The Big Five, Type A Personality, and Psychological Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to investigate how the Big Five and Type A personality variables relate to psychological well-being. Additionally, the study examined the effect of age on psychological well-being. Various social media sites such as Facebook were used to recruit 286 Participants (209 males, 74 females) from the community population. The sample was broad with an age range 18-85. Participants completed a demographic measure as well as the Ryff’s Psychological Well-being scale, the International Personality Item Pool- Big Five Scale, the Framingham Type A Behavior Scale and a Social Desirability Scale. Pearson’s product correlations and a hierarchical multiple regression were performed to determine the ability of the personality variables and Type A personality scores to predict psychological well-being. The results indicated that the personality variables (the Big Five) predicted psychological well-being but that the addition of variance from the Type A personality variable added insignificantly to the prediction. Psychological well-being was negatively correlated with age. Further studies on personality and psychological wellbeing are needed, including the role of mindfulness in contributing along with personality variables to psychological well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".