Individual Differences Research, 2005,3(2) ISSN: 1541-745X

105 www.idr-journal.com

2005 Individual Differences Research Group. All rights reserved.

Differentiating Happiness and Self-esteem R. Michael Furr*

Wake Forest University
ABSTRACT - Recent interest in positive psychology is reflected in a host of constructs, but the empirical differences among many of these constructs are relatively unexamined. With a diverse set of data based on multiple rater perspectives, the differentiation between two of the most basic constructs in positive psychology - happiness and self-esteem - was examined along core personality dimensions at different, levels of generality. Undergraduates (n = 146) reported their levels of happiness and self-esteem and provided wide-ranging personality descriptions. In addition, important people from the participants' social lives, including college fi^iends, hometown friends, and parents, provided personality descriptions of the participants. Although more clearly separable for males than for females, happiness was uniquely associated with communal, interpersonallyoriented traits and high positive affect, while self-esteem was primarily associated with agentic, independence-oriented and achievement-oriented traits and a lack of negative affect. Positive psychology has generated increasing interest in recent years (Seligman & Csikszentmihaly, 2000; Sheldon & King, 2001; Snyder & Lopez, 2002; Snyder & McCullou^, 2000). In the quest to understand the positive facets of psychological experience, researchers have examined individual differences such as happiness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, hope, positive affect, life satisfaction, locus of control, altruism, competence, and caring, to name but a few. Typically, such constructs are examined independently, with researchers only occasionally studying the connections between them. To what degree are such constructs truly conceptually and empirically distinct? To be sure, many of these constructs are conceptually distinct. For example, theoretical models of happiness or well-being are clearly different from theoretical models of self-esteem, and the various definitions of happiness are distinct from the various definitions of self-esteem. Less clear however are the fundamental empirical distinctions among the constructs. For example, to what degree do happiness and self-esteem overlap, and do they have meaningfully different sets of correlates? The few studies that have examined such overlap clearly demonstrate that many of the constructs within positive psychology are strongly intercorrelated.
*Mike Furr; Department of Psychology; Wake Forest University; Winston-Salem, NC 27109; furrrm@wfu.edu (email).

106

Individual Differences Research,2005, 3(2)

For example, Judge and his colleagues examined the empirical overlap among self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism (emotional stability), and they conclude that "these traits are indistinct measures of the same core trait," which they refer to as core self-evaluations (Judge & Bono, 2001; p. 108; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoreson, 2002). Similarly, Furr and Funder (1998) found that measures of happiness, depression, life satisfaction, and self-esteem correlated with each other between .61 and .71 (absolute values) and loaded on a single factor. Acknowledging the empirical overlap among the various constructs related to positive psychology, researchers have recently recognized the need to examine the differences among the constructs. In a theoretical review of individual differences in happiness, Lyubomirsky (2001) stated that an inportant question for researchers to consider is whether the empirical fmdings in the happiness (or subjective well-being) literature "reflect the role of chronic happiness per se, rather than that of self-esteem, optimism, extraversion, sensitivity to reward, or other individual difference constructs .... related to happiness" (p. 244). While Lyubomirsky and her colleagues have examined the differentiation by including measures of self-esteem and optimism in their research, most research has not been as inclusive. Similarly, Snyder and McCullough (2000) note the need to integrate the "grab-bag of interesting positive psychological concepts" (p. 159). An adequate integration must include clarifying the perhaps subtle en^irical distinctions among such constructs. Also recognizing the need to examine the differentiation among positive psychology constructs, Lucas, Diener, and Suh (1996) examined the discriminant validity of measures of life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, optimism, hopelessness, and self-esteem. Although Lucas et al. demonstrated that some of the positive psychology constructs are empirically distinguishable, their study was not designed to articulate the nature of the differences. The degree and nature of differentiation among positive psychology constructs remain open questions. The current study examines the nature of the differences between two of the central constructs in positive psychology- happiness and self-esteem. Although happiness and self-esteem have independently attracted widespread attention, minimal attention has been paid to their differentiation. Of the nearly 14,000 publications from 1970 to 2001 that have either happiness or self-esteem as subject words in the PsycFNFO database, less than one-half of one percent included both constructs. Among these few publications, the majority include measures of happiness and self-esteem in a set of measures correlated with an outcome of interest, but they do not explore the differences between the two constructs. The existing literature suggests that the happiness and self-esteem "are in fact distinct constructs that can be measured separately, despite their relatively high intercorrelation" (Baumeister , Camplbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; p. 25). The current study is intended to move beyond the observation that the constructs are statistically distinct, and to explore the psychological nature of the distinction.

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

101

Despite the widespread attention paid to happiness and self-esteem independently, theoretical and empirical ambiguities within each literature preclude many clear predictions about the nature of their empirical distinction. In terms of theory, no model has achieved consensus as a definitive theoretical framework for either happiness or self-esteem. Diener and his colleagues have proposed that subjective well-being is composed of satisfaction with life, positive affect, and (a lack of) negative affect (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Myers & Diener, 1995). Although discussions from this perspective often appear to equate subjective well-being with happiness (Diener et a l , 1999; Myers & Diener, 1995), this perspective also appears to occasionally conceptualize happiness as an affective subcomponent of the broader construct of subjective well-being (e.g.. Table 1 in Diener et al., 1999). Furthermore, within this model, self-esteem (i.e., satisfaction with self) might be conceptualized as a component of overall satisfaction with life, and thus as a sub-sub-component of subjective well being. Despite the wide influence of this model, it is not the only model of happiness or well-being (Hermans, 1992). For example, Ryff and her colleagues (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) identify six aspects of psychological well-being, including self-acceptance. Ryff and her colleagues suggest that happiness is a related construct, but is conceptually distinct from psychological well-being. Similarly, the Oxford Happiness Inventory includes satisfaction with life, personal efficacy, sociability/empathy, positive outlook, physical well-being, cheeifulness, and selfesteem as "the major dimensions of well-being" (Hills & Argyle, 2001, p. 1359). Despite the lack of consensus regarding an overall model of happiness, it is usually defined in terms of pleasant affective experience that can occur as an emotional state or as a relatively stable individual difference. As with happiness, no single model of self-esteem has been adopted, and none appears to integrate self-esteem with happiness. For example, Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) and Bohon (1991) present hierarchical models that conceptualize "global" self-esteem as a function of components such as social self-esteem, physical self-esteem, and moral self-esteem. Quite distinctly, Leary and Baumeister (2000) conceptualize self-esteem as a gauge of the degree to which one belongs to groups and relationships, and Cast and Burke (2002) theorize that self-esteem is intrinsically linked to self-verification within group processes. Despite the lack of consensus regarding an overall model of selfesteem, global self-esteem is usually defmed in terms of an evaluative con^onent of one's self-concept - that is, the degree to which one feels satisfied with or approves of the self In terms of enpirical findings, there are at least three reasons that happiness and self-esteem are difficult to distinguish in the existing literature. First, as mentioned earlier, few studies include both constructs, or if both constructs are included, then their differences are left unexamined. Second, when the correlation between the two constructs is examined, it is often quite strong (e.g., Furr & Funder, 1998). Third, the constructs appear to have relatively similar

