Next Article in Journal
Active Learning in the Extraction of Organic Compounds: A Study of Undergraduate Chemistry Students
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Procedural Content Item Generator versus Interactive Tool for Clinical Skills Acquisition in Physiotherapy Students
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/educsci14101050
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relationships between Big Five Personality Traits and Psychological Well-Being: A Mediation Analysis of Social Support for University Students

by
Min-Ning Yu
1,
Yu-Ning Chang
2 and
Ren-Hau Li
2,3,*
1
Department of Education, National Chengchi University, Taipei 116011, Taiwan
2
Department of Psychology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
3
Room of Clinical Psychology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 1050; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101050
Submission received: 13 August 2024 / Revised: 22 September 2024 / Accepted: 23 September 2024 / Published: 26 September 2024
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
University life is a critical period for personality development and psychological well-being. This study, which investigated the relationships between the Big Five personality traits, social support, and psychological well-being, particularly the mediation role of social support, has yielded significant findings. A total of 848 university students (570 females, 67.2%) were conveniently sampled in Taiwan. The results, which showed that female students scored significantly higher on conscientiousness, neuroticism, and social support than male students, with no gender differences for other traits and psychological well-being, provide valuable insights. The mediation analysis, when controlling for gender, demonstrated that social support only mediates the two personality traits (extraversion and agreeableness). Specifically, under the control of social support, the Big Five traits, except for agreeableness, still directly affect psychological well-being. Further, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness can directly affect students’ psychological well-being without being mediated by social support, while extraversion can affect psychological well-being in both direct and indirect pathways. Moreover, agreeableness can affect psychological well-being completely by an indirect pathway through social support. These findings not only contribute to the existing body of knowledge but also underscore the importance of personality traits and social support for higher education students’ mental health and adaptive functioning.

1. Introduction

University life represents a critical period for identity formation, self-growth, and personality development [1]. However, university students face various pressures, including academic demands, career development issues, and financial concerns. These pressures can engender high levels of stress and negatively impact students’ mental health and well-being [2].
Previous studies have shown low levels of well-being among university students, along with increasing needs for mental health services and counseling [3]. Systematic reviews estimated around 30% of university students worldwide met thresholds for mental health disorders like depression, which was substantially higher than that in the general population [4]. In Taiwan, student suicide rates have risen steadily in recent years [5]. Hence, there is growing recognition that enhancing well-being and resilience represents a key mission of higher education institutions, given the high stress university life entails [6].
Well-being refers to an individual’s cognitive and affective evaluation of their life, encompassing satisfaction, positive functioning, and emotional responses [7]. Well-being is shaped by intrapersonal characteristics and social-contextual factors. Among personality traits, the Five Factor Model, consisting of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, has been extensively studied for its relationship with well-being [8]. Evidence suggests that extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness correlate positively with well-being, while neuroticism correlates negatively [9].
Besides personality traits, social support provides an important extra-personal resource that contributes to psychological health and well-being [10]. Social support refers to the functional support one receives from social relationships, including emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance [11]. Studies have shown that perceived social support promotes well-being directly by fulfilling socio-emotional needs and indirectly by buffering stress [12].
While previous studies have separately examined the Big Five traits and social support in relation to psychological well-being, few have systematically investigated the interrelationships between these factors among university students. There is also a lack of research on whether social support mediates the links between specific personality traits and psychological well-being outcomes. Addressing these gaps, the present study aimed to investigate the relationships between the Big Five personality traits, social support, and psychological well-being in a sample of Taiwanese university students. Briefly, we mainly hypothesized that more social-inclined personality traits, such as extraversion and agreeableness, could influence psychological well-being through social support, while others would be more inclined to directly influence psychological well-being.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Big Five Personality Traits

