Poster: Does conscientiousness cause well being - it depends on your neighborhood (SPSP 2014)
1. Does Conscientiousness Cause Well-Being?
It Depends on Your Neighborhood
Chris C. Martin & Corey L. M. Keyes
| chris.martin@emory.edu | Department of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Introduction
Methods
The Conventional View
We used data from both waves (1995/2005)
of the National Survey of Midlife Development
in the U.S. (MIDUS), and analyzed submissions
from all subsamples—
main, siblings, twins, and city oversamples (N
= 3,843).
‣ Conscientiousness is virtuous—it
promotes well-being
(Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, &
Meints, 2009).
‣ Well-being ensues from health, goal
fulfillment, and income, all of which are
attainable if one exerts self-control, which is
a facet of conscientiousness.
‣ Well-being also ensues from social
relationships. Conscientiousness contributes
to relationship quality, and predicts a lower
risk of divorce and infidelity among spouses.
‣ When interacting with others, less
conscientious people tend to be irresponsible
and impulsive.
Relating Conscientiousness to
Ecological Constraints
‣ In unsafe neighborhoods, conscientious
people may incur equal costs and benefits .
‣ Because conscientious people are
restrained, they may develop a reputation for
being easily exploitable and slow to enact
revenge.
‣ In addition, they may abstain from
alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, which increase
well-being under high-stress conditions
(Jackson, Knight, & Rafferty, 2010).
‣ Thus, conscientiousness may be a
mitigated virtue in these conditions.
Hypothesis
‣ 1: Stable high conscientiousness is salutary
in safe neighborhoods but neutral in unsafe
neighborhoods.
‣ 2: Growth in conscientiousness is salutary
in safe neighborhoods but neutral in unsafe
neighborhoods
Results
Maximal Growth in Conscientiousness
Stability in Conscientiousness
Maximal Decline in Conscientiousness
6
5
Measures
6
5
‣ Conscientiousness was measured using the
MIDUS adjectival scale comprising
“organized,” “responsible,” “hardworking,” and
“careless” (α = .57; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990).
‣ Neighborhood safety was measuring used a
scale of perceived neighborhood quality and
health (Keyes, 1998). Respondents indicated
how closely four statements described their
situations, e.g., "I feel safe being out alone in
my neighborhood during the daytime” (α =
.64).
EWB
EWB
4
4
3
0
Data Analysis
‣ Response surface analyses were used to
model the effects of stability vs. change in
conscientious. The covariates were EWB at
time 1, Age (log), female, married, self-rated
health, and education.
References
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
-1.5
Safe Neighborhoods
-1.5
-1.5
-1.5
‣ Emotional Well-Being (EWB) was computed
by summing positive affect (PA) and life
satisfaction (SWLS). PA was measured by
asking how frequently respondents felt six
facets of positive affect. SWLS was measured
with a single item (Cantril, 1966).
1.5
1.5
Unsafe Neighborhoods
‣ A Chow test was used to compare the polynomial regression coefficients across the two models. This test
confirmed that the two surfaces differed from each other, χ2(5) = 12.04 , p = .034.
‣ Hypothesis 1 was falsified: High stable conscientiousness predicted well-being in both situations.
‣Hypothesis 2 was supported. Growth in conscientiousness was beneficial in safe neighborhoods. In unsafe
neighborhoods, moderate growth was beneficial, whereas maximal growth was neutral.
‣ In both safe and unsafe neighborhoods, a low stable level of conscientiousness and decline in
conscientiousness were associated with lower well-being.
Cantril, H. (1966). The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.
Jackson, J. S., Knight, K. M., & Rafferty, J. A. (2010). Race and unhealthy behaviors:
chronic stress, the HPA axis, and physical and mental health disparities over the
life course. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 933–939.
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly. 61(2), 121–
140.
Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009)
Conscientiousness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual
Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 369-381). New York, NY: Guilford.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective
Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 781–790.
Conclusion
Although conscientiousness is typically considered virtuous, it may be a mitigated virtue. As shown in
the current study, there are ecological moderators of the association between conscientiousness and
emotional well-being. In unsafe neighborhoods, growth in conscientiousness may extract costs by
increasing the risk of crime victimization and decreasing the adoption of stress-relieving habits.
Interventions to increase conscientiousness should take these costs into account.