بهزیستی ذهنی: بالاتر از روان رنجوری و برونگرایی، مسائل انگیزه استقلال

Abstract This study tested whether general causality orientations explained unique variance in subjective well-being (SWB). That is, whether autonomy and impersonal orientations predicted SWB above trait dispositions. Hypotheses were tested by structural equation modeling (SEM) of data from a large sample (N = 1181). Results showed that a higher autonomy orientation predicted increased SWB above neuroticism and extraversion, whereas impersonal orientation was non-significant. Based on these results and the principles of integrative personality psychology, we argue that such distinct individual differences should be considered together in personality explanations of behavior.

1. Introduction Being happy and leading satisfying lives reflect important concerns of most people (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003). Happiness and satisfaction are studied as subjective well-being (SWB), which comprises life-satisfaction, positive affect, and lack of negative affect (Diener et al., 2003 and Schimmack, 2008). Examples of positive affect are feelings of energy and engagement, and examples of negative affect are distress and anxiety. A high degree of SWB impacts other aspects of life. Thus, high levels of positive affect foster sociability and physical health (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005), indicating that SWB is more than just a pleasant state of mind. But individuals are not equally likely to achieve high levels of SWB. Specifically, personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism are strong predictors of SWB (Costa and McCrae, 1980 and Steel et al., 2008). Personality is not limited to trait dispositions, but encompasses motivational aspects such as regulation of motivation (McAdams & Pals, 2006). Capturing such regulations, general causality orientations are defined as “relatively enduring aspects of people that characterize the source of initiation and regulation, and thus the degree of self-determination, of their behavior” (Deci & Ryan, 1985, p. 109) and they influence affect, cognition, and observed behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). We examined whether differences in causality orientations explained SWB above neuroticism and extraversion. Below, we first describe traits and causality orientations. Then we review studies that have examined relations between causality orientations and SWB. Finally, we outline the hypotheses for this study. Traits are described as de-contextualized, genetically determined, biologically based, and stable individual differences that account for the consistency in a person’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. Traits are organized according to five domains: Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Neuroticism reflects tendencies towards intensity and frequency of negative emotions and thoughts, whereas extraversion reflects tendencies towards intensity and frequency of positive emotions and thoughts (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Many studies have found that neuroticism and extraversion predict SWB (i.e., Steel et al., 2008). However, these two domains encompass more than stable positive and stable negative emotions. Exceeding negative affect, neuroticism includes tendencies towards self-critical thoughts (i.e., prolonged rumination), social vulnerability, as well as avoidance strategies (e.g., Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006); and beyond positive affect, extraversion includes tendencies towards social and status engagements (i.e., dominance), adventurous yearnings, as well as approach strategies. Since neuroticism and extraversion are the strongest predictors of SWB, we directed our focus towards these two traits (Steel et al., 2008). According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT), causality orientations are modes of general motivational regulation that develop as the products of social interaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT researchers have conceptualized three such modes: (1) Intrinsic motivation refers to autonomous self-regulation of behavior (i.e., determined by volition, interest, and enjoyment). Autonomy oriented individuals typically regulate themselves according to personalized goals, as well as their own standards and beliefs ( Deci & Ryan, 2000). Such individuals display higher levels of reflection (e.g., Thomsen, Tønnesvang, Schnieber, & Olesen, 2011), experience more well-being ( Deci & Ryan, 1985), and have a more secure sense of self-worth ( Hodgins, 2008 and Hodgins and Knee, 2002). (2) Extrinsic motivation refers to controlled regulation of behavior (i.e., determined by reward and punishment, by feelings of pride or shame, or by simple rationales). Control oriented individuals typically regulate themselves in accordance with or defiance against social norms, cultural values, and external demands ( Deci & Ryan, 2000). (3) Amotivation refers to poor or impersonal regulation of behavior (i.e., the experience of determination incompetence). Impersonally orientated individuals may experience events as out of their control and tend to feel unable to act in ways that could lead them towards desired outcomes ( Deci & Ryan, 1985). Instead, they often turn to satisfying immediate addictions or they become overwhelmed by depressive moods ( Deci & Ryan, 2000). They show lower levels of reflection (e.g., Thomsen et al., 2011), and display both helplessness and several forms of ill-being ( Deci and Ryan, 1985, Hodgins, 2008 and Hodgins and Knee, 2002). The relationship between causality orientations and SWB has been examined in several studies. Three correlational studies examined emotions and found that autonomy orientation was related to increased positive affect and reduced negative affect, and impersonal orientation was related to increased negative affect (Deci and Ryan, 1985, Luyckx et al., 2010 and Luyckx et al., 2007). Two other correlational studies examined well-being at work, one study found that autonomy orientation was related to increased job-satisfaction (Lam & Gurland, 2008), while another study found no relationship (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). Two experimental studies found that individuals high in autonomy orientation experienced reduced negative affect after performance feed-back (Bober and Grolnick, 1995 and Neighbors and Knee, 2003), though a third study found no effect (Knee & Zuckerman, 1996). A fourth study found that individuals high in autonomy orientation experienced increased positive affect and reduced negative affect when integrating negative events into their life-story (Weinstein, Deci, & Ryan, 2011). Finally, a fifth study, which controlled for neuroticism, found that individuals high in autonomy orientation experienced increased well-being after an expressive writing assignment (Weinstein & Hodgins, 2009). Most studies have found no relation between control orientation and SWB (Baard et al., 2004, Bober and Grolnick, 1995, Knee and Zuckerman, 1996, Lam and Gurland, 2008, Luyckx et al., 2007, Luyckx et al., 2010, Neighbors and Knee, 2003 and Weinstein and Hodgins, 2009; for exceptions see Deci and Ryan (1985) and Weinstein et al. (2011)). With respect to autonomy and impersonal orientation, the above studies suggest that autonomy orientation is positively related to SWB and that impersonal orientation is negatively related. Hence, we focused on autonomy and impersonal orientations as positive and negative predictors of SWB in the present study. The findings that personality traits and causality orientations are both related to SWB, raises the question whether causality orientations explain SWB above traits. Relevant to this question, two previous studies have shown that causality orientations and personality traits are conceptually independent (Olesen, 2011 and Olesen et al., 2010). Autonomy orientation was related to extraversion, agreeableness, and openness, but still emerged as an independent factor in both exploratory and confirmatory analyses. Impersonal orientation was strongly related to neuroticism (and related to reversed extraversion), but still emerged as an independent factor. Since these studies suggest that causality orientations are conceptually distinct from, but related to personality traits, and since causality orientations predict SWB, we expected that causality orientations would explain unique variance in SWB. Specifically, we hypothesized that autonomy orientation would predict SWB above neuroticism and extraversion (i.e., as indicated by a significant positive relationship). We tested this hypothesis in a structural regression model, in which latent factors for neuroticism, extraversion, and autonomy orientation predicted latent SWB. Similarly, we hypothesized that impersonal orientation would predict SWB above neuroticism and extraversion (i.e., as indicated by a significant negative relationship). We tested this hypothesis in a subsequent model, in which latent factors for neuroticism, extraversion, and impersonal orientation predicted latent SWB. Thus, if causality orientations maintained significant relationships with SWB in these analyses, it would confirm our hypotheses.