The Five Factor Model, or Big Five, serves as a robust framework for studying personality differences [13]. It encompasses five broad dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. These traits represent the highest level of organization of personality characteristics and account for individual differences in thoughts, emotions, and behaviors across diverse situations [14].
Extraversion reflects one’s tendency to be outgoing, socially engaged, energetic, and experience positive emotions. Highly extraverted individuals tend to have wider social networks and actively participate in social activities [15]. In contrast, introverts prefer solitary activities and tend to be independent and reserved. Agreeableness reflects one’s attitudes towards others, including trust, altruism, kindness, and cooperation [16]. Highly agreeable individuals value harmony in relationships and are empathetic, whereas those low on this trait tend to be antagonistic, skeptical, and competitive. Conscientiousness describes traits like self-discipline, dutifulness, competence, orderliness, and deliberation [17]. Highly conscientious people are goal-driven, organized, and mindful of details. In contrast, those low on this dimension tend to be less reliable and impulse-driven. Neuroticism represents emotional instability and susceptibility to psychological distress [18]. Individuals high on neuroticism frequently experience mood swings, anxiety, irritability, and sadness. Finally, openness to experience represents curiosity, imagination, creativity, and receptivity to new ideas [19]. Open individuals constantly seek out novel experiences to expand their perspectives, whereas closed-minded people prefer familiarity and resist change.
Overall, considerable evidence suggests that the Big Five traits are relatively stable over time, manifest consistently across situations, and influence cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes [20]. As broad dispositions, these traits shape how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to various life events, subsequently impacting psychological functioning and well-being [21].

2.2. Social Support

Social support has been extensively studied as a protective resource that promotes health and well-being across the lifespan [22]. It is conceptualized as the functional support accessible to individuals through social ties and interactions [23]. Social support theories emphasize the subjective appraisal of being reliably connected to others [24]. Support can encompass emotional sustenance (e.g., care, trust, empathy), instrumental aid (e.g., financial assistance), informational guidance (e.g., advice), and companionship for shared interests and activities. The main sources of social support include family, friends, significant others, and the wider community [24]. Additionally, support needs and resources change across developmental stages. Establishing mature relationships and responsibilities in early adulthood can diminish support from family while increasing peer support [25]. Therefore, while social support universally promotes well-being, its manifestations differ among populations.
For university students encountering novel academic, personal, and social challenges, the perceived availability of social support can be integral to resilience and positive adjustment [26]. Support from family and friends aids coping, goal engagement, skill development, and identity formation as students navigate major life transitions and stressors [27,28]. Low social support relates to anxiety, depression, loneliness, homesickness, and student attrition [29].

2.3. Psychological Well-Being

Psychological well-being is a multifaceted construct consisting of optimal psychological functioning, self-realization, and life satisfaction [30]. Ryff (1989) proposed a six-factor model of psychological well-being comprising the following: (1) autonomy: the ability to self-govern behavior and resist social pressures; (2) environmental mastery: the capacity to manage life situations; (3) personal growth: continued development and self-actualization; (4) positive relations with others: having close, valued interpersonal connections; (5) purpose in life: having meaning, direction, and objectives for living; and (6) self-acceptance: positive self-regard and acceptance of one’s strengths and weaknesses. This framework conceptualizes well-being not as an end state but an ongoing process of fulfilling one’s capacities [31]. The dimensions emphasize actualizing inherent potentials, pursuing meaningful goals, relating positively with others, and holding optimistic self-appraisals for integrated functioning [32].
This multidimensional model provides a positive orientation that goes beyond assessing well-being solely based on happiness or life satisfaction [31]. It captures a breadth of wellness indicators, including realizing one’s potential, having a sense of purpose, establishing quality ties with others, and exercising personal agency in navigating life’s challenges. Among university students, academic demands, developing new social networks, career planning, and financial concerns can engender high stress levels, which negatively impact their well-being [2]. In addition, gender can have some influence on psychological traits [33], and customary theories assume gender differences coming from different gender roles that make each gender normal or adaptive [34]. Hence, considering gender in investigating factors, such as personality traits and social support, as it is tied to psychological well-being, has important practical implications for this population.

