Prior studies have identified a positive between-person association between authenticity and pro-environmental behavior. Nevertheless, how authenticity relates to pro-environmental behavior at the within-person level remains less understood. The current work aimed to investigate the association between authenticity and pro-environmental behavior using a daily diary study. Participants were 303 young adults ( M age = 19.45 years, SD age = 1.87) in a Chinese university who reported their daily levels of authenticity and pro-environmental behavior for 14 consecutive days. Using dynamic structural equation models, the results showed that authenticity from the preceding day positively predicted next-day pro-environmental behavior, whereas engaging in pro-environmental behavior on the prior day was associated with higher authenticity on the subsequent day. This research advances new understanding into the bidirectional relationship between authenticity and pro-environmental behavior in daily life, such that each predicts the other at the within-person level across days. Future research could consider interventions on increasing authenticity to encourage pro-environmental behavior among college students.
Partnered individuals tend to report higher life satisfaction (LS) than singles (weighted Cohen’s d = .43). However, many studies have suffered from either small sample sizes, unaddressed moderators or confounding variables, and/or single-method biases. To simultaneously address these issues, we used the Estonian Biobank ( N = 77,378) to more accurately estimate the association ( d ) between romantic relationship status and LS. We examined potential moderators (age, gender, income, parental status) and confounders (personality domains and nuances, genetic/familial influences, single-method biases). Individuals in relationships had higher average LS (β = .34), but in a sibling discordant analysis controlling for shared familial backgrounds, polygenic scores for LS, and personality traits the effect was smaller (β = .23; only controlling for personality traits resulted in a similar association, suggesting they captured the other potential confounders). However, combining self-report with informant report to reduce measurement error, the within-family, personality traits-controlled association was d = .32. We believe this represents a more rigorous estimate to date, suggesting that previous studies may have both over- and underestimated the link due to confounders and measurement issues that can only be addressed with multiple methods. Finally, the single-partnered difference was larger among men and those without children, and only those highly or very highly satisfied with their relationship had higher LS than single individuals.
This systematic meta-analysis ( k = 99, total N = 69,673) explored the relationships between personality disorders on the one hand, and normal-range Big Five traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and the maladaptive traits assessed with the PID-5 (negative affectivity, detachment, psychoticism, antagonism, and disinhibition) on the other hand. The results revealed a positive correlation between neuroticism and all personality disorders. Significant associations were also observed between extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness and personality disorders, while openness was the least predictive trait in relation to personality disorders. These results demonstrated a substantial consistency with earlier meta-analytic studies. The findings also suggested that while maladaptive traits generally showed stronger associations with personality disorders than normal-range traits, their multivariate explanatory power was weaker than expected, implying potential response bias due to item keying. Additionally, while some personality disorders did not exhibit significant associations at the higher-order domain level, we identified strong correlations with specific facets within the corresponding trait domains. This statistical attenuation at the domain level likely resulted from opposing effects on different facets within the same domain. The conclusions of our study provided a comprehensive picture of the interrelations between personality disorders and Big Five personality domains and facets.
This study investigates how satisfaction of interpersonal goals relates to affect in everyday social interactions. Interpersonal goal satisfaction emerges from dyadic processes in which actor’s behaviour or goals align with those of their partners. Traditionally, goal satisfaction is assessed via interpersonal complementarity between actors’ and partners’ behaviour (similarity in communion and reciprocity in agency) or interpersonal matching between actors’ goals and partners’ behaviour. We introduce intrapersonal goal-behaviour matching – the alignment between actors’ desired and enacted behaviour – as a novel goal satisfaction measure. We hypothesized that interpersonal complementarity, interpersonal goal-behaviour matching, and intrapersonal goal-behaviour matching would each be associated with positive affect. We used Ecological Momentary Assessment to capture interpersonal goals in their natural environment. Data from 224 adults evaluating their own and partners’ desired and enacted behaviour across 3,366 social interactions over one week were collected and analyzed using multilevel polynomial regressions and response surface analyses. Results supported the hypotheses, except for agentic complementarity. Exploratory analyses revealed more complex response surface patterns, highlighting the value of methods capturing nuanced joint effects. Our findings underscore the dynamic interplay between intra- and interpersonal processes and suggest that improving the alignment between desired and enacted behaviour may be a promising intervention target.
Polygenic indices (PGIs) offer a tool for estimating genetic predispositions to personality traits such as neuroticism. Using genetic, survey, and registry-linked data from six Finnish cohorts (1992–2017; N = 20,121; ages 25–64), we examined how the Neuroticism Polygenic Index (NPGI) relates to a sequence of economic outcomes: education, employment, occupation, income, and economic satisfaction. Higher NPGI was associated with lower educational attainment, employment, self-employment, and income; a greater likelihood of physical work; and reduced economic satisfaction—even among those with high equivalent income. Stratified models revealed gender-specific patterns: females with elevated NPGI were significantly less likely to enter knowledge work—the highest-paid occupational category—via both education-related and additional pathways. These findings suggest that genetic liability for neuroticism contributes to both objective and subjective economic disadvantage through multiple channels, with more pronounced associations in females. Our results underscore the value of incorporating genetic perspectives into research on personality-linked socioeconomic inequality.