108

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

correlates. For example, both happiness and self-esteem are positive correlated with Extraversion, negatively correlated with Neuroticism, and uncorrelated with Openness to Experience (Brebner, Donaldson, Kirby & Ward, 1995; Costa & McCrae, 1980, Deneve & Cooper, 1998; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; Judge & Bono, 2001). One exception to the general neglect of the differentiation between happiness and self-esteem is a study by Hermans (1992), which provides some insight into the nature of the difference between the two constructs. Hermans noted that, although self-esteem and happiness are positively correlated with each other, the correlation is not perfect - some people have relatively high levels of self-esteem but relatively low levels of happiness (and vice versa). From the perspective of valuation theory, Hermans examined the psychological nature of such "unhappy self-esteem." According to valuation theory (Hermans, 1987, 1999), the self reflects a valuation process in which the individual makes meaning out of personal events. Two basic motivations lie at the heart of the valuation process - the striving for self-enhancement and the striving for connections with other people. Using an idiographic method of open-ended questions regarding personal events and using a theoretically-based coding procedure, Hermans (1992) identified participants who reported experiencing events that elicited with the somewhat counterintuitive combination of high self-esteem and low happiness. Analyses indicated that such unhappy self-esteem occurred only when there was little interpersonal contact or communion - it never occurred when there was a high level of interpersonal contact. This finding suggests that happiness, but not self-esteem, may partially rest on close interpersonal connections. In contrast, self-esteem may rest more on self-enhancement, or advancement of the self without regard for close connections to other people. Hermans's (1992) fmdings inqjly that the difference between happiness and self-esteem might fall along the two fundamental interpersonal dimensions of communion and agency (Bakan, 1966; Wiggins &Trapnell, 1996). Communion refers to the affiliative nature of people's motivations and behavioral patterns, where one end of the dimension reflects an orientation towards social warmth and acceptance or "getting along" while the other end represents a tendency to be hostile, cold, and aloof. Agency refers to individuation, with one end of the dimension reflecting dominance and ambition or "getting ahead," and the other end representing submissiveness (Hogan, Jones, & Cheek, 1985; Wolfe, Lennox, & Cutler, 1986). These two core dimensions have consistently appeared in gender difference research, including studies of gender differences in well-being, happiness, and self-esteem (Feingold, 1994; Helgeson, 1994; Josephs, Markus, & Tafarodi, 1992; Lu & Lin, 1998; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1992). Hermans' fmdings suggest that happiness is aligned with communion and that self-esteem is aligned with agency. Although Hermans' fmdings are intriguing and unique, there are at least two reasons to be cautious about accepting them as conclusive. First, they have not yet been replicated. Second, the measurement of happiness and self-esteem

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

109

emerges from the very same idiographic "self-confrontation" assessment that reflects valuations and motivations. That is, there was no measurement of either self-esteem or happiness that was otherwise well-validated and independent from the measurement of the basic motives. The current study addresses both of these issues. Alongside the primary hypothesis that happiness and self-esteem will be aligned with communion and agency, several methodological and conceptual guiding issues should be considered in investigating the differentiation. First, the investigation should include a wide range of personality constructs from multiple levels of generality. Happiness and self-esteem are both strongly related to personality characteristics (Diener, 1996). Thus, core personality variables provide not only a common ground on which comparisons may be based, but also a coherent framework within which they may be integrated. Since the current literature offers few clear hypotheses about the differentiation between happiness and self-esteem, aside from the distinction between agency and communion, it seems prudent to adopt models of personality that cover a large degree of content. Similarly, given the empirical overlap between happiness and self-esteem, their differentiation is likely to be subtle. Broad constructs such as Extraversion and Neuroticism might be too general to reflect the potentially subtle differences between happiness and self-esteera Therefore, the exploration of their differentiation should include broad and narrow constructs. To accon^lish this, the current investigation includes the broad Five Factor Model of personality (McCrae & John, 1992) as well as the more focused variables from the California Adult Q-set (CAQ; Block, 1978). Both frameworks are wellknown and wide-ranging perspectives of personality, and provide information about characteristics such as communion, agency, extraversion, neuroticism, positive emotionality, interpersonal warmth, hostility, social comparisons, power-orientation, achievement, ego-resiliency, impulse control, and moral consistency. Second, the investigation should include both self-report and peer-report perspectives on personality, for at least two reasons. Happiness and self-esteem are both rooted in subjective experience, but they also have implications for interpersonal traits and behavior (Argyle & Lu, 1990; Baumeister et al., 2003; Cast & Burke, 2002; Cooper, Okamura, & Gurka, 1992; Deneve & Cooper, 1998; Leary & Downs, 1995; Lu & Yin, 1998). Therefore, the differentiation could manifest itself in one's own internal experience differently from the impression that one makes on other people. By including both self-report and peer-reports of personality, this possibility can be examined (Diener et al., 1999). In addition, although many measures of happiness and self-esteem have good psychometric properties, some researchers have suggested that self-reports of such constructs are significantly influenced by momentary mood states (Yardley & Rice, 1991). Examining both self-report and peer-reports of personality can help alleviate concern that a given finding results primarily from momentary mood as opposed to enduring self-esteem or happiness. To the degree that

110

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

consistent results are found across self-report and peer-reports of personality, researchers can have stronger faith that they reflect the stable facets of happiness and self-esteem than the properties of temporary moods. The present study includes data from a variety of sources, including self-report and descriptions from important people within participants' social lives - college peers, hometown peers, and parents. Although self-report data is the most widespread form of personality data and has been invaluable in the field, other sources of data allow investigations from perspectives that may be less encumbered by psychological defenses and social desirability issues. Such concerns are particularly important for evaluative traits (John & Robins, 1993), such as happiness and self-esteem. Third, the investigation should examine the nature of any gender differences in the differentiation of happiness and self-esteem. Previous work has shown clear gender differences in the psychological experience and expression of constructs related to positive psyciiology (Furr & Funder, 1998; Helgeson, 1994; Herman, 1992; Major, Barr, Zubeck, & Babey, 1999; Reise, Smith, & Furr, 2001; Ryff, 1989), which indicates that gender is an important consideration when differentiating such constructs. The present study is an exploration of the nature of the differentiation between happiness and self-esteem, in terms of distinctive associations with a wide range of inportant personality constructs, particularly the constructs of communion and agency. Articulating the nomological networks surrounding the two constructs provides an evaluation of their discriminant validity and extends our understanding of their unique psychological natures (Lucas et al., 1996). The present study pursues this exploration by incorporating a wide variety of personality variables from different levels of generality, by incorporating multiple sources of data, and by attending to gender differences.