2.4. Big Five Traits, Social Support, and Well-Being

A body of work has linked the Big Five traits to well-being, although some inconsistencies remain. Meta-analytic results indicate that extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness relate positively, and neuroticism negatively, to life satisfaction across the lifespan [35]. Explanations for these associations highlight that extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness predispose individuals to optimistically engage with their environment and maintain rewarding interpersonal bonds, thereby enhancing well-being [36].
Beyond direct relationships, researchers have proposed that personality traits influence well-being indirectly through social support processes [15]. Social support denotes feeling cared for, esteemed, and part of a network providing emotional and instrumental assistance [11,37]. Perceptions of available social support cultivate positive self-regard, a sense of belonging, and effective coping with life stressors—all of which bolster wellness [22].
Empirically, prior works have shown that social support mediates the links between extraversion, neuroticism, and subjective well-being [15,38]. Extraverted individuals likely garner greater support through sociability, whereas neuroticism may elicit conflict and social isolation. Conscientious and agreeable people also tend to attract supportive exchanges by being responsible network members who elicit reciprocity and solidarity [39,40]. Less is known regarding openness, though its association with curiosity and novelty-seeking may catalyze social circles that are varied but not necessarily close-knit.
Integrating the above, the present research aimed to shed light on the complex interplay between the Big Five personality traits, social support, and psychological well-being within a sample of Taiwanese university students. This population faces high demands during a critical life stage, making it imperative to advance knowledge on buffers against mental health risks and contributors to positive functioning.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The sample comprised 848 university students from various regions of Taiwan. Recruitment was carried out by convenience sampling, with questionnaires distributed through online student forums and communities. The sample included 278 males (32.8%) and 570 females (67.2%). In terms of the year of study, there were 162 freshmen (19.1%), 302 sophomores (35.6%), 263 juniors (31.0%), and 121 seniors (14.3%).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Big Five Personality Traits

The 15-item version of the BFI [41] was selected from the Big Five Inventory (BFI) [42,43] to assess five personality traits, including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness; it was answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate, 5 = very accurate). The BFI-15 has demonstrated adequate internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from 0.67 to 0.81 across subscales. The confirmatory factor analysis supported its five-factor structure [41]. In the current study sample, Cronbach’s alpha for subscales was from 0.66 to 0.82, indicating acceptable reliability. The confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit indices, with chi-square = 353.62, df = 80, CFI = 0.95 (>0.90), AGFI = 0.92 (>0.90), SRMR = 0.054 (<0.06), RMSEA = 0.064 (<0.1), and factor loading ranging from 0.48 to 0.85.

3.2.2. Social Support

The 10-item Social Support Scale [44], adapted from the Inventory of Social Supportive Behaviors (ISSB) [37], was administered to assess the combined source of support. This scale evaluates satisfaction across four dimensions using a 3-point scale (1 = dissatisfied, 2 = average, 3 = satisfied): (1) 3-item emotional support, (2) 3-item social integration, (3) 2-item informational support, and (4) 2-item substantial support. Total scores range from 10 to 30, with higher scores reflecting greater overall perceived support. Prior research found the questionnaire to have high internal consistency (α = 0.92) and factor structure aligned with the four intended domains [44]. In the current study sample, reliability analysis showed good internal consistency (α = 0.90), and confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit indices, with chi-square = 208.43, df = 29, CFI = 0.98 (>0.90), AGFI = 0.91 (>0.90), SRMR = 0.047 (<0.06), RMSEA = 0.085 (<0.1), and factor loading ranging from 0.62 to 0.88.

3.2.3. Psychological Well-Being

The brief Chinese version of Ryff’s psychological well-being scale [45] contains 18 items rated on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The higher the scores, the higher the psychological well-being. It features the six dimensions of autonomy, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. Prior research has supported this abbreviated scale’s six-factor structure and sound psychometric properties among Taiwanese university students, with Cronbach’s alpha for the total questionnaire being 0.91 [46]. Higher total scores reflect greater psychological well-being. In the current study sample, reliability analysis showed good internal consistency (α = 0.91), and confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit indices, with chi-square = 550.57, df = 120, CFI = 0.98 (>0.90), AGFI = 0.904 (>0.90), SRMR = 0.049 (<0.06), RMSEA = 0.065 (<0.1), and factor loading ranging from 0.63 to 0.89.

3.3. Procedure

An online survey containing the questionnaires described above was created. The survey link was disseminated to university student online communities, along with a description of the study’s purpose to obtain informed consent. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. After providing consent electronically, respondents completed the questionnaires, which took approximately 15 min.

