PERSONALITY AND RESILIENCE

In general, personality psychology deals with identifying specific characteristics of human nature, namely, (1) what makes humans alike, and (2) how humans differ regarding those characteristics (e.g., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness; Hogan & Blickle, 2013). In this regard, researchers showed that resilience is an important individual difference that is responsible for facilitating the adaptation of individuals to their environment (Windle, 2011). Resilience reflects individual difference in how an individual mobilizes his personal and external resources to overcome stressors and trauma (Windle, 2011). As a consequence, researchers tried to identify the factors that contribute to resilience, intending to develop valid psychological interventions that target resilience.

Many authors have concluded that personality traits represent an important category of predictors of resilience (Oken et al., 2015). Individuals high on extraversion, agreeableness, or emotional stability reported high levels of resilience (Oshio et al., 2018). Also, researchers found a positive relationship between openness to experience and conscientiousness on the one hand and resilience on the other hand (Wolf et al., 2012).

We chose the Big Five personality factors as potential predictors of resilience as personality traits reflect broad and stable behavioral predispositions that manifest cross-situationally (Saucier et al., 2014) and predict a variety of adaptive and maladaptive behavior. In this regard, considering that individuals high on the Big Five factors are also high on ego development, and are perceived as mature and fully functional individuals (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008), we consider that they should have adaptive coping styles that are reflected in high resilience. Moreover, considering the nature of self-determination and autonomous orientation (e.g., self-determination being an indicator of ego development), we consider that the Big Five factors should have an indirect effect on resilience through self-determination.

Others perceive people characterized by high extraversion as energetic, dynamic, joyful, cheerful, sociable, and talkative (Burtaverde & De Raad, 2019). Therefore, it can be seen that positive emotions are a core characteristic of extraversion. As such, individuals high in extraversion tend to have adaptive coping skills that help when confronted with negative events. This may be the principal reason why extraversion is positively associated with resilience (Oshio et al., 2018).

Agreeableness is characterized by prosocial behavior and empathy (Lee & Ashton, 2004). It was found that agreeableness is positively related to resilience (Waaktaar & Torgersen, 2010). A possible explanation may be that because agreeable individuals have moral and prosocial values, these values make them motivated to establish and pursue prosocial and humanitarian goals, and they have the necessary personal resources to fulfill them as agreeable individuals are high on ego development (Kurtz & Tiegreen, 2005), making them more resilient.

Conscientious individuals are perceived by others as organized, perfectionist, diligent, and efficient (Saucier et al., 2014). Conscientiousness is positively related to career success and satisfaction (Burtaverde & Iliescu, 2019). Researchers found that conscientiousness is positively related to resilience (Nakaya et al., 2006). A possible explanation may be that individuals high in conscientiousness have satisfied the need for competence, one of the three human basic needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness; Sheldon & Prentice, 2019). Individuals who have the three basic needs fulfilled have problem-focused coping styles (Berzonsky, 2004). This is also the case of people with high conscientiousness (Roesch et al., 2006), which should make them more resilient.

Others describe emotionally stable individuals as even-tempered, calm, patient, and moderate (Saucier et al., 2014). Emotional stability was positively related to life satisfaction and relationship satisfaction (Burtaverde et al., 2018), efficient coping styles (Roesch et al., 2006), and good mental health (Lamers et al., 2012). It was found that emotional stability was positively related to resilience (Nakaya et al., 2006). A possible explanation may be that emotionally stable individuals may have fulfilled the three basic needs, especially the need for autonomy and relatedness, which help them overcome aversive and negative life events. This idea is sustained by the fact that individuals with low levels of emotional stability such as those characterized by borderline personality disorder manifest maladaptive romantic relationships style (fluctuations between idealizations vs. depreciation of the same individual; Drapeau et al., 2012), fear of abandonment (Schmahl et al., 2003), or have suicidal thoughts (Oldham, 2006), which may be an indicator of low resilience.

Others characterize individuals high on openness to experience as creative, curious, innovative, and rebellious (Burtaverde & De Raad, 2019). Openness to experience was related to rebelliousness (Burtaverde & De Raad, 2019). Researchers showed that openness was positively related to resilience (Oshio et al., 2018). A possible explanation of this relationship may be that people high in openness to experience are also ego-resilient and high on ego development (Kurtz & Tiegreen, 2005; Sava & Popa, 2011), and are perceived by others as more independent. Therefore, these individuals establish clear personal goals that should help them develop and invest high levels of energy in pursuing them, making them more resilient in the face of obstacles and negative events.

SELF-DETERMINATION AS AN EXPLICATIVE MECHANISM OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND RESILIENCE

However, research in the area of personality and resilience is sparse. Researchers have used various personality models as predictors of resilience that were usually chosen subjectively, without a solid theoretical argumentation for choosing one or another personality model. As we already mentioned, various studies have focused on the role of the Big Five personality model (Oken et al., 2015), temperament-based subtypes (Wolf et al., 2012), and disorder-related traits (Amstadter et al., 2016). The direct gap left open by this state of affairs is that we do not have explanatory mechanisms for this relationship.

