Which big five personality factors are the best predictors of peoples self rated life satisfaction?

Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1985) have consistently been found to be strong predictors of life satisfaction and subjective well-being (SWB). The authors of a 2008 meta-analysis found that personality accounts for as much as 39% to 63% of the total variance in SWB (Steel et al., 2008). Financial satisfaction is one of many domain satisfactions that collectively contribute to one's SWB (e.g., life, work, marital, and other forms of satisfaction). The authors of a 2004 meta-analysis found that domain satisfactions were strongly linked to life satisfaction (Heller et al., 2004). Additionally, Heller et al. (2004) found that four of the five Big Five traits were associated with life satisfaction. Specifically, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were each positively associated with life satisfaction, while neuroticism was negatively associated with life satisfaction.

Davis and Runyan (2016) surveyed university alumni (N = 328) to examine relationships between personality and financial satisfaction from the perspective of Mowen's (2000) Meta-Theoretic Model of Motivation and Personality (3M Model) using structural equation modeling. Of the eight elemental level traits in Davis and Runyan's (2016) 3M Model (introversion, need for material resources, openness to experience, emotional instability, need for body resources, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and need for arousal), only emotional instability (i.e., neuroticism) and the need for material resources were found to be directly associated with financial satisfaction. Big Five traits such as openness and agreeableness were found to indirectly influence financial satisfaction through one's financial situation, whereas conscientiousness was found to indirectly influence financial satisfaction through financial behavior.

While Davis and Runyan (2016) provide some preliminary evidence to suggest that relationships between Big Five personality traits and financial satisfaction may differ from relationships between Big Five traits and life satisfaction, given the limitations of their small, convenience sample and the risk of overfitting via the use of structural equation modeling (Preacher, 2006), we do not feel that their findings are strong enough to override strong prior expectations in favor of consistency between satisfaction with life and satisfaction in specific life domains, and we therefore rely on Heller et al.'s (2004) meta-analytic findings and theoretical guidance in formulating our hypotheses regarding relationships between personality and financial satisfaction.

Heller et al. (2004) used meta-analytic estimates to evaluate the efficacy of three different approaches to modeling the relationship between personality and life satisfaction: (a) a “direct effects” top-down model, (b) “temperament” top-down model, and (c) an integrative model of which incorporates both bottom-up and top-down influences. Heller et al. (2004) found support for both (b) and (c), which is important because it suggests that although top-down models have generally fared better than bottom-up models, there is still a role for both type of influences. Top-down models are generally grounded in temperament-based explanations of satisfaction assessment. That is, personality provides an enduring affective disposition which influences how individuals report satisfaction with their life or within various domains. Bottom-up perspectives may be most strongly supported by instrumental explanations (Heller et al., 2004). For instance, conscientious individuals may be more likely to engage in work-related behaviors which are associated with professional promotion and advancement, such as being dependable and completing tasks on time. Promotion and advancement will lead to greater financial compensation, which may increase financial satisfaction via an indirect effect from conscientiousness, even if conscientiousness does not have a direct effect on satisfaction assessment alone. As a result, although our analysis cannot distinguish between bottom-up and top-down influences, we consider potential ways both could influence financial satisfaction assessment when generating our hypotheses.

Given the strong relationships between extraversion and positive affect (PA) as well as neuroticism and negative affect (NA), we anticipate that extraversion will be positively associated with financial satisfaction (Hypothesis 3) and neuroticism will be negatively associated with financial satisfaction (Hypothesis 4). The affective element of these traits could result in temperament-based explanations for these associations, while instrumental explanations could be relevant as well. For instance, extraverted individuals may be inclined to more positively assess their satisfaction (temperament-based explanation), but they may also select into work environments that provide a higher degree of socialization and networking, which may indirectly influence financial satisfaction by resulting in greater opportunities for professional advancement.

We hypothesize that agreeableness will be positively associated with financial satisfaction (Hypothesis 5). While agreeableness could have some top-down influence in a positive direction, this top-down explanation is likely weaker than it is for extraversion and neuroticism. Additionally, agreeableness could influence financial satisfaction in a bottom-up manner as well. For instance, agreeable individuals are more averse to conflict, which, all else being equal, could reflect a tendency towards being more satisfied with the status quo. However, bottom-up effects could also manifest in the other direction as well, such as a lack of a willingness to negotiate for a salary that one thinks is fair. While we acknowledge the inconsistencies in theoretical considerations regarding agreeableness, we ultimately rely on (a) past meta-analytic findings regarding relationships between agreeableness and life satisfaction, and (b) the potential top-down relationship between agreeableness and financial satisfaction to justify our hypothesis.

We anticipate that any relationship between conscientiousness and financial satisfaction is more likely the result of bottom-up processes. For instance, although conscientiousness has less of an affective dimension in comparison to extraversion and neuroticism and is therefore less likely to result in temperament-based influences, conscientiousness is a strong predictor of financial outcomes (e.g., Letkiewicz & Fox, 2014) and therefore we hypothesize that conscientiousness (Hypothesis 6) will be positively associated with financial satisfaction. Consistent with prior research (Heller et al., 2004), we do not anticipate observing relationships between openness and financial satisfaction. All of these hypotheses are consistent with past meta-analytic findings regarding the relationships between personality and life satisfaction (Heller et al., 2004). Furthermore, these hypotheses are consistent with integrative theoretical perspectives that allow for both top-down and bottom-up influences, as suggested by Heller et al. (2004).

Hough and Oswald (2008) argued that examination of personality traits beyond Big Five personality traits is warranted due to the possibility that Big Five traits may not capture important personality constructs or may not capture constructs in a manner that yields the greatest predictive power. Clark et al. (2010) found that dispositional affect was related to other psychological constructs beyond relationships with Big Five personality traits. Judge and Larsen (2001) argued that personality traits and dispositional affect are both important predictors of satisfaction, with dispositional affect possibly being a stronger predictor of satisfaction given its closer proximity to satisfaction assessment. Martinko et al. (2018) suggested that affect could be an underlying factor related to outcomes such as satisfaction evaluation. Furthermore, while examining the role of affect within the context of leadership evaluation, Martinko et al. (2018) argue that affect should be explored in future research as a variable of interest rather than just a factor that needs to be controlled for. In several instances, Martinko et al. (2018) found that the introduction of affect as a predictor within hierarchical models resulted in affect emerging as a significant predictor while other previously significant relationships became null.

Self-reports, observational, and longitudinal studies suggest that positive emotions play a role in promoting SWB (Fredrickson, 2013). Some studies have indicated there may be a positive association between a PA and financial satisfaction, specifically. Diener et al. (2000) found that positive emotion was associated with financial satisfaction at the individual level. Guided by the findings of Diener et al. (2000), we hypothesize that dispositional positive affect (PA) will be positively associated with financial satisfaction (Hypothesis 7), and we further conjecture that dispositional negative affect (NA) will be negatively associated with financial satisfaction (Hypothesis 8). These relationships may be supported via both top-down and bottom-up processes. Notably, for the purposes of this analysis we are interested in dispositional (or trait) affect rather than momentary affect, given that dispositional affect is the type of affect that is more akin to a personality trait which could provide an enduring dispositional influence on satisfaction assessment.