Method
The present analyses are based on data gathered as part of the Riverside Accuracy Project (Funder, 1995). These data have been used for, among other topics, a study of gender differences in global self-esteem (Blackman & Funder, 1996) and a study of "Personal Negativity" - the common core of depressive affect, dissatisfaction with life, unhappiness, and low self-esteem (Furr & Funder, 1998). It has never been used to differentiate constructs as is the focus of these analyses. Participants A total of 146 undergraduate participants (82 female, 64 male) from the Riverside Accuracy Project have complete data for all happiness and self-esteem measures. Data collection included a large number of tasks across several sessions. Some participants did not complete all experimental tasks, so the sample size varies across analyses. These 146 "target" participants were paid for their participation, as were college and hometown acquaintances recruited to

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

111

provide personality descriptions from peers' perspectives. Parents of the target participants also provided personality descriptions of the targets, and they received gift certificates for the campus bookstore. Procedures and Measures The data in the present study come from self-reports of happiness, self-esteem, and two global measures of personality by the target participants, and from informant-reports of global personality characteristics by college acquaintances, hometown acquaintances, and parents. Happiness. Happiness was assessed using three measures from Fordyce's happiness assessments, which are widely validated indicators of happiness (Fordyce, 1988). Respondents rate, on an 11 -point scale (0=Extremely unhappy, 10 = Extremely happy), how happy or unhappy they usually feel. In addition, they estimate the average percent of time that they feel happy and the average percent of time they feel unhappy. Fordyce (1988) reports strong short term and long term reliability estimates for the the happiness measures. Short term testretest correlations are .98 and .88 (2-day and 2-week periods, respectively), and long term correlations are .62 to .67 for four months. Fordyce (1988) also presents evidence showing strong convergent validity between the happiness Measures and a wide range of other measures of affect, depression, and happiness. Based on a review of response bias research with the happiness measures, Fordyce (1988) concludes that the measures are relatively free of such bias for research use. A more recent evaluation of measures of subjective wellbeing also revealed that the Fordyce happiness measures showed acceptable convergent and discriminant validity (Sandvik, Diener, & Seidlitz, 1993). Self-esteem. Two measures were used to assess global self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) includes ten items concerning evaluation of the self, such as "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself and "At times I think I am no good at all" (reversed). Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater self-esteem. A review of various measures of self-esteem found that the RSE was the most widely-used measure of global self-esteem and that the RSE appears to be the "gold standard" through which most other measures of self-esteem are validated (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Blascovich and Tomaka report that the RSE has acceptable reliability, with internal consistency estimates ranging from .77 to .88 and test-retest estimates of .85 for a two-week interval. In addition, they report that the RSE is clearly associated with many variables related to self-esteem, which underscores the validity of this measure. Participants completed a 25-item version of the Coopersmith Self-esteem Scale (CSE; Coopersmith, 1967). The scale includes items such as "I'mpopular with people my own age" and "It's pretty tough to be me" (reversed), each of which is rated as either "Like me" or "Unlike me." The Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) review found that the CSE was the second most widely used measure of self-esteem. In addition, they report acceptable internal consistency reliability

112

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

estimates (ranging from .75 to .83), acceptable test-retest reliability (ranging from .70 to .80 over several weeks to a year, for a longer version of the questionnaire), and evidence in favor of both convergent and disriminant validity. Self-report descriptions of personality. Participants completed the NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985) and the California Adult Q-Set (CAQ; Block, 1978), as adapted by Bem and Funder (1978). The NEO-PI is a measure of the Five Factor Model of personality, which includes Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. In this version of the NEO-PI, the Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience factors each have six more specific facets (e.g., Extraversion: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions). The NEO-PI contains 180 statements about the self that are rated on a 5-point scale for agreement (0 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Strongly agree). The factor scores and the facet scores all have good evidence of reliability and validity (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The interpersonal traits of Communion and Agency can be located within a five-factor model. Communion maps onto Agreeableness and onto the Warmth facet of Extraversion. Agency maps onto Extraversion, particularly the Assertiveness facet (Digman, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1989; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). Thus, the NEO-PI can serve as a useful measure of Communion and Agency. The CAQ is a set of 100 items reflecting a wide range of personality characteristics. In its usual format, the CAQ consists of 100 cards, each with a description of a personality characteristic printed on it (e.g., "Is basically anxious," "Is productive, gets things done"). Respondents place these cards into a 9-step, symmetric, approximately normal, forced-choice distribution (1 = Not at all characteristic, 9 = Highly characteristic). The CAQ results in 100 scores reflecting a detailed profile of the target's personality. The interpersonal traits of Communion and Agency can be located within the CAQ content. A number of the CAQ items have been judged to closely reflect Communion (e.g., "Tends to arouse liking and acceptance in people," "Has warmth; has the capacity for close relationships; compassionate," "Behaves in a giving way toward others") and a number of others have been judged to reflect Agency (e.g., "Is power oriented; values power in self and others," "Has high aspirations level for self, "Values own independence and autonomy") (Markey, 2002; Markey & Funder, 2004). These two measures of personality are particularly useful in that they cover a wide range of important personality characteristics, but at different levels of analysis. The Five Factors are among the broadest of personality constructs, each encompassing a set of interrelated characteristics. The CAQ concentrates on personality at a much more specific level. Typically, the 100 items of the CAQ are each used as separate dependent variables, which, taken together, provide a rich description of an individual's personality. In addition to these two extremes

Individual Differences Research,10QS, 3(2)

113

of generality and specificity, the NEO-PI facet scores allow a mid-level investigation of the distinction between happiness and self-esteem. The differentiation of happiness and self-esteem can be examined along a wide variety of important personality characteristics from different levels of generality. Informant-report descriptions of personality. Target participants were asked to recruit two college acquaintances, two hometown acquaintances, and both parents to provide informant-report personality descriptions. College acquaintances were typically the same sex as the target and had known the target for an average of 1.5 years. They described the targets using a third-person form of the NEO-PI and the CAQ. Similarly, targets provided addresses of hometown acquaintances and parents, who also completed third-person forms of the NEOPIThe descriptions by peers and parents reflect the way in which target participants are viewed by some of the important people in their social environment. Within each rater domain (college, hometown, parent) the two raters' NEO-PI's were at least moderately correlated with each other and were therefore averaged to form composite NEO-PI scores. This procedure was conducted for each target subject for whom both ratings were obtained, but for targets for whom only one rating within the domain was obtained, the sole rating was included in the informant-report data. This compositing procedure was also followed for the two college acquaintance CAQ ratings.