We propose self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) as a theoretical framework that should explain the relationship between personality and resilience and should contribute to conceptualizing an explanatory mechanism of the relationship. Self-determination theory aims to explain human behavior, which means that it considers people’s experience as the proximal determinant of action (Ryan & Deci, 2008). The theory focuses on how people interpret internal or external stimuli, which gain meaning from their direct or indirect relation to people’s basic psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, and competence) (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In this regard, self-determination theory (SDT) differentiates types of motivation along a continuum from controlled to autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Although there are six mini-theories aimed at explaining the meta-theory of self-determination, in this paper, we will rely on the causality orientations theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). We chose this theory as this is a theoretical model that explains the theory in terms of personality related individual differences (Ryan & Deci, 2017). The authors proposed three types of general causality orientations: the autonomy orientation, the controlled orientation, and the impersonal orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These constructs aim to explain orientations toward the environment and toward one’s own motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Moreover, causality orientations theory may be understood as a theoretical framework that refers to individual differences in ego development (Sheldon & Prentice, 2019), which may be useful to explain the link between personality traits and resilience. For example, impersonal and controlled orientations decreased during the four-year college study period, and autonomous orientations increased for those students who engaged in extracurricular activities (Sheldon & Salisbury, 2017), which may be an indicator of ego development stimulated by the values, behaviors, and attitudes promoted by universities.

The autonomy orientation refers to people who adapt to their environment by perceiving it as a source of relevant information, as they are interested in both external events and their inner experiences. People characterized by autonomy orientation have a great extent of experienced choice with respect to the initiation and regulation of their own behavior. They look for opportunities for self-determination and choice and have an internal locus of causality (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The controlled orientation refers to the degree to which the attention of the individuals is oriented on external contingencies (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In the determination of cognitions, emotions, and behavior, an important role is played by the pressure of initiating and regulatory events. In this regard, they behave in a certain manner because they think they “should,” and they rely on controlling events (e.g., deadlines). In the case of those characterized by controlled orientation, extrinsic rewards (e.g., status, remuneration) are more important in determining their behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The impersonal orientation characterizes those individuals who experience their behavior as being beyond their control (Ryan & Deci, 2017). People high in impersonal orientation perceive themselves as unable to master situations and incompetent. Also, they perceive that the outcomes of the tasks they perform are not related to their behavior.

Self-determination theory assumes that autonomy is not just a psychological need that can be fulfilled more or less by a situation but also a feature of people’s personalities. As such, this theoretical model is conceptually congruent with many influential past theories from the field of personality such as those proposed by Loevinger (1985), Kohlberg (1973), or Erikson and Eriskon (1981). These theoretical models assume that autonomy is an outcome that reflects developmental achievement. When people reach psychological maturity, they learn to differentiate themselves from the social context, be aware of their interests or values as potentially different from the requirements imposed by the environment and contexts, and appropriately express and negotiate resolutions to any conflicts that may arise. Sheldon and Prentice (2019) argued that the three causality orientation types (autonomy orientation, control orientation, and impersonal orientation) should be understood as ego development markers. Researchers showed that autonomous orientation is positively linked with ego development, self-esteem, and self-actualization (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Controlled and impersonal orientations should be understood as low ego development indicators (Sheldon & Prentice, 2019). Further, the ego development of an individual should be reflected in the personality structure, which is best represented by the Big Five meta factors (Saucier et al., 2014). Individuals high on the Big Five traits – extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience – are considered to be high on ego development. Thus, developing toward high levels of emotional stability and higher levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and, to a certain degree, extraversion is described as reflecting an arc of socio-emotional maturation in personality development (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008).

As ego development is related to resilience (Leipold & Greve, 2009), we consider that causality orientations would play an important role in the associations between the Big Five personality traits and resilience. Social problems and challenges are successfully resolved if the individual possessed the necessary adaptive coping styles (Leipold & Greve, 2009) that are reflected in high resiliency. Resilience is considered a resource that allows a favorable performance under stress (Weed et al., 2006). Confrontation with an adverse situation will lead to successful outcomes only when the individual possesses the social skills, sufficient emotion regulation competence, and the cognitive flexibility that are necessary to revise initial perceptions of the environment (Brandtstädter, 2006). These features are specific to individuals high on ego development (Leipold & Greve, 2009). Considering that self-determination is an indicator of ego development, we consider that self-determination theory should be useful in explaining the link between the Big Five factors and resiliency, where self-determination should act as a mediator in this relationship.

THE CURRENT STUDY

To sum up, this study aims to test the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and resilience, relying on self-determination theory as an explanatory mechanism. In this regard, we will test the mediation role of self-determination in the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and resilience.

PARTICIPANTS

We used G*Power to determine the necessary sample size to obtain significant effect sizes. The minimum required sample size for an effect size (r) of .25, with α set at .95, and statistical power set at .90, was 130 participants, for the regression analysis. We relied on a community sample that consisted of 252 (M_age = 26.38, SD = 10.17, 62.5% women, 39.5% men) participants voluntarily recruited from various social media platforms, with an age range between 17 and 67 years. All the participants were recruited from Romania, all of them being Romanians. Participants were briefly informed about the aim of the research, and all of them consented to participate. The measures were administered online via Google Forms. The average completion time was 20 minutes.

MEASURES

The Big Five traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 2008). The measure consists of 44 items that assess: extraversion (8 items, α = .84; e.g. “I am a talkative person”), agreeableness (9 items, α = .71; e.g. “I am a forgiving person”), conscientiousness (9 items, α = .84; e.g. “I am an organized person”), neuroticism (8 items, α = .88; e.g. “I am worrying person”), and openness to experience (10 items, α = .81; e.g. “I am a person who is curious about many different things”). All the items were scored on a Likert scale with five response options from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Resilience was measured with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson, 2003). It consists of 25 items (α = .91) rated on a five-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), e.g. “Able to adapt to change”, “Not easily discouraged by failure”. All the items are summed to form a composite resilience score.

Self-determination was assessed with the General Causality Orientation Scale (GCOS; Deci & Ryan, 1985). The scale consists of 12 vignettes that assess the three main causality orientations: autonomous (α = .78), controlled (α = .73), and impersonal (α = .79). Each vignette has three a priori established scenarios (affirmations), one for each causality orientation. Each scenario is rated on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a great extent). Therefore, there are 36 items, 12 for each causality orientation.