Study traits, goals, motives, genetics, personality development and well-being.

The identification of appropriate units for studying personality has been one of the most debated subjects in the history of personality psychology [see Little, 2005, McAdams, 1995, Pervin, 1994, Romero, 2005]. The problem was first raised at the very inception of the discipline, when Allport [1940] asked himself What units shall we employ? and it has gone through repeated revision over time.

In the last few decades, some authors have developed specific frameworks to articulate and integrate personality units. The most outstanding frameworks share a common interest in classifying personality components in terms of contextualization and stability. One of the most popular models in this respect is that proposed by McCrae and Costa [1999], who distinguish between “basic tendencies” and “characteristic adaptations”. Basic tendencies are viewed as the universal raw material of personality, with personality traits lying at their very core. Traits are defined as basic, endogenous, stable, hierarchically structured basic dispositions governed by biological factors such as genes and brain structures, and, according to McCrae and Costa, the domains in the Five-Factor Model lie at the top of the hierarchy. On the other hand, characteristic adaptations are constructs representing the manner in which traits materialize in a specific environment, culture or life stage; as such, characteristic adaptations encompass habits, attitudes, interests, acquired skills, beliefs, goals, expectations and plans.

One other widely known proposal in this context is that by McAdams [1995], who distinguishes three levels of personality units; two such levels [I and II] are similar to the distinction made by McCrae and Costa [1999] between basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations. Thus, Level I is occupied by traits, which are defined as comparative, stable, relatively decontextualized units providing a rough draft of a person [a scheme of his or her typical behavioral patterns]. Level II consists of a heterogeneous body of units which McAdams [1995] originally termed “personal concerns”; such units are defined in terms of motivation, strategies and development, and describe [a] what people seek during specific periods or in specific areas of their lives and [b] what specific methods [plans and strategies] they use to achieve it. Unlike traits, personal concerns are contextualized in time, space and/or specific roles. In addition, McAdams identified a third level in which he placed personal narratives, via which people construct their identities and provide integration and uniqueness to their lives.

The second level of personal concerns [McAdams, 1995] or characteristic adaptations [McAdams and Pals, 2006, McCrae and Costa, 1999] is a body of fuzzily defined units for which other authors have coined designations such as “middle-level units” [Buss & Cantor, 1989] or “personal action constructs” [PACs; Little, Lecci, & Watkinson, 1992]. The variety of terms used for this concept reflects the great interest these units have aroused among personality psychologists in recent times, and also the lack of consensus on their essential features. Notwithstanding the disparity, it seems clear that Level II has a prominent place for a body of units associated with the concept of goal and with directionality in people’s behavior. Some authors [e.g., Cantor, 1990], following Allport, have illustrated the difference between traits and middle-level units by comparing “having” with “doing” or what personality “is” with what personality “does” [i.e., goals, efforts and strategies brought into play to achieve them].

A sizeable amount of research, especially that conducted since the 1980s, has revived interest in motivation as a personality key and has focused on the objectives people try to approach or avoid; concepts such as “current concerns” [Klinger, 1977], “life tasks” [Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987], “personal projects” [Little, 1983] and “personal strivings” [Emmons, 1986] constitute a new generation of units intended to capture the intentions governing people’s behavior in their everyday lives.

Within this amalgam of units encompassing the telic dimension of personality, the “personal strivings” proposed by Emmons [1986], play a prominent role. According to Emmons, personal strivings encapsulate “what individuals are characteristically aiming to accomplish through their behavior” [Emmons, 1986, p. 1059]. The concept of strivings stems from “teleonomic trends”, a concept proposed by Floyd Allport [1937] and, unlike other middle-level units, strivings do not represent anecdotal goals, which can be trivial objectives in the general dynamics of personality [e.g., “change the oil in the car”], but rather what individuals intend to do in a recurrent, frequent, typical manner [e.g., “make life easier for my family”, “feel competent and efficacious”]; therefore, they seemingly lie at a more dispositional level of analysis, one that is more appropriate for studying regularities in personality.

Like other middle-level units, strivings have been dealt with idiographically and nomothetically. Initially, individuals generate their own strivings freely. Then, such strivings are rated in a common body of appraisal dimensions [Striving Assessment Scales, SAS]. The dimensions [17 in the version by Emmons [1999]] include the affective tonality of strivings [Happiness, Unhappiness], Probability of Success, Clarity, Effort, perceived Progress and received Support; also, based on concepts derived from the self-determination theory [see Deci and Ryan, 1985, Kasser and Ryan, 1993, Sheldon and Elliot, 1999], assessments include the perceived origin of strivings [Extrinsic, Intrinsic, Introjected, Identified]. In addition, individuals are asked to assess to what extent their strivings are mutually supportive or interfering in order to obtain a global measure of “Instrumentality” between strivings. The SAS probably require better clarification as regards structure [what are the factors underlying these dimensions?] and comprehensiveness [do they encompass all aspects relevant to goal appraisal?]; however they constitute one of the goal assessment systems of greatest heuristic value in the study of middle-level units in recent years.

Despite the interest focused on middle-level units in the last two decades, little is known about their relationship with traits, a deficiency that substantially limits our knowledge about the integrative functions of personality. Although some studies have related traits to motivational constructs such as personal projects, goals and values [Little et al., 1992, Roberts and Robins, 2000, Roccas et al., 2002, Turban et al., 2007, Wang and Erdheim, 2007], research into the relationships between traits and personal strivings is particularly scarce. The present study was intended to bridge the gap by examining the relationships between traits as defined according to the Five-Factor Model and the appraisal dimensions of strivings; we determined to what extent traits are connected with aspects such as the importance given to strivings, the difficulty perceived in struggling for their achievement, the clarity with which they are established and, in general, the scales proposed by Emmons to characterize individual strivings. The original scheme of McCrae and Costa [1999] assumes that basic tendencies are a source of influence for characteristic adaptations. Accordingly, one can assume that traits, which are generalized dispositions, influence the way people define, organize and pursue their strivings in everyday life; in other words, it seems reasonable to assume that “having” influences “doing”.

In fact, some hypothesis about the relationships between the Five Factors and striving dimensions can be derived from previous literature. Firstly, both the nature of Neuroticism itself and the findings of previous studies involving personal projects [e.g., Little et al., 1992] enable us to predict that Neuroticism will be related to those dimensions that indicate little progress and high stress in the pursuit of strivings. Secondly, it is expected that Extraversion will be associated with an optimistic perception of strivings: high probability of success, good progress, and high level of happiness associated with achieving the strivings. Thirdly, Openness has been found in other studies to be correlated with goal dimensions that indicate a high degree of congruence with values and with self-identity [Little et al., 1992]; it may therefore be hypothesized, that in the present study Openness will be related to the perception of little ambivalence in strivings, a high importance, and also a high self-identification with the strivings. Fourthly, it is expected that individuals high in Agreeableness, interpersonally oriented, will perceive a high level of support from others; in accordance with the results of Little et al. [1992], it is also expected that Agreeableness will be associated with dimensions that are indicative of low stress and, presumably also a high degree of efficacy in achieving goals. In comparison with those individuals with low scores for Agreeableness, agreeable individuals might be more likely to receive social support in the pursuit their goals, and this might translate into better results in achieving their goals, in a process of “communal mastery” [Hobfoll, Jackson, Hobfoll, Pierce, & Young, 2002] or shared efficacy, which appears particularly relevant to collectivist cultures such as the Spanish culture. Fifthly, it is hypothesized that Conscientiousness will be related to dimensions that indicate organization, clarity and efficacy in achieving goals.

The present study also focuses on the relationships between traits, strivings and well-being. Well-being has been widely examined by both trait [see Diener & Lucas, 1999] and middle-level unit researchers [see Schmuck & Sheldon, 2001]. The sizeable body of research gathered so far in this context has revealed that traits can be used as effective predictors of well-being [DeNeve & Cooper, 1998]; also, a number of studies have related well-being to the way people set their goals, the reasons for their pursuit, and progress towards or conflict between them [Lecci et al., 1994, McGregor and Little, 1998, McGregor et al., 2006, Sheldon et al., 2004, Spence et al., 2004]. In fact, research into personal strivings has invariably been closely bound to the study of well-being [Emmons, 1986, Emmons, 1996, Emmons, 1999]. The aim of the present study was to contribute new knowledge to the existing body of research by elucidating the relationships between the appraisal dimensions of strivings and well-being. Although some authors have previously pursued a similar objective [see the seminal study by Emmons [1986]], in the present study we used the refined, expanded version of Emmons [1999], and compiled data about the relationships between such dimensions, in their current version, and well-being. Also, in analyzing well-being, we used both “hedonic” measures [viz., negative and positive affect, satisfaction with life] and a measure of purpose in life, more representative of the “eudemonic” tradition [Deci and Ryan, 2008, Ryan and Deci, 2001, Waterman, 1993]. To our minds, including eudemonic aspects related to meaning and purpose in a study on strivings was especially pertinent since strivings may be the vehicles whereby people give meaning to their lives [see Wong & Fry, 1998].

Based on previous research [e.g., Emmons, 1999, Schmuck and Sheldon, 2001], one can formulate a series of hypotheses regarding the relationships between striving dimensions and well-being. Thus, it is expected that those dimensions that indicate progress, clarity and efficacy in achieving goals, will be positively related to well-being; it may also be expected that dimensions indicative of social and environmental support will be related to well-being. It is expected, however, that conflict between strivings will have a negative effect on well-being [Emmons & King, 1988]. As regards the perceived origin of strivings, it is hypothesized that a high level of well-being will be associated with the perception that strivings have an intrinsic origin and/or are consistent with the internal values of the individual [Deci and Ryan, 1985, Sheldon, 2004]. Furthermore, in accordance with McGregor and Little [1998], we may hypothesize that the dimensions that reflect efficacy in the pursuit of strivings will be more closely related with hedonic indicators of well-being; the dimensions most closely related to importance and self-congruence will be most closely related to eudemonic indicators.

One other objective of this study was to examine the network of relationships among traits, strivings and well-being. Specifically, because strivings are positioned at a more contextualized level and more closely related to behavioral and emotional outcomes than traits, our hypothesis is that strivings may function as mediators between traits and well-being. In fact, McCrae and Costa themselves believe that characteristic adaptations constitute vehicles that transfer the influence of traits to emotional reactions and behavior. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand how traits, essentially distal units, affect such a consequential life criterion as well-being. The ways personal strivings are established, organized and pursued may constitute good candidate mediators.

In summary, our starting questions were as follows: in what way are traits related to striving appraisal dimensions? How are traits and striving dimensions related to well-being? Is there a differential pattern of relationships when considering hedonic and eudemonic aspects or well-being separately? Finally, do striving dimensions mediate the relationship between traits and well-being?