Results
Overview of analyses The three happiness measures are aggregated into an overall happiness composite, and the two self-esteem measures are aggregated into an overall selfesteem composite. The unique natures of the two focal variables is then examined using a procedure similar to that used by Block and Kremen (1996) in their differentiation of IQ and ego-resiliency. This procedure employees semipartial correlations to explore the unique relationships between the two focal variables and each of the NEO-PI and CAQ personality variables. The unique nature of happiness is examined by correlating the happiness composite with each of the personality variables, partialling the self-esteem composite from each correlation. The semi-partial correlation between the happiness composite and each of the personality variables can be interpreted as revealing "pure" happiness - the personality correlates of that part of happiness that is unrelated to selfesteem (Block & Kremem, 1996). The same procedure is followed for selfesteem - the self-esteem composite is correlated with each of the personality variables, partialling the happiness composite from each correlation. These results reveal "pure" self-esteem- the personality correlates of that part of selfesteem that is ururelated to happiness. These analyses are conducted for each personality variable, as rated from each perspective (self, college peer, hometown peer, parent), and they are conducted separately for females and males.

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

Table 1 NEO-PI Correlates of Happiness Controlling for Self-esteem

FaaorlFuxl Ncuroticism Anxiety Hostility Depression SelfConsciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Extraversfon Wannth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement Seeking Positive Emotions Openness Fantasy Aesthetics Feeling Action Ideas Values Agreeableness ConKientlousness n Self ..( ..12 -.I7t -.02 .01 -.04 -.02 .01 .01 .16 ..12 ..12 -.04 .14 -.09 .16 ..13 -.05 -.17 -.10 -.08 .04 .0} 79 Females HTP CP -.11 ..09 ..12 ..08 .06 -.14 -.10 .03 II .09 -.02 .06 -.05 -.07 -.22-.07 -.21-.07 -.27 -.03 -.26 .14 .11 78 .13 .03 ..01 .14 .15 .15 .20t ..01 .06 .10 ..17 -.15 -.02 .06 -.27* -01 -.20t -.14 ..18 -.28* -.18 .10 .01 71 Males Parent ..10 -16 -.19 .00 .07 -.02 -.08 .02 .09 -.02 -.04 .02 -.15 .18 ..12 .04 -.28 -.05 .01 ..02 -.12 .19 .1! 62 Self ..11 .01 -.37 -.05 .01 .05 -10 .23* .37" .06 -.14 -.09 .211 .45*" -.05 -04 -.04 .08 -.05 -.15 .04 .42*** ..02 64 CP ..OS -.11 ..31' -.04 .14 .03 .20 .18 .38** .22t ..29" ..02 .19 .31* .04 .12 -.12 .05 .11 .03 .00 .37** ..07 52 HTP ..16 -.22 -.18 -.21 .09 -.15 .06 .18 .15 .17 .02 .10 .05 .33' -.07 -.13 .06 -.05 .07 -.20 .04 .IS ..20 54 Parent ..04 -.04 -.06 .09 -.02 -.14 ..06 .10 .15 .06 ..01 .06 .12 .10 ..03 ..17 .00 .03 ..06 .14 -.15 .02 .06 46

p < .001; p < .01; p < .05; f p < .10. Note: Self = Self-report NEO-PI correlates, CP = College Peer composite NEO-PI correlates, HTP = Hometown Peer composite NEO-PI correlates. Parent = Parent composite NEO-PI correlates. Factors are emboldened, facets are in normal fonL

When two focal variables are positively correlated with each other and are correlated in the same direction with an external variable (as is the case for most analyses of happiness and self-esteem in the current study), then the partialling procedure essentially magnifies whatever differences exist in the zero-order correlations between the focal variables and the external variable. Thus, these analyses highlight the empirically subtle differences between happiness and selfesteem. Descriptive Information Composite scores were formed for happiness and for self-esteem. The three Fordyce happiness measures were combined into an overall Happiness composite (a = .85). The two self-esteem scales each had strong reliabilities (RSE a = .89, CSE a = .83). The two self-esteem measures were highly correlated with each other (r = .72, p < .0001) and were therefore combined into an overall Selfesteem composite. There are no significant gender differences in mean level for

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

115

any happiness or self-esteem scale or either con^osite, but females have slightly greater variance than males on the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale (F= 1.86, p< .05) and on the overall SE con^osite (F = 1.76, p < .05). The two composites are highly correlated with each other, particularly for females (Females, r = .72; Males, r = .56; Overall, r = .65; all p < .001). Although not reaching conventional levels of statistical significance (z = 1.61, p > .05), this gender difference suggests that there is somewhat more overlap between happiness and self-esteem in females than in males. This implies that the two constructs may be easier to differentiate for males than for females.

Table 2
CAQ Correlates of Happiness Controlling for Self-esteem
Males Seir CP* CAQ Item Self CP"

Females CAQ Ilem

84Cheeiful S6 Responds to humor 15 Socially sIdDed it play, bultior 59 Coticemed with fuoctioaitig of body 31 Regards self at physically attractive 88 Personalty chanrtitig 14 Stibnvssive 5 Giving 2 Dependable and responsible 7 Has conservative valties 93 Sex.typed: Teinnine 29 Sought For advice 11 Protective of close ones 62 Rebellious: non^onforming 61 Creates and exploits depcndeticy it) people 37 Guileful atiddecdtflil 34 Over .reactive to tnitior Ihistratiotu 1 Critical skeptical 52 Assertive 49 Distrustful 36 Undermines and Mbotages l2Self.defenlive S3 Unable 10 delay patirtcatioo 22 Lacks personal meaoing in life 50 Unpredicuble in behavior and attitudes 45 Briule, handles stress poorly