3.4. Data Analysis

SPSS Statistics Version 23.0 was used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics were first computed for major variables. Gender differences were tested via independent sample t-tests. Bivariate correlational analyses examined linear relationships between personality traits, social support, and psychological well-being. The multiple regression analysis was used to execute mediation analysis. In addition, the PROCESS macro for SPSS [47] was applied to assess the mediating role of social support. Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples generated 95% confidence intervals to evaluate the significance of indirect effects. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05 across all tests.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Simple correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics for the Big Five personality traits, social support, and psychological well-being are presented in Table 1. The correlation coefficients showed that all variables significantly correlate, except for the correlations between neuroticism and agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and social support. For all the significant correlation coefficients, only two were negative, that is, correlations between neuroticism and extraversion and psychological well-being. From an effect size viewpoint, the correlation between conscientiousness and psychological well-being reached a large effect size (0.58 > 0.50). Most of the other significant correlation coefficients reached a medium effect size (around 0.30), and none were lower than a small effect size (below 0.10). In addition, all variables showed skewness and kurtosis values within acceptable ranges for assuming normality (i.e., between −1 and +1). The psychological well-being total scale mean was 78.79 (possible range of 18–108), higher than the mid-point of 63, indicating moderately high perceived adaption overall. The total mean score for social support was 25.80 (possible range of 10–30), indicating high perceived support overall.

4.2. Gender Differences

Table 2 showed that independent sample t-tests uncovered significant gender differences only for conscientiousness (t = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen’s d = 0.15 < 0.20, small effect size), neuroticism (t = 2.61, p = 0.009, Cohen’s d = 0.19 < 0.20, small effect size), and social support (t = 5.84, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.45, around 0.50, medium effect size), which all indicated the female students had higher mean scores than the male ones. No other gender differences emerged in extraversion, agreeableness, openness, and psychological well-being. For comparisons among study years, there was only a significant difference (F = 4.21, p = 0.006, eta square was 0.017 > 0.01, small effect size) in openness, and it showed an increasing trend as study years increased (Table S1).

4.3. Mediation Analysis

Table 3 shows the testing of the mediating role of social support using multiple regression techniques in the control of gender; the conditions outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) [48] were checked. Firstly, the Big Five traits and gender were simultaneously put into model one (psychological well-being as the dependent variable); the results showed that all the predictors were significantly predictive except for gender. In addition, agreeableness (β = 0.08, p < 0.05) and neuroticism (β = −0.09, p < 0.01) showed small effect sizes, while conscientiousness (β = 0.46, p < 0.001) showed the largest effect size.
Then, with social support (the mediator) as the dependent variable, the results showed that gender, extraversion, and agreeableness were significantly predictive from small to medium effect sizes. However, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness were not. This indicated that mediating effects had nothing to do with conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness; namely, the three traits would directly influence psychological well-being without through social support.
Finally, gender, social support, and the Big Five traits were simultaneously put into model 2 (with psychological well-being also used as the dependent variable); the results showed that all predictors, except for gender and agreeableness, significantly predicted psychological well-being, with small to medium effect sizes. That is to say, the direct effects of the Big Five traits on psychological well-being were 0.16 (p < 0.001) for extraversion, 0.05 (p = 0.068) for agreeableness, 0.45 (p < 0.001) for conscientious, −0.09 (p < 0.001) for neuroticism, and 0.18 (p < 0.001) for openness.
For model 2, social support significantly predicted psychological well-being when controlling for gender and the Big Five traits. These findings showed that the Big Five traits which satisfied the prerequisites for the mediation mechanism were only extraversion and agreeableness. All the above mediation analysis results (from social support and psychological well-being model 2) are drawn in Figure 1.
Table 4 presents the indirect effects of mediation analysis using bootstrapping procedures. For extraversion and agreeableness, the indirect paths through social support to psychological well-being were significant with small effect sizes, as the 95% confidence intervals did not contain zero. Further, the direct effects can be found in model 2 in Table 3, where extraversion was still significant and agreeableness was not significant. Therefore, social support partly mediated the relationships between extraversion and psychological well-being, while it completely mediated the relationships between agreeableness and psychological well-being.

5. Discussion

This study enriched the understanding of relationships between the Big Five personality traits, social support, and psychological well-being among Taiwanese university students. Key findings and implications are discussed below.

