کمک پنج عامل بزرگ شخصیت به حس اتحاد

How much of the variation among individuals with regard to sense of coherence (SOC) can be explained by some of the important and central factors in people’s lives, above what can be explained by the big five personality factors? Six hundred and ninety-eight randomly selected persons (419 women and 279 men, aged 30–65 years) responded to a questionnaire that measured SOC, the big five personality factors, demographic, socio-economic, private-life, and work-life variables. The five personality factors explained 38% (for women) and 40% (for men) of the variation in SOC and the demographic, socio-economic, private-life, and work-life variables explained an additional 17% (for women) and 12% (for men) of the variation in SOC. Thus, the five personality factors explain a substantial part of the variation in SOC but SOC captures additional aspects that cannot be captured by the five fundamental personality factors.

Sense of coherence (SOC) is a well-established concept, coined by Antonovsky and assumed to affect people’s health (Antonovsky, 1979 and Antonovsky, 1987). Antonovsky (1987, p. 19) defined SOC as “a global orientation that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring though dynamic feeling of confidence that: (1) the stimuli, deriving from one’s internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable and explicable; (2) the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli; (3) these demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement”. Thus, SOC comprises: (1) a cognitive component labelled comprehensibility, representing the extent of the belief that the problem faced is clear; (2) an instrumental component labelled manageability, representing the extent of the belief that the necessary resources to successfully cope with the problem are available; (3) a motivational component labelled meaningfulness, representing the extent of the belief that one wishes to cope (Antonovsky, 1987). Antonovsky, 1987 and Antonovsky, 1993 has stated that the three components are separately insufficient to assess SOC and that they should be considered together. SOC is assumed to be affected by life experiences (characterized by consistency, participation in shaping of outcomes, and to underload–overload balance) and life experiences are in turn assumed to be affected by generalized resistance resources (GRR) (Antonovsky, 1979). Antonovsky (1979, p. 99) suggested a broad definition of GRR as “any characteristic of the person, the group or the environment that can facilitate effective tension management”. Many of an individual’s GRR tend to stabilize around the age of 30 years, which leads to SOC also becoming relatively stable at that age (Antonovsky, 1987). Antonovsky (1987) has stated that SOC should be perceived as a relatively stable generalized orientation and not as a specific basic personality trait. The GRR previously studied in relation to SOC include various demographic variables, socio-economic variables, private-life variables and work-life variables (e.g. Cohen, 1997, Feldt et al., 2007, Pallant and Lae, 2002, Volanen et al., 2004, Volanen et al., 2006 and Von Bothmer and Fridlund, 2003). Results from these studies are partly inconsistent and it is premature to sketch a general tendency about the relations between the various GRR and SOC (cf. Volanen et al., 2004). However, it should be noted that the relation between some of the GRR and SOC can differ between men and women (e.g. Pallant and Lae, 2002, Volanen et al., 2004 and Von Bothmer and Fridlund, 2003). Another important category of GRR that has been related to SOC is personality (e.g. Cohen, 1997, Ebert et al., 2002, Feldt et al., 2007, Langius et al., 1992, Pallant and Lae, 2002, Ruiselova, 2000, Ruiselova, 2002 and Von Bothmer and Fridlund, 2003). Personality may be described by the big five model in terms of the following five fundamental personality factors: neuroticism alternatively labelled as emotional stability (e.g. at ease, calm), extraversion (e.g. sociable, outgoing), conscientiousness (e.g. self-disciplined, responsible), openness (e.g. imaginative, curious), and agreeableness (e.g. gentle, acquiescent) (e.g. Goldberg, 1990, John and Srivastava, 1999, McCrae and Costa, 1987 and McCrae and John, 1992). Theoretically there should be a positive relationship between SOC (as previously defined in terms of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness) and extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness. In brief: (a) extraverts´ social orientation should relate to all aspects of SOC; (b) emotionally stable persons´ use of effective coping should relate to the manageability aspect of SOC; (c) conscientious individuals are organized, structured, and plan their actions, which should relate to all three aspects of SOC; (d) open individuals are curious, imaginative and willing to explore, which should facilitate comprehension and feelings of meaningfulness; (e) agreeable persons handle interpersonal relations well, which should relate to the manageability component of SOC (cf. Feldt et al., 2007 and Ruiselova, 2000). Even though these suggested relations have often been supported by research, the most consistent verification across studies has been obtained for the relation between neuroticism (emotional stability) and SOC (e.g. Ebert et al., 2002, Feldt et al., 2007, Ruiselova, 2000 and Ruiselova, 2002). In sum, there are a number of factors that are assumed to contribute to a person’s SOC and many of the relations between these factors and SOC have been empirically studied. However, no study has investigated how much of the variation among individuals’ SOC can simultaneously be explained by some of the GRR that are important and central in people’s life. Furthermore, the question of how personality – as operationalized by the five personality factors – relate to SOC, has only been investigated in a few studies and without taking into account other variables that are also assumed to affect SOC (e.g. Ebert et al., 2002, Feldt et al., 2007, Ruiselova, 2000 and Ruiselova, 2002). In addition, the relations between the big five personality factors and SOC have only been studied in relatively small and restricted samples of subjects (e.g. Ebert et al., 2002, Feldt et al., 2007, Ruiselova, 2000 and Ruiselova, 2002). Thus, the aim of the present study was to estimate – for men and women, separately – the contribution of some of the important and central factors in people’s life to SOC, over and above the contribution made by personality. More precisely, the question was how much of the variation in SOC – in men and women, respectively – can be explained by a demographic variable (age), socio-economic variables (educational background and financial situation), private-life variables (marital status, home and family situation, and appreciation at home), and work-life variables (occupational status, working-life situation, and appreciation outside the home), above what can be explained by the big five personality factors.