The associations between well-being and Cloninger’s personality dimensions in a Korean community sample

Introduction

Personality, as defined by Cloninger (2004), is a dynamic psychobiological internal system, comprising temperament and character dimensions. It serves as the mechanism through which individuals shape and adapt to both internal and external changes. Temperament is considered to be a key element as it is connected to reacting to emotional stimuli, variations in the intensity of responses to emotional events, and the length of emotional reactions (Kim-Prieto et al., 2005; Nigg, 2006).

The four temperament dimensions are defined in terms of individual differences in behavioral learning mechanisms, explaining responses to novelty and signals of reward or relief of punishment (Novelty Seeking: NS), responses to signals of punishment or non-reward (Harm Avoidance: HA), responses to social and attachment rewards (Reward Dependence: RD), and the maintained response to previously rewarded behavior with intermittent reinforcement (Persistence: PS) (Cloninger, 1987; Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993).

In contrast, character refers to an individual’s ability to accept oneself, align behavior with personal goals, demonstrate empathy, assist others, and foster a sense of self-efficacy, autonomy, and responsibility (Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993). Character is composed of three dimensions: Self-Directedness (SD) (based on the concept of the self as an autonomous individual) enables people to participate in purposeful actions; Cooperativeness (CO) (based on the concept of the social self) enables people to be tolerant and flexible about choices regarding goals because thought and behavior are based on mutual interests with other persons; and Self-Transcendence (ST) (based on the concept of the self with values derived from awareness of being an integral aspect of a larger whole) enables people to intuitively recognize the values and meaning in all things.

In summary, character empowers intentional actions and the interpretation of our experiences, facilitating the self-regulation of emotional reactions and even our habits (Cloninger, 2004; Fahlgren et al., 2015; Moreira, Inman & Cloninger, 2021). Due to its distinction between nonintentional (i.e., temperament) and intentional (i.e., character) domains of personality, Cloninger’s biopsychosocial model is appropriate for assessment of both within-person learning processes and between-person differences (Cervone, 2005; Lee, Jeong & Chae, 2023)—that is, the way people differ from others but also the processes that motivate and regulate adaptive processes occurring within the individual.

Well-being encompasses the affective and non-affective dimensions of an individual’s subjective experience resulting from the personal assessment of various life dimensions. A high level of well-being should not be equated with a life devoid of challenges or solely characterized by positive events. Individuals can adapt to challenges, evaluating their lives in light of changing circumstances (Diener et al., 1999; Lent, 2004; McDowell, 2010). Well-being is often conceptualized as hedonic and/or eudaimonic well-being. Hedonic well-being indicates how and why individuals think and feel their lives in positive ways, and consists of a combination of negative and positive emotions and life satisfaction (Diener, 1984). Eudaimonic well-being encompasses the wider domains of personal growth, purposeful engagement and self development (Henderson & Knight, 2012; Ryff, Singer & Dienberg Love, 2004). The notions of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are separate yet interconnected facets of psychological functioning, and a comprehensive understanding of well-being necessitates both (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Keyes, Shmotkin & Ryff, 2002). Eudaimonia, often referred to as psychological well-being has been employed to describe well-being that emerges from a combination of character strengths encompassing aspects of SD (e.g., autonomy, life purpose, environmental mastery, and self-acceptance), CO (e.g., positive relations with others), and ST (e.g., personal growth and self-actualization) (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Schmutte & Ryff, 1997). That is, character dimensions aim at illustrating maturity and integration of personality.

There is some literature regarding the associations between well-being and character. First, in an Israeli population-based study, researchers (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011) used a person-centered approach with multidimensional personality profiles. They investigated how personality profiles influence physical, emotional, and social aspects of well-being. They concentrated on character traits assessed through the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) (Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993). SD was strongly linked to various aspects of well-being, including life satisfaction, social support, subjective health, positive affect, and negative affect. CO was associated especially with perceived social support, and ST predicted positive emotions when accounting for the influence of the other character dimensions. The research demonstrated that personality traits exert significant influence on the perception of well-being.