.30" .29 .33" 18t .20* .14 .25* .02 ..10 .04 .05 ..18 t ..10 ..28 " 21 t ..II ..18 f ..07 ..23* .05 .06 ..06 ..03 .03 .17 ..26'

.34 .26 .15 .26 .19 .25 .12 .29 .39 .25 .24 .30 * .24 ..22 .25 ..35 * ..25 ..28 .09 .26 ..23 ..22 ..23 ..21 .29 .10

84 Cheerful 5 Giving t9Seeksreusurance 28 ArYMiiea liking 4 Talkative 35 ConsusiooAtc BS Pcreonilly chtming 14 Subnisrivc 56 Responds to huitaji 43 Facialty/gcsttvally expressive 73 Eiotidzts situations 3 Wide range of interests 1 Critical skeptical 49 Distrustful 48 Keeps peopk at i distance 38 Hostiletowardsothers 97 Bnotionally bland 79 Worries or broods 53 Unable to dehy gratificatioo 70 EthicaOy consistent 62 Rebellious: non<onformitig 27 Condescending 82 Moody 50 Unpredictable in behavior and attitudes

.40"' .48 " .36" .45 " .25' .27* .38" .26* .17 .28 .02 ..02 ..34 ..42"* ..20 ..21 .05 ..33 .38 " ..28' ..25 ..26* ..33 " ..27

.38" .20 .32* 20 .31 ' .27.08 .20 .26* .12 .31' .32* ..47 " ..27' ..35 " ..26* ..33 ..01 .07 .00 -.03 .00 .14 .10

< .001; " / > < .01; p < .05; t P < 10. Self - Self.tepon data. CP - College Peer cott^KJsite data n - 8 2 . ' n - 7 9 . ' It - 6 4 . ' n - 59.

Pure Happiness Semi-partial correlations were computed between the happiness composite and each of the NEO-PI factors and facets, with the self-esteem composite partialled. This was done for self, college peer, hometown peer, and parent NEO-PI ratings. Table 1 presents the results for all factor-level correlations, along with the facetlevel correlations that were statistically significant atp< .05 for at least one of the rater domains'. As Table 1 shows, pure happiness is more clearly revealed for males than for females. For females, pure happiness is somewhat related to low Openness to Experience, but overall there are few strong, replicable correlates of pure happiness with any factor or facet. For males, pure happiness is related to positive affect and to a warm interpersonal orientation. At the factor level, pure

116

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

happiness is related to high Agreeableness from the self and college peer perspectives, but clearer findings emerge from facet-level analyses. Pure happiness is associated with high levels of Wannth and Positive Emotions, and it is associated with low levels of Angry Hostility. The effect sizes generally replicated across the self, college peer, and hometovra peer perspectives. Table 3 CAQ Communion and Agency Prototype Mean Correlations of Pure Happiness and Pure Self-esteem

Focal ViriaUe

CuiiiuiiGn r

A ^ ;

FoTBks Pure Hagipiness PureSdf.em,

.56 .06

-.21 .46

Mes
Pure Happiness PmSelf.<stam

.51 .11

-.17 .44

Nae Each \alic is the iTtai of tu "profile cordajons": 1) (he avrdaticnbetueai a OVQ prototype (Cbrnmiion or Agent^) an] liKfuQ pofile of CAQ ociidadoral r t a i s fa sdf-npartal CAQ (fata, and 2) the oondation beTMxn a ( ^ p r o t o ^ Ul profile of CAQ ccndaikKil naiG for peer-nponed CAQ dao.

For a more focused level of analysis, semi-partial correlations were computed between happiness and each of the CAQ items, as rated by target participants and by their college peers. Table 2 includes semi-partial correlations that were significant at/j < .05 from at least one of the rater domains. The results suggest that pure happiness is related to positive affect and a warm interpersonal orientation, although the results regarding the interpersonal dimensions are clearer for males than for females. For both sexes, pure happiness is clearly related to cheerfulness, from both the self and college peer perspectives. In addition, females with high levels of pure happiness are socially skilled, charming, and responsive to humor. They are not guileful, deceitful, rebellious, assertive, or exploitative of other people. Similarly, males with high levels of pure happiness are giving, likable, compassionate, trusting, responsive to humor, talkative, somewhat submissive, and they tend to seek reassurance and contact with other people. They are not overly critical or hostile. These themes replicate across self and peer report. A more formal evaluation of the CAQ correlations reveals that pure happiness is associated with the interpersonal trait of communion but not with agency. These analyses used CAQ "prototypes" of communion and agency (Markey, 2002; Markey & Funder, 2004). For these, six graduate students who were familiar with the two interpersonal traits were asked to judge the degree to which

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

117

each CAQ item was characteristic of the prototypical communal individual and of the prototypical agentic individual. The judges' ratings were then averaged for each item to form highly reliable aggregated CAQ prototypes of communion and agency (see Markey, 2002 for more details). To examine the degree to which the pattern of CAQ correlations obtained in the current study (see Table 2) reflect communion and agency, the full profile of 100 CAQ correlates of pure happiness was correlated with both of the 100-item prototypes. A positive communion (or agency) profile correlation indicates that the CAQ items that were relatively highly correlated with pure happiness were also those judged to be relatively characteristic of communion (or agency). A profile correlation was confuted once for the self-reported CAQ correlates and once for the peer-reported CAQ correlates, and the mean of these two profile correlations is presented in Table 3. Results indicate that pure happiness is associated with communion but not with agency, within the CAQ correlations. That is, the CAQ items that were relatively highly correlated with pure happiness were also those that had been judged to be relatively prototypical of communion. Table 4 NEO-PI Correlates of Self-esteem Controlling for Happiness
Fictor/Focct NeuroHdsm Anxiety Hostility Depression Self Consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Extraversion Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement Seeking Positive Emotions Openness Fantasy Aesthetics Feeling Action Ideas Values Agreeableness Conselentlousness n Self -,42 -.23 ..18t .,47 " -,44 " .01 ..44 " ,42 " .24' .I9t .44 " .30" .27* .26" ,23* ..07 .18 .211 .23* ,25* ,201 ,23* ,27' 79 Pennies HTP CP -,l9t -,l9t ..07 -.24* -.32" .13 -.17 ,2*' .17 .16 .18 .10 .25* .33" ,26* .00 .24' .22t .19t .09 .32" -,26 -.16 -,09 -.28* -.231 -.27* .12 .05 -.05 .26* .15 .06 .10 J l " .05 .27' .24* .12 ,36" .19 ,00 ,10 71 Mites Paicnt Self -,50** -.4<r" -.09 -.55"* -.39" -.28* -.50'" ,24.01 .24t .44*" .16 .01 .11 ,21t ,11 .13 .16 .14 ,22t .03 -,07 ,33" 64 CP -,I4 .02 ,15 -.03 -.35' -.16 -.36 " ,12 -.10 .09 .54"* .10 -.14 -X!9 -,03 -.14 .10 ,02 -,I3 ,04 -.06 -.12 ,10 52 HTP ,11 .18 ,07 .05 -.19 .31* .01 .13 .03 .08 .231 .06 .06 .09 ,2S+ .15 .12 .251 .27* .17 .00 -.07 ,08 54 Puent -,41 * * -.22 -.261 -.44** -.37** -.18 -,36** ,22 .08 .28t ,33* ,11 -.10 ,22 -,OI .08 -.08 -.05 ,19 -.14 .10 ,11 .04 46