3. Results Means and standard deviations for neuroticism and extraversion, autonomy and impersonal orientations, affects, and satisfaction are reported in Table 1. In addition, zero-order correlations between these variables are reported in Table 2. Note that all variables were significantly correlated, except autonomy orientation and neuroticism, and autonomy and negative affect. Also, the impersonal orientation showed a large positive correlation with neuroticism and a large negative correlation with extraversion. Table 2. Zero-order correlations between the observed sum-scores for neuroticism and extraversion, autonomy and impersonal orientations, and SWB. (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) NEO-FFI 1. Neuroticism 1 2. Extraversion −.39⁎ 1 GCOS 3. Autonomy −.07 .35⁎ 1 4. Impersonal .56⁎ −.50⁎ −.18⁎ 1 PANAS 5. Positive affect −.29⁎ .42⁎ .35⁎ −.31⁎ 1 6. Negative affect .57⁎ −.22⁎ −.04 .37⁎ −.14⁎ 1 SWLS 7. Life-satisfaction −.37⁎ .29⁎ .22⁎ −.25⁎ .36⁎ −.34⁎ 1 Note: N = 1181. NEO-FFI, NEO five-factor inventory; GCOS, general causality orientations scale; SWB, subjective well-being; PANAS, positive affect and negative affect schedule; SWLS, satisfaction with life scale. ⁎ p < .001. Table options To test whether autonomy orientation predicted SWB above neuroticism and extraversion, we specified a SEM model with corresponding factors and regression coefficients (see Fig. 1). According to the relaxed criteria, the model provided a reasonable approximation of the data (S–B χ2(457) = 1981.76, p < .001; CFI = .93; NNFI/TLI = .93; RMSEA = .053 [.051; .056]; SRMR = .069). The absolute values even met the Hu and Bentler (1999) criteria. Most central to our hypothesis, a positive and significant regression for the autonomy factor indicated that autonomy orientation explained unique variance in SWB. That is, autonomy orientation predicted SWB above neuroticism, a negative predictor of SWB; and extraversion, a positive predictor (at the .05 level). To test whether the impersonal orientation predicted SWB above neuroticism and extraversion, we specified a second model with corresponding factors and regressions (see Fig. 2). The model did not provide a reasonable approximation of the data (S–B χ2(457) = 3926.75, p < .001; CFI = .90; NNFI/TLI = .89; RMSEA = .080 [.078; .083]; SRMR = .077). That is, the RMSEA almost satisfied relaxed criteria, and the SRMR met the Hu and Bentler (1999) criteria, but taken as a whole this model did not fit. Most central to our hypothesis, a non-significant regression for the impersonal factor indicated that impersonal orientation did not explain unique variance in SWB. That is, impersonal orientation did not predict SWB when controlling for neuroticism and extraversion. 2