Second, Josefsson and his colleagues (Josefsson et al., 2011) also confirmed that SD was strongly associated with both affective (positive and negative affect) and non-affective (life satisfaction, perceived social support, or subjective health) well-being using a Finnish sample. They found that CO had a stronger association with perceived social support when accounting for the influence of the other character dimensions. In addition, they reported that ST showed both positive and negative association sometimes referred to as a “twin effect” when the influence of the other character dimensions was taken into account. This study suggests that character plays an important role in the perception of well-being depending on the socio-cultural atmosphere.

Third, Moreira et al. (2015) also found that SD exhibited a robust association with both affective and non-affective well-being using Portuguese adolescents. However, they found that social support and positive affect were not associated with CO and ST, respectively. Furthermore, these associations were repeatedly found in a subsequent study in Moreira, Inman & Cloninger (2023) while they did not measure subjective health and perceived social support in relation to well-being.

Fourth, Giakoumaki et al. (2016) reported that groups with higher scores of SD (SCT, SCt, ScT, Sct) character profiles showed higher scores of positive affect and lower scores of negative affect than those in groups with lower scores of SD (sct, scT, sCt, sCT) profiles. They used a sample of 480 Greek community members with a higher education level. That is, Self-directedness was strongly associated with both positive and negative affect. They did not observe the non-affective aspect of well-being.

Summing up, in terms of non-linear associations, life satisfaction has a positive association with SD but not with CO or ST. Perceived social support has also a positive association with SD and CO but not with ST. Subjective health has a positive association with SD but not with CO and ST. The positive association between positive affect and three character dimensions (SD, CO, ST) and negative association between negative affect and three character dimensions were repeatedly reported. However, inconsistencies were reported regarding positive association between negative affect and ST in some previous studies (Josefsson et al., 2011; Moreira, Inman & Cloninger, 2023).

While there are consistent but somewhat mixed associations between well-being and character, the present study seeks to explain this in light of socio-cultural aspects. In addition, cultural influences, along with factors such as social norms and the perceived importance of individual well-being, are said to impact perceptions of well-being (Diener, Oishi & Lucas, 2003). Given that well-being may be evaluated with different criteria in different cultures (Heine et al., 2002), it is crucial to consider such variability when evaluating the universal relationship between personality and well-being. Therefore, the current study aims to examine if these cross-cultural variations impact the association between personality and well-being.

For this purpose, we assess how specific combinations of character traits relate to both affective and non-affective dimensions of well-being in a population-based Korean sample, similar to the previous studies (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Giakoumaki et al., 2016; Josefsson et al., 2011; Moreira et al., 2015; Moreira, Inman & Cloninger, 2023). That is, non-linear associations, a person-centered approach to personality is a key component in our study. An approach that conceptualizes personality as a blend of multiple components, rather than individual dimensions examined in isolation, allows for a comprehensive understanding of processes within individuals. It goes beyond merely highlighting differences between individuals, considering the complex biopsychosocial reality they encounter (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997). We also add analysis of linear association to non-linear methods to address the complexity of developmental processes. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses: (1) SD will have a strong association with both affective and non-affective aspects of well-being, (2) CO will provide additional insight into aspects of social support, and (3) ST will be associated with affective aspects of well-being.

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate well-being using TCI in the East Asian cultural context. Considering Eastern societies as collectivist and Western societies as individualist cultural contexts (Barkema et al., 2015), we aimed to explore whether the associations between personality and well-being would appear similarly in Western and Eastern cultural context. Through this, we intend to examine how the sociocultural norms that are implicitly imposed on us through cultural differences could potentially influence our perspective on well-being.

Methods

Results

Differences of well-being score of character profiles

We examined the well-being measures (SRH, SS, SWLS, PA, and NA) for eight groups based on the character profiles (SCT, SCt, ScT, Sct, sCT, sCt, scT, and sct). The comparison of estimated well-being measures with raw scores was presented in Table 4.

Table 4:

Estimated well-being measures of character profile groups.