-,ia
-.14 .04 -.20 -.33-.03 -.18 .14 ,00 ,17 .24t .01 .15 .02 ,26.07 .25f .17 .15 .13 .19 -.01 .02 62

,os
,12 78

p < ,001; * p < ,01; p < ,05; t p < ,10, Note: Self = Self-report NEO-PI correlates, CP = College Peer composite NEO-PI correlates, HTP = Hometown Peer composite NEO-PI correlates. Parent = Parent composite NEO-PI correlates. Factors are emboldened, facets are in normal font

118

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

Table 5
CAQ Correlates of Self-esteem Controlling for Happiness
Feiralei CAQIton 74S2Iisficd\Mthsdf S2Assenive 20 Rapid pcisanal tenpo 75 Internally consistert personality 26 Productive 92 Socially poised 71 A n M a E 77 Sujj^lAjMsnl and fbrthnght 60 Insi^^ mto OMTI iiLAivolion 91 fbuer oriented 96 Values wm indepaidencft 58 Sensuous 57 Interesting person 2D:pendable 81 Physically atnadvc 8Ii>dliga< 98VertBllyflun 29 Sough for ajvia 40Fea>fiJ 22 Lads peiscnal meaning in life 55 SelfKHeait 78 Self-pitying 89 Conpares seifto othn 72 Qxicemed W4di owl adeqiQCy 69 SCIEMUVC to doi Bpds 45 Brittle l4Subirissi> 19 Seek5 tcasstnnce 79VWiriesorlroods 68NcrK>E 56 Respond, to h i m r 42 Awids action 9 UncorrfertaUe with uncertainty Self

MalK CP* i5* ,16

.24* CAQ Item 71 AirtitioiE 52Asseitivt 74 Satisfied with sdf 8 Intelligent 26 FVoduct]\c 98VertBllyflint 96 Values owi indqiendenx 94 Expresses hostility ditectly 70EllnaDycasistcn 57 Interesting pencn 3 yMt rang: of irterests 22 Lacks personal nraning in tile 47Fedspiilty 78Sdf-pitying 19 Seeks reassmnce MSiinissive 55SelfKlefealing 30 Gives 14] when & x d wth fiussadon 45 Brittle 86 Denies unpleasant t h o u ^ 42 Avdds action 87 Interprets situations in conplkated W3>s 9 Unconionable with uncertaittty 72 Concemed with oun adequacy 21 Anuses nututxt feeling

Self
,42 " * ,48"*

CP" J6" ,12 ,15 ,18 J20 ,05 2T .11 -.01 -,08 -,221 -.28* -,I2 -,231
-.27* -.15 -.29* -.221 -.21 -.07 -.11 -.18 -.11 -.13 -.27*

j5... J5" ,24* .40*" J3** .25* ,29" ,26* ,24* JU* .25* -.02 .22* 30** i2* .24* 13* JO** -.191 -.41 *** .J4" -Jl" . J9 " * -J4"* -.12 -,oe
-.14 -,I5 -,I6 -,25* -,25* -,24* -.24*

.06 ,11 .15 .10 ,12 ,08 .08 .Ot

.25*

3S" Jl* 79*

,43 " *

,16
,28* .29* ,29* .27* -J8 * " -.52 * * * -J9 * * * -J4** -J7**

,00
-.09 -,OI -.05 -.06 -.16 -J4** -.06 -.12 -.15 -.06 -,08 -J7* -,29**

-.211 -J6* -,26* .J9** -35** -.25* -JO* -,24* -,05

2i' -,211 -,191

-.09 -.08 -.05 -,OI

" p < ,001; * p < ,01; p < .05; t P < ,10, Note, Self = Self-report data, CP = College Peer composite data, a n = 82, b n = 79, c n = 64, d n = 59.

Pure Self-esteem Semi-partial correlations were computed between the self-esteem composite and each of the NEO-PI factors and facets, with the happiness composite partialled. This was done for self, college peer, hometown peer, and parent NEOPI ratings. Table 4 presents the results for all factor-level correlations, along with the facet-level correlations that were statistically significant at/? < .05 for at least one of the rater domains. As Table 4 shows, pure self-esteem is clearly revealed for females and for males. For females, it is related to a host of factors and facets from all four rater perspectives of personality data. Pure self-esteem is negatively related to Neuroticism, particularly the Depression, Self-consciousness, and Vulnerability facets. It is positively related to Extraversion, particularly the Assertiveness and Positive Emotions facets, and it is also somewhat related to Openness to

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

119

Experience, specifically the Aesthetics, Feelings, and Ideas facets. For males, pure self-esteem is most clearly revealed at the facet level. It is negatively related to the Depression, Self-consciousness, and Vulnerability facets of Neuroticism, and it is positively related to the Assertiveness facet of Extraversion. These results replicate across several rater domains. At the more focused CAQ level of analysis, semi-partial correlations were computed between self-esteem and each of the CAQ items, as rated by target participants and by their college peers. Table 5 includes semi-partial correlations that were significant at/? < .05 from at least one of the rater domains. The results show a great degree of similarity in the nature of pure self-esteem for females and males, although this is more clearly revealed in the self-report correlates than in the college peer correlates for females. For both sexes, pure self-esteem is positively related to characteristics such as assertiveness, ambition, productivity, independence, and of course self-satisfaction, and it is negatively related to characteristics such as self-pity, a brittle psychological constitution, submissiveness, avoiding action, and having a lack of personal meaning. Again, a more formal evaluation of the CAQ correlations reveals that pure self-esteem is associated with the interpersonal trait of agency but not with communion. To examine the degree to which pure self-esteem in the current study reflects communion and agency, the full profile of 100 CAQ correlates of pure self-esteem (Table 5) was correlated with both of the 100-item communion and agency prototypes (Markey, 2002; Markey & Funder, 2004). Again, a profile correlation was computed once for the self-reported CAQ correlates and once for the peer-reported CAQ correlates, and the mean of these two profile correlations is presented in Table 3. Results indicate that pure self-esteem is associated with agency but not with communion, within the CAQ correlations. That is, the CAQ items that were relatively highly correlated with pure self-esteem were also those that had been judged to be relatively prototypical of agency.