5.1. Gender and Well-Being

Some researchers propose that women possess stronger motivations for building social bonds, which contributes to greater well-being [49]. However, the present results indicated no gender differences in psychological well-being in Taiwanese university students, consistent with past work showing this pattern only occasionally [50]. Hence, gender differences may not directly impact psychological well-being for university students.

5.2. Personality and Well-Being

Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness were demonstrated from small to medium-sized positive correlations with well-being, corroborating previous meta-analytic data [51]. These traits likely predispose individuals to optimistically engage with their environments, pursue growth, contribute to communities, and derive fulfillment from relationships—all of which are central to wellness based on Ryff’s (1989) model [31].
In particular, conscientiousness and extraversion had the strongest link to well-being, similar to prior findings [52]. Extraverts’ tendencies to seek out rewarding social and achievement situations may allow the greater actualization of autonomy, purpose, mastery, and actualization needs. Surprisingly, neuroticism showed only a weak tie to wellness, contrasting expected associations between neuroticism and poorer functioning [35,52]. This could reflect not only the essential difference between psychological well-being and subjective well-being, with the former emphasizes eudaimonic aspects [53] but also the cultural shunning of negative emotionality, which may somewhat curb its damaging effects.
Overall, results reinforced that personality dispositions orient people towards construing and approaching the world in ways conducive versus detrimental to wellness. Nearly half (adj R2 = 0.45 > 0.14, large effect size) of the variance of psychological well-being was accounted for by personality. This also lends support to the Five Factor Model’s validity in predicting diverse outcomes beyond Western samples.

5.3. Personality, Social Support, and Psychological Well-Being

Further unpacking mechanisms underlying personality’s effects, social support partially or completely mediated the psychological well-being benefits of extraversion and agreeableness. Possessing these traits likely enables students to participate cooperatively in campus life, developing a sense of belonging and access to aid that reinforces wellness. However, support failed to mediate the links between well-being for conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. As these traits foster admirable qualities like dutifulness, emotional stability, and creativity but are less essential for harmonious group dynamics, they may directly strengthen students’ self-efficacy and life satisfaction beyond social processes.
Findings highlight that personal attributes influence psychological well-being through both intrapersonal (i.e., direct) and interpersonal (i.e., indirect) pathways. This accords with socioemotional selectivity and attachment theories emphasizing individuals’ active roles shaping relationships that provide resources critical for wellness, contingent on personality inclinations [54]. Results also underscore the value of social provisions (social support) like esteem, nurturance, and companionship during the university years, buffering stressors that could otherwise erode well-being.

5.4. Study Limitations and Practical Implications

Several limitations should be noted in this study. The cross-sectional design precludes determining causal directions among variables. Longitudinal work is needed to track changes over time. Self-reports could reflect biases like social desirability, and may not fully capture real behavior. Replication in larger, randomized samples would boost generalizability beyond the present convenience-based volunteer sample. Furthermore, more background variables, such as study program and age, and their influence on the mediation processes, could be tested in future research.
Additionally, the mediation findings preliminarily elucidated mechanisms whereby personality influences psychological well-being. Incorporating other potential mediators like coping styles and intrinsic motivation would allow more comprehensive testing of explanatory models. Finally, assessing moderators such as gender, cultural values, and attachment orientations could reveal which personality most strongly benefits, and under which conditions. Expanding this research program remains crucial for advancing students’ positive functioning amidst the stresses of contemporary university life.
For higher education institutions seeking to bolster student mental health, providing social skills training could leverage extraverted and agreeable traits towards building supportive communities. Introverted or neurotic students may need encouragement and guidance accessing campus support avenues suitable for their personalities. Peer counseling, mentorship programs, recreational clubs, and cooperative learning can generate inclusive environments articulating with diverse dispositions.
Integrating individual and contextual factors is imperative for student flourishing amidst university pressures. While longitudinal replications with varied cultural groups would augment validity, findings already highlight potentially fruitful directions for counseling and educational policy. Facilitating social integration tailored to students’ personalities could be an impactful approach improving psychological well-being and mental health as they navigate emerging adulthood.