	SCT	SCt	ScT	Sct	sCT	sCt	scT	sct	Statistics
n	71	95	26	58	42	70	74	91
SRH	3.99 ± 0.11	3.91 ± 0.09	4.00 ± 0.18	3.64 ± 0.12	3.31 ± 0.14	3.19 ± 0.11	3.11 ± 0.11	3.20 ± 0.10	F = 10.618, p < 0.001 (SCT>sCT, sCt, scT and sct, SCt>sCt, scT and sct, ScT>sCt, scT and sct, Sct>scT)
SS	104.04 ± 1.57	101.14 ± 1.35	94.84 ± 2.59	94.14 ± 1.74	100.96 ± 2.04	98.69 ± 1.58	89.97 ± 1.54	87.73 ± 1.38	F = 13.906, p < 0.001 (SCT>Sct, scT and sct, SCt>Sct, scT and sct, sCT>scT and sct, sCt>scT and sct)
SWLS	25.59 ± 0.64	23.90 ± 0.55	24.19 ± 1.06	21.92 ± 0.71	19.33 ± 0.83	18.77 ± 0.64	20.11 ± 0.63	16.53 ± 0.56	F = 20.22, p < 0.001 (SCT>Sct, sCT, sCt, scT, and sct, SCt>sCT, sCt, scT and sct, Sct>sCT, sCt, scT and sct, Sct>sCt, and sct)
PA	33.00 ± 0.82	30.00 ± 0.71	31.83 ± 1.36	27.01 ± 0.91	26.00 ± 1.07	25.17 ± 0.83	27.06 ± 0.81	22.96 ± 0.73	F = 14.276, p < 0.001 (SCT>Sct, sCT, sCt, scT and sct, SCt>sCt and sct, ScT>sCT and sct, Sct>sct, scT>sct)
NA	18.10 ± 0.89	16.00 ± 0.77	20.88 ± 1.48	16.09 ± 0.99	23.61 ± 1.16	21.51 ± 0.9	25.36 ± 0.87	20.38 ± 0.79	F = 11.177, p < 0.001 (SCT<sCT and scT, SCt<sCT, sCt, scT and sct, Sct<sCT, sCt, scT and sct, sCt<scT, scT<sct)

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18379/table-4

Notes:

SRH

Self-Rated Health

SS

Social Support

SWLS

Satisfaction with Life Scale

PA

Positive Affect

NA

Negative Affect

SCT (creative), SCt (organized), ScT (fanatical), Sct (autocratic), sCT (moody), sCt (dependent), scT (disorganized), sct (downcast)

The standardized scores of non-affective well-being (SRHz, SSz, and SWLSz) of each character group were presented in Fig. 1. The composite well-being index of each character group was in decreasing order as illustrated in Fig. 2A. The top sixth and the bottom sixth of the distribution of the CHI were selected and labeled as “best health” and “worst ill-health” to reveal the adaptive functions. The proportion of extremely good health and extremely poor health in each character group were shown in Fig. 2B. The standardized score of affective well-being (PAz and NAz) of each character group was presented in Fig. 3.

Discussion

The study’s findings closely align with previous research (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Giakoumaki et al., 2016; Josefsson et al., 2011; Moreira et al., 2015; Moreira, Inman & Cloninger, 2023) in various cultural societies regarding the association between character dimensions and multiple aspects of well-being. The results support the hypothesis that character dimensions are distinctively associated with both affective (e.g., positive and negative affect) and non-affective (life satisfaction, subjective health, social support) dimensions of well-being. That is, each character trait independently contributes to well-being, contingent on the influence of other character traits, specifically, through trait by trait interactions.

In the light of the non-affective aspect of well-being, SD had (linear) positive correlations with subjective health, social support and life satisfaction and it had a non-linear positive association with life satisfaction and subjective health in terms of non-affective aspect of well-being. In other words, life satisfaction and subjective health showed positive association with SD. This suggests that considering the interactions among character traits, SD has a clear and consistent impact on life satisfaction and subjective health, which is consistent with previous studies (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Giakoumaki et al., 2016; Josefsson et al., 2011; Moreira et al., 2015; Moreira, Inman & Cloninger, 2023). SD measures a person’s being responsible, hopeful, purposeful, and resourceful (Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993) and high Self-directedness reported to play a pivotal role in well-being, happiness, or adaptation. Particularly, it was confirmed that the assumption prioritizing SD for psychopathology-free status or well-being (i.e., life satisfaction and subjective health) was repeatedly validated in the present study.

