarter, A., & Grob, A. (2009). The influence of personality and life events on subjective well-being from a life span perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 345–354. Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition & Emotion, 4(3), 269–288. Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., et al. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800–816. Halama, P. (2005). Relationship between meaning in life and the big five personality traits in young adults and the elderly. Studia Psychologica, 47, 167–178. Halama, P., & Dedova, M. (2007). Meaning in life and hope as predictors of positive mental health: Do they explain residual variance not predicted by personality traits? Studia Psychologica, 49, 191-200. Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin”. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339. Hayes, N.; Joseph, S. Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2003, 34, 723–727. Headey, B. (2008). Life goals matter to happiness: A revision of set-point theory. Soc Indic Res. 86, pp. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well- being. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: a critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574-600 Henningsgaard, J. M., & Arnau, R. C. (2008). Relationships between religiosity, spirituality, and personality: A multivariate analysis. Personality & Individual Differences, 45, 703–708. Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). When is personality revealed? A motivated cog- nition approach. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 182–207). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1073–1082.

31

Hogan, R. (1983). A Socioanalytic Theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hotard, S. H., McFatter, R. M., McWhirtter, R. W., & Stegall, M. E. (1989). Interactive effects of extraversion, neuroticism, and social relationships on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 321±331. Išik, S., & Üzbe, N. (2015). Personality traits and Positive/Negative Affects: An analysis of meaning in Life among Adults Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 2015 June, 15(3) 587-595 Kasser, T. (2004). The good life or the goods life? Positive psychology and personal well-being in the culture of consumption. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 55–67). New York, NY: Wiley. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410–422. Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Zax, M., & Sameroff, A. J. (1995). The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial aspirations. Developmental Psychology, 31, 907–914 Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 281–288. Kasser, T., & Ryan, M. R. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck, & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 116–131). King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a good life? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 156± 165. King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J., & Del Gaiso, A. (2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179-196. Kling, K., Ryff, C., Love, G., & Essex, M. (2003). Exploring the influence of personality on depressive symptoms and self-esteem across a significant life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 922-932. Krasner, M. S., Epstein, R. M., Beckman, H., Suchman, A. L., Chapman, B., Mooney, C. J., & Quill, T. E. (2009). Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 1284–1293 Lavigne, K. M., Hofman, S., Ring, A. J., Ryder, A. G., & Woodward, T. S. (2013). The personality of meaning in life: Associations between dimensions of life meaning and the Big Five. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(1), 34-43. Lekes, N., Gingras, I., Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Fang, J. (2010). Parental autonomy- support, intrinsic life goals, and well-being among adolescents in China and North America. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(8), 858–869. Leon, G. R., Gillum, B., Gillum, R., & Gouze, M. (1979). Personality stability and change over a 30-year period: Middle age to old age. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 23, 245–259. Little, B. R. Salmela-Aro, K. & Phillips S. D. (Eds.), (2007). Personal project pursuit. Goals, action, and human flourishing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Locke, Edwin A. (May 1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 3 (2): 157–189. Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Personality and happiness: is mental health a mediator? Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 249-256.

32

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847-861. Martos, T., & Kopp, M. S. (2012). Life goals and well-being: Does financial status matter? Evidence from a representative Hungarian sample. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 561–568. Marquez, J. & Long, E. (2021) A global decline in adolescents’ subjective well-being: a comparative study exploring patterns of change in the life satisfaction of 15-year old students in 46 countries Mascaro, N., & Rosen, D. H. (2005). Existential meaning’s role in the enhancement of hope and prevention of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 985- 1013. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365–396. McCrae, R. R. (1983). Extraversion is not a filter, neuroticism is not an outcome: A reply to Lawton. Experimental Aging Research, 9, 73-76. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Moomal, Z. (1999). The relationship between meaning in life and mental well-being. South African Journal of Psychology, 29(1), 42-49. Morgan, J., & Robinson, O. (2013). Intrinsic aspirations and personal meaning across adulthood: Conceptual interrelations and age/sex diferences. Developmental Psychology, 49, 999–1010. Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A., III. (2007). Personality change influences mortality in older men. Psychological Science, 18, 371-376. Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10±19. Nes, R. B., Røysamb, E., Tambs, K., Harris, J. R. & Reichborn-Kjennerud, T., (2006). Subjective well-being: genetic and environmental contributions to stability and change. Psychological Medicine 36, 1033–1042 Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., Diener, E., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Zeroing in on the dark side of the American dream: A closer look at the negative consequences for the goal of financial success. Psychological Science, 14, 531–536. Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The path taken: Consequences of attaining intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations in post-college life. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 291–306. Nishimura, T., & Suzuki, T. (2016). Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration in Japan: Controlling for big five personality traits. Japanese Psychological Research, 58, 320-331. Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2018). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. The Oxford Hanbook of Positive Psychology (3rd edn) Otero-López, J. M., & Villardefrancos, E. (2013). Five-Factor Model personality traits, materialism, and excessive buying: A mediational analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 767–772.

33

Pan, J., Wong, D., Joubert, L., & Chan, C. (2007). Acculturative stressor and meaning of life as predictors of negative affect in acculturation: A cross-cultural comparative study between Chinese international students in Australia and Hong Kong. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 740-750. Peterson, J. B., Doidge, N., & Van, S. E. (2018). 12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos. Pinquart, M. (2002). Creating and maintaining purpose in life in old age: A meta-analysis. Ageing International, 27, 90–114. Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The in- tersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1284–1296. Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 137– 145. Rogers, C. (1963). The actualizing tendency in relation to `motives' and to consciousness. In Jones M.R. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (11, (pp. 1±24). University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Romero, E., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., & Villar, P. (2012). Life aspirations, personality traits and subjective well-being in a Spanish sample. European Journal of Personality, 26, 45–55. Rounds, J. B. (1995). Vocational interests: Evaluating structural hypotheses. In R. V. Dawis & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Assessing individ- ual differences in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings (pp. 177-232). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Røysamb, E. & Nes, R. B. (2018). Handbook of well-being (eds Diener, E., Oishi, S. & Tay, L.) Ch. The genetics of well-being (DEF Publishers). Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motiva tion to behavior (pp. 7–26). New York: Guilford. Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. I. (1999). The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1509–1524. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Direc- tions in Psychological Science, 4, 99–103. Sabzehara, M., Ferguson, Y. L., Sarafraz, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2014). An investigation of the associations between contingent self-worth and aspirations among Iranian university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 154(1), 59–73. Schnell, T., & Becker, P. (2006). Personality and meaning in life. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 117–129. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011) Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. xii, 349 (Free Press; US). Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of Personality Integration Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1995. Vol.68, No. 3.531-543 Skinner, B.F., & Ferster, C.B. (1957) Schedules of Reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Schultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.

34

Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning of life. In Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 679-687). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76(2), 199-228. Stubbe, J. H., Posthuma, D., Boomsma, D. I., & De Geus, E. J. C. (2005). Heritability of life satisfaction in adults: A twin-family study. Psychological Medicine, 35, 1581–1588. Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1031–1039 Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34. Visser, B. A., & Pozzebon, J. A. (2013). Who are you and what do you want? Life aspirations, personality, and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 266–271. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Winnel, M. (1987). Personal goals: The key to self-direction in adult- hood. In M. Ford & D. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing living systems: Putting the framework to work (pp. 261-287). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wong, P. T. P. (2010). Meaning therapy: An integrative and positive existential psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40, 85–94. Zhang, H., Chen, K., Chen, C., Schlegel, R (2018) Personal Aspirations, person environment fit, meaning in work, and meaning in life: A moderated mediation model Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer Nature B.V.