Discussion
To differentiate happiness and self-esteem, the current analysis included multiple judges of personality using multiple measures of core personality constructsfi^omdifferent levels of generality. The inclusion of multiple judges and the use of multiple instruments provides important information regarding replicability and generalizability of findings across data sources and methods. In addition, the breadth of important and well-known constructs enables the integration of the results within familiar social psychological fiameworks. Most clearly apparent for males, the differentiation between happiness and self-esteem in the current data falls along two major theoretical domains of social psychological experience - affective and interpersonal. Affective differentiation indicates that happiness is associated with high positive affect and that self-esteem is associated with low negative affect. As refiected in all the males' data and in the females' CAQ data, participants with high levels of pure happiness experience more positive emotional experiences

' 20

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

and cheerfulness than participants with low levels of pure happiness. As reflected in all the data sources for both sexes, participants with high levels of pure self-esteem experience less anxiety, depression, stress, and self-pity than participants with low levels of pure self-esteem. In addition, they are less selfdefeating, less concerned about themselves and their adequacy, and feel a greater meaning in their lives than do participants with low levels of pure self-esteem. The alignment of happiness and self-esteem along affective dimensions parallels research in positive and negative affect. Such research has posited that Positive Affect and Negative Affect are relatively independent dimensions, and it has shown that Positive Affect is strongly related to Extraversion and the Negative Affect is strongly related to Neuroticism (Watson & Clark, 1984,1997). Interpersonal differentiation parallels the two basic interpersonal dimensions of communion and agency, which confirming hypotheses based on Hermans' (1992) findings. The present analyses suggest that pure happiness is associated with a socially-focused, communal orientation, particularly for males. For males, correlates of pure happiness from all raters and instruments included characteristics such as warmth, compassion, agreeableness, and low hostility. Although not reflected strongly for females, these same communal characteristics were found in the females' college peer CAQ correlates of pure happiness. In contrast, self-esteem for both males and females is characterized more strongly by an agentic orientation. For both sexes, correlates of pure self-esteem included assertiveness, ambition, productivity, and independence. The results suggest that happiness is aligned with "getting along" and self-esteem is aligned with "getting ahead". Happiness and self-esteem were less clearly interpersonally differentiated for females than for males. Not only were the happiness and self-esteem composites somewhat more highly correlated for females than for males (though the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance), but the semi-partial correlations with personality variables were also less revealing for females than for males. In males, each rater domain - self, college peer, hometown peer, and parents - showed similar patterns of results for both happiness and self-esteem. For females, however, there was less consistent replication across raters, primarily for happiness. Finally, the CAQ prototype correlations presented in Table 3 show clearer differentiation for males - for males the difference between the mean communion profile correlation with happiness and the mean agency correlation with happiness was .63, but for females the difference between the mean communion profile correlation with happiness and the mean agency correlation with happiness was .40 The lack of differentiating semi-partial correlates for females is to some degree a statistical function of the relatively high correlation between the happiness and self-esteem composites for the females. Although there are hints in the current data, this finding cautions against making definitive conclusions about the unique interpersonal nature of happiness and self-esteem in females. Why are happiness and self-esteem somewhat less easily interpersonally

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

121

differentiated for females? Given the relatively exploratory nature of the current study and its correlational design, answers at this point are speculative. Bearing this in mind, at least one provisional answer can be offered, based on the emerging evidence that facets of psychological well-being are clearly tied to social and cultural forces (e.g., Diener & Diener, 1995; Diener, Suh, Smith & Shao, 1995; Eid & Diener, 2001). Much social psychological research emphasizes the socially constructed nature of the self and, by extension, of self-esteem (J. H. Block, 1984; Eagly, 1987; Josephs, et al, 1992). One's self-esteem may be based largely on one's success at meeting the goals that are socially prescribed for one's role. That is, we will have high self-esteem if we accomplish what society expects of us. Since females and males are typically exposed to different socio-cultural expectations, their self-esteem may be based on different domains, roles, and expectations (Josephs et al., 1992). In western cultures, the traditional female social role has been that of nurturance and interpersonal affiliation, while the male role has been primarily that of achievement and individuation. The social psychological approach to self-esteem then suggests that, traditionally speaking, a woman's self-esteem would be relatively high if she was successful at fostering affiliative relationships, while a man's self-esteem would be high if he had achieved status and was relatively independent. Such gender-based differences in self-esteem have indeed been found (Josephs et al., 1992; Stein et al., 1992), although some research indicates that self-esteem in both sexes is based on more masculineoriented traits (Whitley, 1983). As reflected in all the results for males and in the CAQ correlates for females, pure happiness appears to be associated with affiliative, communal tendencies. If these findings are accurate, then for females, happiness and self-esteem are primarily grounded in the same experiences interpersonal relationships. That is, it is possible that a female's interpersonal relationships may make her happy, and may also increase her self-esteem, as derivedfi-omher fulfilbnent of the traditional role expectations of women in the culture. In contrast, a male's interpersonal relationships may make him happy, but may not increase his self-esteem - his self-esteem may be based more on achievement and ambition, as derived from his fulfillment of the traditional role expectations for men in the culture. One direction for future research is to examine cultural influences on the differentiation of constructs such as happiness and self-esteem. For example, happiness and self-esteem might be more clearly differentiated in some cultures than in others. Diener and Diener (1995) found that self-esteem and life satisfaction were more highly correlated with each other in individualistic cultures than in coUectivistic cultures. Future research could extend this line of research by examining the affective components of subjective well-being. It is possible, for example, that positive affect could be even more highly related to self-esteem in coUectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures. If people from a given culture define themselves primarily in terms of interpersonal relationships, as in coUectivistic cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), happiness

122

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

and self-esteem might become more highly intercorrelated - interpersonal relationships might be the basis of both positive affectivity, which is aligned with "pure happiness" and of self-esteem, which is to some degree based on cultural roles and norms. Another research direction could be the examination of changes in a single culture's norms across time. As a given culture shifts its gendertypical norms and roles, the differentiation between happiness and self-esteem may show a corresponding shift. A second issue for further research is to replicate the current findings, for at least two reasons. First, the current analyses are among the fu^st to explicitly examine the differentiation of happiness and self-esteem and are thus rather exploratory in nature. Since the theoretical and empirical ambiguities in the existing literatures preclude many clear hypotheses about the nature of the differentiation, the current findings and interpretations should be taken as groundwork for more focused examinations of the issues. Second, it is important to bear in mind that the differences identified in the current study are actually quite subtle. Happiness and self-esteem are strongly empirically related (Furr & Funder, 1998), and many of their zero-order correlates are quite similar. The analytic procedures adopted in the current study essentially serve to magnify the fine distinctions between the two highly related constructs. Thus further research could help establish the degree to which the subtle differences are stable and replicable. Despite the need for replication, the design in current study provides methodological reasons for confidence in the current fmdings. The inclusion of multiple raters of personality and multiple measures of happiness, self-esteem and the other personality variables suggests that many of the results are generalizable across raters and measures, particularly for males. More broadly, the messages of Lyubomirsky (2001), Lucas et al. (1996), Snyder and McCullough (2000), and Judge and Bono (2001) should be reemphasized - the interrelationshps among the constructs related to positive psychology merit serious attention. Positive psychology is well-stocked with constructs that are conceptually and empirically overlapping. Furthermore, most of the research in psychological well-being focuses on one of these constructs in isolation without regard for the degree to which alternative constructs maybe in operation. The current study focused on happiness and global self-esteem, two of the primary constructs in the study of positive psychology. But broader examination of discriminant validity and construct differentiation can advance the clarification, integration, and understanding of positive psychological experience. Footnote
1. These analyses include a relatively large number of significance tests, and some readers may be concerned about Type I error rates. The American Psychological Association's Task Force on Statistical Inference (Wikinson and The APA Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999) recently addressed the issue of significances testing in cases in which multiple correlations are reported. Their recommendation, and the orientation adopted in the current paper, is to attend to patterns and trends in the results. The p values, along with

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

123

effect sizes, can help focus attention on the important themes in the results. Indeed, this is often the practice when examining tables of CAQ correlates (e.g.. Block & Kremen, 1996). In addition, the APA Task Force suggests that replication of results should be of primary consideration in more exploratory analyses. As the results will demonstrate, themes do emerge in replications across multiple judges of personality and multiple measures. Tables of all NEO-PI correlates are available from the author.

Author Note
I thank Alexander Creed, Leslie Eaton, David Funder, and Tim Huelsman for their valuable comments on previous versions of this article. Data gathering was supported by NIMH grant R01MH42427 to D. Funder.

References
Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). Happiness and social skills. Personality and Individual Differences. 11, 1255-1261. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44. Blackman, M.C., & Funder, D.C. (1996). Self-esteem as viewed from the outside: A peer and gender perspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 77, 115-126. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver, and L. S. Wdghtsman (Eds.) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (Originally published 1961). Block, J. & Kremen, (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and enq)irical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,349-361. Block, J. H. (1984). How gender differences affect children's orientations to the world. In J. H. Block (Ed.) Sex role identity and ego development (pp. 182206). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bohon, L. M. (1991). Self-esteem: A theoretical and quantitative exploration. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Riverside, 1991) Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 ^ 5625 Brebner, J., Donaldson, J, Kirby, N., & Ward, L. (1995). Relationships between happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 7P, 251-258. Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80, 1041-1068. Cooper, H., Okamura, L., & Gurka, V. (1992). Social activity and subjective well-being.

124

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 573-583. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Fransisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Deneve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229. Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons from subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389-399. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life-satisfaction and self-esteem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Smith, H., Shao, L. & (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social-IndicatorsResearch, 34, 7-32. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256. Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eid, M. & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 869-885 Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116^ 429-456. Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty-second index of emotional well-being and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 355-381. Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670. Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (1998). A mulitmodal analysis of personal negativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1580-1591. Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure as an integrativeframework:An empirical comparison with Eysenck's P-E-N model. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 735). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428. Hermans, H. J. M. (1987). Self as an organized system of valuations: Toward a

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

125

dialogue with the person. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 10-19. Hermans, H. J. M. (1992). Unhappy self-esteem: A meaningful exception to the rule, ne Journal of Psychology, 126, 555-570. Hermans, H. J. M. (1999). Self-narrative as meaning construction: The dynamics of self-investigation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1193-1211. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1357-1364. Hogan, R., Jones, W. H., & Cheek, J. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to armadillo psychology. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 175-198). New York: McGraw-Hill. John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 57, 521 -551. Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and selfesteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, <5i, 391 -402. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). A rose by any other name: Are self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control indicators of a common construct? In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 93-118). Washington , DC: American Psychological Association. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoreson, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control ,and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710. Keyes, C. L. M., Smotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007-1022. Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of selfesteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 32) (pp. l-62).San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as sociometer. In M. H. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, Agency, and Self-Esteem. (pp. 123-144). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Lu, L., & Lin, Y. Y. (1998). Family roles and happiness in adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 195-207. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being mRasxxres. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628. Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239-249. Major, B., Barr, L., Zubeck, J., & Babey, S. H. (1999). Gender and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. In W. B. Swann, J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modem society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp.223-253). Washington, DC: American Psychological

126

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

Association. Markey, P. M. (2002). The duality of personality: Agency and communion in personality traits, motivation, and behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section-B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(5-B), 2638. Markey, P. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Behavior mapping: Relating observed behaviors to the interpersonal circumplex. Manuscript under review. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, llA-lSi. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circun^lex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595. McCrae, R. R., & John, 0 . P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 1019. Reise, S. P., Smith, L. & Furr, R. M. (2001). Invariance on the NEO PI-R Neuroticism scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 83-110. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations in the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727. Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 61, 317-342. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihaly, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretation. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441. Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56, 216-217. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of Positive Psychology. London, Oxford University Press Snyder, C. R. & McCullou^, M. E. (2000). A positive psychology field of dreams: "If you build it, they will come..." Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 151-160. Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1992). The effect of agency and communality on self-esteem: Gender differences in longitudinal data. Sex Roles, 26,465-483. Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990) Extension of the Inpterersonal Adjective Scales to include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781-790.

Individual Differences Research, 2005, 3(2)

127

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience negative affective states. Psychological Bulletin, 96,465-490. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1983) Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical metaanalytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,765-778. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88-162). New York: Guilford Press. Wilkinson, L. & The APA Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604. Wolfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1986). Getting along and getting ahead: En^jirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive selfpresentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 356-361.