6. Conclusions

Notwithstanding limitations, the present work meaningfully advanced knowledge on the joint roles of the Big Five personality traits simultaneously and/or through social support for university students’ psychological well-being. Findings verified that the well-established links between the Five Factor Model and psychological well-being extend to Taiwanese university students and are partially attributable to social support processes. Specifically, social support only acts as a mediator for the personality traits of extraversion and agreeableness. Conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness can impact students’ psychological well-being directly without mediation by social support, while extraversion can directly and indirectly impact psychological well-being. Additionally, agreeableness can impact psychological well-being completely through an indirect pathway involving social support. The outcomes underscore the importance of considering person–environment synergies shaped by personality that may enrich or undermine functioning during this critical life stage. Practically, to protect student mental health, university counselors could provide social skills training to leverage strengths like extraversion and agreeableness for building supportive communities. For introverted or neurotic individuals, psychotherapy may be warranted to avoid isolation and tailor environments suiting their personalities. Additionally, mentoring programs, recreational clubs, and cooperative learning can be promoted to generate platforms to practice prosocial behaviors that both express and reinforce sociable, stable, and conscientious dispositions tied to well-being. Such initiatives addressing individual and contextual factors in tandem will be critical to facilitate flourishing and mediate risks as students navigate emerging adulthood in a rapidly changing world.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/educsci14101050/s1. Table S1. Comparisons of study years in all the variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.-N.Y. and R.-H.L.; methodology, R.-H.L.; software, R.-H.L.; validation, M.-N.Y. and R.-H.L.; formal analysis, Y.-N.C. and R.-H.L.; investigation, M.-N.Y. and R.-H.L.; resources, M.-N.Y. and R.-H.L.; data curation, R.-H.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-N.C. and R.-H.L.; writing—review and editing, M.-N.Y. and R.-H.L.; visualization, R.-H.L.; supervision, M.-N.Y. and R.-H.L.; project administration, R.-H.L.; funding acquisition, R.-H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (CSMUH No: CS2-16057).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original data can be requested from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the participants who agreed to answer the questionnaire.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lee, K.H.; Ko, Y.; Kang, K.H.; Lee, H.K.; Kang, J.; Hur, Y. Mental health and coping strategies among medical students. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2012, 24, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Barbayannis, G.; Bandari, M.; Zheng, X.; Baquerizo, H.; Pecor, K.W.; Ming, X. Academic stress and mental well-being in college students: Correlations, affected groups, and COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 886344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mofatteh, M. Risk factors associated with stress, anxiety, and depression among university undergraduate students. AIMS Public. Health 2021, 8, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ibrahim, A.K.; Kelly, S.J.; Adams, C.E.; Glazebrook, C. A systematic review of studies of depression prevalence in university students. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2013, 47, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Statistics in Year 2022 for Causes of Death in Taiwan Citizens. Available online: https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOMHAOH/cp-4904-8883-107.html (accessed on 15 March 2024).
  6. Baik, C.; Larcombe, W.; Brooker, A. How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: The student perspective. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 674–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Joshanloo, M. Personality traits and psychological well-being as moderators of the relationship between stressors and negative affect: A daily diary study. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 15647–15657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chilver, M.R.; Champaigne-Klassen, E.; Schofield, P.R.; Williams, L.M.; Gatt, J.M. Predicting wellbeing over one year using sociodemographic factors, personality, health behaviours, cognition, and life events. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 5565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cobb, S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosom. Med. 1976, 38, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cohen, S.E.; Syme, S.I. Social Support and Health; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cutrona, C.E.; Russell, D.W. The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Adv. Pers. Relatsh. 1987, 1, 37–67. [Google Scholar]