Second, CO had (linear) positive correlations with subjective health, social support and life satisfaction and it had a non-linear positive association with social support in the light of the non-affective aspect of well-being. In other words, social support showed positive association with CO.

That is, social support was strongly associated with higher CO, not with higher SD in non-linear association, which is inconsistent with other previous studies (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Josefsson et al., 2011). Particularly, our results showed that considering the interactions among character traits, CO has a clear and consistent impact on the perception of social support, but SD has not. Cooperativeness measure a person’s empathy, helpfulness and social tolerance (Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993) and high CO is considered to be associated with social support or acceptance. It implies that CO not SD exerts an important role of social support in Korea society.

In Korean society, individual decision-making and autonomy should be harmonized with those around you and can often be constrained by the rules and expectations of others. Therefore, the value of CO might take precedence over SD, especially when there is a conflict between the values of individuals and those of others. That is, persons focusing individual goals and purpose might got less experience of social support/acceptance from those around you. Aa saying of “a cornered stone meets the mason’s chisel” in Korea could be translated that individuals are advised to act cautiously or maintain a low profile as conspicuous behaviors within a group may be susceptible to criticism or control from the surrounding environment. Collectivism refers to a social, economic, or political ideology that emphasizes the importance of collective action, cooperation, and shared resources over individual interests. It is often contrasted with individualism, which places greater emphasis on independence, personal autonomy, and self-interest. It remains to be explored in subsequent studies whether this reflects the characteristics of East Asian collectivism.

Third, ST did not have (linear) correlations with subjective health and social support but did have a weak correlation with life satisfaction and had no non-linear association with aspect of non-affective aspect of well-being. In other words, ST did not show any meaningful association with non-affective aspect of well-being, which is consistent with other previous studies (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Josefsson et al., 2011; Moreira et al., 2015). Meanwhile, in the light of the affective aspect of well-being, it was reported that ST had both positive associations with positive and negative affect in linear and non-linear relationship. This is different from association between SD/CO and affect, which showed the positive relationship with positive affect and negative association with negative affect.

This so-called “twin effect” (Josefsson et al., 2011) is consistent with Finnish results in which ST tends to report more positive and negative affect. In all the contrasts when the other character traits are held constant, Self-transcendence increases both negative and positive affect. Not all the differences are significant but the trend is clear. Self-transcendence enhances awareness of connections beyond the individual self with other people and the world as a whole (Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993). High ST is often associated with exhibiting adaptive qualities when confronted with unavoidable suffering such as diseases and death. However, they are also subject to criticism for harboring naïve and magical thinking and subjective idealism that hinder the acquisition of material wealth and worldly power. Therefore, it is possible to interpret situations (i.e., global environmental crisis) more strongly positively (i.e., such is life and that’s perfectly alright) or negatively (i.e., it’s doomed and we shall die), in a highly subjective manner, causing more positive or negative emotions. Such tendencies can be understood as emerging from the findings of this study and similar interpretations have been corroborated in previous research (Josefsson et al., 2011). Fourth, female exhibited lower SD and higher ST compared to men in this study. Generally, SD and ST show no significant gender differences while CO tends to be higher in female among adults (Gutierrez-Zotes et al., 2015). However, the findings in Japan (Suzuki et al., 2009; Takeuchi et al., 2011) which is similar to our study, showed that female had lower SD and higher ST. South Korea and Japan were reported to share similar Confucian traditions, economic growth, and relatively low gender equality indices (e.g., female empowerment and labor participation) (Park, 2024; Tekin, 2023). These socio-cultural similarities may result in the lower SD and higher ST of female both in South Korea and Japan. However, China, a communist-socialist country with Confucian tradition demonstrated somewhat inconsistent results with South Korea and Japan: female reported higher SD and lower ST (Chen, Lu & Kitamura, 2013; Wang et al., 2019). It might reflect higher female empowerment and labor participation compared to South Korea and Japan. This interpretation related to cultural backgrounds is speculative and thus requires further research for validation regarding gender differences related to TCI research.

Fifth, universality of character profiles despite different versions of the TCI across various cultures was revealed in the current study. The most common profiles of SCt (organized, 18.0%) and the sct (depressive, 17.3%) in Korean adult sample were similarly (χ² =4.82, p= .57) prevalent in Israel (16.8% and 15.7%), Finland (18.8% and 17.0%), and Greece (17.0% and 15.2%) (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Giakoumaki et al., 2016; Josefsson et al., 2011) using adult samples. The SCT (13.5%) profile with best health was similarly (χ² =6.56, p =.09) represented in Israel (16.0%), Finland (17.8%), and Greece (15.2%) in Greece.

Sixth, the ScT (fanatical or paranoid) and sCT (moody) profiles had the lowest prevalence, at 4.9% and 8.0%, respectively. In similar studies conducted in Finland, Portugal, and Greece (Giakoumaki et al., 2016; Josefsson et al., 2011; Moreira et al., 2015), the fanatical (ScT) profile was found to be the least frequent profile although this profile was not observed in Israel (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011). On the other hand, the moody (sCT) profile, one of maladaptive character profiles was the most common in this study, which was only observed in the Israel (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011). Therefore, future studies should test the hypothesis that the moody character profile might have culture-bound attributes specific to Asian regions. In addition, a high female proportion of the moody profile was found in the current study, which is also observed in the Finn data (Josefsson et al., 2011). The gender ratio should be included in the future analyses.

The current and past research (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Giakoumaki et al., 2016; Josefsson et al., 2011; Moreira et al., 2015; Moreira, Inman & Cloninger, 2023) suggests that well-being is a multidimensional concept that may exhibit significant variations throughout its development. This also implies that each facet of character contributes uniquely to well-being, with its impact strongly influenced by interactions with other character dimensions. The effects of character on well-being are highly non-linear, contingent on specific configurations whose influences vary across distinct aspects of well-being.

In conclusion, the present study shows generally universal but unique association between dimension of character and well-being characteristics. While SD is an important factor in the expression of general well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, subjective health), CO is emerged as an exceeding status over SD in terms of social support. In addition, the twin effect of ST should also be highlighted. However, there is no study to investigate the association between TCI character dimensions and well-being directly using East-Asian sample (Mitsui et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2019). Therefore, future studies to explore these associations between character and well-being should follow in order to elucidate whether this finding were universal characteristics in East-Asia.

One limitation in our attempt to replicate the study is that different assessment instruments, such as those measuring social support and subjective health, were utilized in other countries. Nevertheless, we employed measures that were closely comparable in various languages, as evidenced by the consistency of most findings in previous research. In the same context, we have very similar findings regarding TCI and its relationship with other measures despite different version of TCI. These results indicate robustness of the biopsychosocial model underlying the TCI as well as other well-being measures. Another limitation in both this study and the original ones is that the observations rely on a cross-sectional sample, making it challenging to establish causation. Therefore, the connection between personality and perception of well-being should be replicated in a longitudinal approach which might give the results more credibility. In addition, future studies should address the gender difference of character dimensions or profiles for shedding light on the cross-cultural perspectives. Lastly, the sample utilized for this study was drawn from college students. Thus, it is necessary to examine a broader range of age groups, such as adolescents or adults in their 30s or older in order to enhance the generalization of the study.

This study utilizes diverse character profiles to comprehensively describe individual dimensions while acknowledging trait interactions. Employing a person-centered approach, the research provides nuanced insights into human development. Results reveal that non-linear interactions effectively explain well-being, emphasizing the significance of incorporating both linear and non-linear assumptions in models. The findings underscore the impact of each TCI-measured character dimension on affective and non-affective well-being through sociocultural interactions. Future well-being studies should assess multidimensional aspects and their correlation with personality traits across diverse cultural contexts.

Supplemental Information