  13. McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T., Jr. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 52, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. J. Pers. Disord. 1992, 6, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Swickert, R.; Rosentreter, C.; Hittner, J.; Mushrush, J. Extraversion, social support processes, and stress. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2002, 32, 877–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Graziano, W.G.; Tobin, R.M. Theoretical conceptualizations of agreeableness and antagonism. In Handbook of Antagonism; Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peabody, D.; De Raad, B. The substantive nature of psycholexical personality factors: A comparison across languages. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 983–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Revelle, W. Hans Eysenck: Personality theorist. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2016, 103, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T., Jr. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Caspi, A.; Roberts, B.W.; Shiner, R.L. Personality development: Stability and change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005, 56, 453–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. DeNeve, K.M.; Cooper, H. The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 124, 197–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Thoits, P.A. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2011, 52, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cohen, S. Social relationships and health. Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 676–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lakey, B.; Cohen, S. Social support theory and measurement. In Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists; Cohen, S., Underwood, L.G., Gottlieb, B.H., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 29–52. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen, Y.; Feeley, T.H. Social support, social strain, loneliness, and well-being among older adults: An analysis of the health and retirement study. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2014, 31, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Friedlander, L.J.; Reid, G.J.; Shupak, N.; Cribbie, R. Social support, self-esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2007, 48, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Azmitia, M.; Syed, M.; Radmacher, K. Finding your niche: Identity and emotional support in emerging adults' adjustment to the transition to college. J. Res. Adolesc. 2013, 23, 744–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nicpon, M.F.; Huser, L.; Blanks, E.H.; Sollenberger, S.; Befort, C.; Kurpius, S.E.R. The relationship of loneliness and social support with college freshmen’s academic performance and persistence. J. Coll. Stud. Retent. 2006, 8, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. DeBerard, M.S.; Spielmans, G.I.; Julka, D.L. Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. Coll. Stud. J. 2004, 38, 66–80. Available online: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A115034777/AONE?u=anon~fcaa4a66&sid=googleScholar&xid=5e804ab6 (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  30. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Can. Psychol. 2008, 49, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ryff, C.D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 1069–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ryff, C.D.; Singer, B.H. Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 2008, 9, 13–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, R.; Kao, C.; Wu, Y. Gender differences in psychological well-being: Tests of factorial invariance. Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 2577–2581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Matud, M.P.; López-Curbelo, M.; Fortes, D. Gender and psychological well-being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Steel, P.; Schmidt, J.; Shultz, J. Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 138–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Shiota, M.N.; Keltner, D.; John, O.P. Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. J. Posit. Psychol. 2006, 1, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barrera, M., Jr.; Sandler, I.N.; Ramsay, T.B. Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1981, 9, 435–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Y. PT-LDA: A latent variable model to predict personality traits of social network users. Neurocomputing 2016, 210, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bowling, N.A.; Beehr, T.A.; Swader, W.M. Giving and receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reciprocity. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 67, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jensen-Campbell, L.A.; Malcolm, K.T. The importance of conscientiousness in adolescent interpersonal relationships. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 33, 368–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, R.-H.; Chung, H.-Y. The development of a Chinese shortened version of the big five inventory (BFI). Psychol. Test. 2020, 67, 271–299. [Google Scholar]
  42. Benet-Martinez, V.; John, O.P. Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 729–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. John, O.P.; Donahue, E.M.; Kentle, R.L. The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54; Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California at Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  44. Luo, K.N. The Influences of Social Support, Personality Traits, and Personal Characteristics on Psychological Well-Being Among Older People. Master’s Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, R.-H. Reliability and validity of a shorter Chinese version for Ryff’s psychological well-being scale. Health Educ. J. 2014, 73, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, R.-H.; Yu, M.-N. Reliability, validity, and measurement invariance of the brief Chinese version of psychological well-being scale among college students. Chin. J. Guid. Couns. 2016, 46, 127–154. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  48. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Inglehart, R. Gender, aging, and subjective well-being. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 2002, 43, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Heller, D.; Watson, D.; Ilies, R. The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychol. Bull. 2004, 130, 574–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Anglim, J.; Horwood, S.; Smillie, L.D.; Marrero, R.J.; Wood, J.K. Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 146, 279–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Keyes, C.L.M.; Shmotkin, D.; Ryff, C.D. Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 82, 1007–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Education 14 01050 g001
Figure 1. Mediation analysis of social support between Big Five personality traits and psychological well-being. Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Mediation analysis of social support between Big Five personality traits and psychological well-being. Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Education 14 01050 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients.
EACNOPWBSS
Extraversion1.00
Agreeableness0.41 ***1.00
Conscientiousness0.30 ***0.34 ***1.00
Neuroticism−0.20 ***0.03−0.041.00
Openness0.32 ***0.26 ***0.19 ***0.011.00
Psychological
well-being		0.44 ***0.35 ***0.58 ***−0.14 ***0.35 ***1.00
Social support0.26 ***0.22 *0.18 ***−0.010.12 ***0.34 ***1.00
Mean10.2511.0210.909.8410.0878.7925.78
SD2.371.861.982.312.3111.364.02
Skewness−0.11−0.14−0.14−0.10−0.07−0.04−0.94
Kurtosis−0.110.120.43−0.10−0.10−0.050.48
Note: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. E denotes extraversion, A denotes agreeableness, C denotes conscientiousness, N denotes neuroticism, O denotes openness, and PWB denotes psychological well-being.
Table 2. Gender comparisons in all the variables.
Table 2. Gender comparisons in all the variables.
Mean (Standard Deviation)tpEffect Size (d)
Male (N = 278)Female (N = 570)
Extraversion10.18 (2.30)10.29 (2.41)0.610.540.05
Agreeableness11.03 (1.93)11.01 (1.83)−0.120.90<0.01
Conscientiousness10.70 (2.13)10.99 (1.90)1.97 *0.0490.15
Neuroticism9.54 (2.34)9.98 (2.29)2.61 *0.0090.19
Openness10.04 (2.36)10.09 (2.29)0.320.750.02
Psychological
well-being		78.12 (11.66)79.12 (11.21)1.20.230.09
Social support24.58 (4.39)26.36 (3.70)5.84 ***<0.0010.45
Note: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Mediation analysis using multiple regression.
Table 3. Mediation analysis using multiple regression.
PWB (Model 1)Social SupportPWB (Model 2)
B (SE B)βB (SE B)βB (SE B)β
Constant30.79
(2.59)		 18.49
(1.16)		 20.79
(2.87)
Gender−0.27
(0.62)		−0.01−1.71
(0.28)		−0.20 ***0.66
(0.62)		0.03
Extraversion0.94
(0.14)		0.20 ***0.32
(0.07)		0.19 ***0.77
(0.14)		0.16 ***
Agreeableness0.46
(0.18)		0.08 *0.26
(0.08)		0.12 **0.32
(0.18)		0.05
Conscientiousness2.63
(0.16)		0.46 ***0.13
(0.07)		0.072.56
(0.15)		0.45 ***
Neuroticism−0.42
(0.13)		−0.09 **0.01
(0.06)		0.004−0.43
(0.13)		−0.09 ***
Openness0.88
(0.13)		0.18 ***0.02
(0.06)		0.010.87
(0.13)		0.18 ***
Social Support 0.54
(0.08)		0.19 ***
R20.46 0.13 0.49
Adj R20.45 0.12 0.48
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Gender was coded 0 for females and 1 for males. Since the “study years” variable did not influence social support or psychological well-being, it was not included in the mediation analysis (Table S1).
Table 4. The indirect effect through the mediation of social support from the Big Five traits to psychological well-being.
Table 4. The indirect effect through the mediation of social support from the Big Five traits to psychological well-being.
Indirect EffectBootstrap SEBootstrap LLCIBootstrap ULCIStandardized Indirect Effect
Extraversion0.170.0470.0890.2720.036
Agreeableness0.140.0550.0380.2510.023
Conscientiousness0.070.043−0.0080.1640.013
Neuroticism0.0040.031−0.0580.0670.001
Openness0.010.034−0.0560.0800.002
Note: SE represents standard error. LLCI represents a lower limit of the confidence interval. ULCI represents an upper limit of the confidence interval. Gender was also in control in the analyses.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, M.-N.; Chang, Y.-N.; Li, R.-H. Relationships between Big Five Personality Traits and Psychological Well-Being: A Mediation Analysis of Social Support for University Students. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101050

AMA Style

Yu M-N, Chang Y-N, Li R-H. Relationships between Big Five Personality Traits and Psychological Well-Being: A Mediation Analysis of Social Support for University Students. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(10):1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Min-Ning, Yu-Ning Chang, and Ren-Hau Li. 2024. "Relationships between Big Five Personality Traits and Psychological Well-Being: A Mediation Analysis of Social Support for University Students" Education Sciences 14, no. 10: 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101050

APA Style

Yu, M. -N., Chang, Y. -N., & Li, R. -H. (2024). Relationships between Big Five Personality Traits and Psychological Well-Being: A Mediation Analysis of Social Support for University Students. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101050

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop