It''s Not Just Who You Are, It''s How You Act Influences of Global and Contextualized Personality Traits on Relationship Satisfaction

Contextualized Personality and Relationships Running head: CONTEXTUALIZED PERSONALITY AND RELATIONSHIPS It's Not Just Who You Are, It's How You Act: Influences of Global and Contextualized Personality Traits on Relationship Satisfaction Richard B Slatcher and Simine Vazire The University of Texas at Austin Address correspondence to: Richard B Slatcher Department of Psychology #A8000 108 E Dean Keaton Street University of Texas Austin, TX 78712 Telephone: (512) 471-6852; FAX (512) 471-5935 Email: slatcher@mail.utexas.edu Contextualized Personality and Relationships Abstract How does personality exert its influence on relationship satisfaction? Previous research has shown, for example, that Agreeableness is associated with greater relationship satisfaction, yet little is known about the mechanisms through which personality affects satisfaction We propose that global personality traits (e.g., being agreeable) exert their influence on relationships through contextualized manifestations of personality (e.g., acting agreeable towards one's partner) In the Study we collected global (being) and contextualized (acting) self reports of personality and relationship satisfaction from a large, diverse sample of adults in committed romantic relationships In Study we collected global self reports of personality (being) and relationship satisfaction from undergraduate dating couples We also collected couples’ Instant Messages (IMs) to each other for seven days Independent observers read the IMs and rated each couple member’s personality in the context of their relationship (acting) The results showed that contextualized personality (acting) predicted relationship satisfaction above and beyond global personality (being), and that acting mediated the relationship between being and relationship satisfaction Our findings point to the importance of examining both global and contextualized personality traits, and demonstrate how personality influences major life outcomes Contextualized Personality and Relationships It's Not Just Who You Are, It's How You Act: Influences of Global and Contextualized Personality Traits on Relationship Satisfaction Amy and Karen are discussing Amy’s relationship with her boyfriend, David “I don’t understand why you’re with him,” Karen tells Amy, “he’s such a jerk.” “I know what you mean,” replies Amy, “but he’s so different when we’re alone.” Do people really behave differently in romantic relationships than they in other contexts? If so, what predicts the quality of their relationship—how they are in general, or how they are with their partner? Researchers have long been interested in the effects of personality on romantic relationships, with roughly 500 studies dating back to the 1930s published on this topic (Cooper & Sheldon, 2002) The findings from these studies have demonstrated that certain stable personality factors are associated with relationship quality (Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Terman & Buttenwieser, 1935) However, the associations found between personality and relationship quality often have been modest and inconsistent One potential explanation for the inconsistent findings in these studies is that the measures of personality employed have been too general Researchers largely have ignored relationship-specific manifestations of personality (i.e., what a person’s personality is like within the context of a particular relationship), which may be important in predicting relationship functioning While there is no doubt that enduring, stable personality traits influence how people approach and view their relationships, examining the role of contextualized personality is vitally important as well Indeed, a number of scholars in our field have called for a more contextualized approach to the study of personality and relationships (e.g., Reis, Capobianco & Tsai, 2002; McAdams, 1995) With this article, we extend previous research on the role of personality dispositions by examining the role of both global and contextualized personality traits in Contextualized Personality and Relationships romantic relationships Is David really a nice guy when he is with Amy, even though he is a jerk to everyone else? And if so, is the quality of their relationship better predicted by his positive behavior towards her or by his global, negative personality attributes? The vast majority of relationship-personality studies have examined the association between global personality traits and relationship satisfaction, focusing particularly on the traits of the Five Factor Model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1999)—Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience In the context of relationships, Neuroticism has been the most extensively researched of these traits (Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999; Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Terman & Buttenwieser, 1935) Those who are high in Neuroticism—anxious, irritable, and emotionally unstable—typically report being less satisfied in their romantic relationships than those who are low in Neuroticism Much less is known about how the other four factors of the FFM relate to romantic relationship quality, but preliminary findings indicate that Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience are all positively related to relationship satisfaction (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000) Global measures of personality are predictive of satisfaction not only in romantic relationships but in other domains of life as well For example, the more agreeable people are on average, the more satisfied they will be across relationships—with family, friends, and so on (Branje, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2004; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; JensenCampbell, Gleason, Adams, & Malcolm, 2003) Conversely, the more neurotic people are, the less satisfied they likely will be with the various relationships in their lives (Berry, Willingham, & Thayer, 2000; Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Eaker & Walters, 2002) But while global measures Contextualized Personality and Relationships of personality can tell us a little bit about how a person is in many types of relationships, they fail to tell us a great deal about how a person is any one particular relationship For example, Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) showed that general interpersonal traits—including Extraversion, sociability, and shyness—predict general patterns of social behavior but are only weakly associated with the qualities of specific relationships Further, trust for a particular partner, but not generalized trust, predicts commitment and well-being in that relationship (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999) By supplementing global measures of personality with contextualized ones, we may be able to better disentangle the role of personality in relationships The distinction between global and contextualized measures has been widely used in life satisfaction research For example, Heller, Watson, and Ilies (2004) have shown that global life satisfaction is distinct from (though related to) context-specific satisfaction, such as work or relationship satisfaction It is widely accepted that satisfaction measures should be obtained at the level of analysis of interest to the researcher For example, if researchers are interested in predicting relationship outcomes, they should measure relationship-specific satisfaction The same logic applies to measures of personality In this article, we examine whether contextualized measures of personality in the domain of romantic relationships can predict relationship functioning better than global measures of personality Many studies have demonstrated the benefit of contextualized measures of personality For example, in one study (Hunthausen, Truxillo, Bauer, & Hammer, 2003), customer service supervisors at a large U.S airline completed a modified version of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) in which they were asked what their personalities were like “at work”; additionally they completed the standard global NEO-FFI Participants’ selfratings of Extraversion and Openness on the at-work measure predicted job performance, while Contextualized Personality and Relationships the global FFM measure did not In another study (Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995), college students’ self-ratings of Conscientiousness “at school” predicted students’ GPAs better than global measures of Conscientiousness Similarly, knowing what people’s personalities are like in the context of their romantic relationship should predict relationship quality better than global measures of personality For example, knowing how agreeable a person is with his or her romantic partner should provide unique predictive power about the quality of that person’s relationship above and beyond how agreeable that person is in general In describing how people are in general and how they are in the context of their romantic relationships, we borrow the terms being and acting from Fleeson’s density distribution model of personality (Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson, Malanos, & Achille, 2002) Individual differences in personality are typically thought of as global traits, such as Agreeableness This generalized Agreeableness may be conceptualized as being agreeable Fleeson’s model suggests that there are also variations within persons across situations in levels of individual traits In this model, the extent to which a person’s personality trait is manifested in a particular relationship may be conceptualized as acting (e.g., acting agreeable) For example, Amy’s boyfriend David may be disagreeable at the global level—across time, situations and relationships Although this is a good predictor of relationship satisfaction (Watson et al., 2000), we would predict that David’s level of Agreeableness in his romantic relationship (i.e., how agreeable he acts with Amy) is an even better predictor of relationship satisfaction Naturally, contextualized personality tendencies are not completely independent from global dispositions Global dispositions are likely to exert an influence on how personality is expressed in any given context As illustrated in Figure 1, we view personality as a hierarchically organized system with global dispositions at the top influencing contextualized personality Contextualized Personality and Relationships tendencies below In our example, David’s Agreeableness when he is with Amy (moderate) is probably influenced in part by his overall level of Agreeableness (low) as well as contextualized factors (e.g., Amy’s kindness toward him) If this hierarchical organization of personality is true, we would expect contextualized personality to mediate the relationship between global personality and contextualized outcomes (shown at the bottom of Figure 1) This article will examine the dynamic relationship between global and contextualized levels of personality and relationship satisfaction Aims of our Research The primary aim of this article is to examine the role of global and contextualized personality in the association between the FFM personality traits and romantic relationship satisfaction We explore the extent to which relationship satisfaction is associated with personality traits in the specific context of a romantic relationship (acting) in comparison with global, decontextualized traits (being) We also investigate whether acting may mediate the association between being and relationship satisfaction, as suggested by a hierarchical organization of personality traits from global to context-specific As we have described, previous research has focused almost exclusively on the role of global personality traits in romantic relationships Thus, the major contribution of our work is to examine whether contextualized personality predicts relationship outcomes better than does global personality However, our research also extends previous research in other important aspects Research on the role of personality in romantic relationships has traditionally relied on self reports from small samples of dating college students We improve on this design in numerous ways First, we examine a large, diverse sample drawn from a non-college-student population (Study 1) Second, we include measures of personality and satisfaction from both Contextualized Personality and Relationships partners in each couple (Study 2) Finally, we conduct a controlled study that allows us to obtain an objective, naturalistic measure of what people’s personalities are like in the specific context of their romantic relationships (Study 2) Question 1: How strongly is acting in relationships associated with relationship satisfaction? A long-standing belief in psychology is that a person’s attitudes and behaviors are a function of both pre-existing attributes and situational context This process, first described by Lewin (1936) in his characterization of behavior as being a function of the person and the environment, and later articulated by contemporary theorists such as Mischel and Shoda (1995), indicates that personality measures that take into account the context of a person’s behavior (acting) will yield stronger associations with outcome measures than will global measures of personality (being) We thus expected that the established association of personality with self and partner relationship satisfaction (Donnellan et al 2004; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Watson et al., 2000) would be strengthened by taking into account relationship-specific personality traits (acting) It is possible that contextualized measures will have greater predictive validity than global measures simply because they are narrower measures of personality, and not because they provide any unique insight into the domain of the relationship To rule out this possibility, we will examine whether romantic relationship-context measures (acting in romantic relationships) predict romantic relationship satisfaction better than other contextualized measures (e.g., acting at work, acting with friends, etc.) If acting in romantic relationships uniquely predicts romantic relationship satisfaction, this would suggest that this contextualized measure of personality is tapping into how people behave with their relationship partners, and that this behavior affects the quality of the relationship Contextualized Personality and Relationships Previous research has found that, among the FFM personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 1999), Agreeableness and Neuroticism are particularly strong predictors of relationship satisfaction (Botwin et al., 1997; Donnellan et al., 2004; McCrae, Stone, Fagan, & Costa, 1998; Watson et al., 2000) Based on these findings, we predicted that acting agreeable would be positively associated with self and partner satisfaction and that acting neurotic would be negatively associated with self and partner satisfaction We further predicted that acting would be more strongly associated with relationship satisfaction than being for these traits Due to the lack of conclusive findings in previous research, no specific predictions were made for the other FFM traits Question 2: Does acting mediate the relationship between being and relationship satisfaction? One of the advantages of our approach is that it allows for the examination of potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between personality traits and relationship satisfaction Specifically, we propose that global personality traits will affect relationship satisfaction to the extent that these global traits are manifested in relationship-specific traits As with other contextual models (e.g., Bradbury and Fincham, 1988), ours incorporates both proximal and distal factors into a common framework In our model, acting (proximal factor) is a mechanism through which being (distal factor) influences relationship satisfaction We thus predicted that acting would mediate the relationship between being and relationship satisfaction, specifically for Agreeableness and Neuroticism Design of the Studies We examined these two research questions using a multi-method approach in two studies The purpose of Study was to test our research questions in a large sample of American adults in committed dating relationships Participants from all over the U.S were directed to a website Contextualized Personality and Relationships 10 where they completed a traditional FFM measure of personality (being), a modified measure of the FFM (acting) in which participants indicated how they act in the context of their romantic relationships, and a measure of satisfaction in their romantic relationships We also asked participants to report how they act in various other contexts (with coworkers, friends, and family) to rule out the possibility that simply any contextualized measure would predict romantic relationship satisfaction better than a global measure The purpose of Study was to provide a more direct test of our research questions in a controlled setting Drawing on a sample of undergraduate dating couples, we obtained self ratings of being using a global FFM measure, and both self and partner ratings of relationship satisfaction, allowing us to examine the effects of personality on both one’s own and one’s partner’s level of satisfaction We then obtained objective measures of acting by directly observing how people act with their relationship partners To this, we recruited couples who use Instant Messaging (IM) as a daily form of communication With their consent, we recorded all of their IM conversations over seven days An important aspect of IM is that it allows researchers to subtly and unobtrusively study close relationships in their natural settings This new technology complements existing naturalistic methods such as daily diaries (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Drigotas, Whitney, & Rusbult, 1995; Reis, 1994) in which couples’ interaction patterns may be studied on a day-to-day basis IM conversations can serve as windows into realworld dyadic interactions and allow researchers to examine links between behavioral manifestations of personality and relationship functioning What is the best way to obtain an objective measure of acting in the context of a romantic relationship? One way is to expose independent observers to couple members’ behaviors exclusively in the context of their relationship, and ask them to rate how the couple members act Contextualized Personality and Relationships 26 of relationships, future studies may be able to shed more light on the role of context-specificity in personality and relationship research These findings also have important implications for the methods used in personality research Our results suggest that researchers interested in the role of personality in specific domains of life (e.g., relationships, work, school) should include both global and contextualized measures of personality and compare their predictive validity Not only contextualized measures hold great promise for predicting contextualized outcomes, but the dynamics between global and specific levels of personality can illuminate the mechanisms underlying the influence of personality on life outcomes Personality and Relationships Revisited Returning to our example of Amy and David, we now know that David may indeed be more agreeable when he is with Amy than he is in general Furthermore, both David and Amy’s satisfaction in their relationship will be better predicted by how David acts in the relationship than by how David is in general Of course, David’s global personality probably still plays an important role in his and Amy’s relationship satisfaction, but much of this effect can be explained by overt manifestations of David’s personality in his behavior towards Amy Some might argue that the contextualized approach we have taken is counter to decades of personality research examining the effects of people’s stable underlying predispositions However, our conceptualization of global and contextualized personality traits as part of a single hierarchy is consistent with both traditional trait approaches and recent dynamic systems models Only by first describing and understanding how a person is in general can one then describe how a person is in different situations and across different relationships Furthermore, global dispositions have a strong influence on contextualized traits and behaviors The domain of Contextualized Personality and Relationships 27 romantic relationships is an excellent example of how global and contextualized personality traits interact to influence real-world outcomes Contextualized Personality and Relationships 28 Footnotes Analyses were also conducted separately for men and women No significant gender differences were found Thus, all analyses are collapsed across gender For the purposes of another study, one member from each couple wrote about either their relationship or a neutral control topic during the days between monitoring sessions in order to identify subtle social mediators of the effects of emotional writing Experimental condition was unrelated to any of the results presented here Results with respect to the writing assignments will be published elsewhere Contextualized Personality and Relationships 29 References Asendorpf, J B., & Wilpers, S (1998) Personality effects on social relationships Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531-1544 Baron, R M., & Kenny, D A (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182 Berry, D S., Willingham, J K., Thayer, C A (2000) Affect and personality as predictors of conflict and closeness in young adults' friendships Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 84-107 Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E (2003) Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616 Botwin, M D., Buss, D M., & Shackelford, T K (1997) Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction Journal of Personality, 65, 107-136 Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S (1999) Personality and marital adjustment: Utility of the five-factor model of personality Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 651-660 Bradbury, T N., & Fincham, F D (1988) Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 713-721 Branje, S J T., van Lieshout, C F M., & van Aken, M A G (2004) Relations between Big Five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents' families Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 615-628 Caughlin, J P., Huston, T L., & Houts, R M (2000) How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction Journal of Contextualized Personality and Relationships 30 Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326-336 Cheng, H & Furnham, A (2002) Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence as predictors of happiness and loneliness Journal of Adolescence, 25, 327-339 Cooper, M L., & Sheldon, M S (2002) Seventy years of research on personality and close relationships: Substantive and methodological trends over time Journal of Personality, 70, 783-812 Costa, P T., Jr., & McCrae, R R (1992) NEO PI-R: Professional manual Revised NEO Personality Inventory NEO-PR-R and NEO Five-Factor Inventory NEO-RRI Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Donnellan, M B., Conger, R D., & Bryant, C M (2004) The Big Five and enduring marriages Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481-504 Drigotas, S M., Whitney, G A., & Rusbult, C E (1995) On the peculiarities of loyalty: A diary study of responses to dissatisfaction in everyday life Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 596-609 Eaker, D G., & Walters, L H (2002) Adolescent satisfaction in family rituals and psychosocial development: A developmental systems theory perspective Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 406-414 Eysenck, H J., & Wakefield, J A (1981) Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfaction Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 3, 151-192 Fleeson, W (2001) Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 10111027 Contextualized Personality and Relationships 31 Fleeson, W., Malanos, A B., & Achille, N M (2002) An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between Extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as "good" as being extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1409-1422 Gosling, S D., Rentfrow, P J., & Swann, W B., Jr (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528 Gosling, S D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O P (2004) Should we trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet data American Psychologist, 59, 93-104 Graziano, W G., Jensen-Campbell, L A., & Hair, E C (1996) Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for Agreeableness Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835 Heller, D., Watson, D., Ilies, R (2004) The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574-600 Hendrick, S S (1988) A generic measure of relationship satisfaction Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98 Hunthausen, J M., Truxillo, D M., Bauer, T N., & Hammer, L B (2003) A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 545-551 Jensen-Campbell, L A., Gleason, K A., Adams, R., & Malcolm, K T (2003) Interpersonal conflict, Agreeableness, and personality development Journal of Personality, 71, 10591085 Karney, B., & Bradbury, T N (1995) The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34 Contextualized Personality and Relationships 32 Lewin, K (1936) Principles of topological psychology New York: McGraw-Hill MacKinnon, D P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J H (1995) A simulation study of mediated effect measures Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 41-62 McAdams, D P (1995) What we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365-396 McCrae, R R., & Costa, P T., Jr (1999) A Five-Factor theory of personality In L A Pervin & O P John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp 139-153) New York: Guilford Press McCrae, R R., Stone, S V., Fagan, P J., & Costa, P T., Jr (1998) Identifying causes of disagreement between self reports and spouse ratings of personality Journal of Personality, 66, 285-313 Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y (1995) A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure Psychological Review, 102, 246-268 Neyer, F J., & Asendorpf, J B (2001) Personality-relationship transaction in young adulthood Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1190-1204 Preacher, K J., & Leonardelli, G J (2001, March) Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests Available from http://www.unc.edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.htm Reis, H T (1994) Domains of experience: Investigating relationship processes from three perspectives In R Erber & R Gilmore (Eds), Theoretical Frameworks in Personal Relationships (pp 87-110) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Contextualized Personality and Relationships 33 Reis, H T., Capobianco, A., & Tsai, F.-F (2002) Finding the person in personal relationships Journal of Personality, 70, 813-849 Robins, R W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T E (2000) Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251-259 Robins, R W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T E (2002) It’s not just who you’re with but who you are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships Journal of Personality, 70, 925-960 Schmit, M J., Ryan, A M., Stierwalt, S L., & Powell, A B (1995) Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607-620 Sobel, M E (1982) Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models In S Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp 290-312) San Francisco: JosseyBass Terman, L M., & Buttenwieser, P (1935) Personality factors in marital compatibility Journal of Psychology, 6, 143-171 Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D (2000) General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings Journal of Personality, 68, 413-449 Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C E., Foster, C A., & Agnew, C R (1999) Commitment, prorelationship behavior, and trust in close relationships Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942-966 Contextualized Personality and Relationships 34 White, J K., Hendrick, S S., & Hendrick, C (2004) Big five personality variables and relationship constructs Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519-1530 Contextualized Personality and Relationships 35 Author Note We would like to thank Samuel Gosling, Katie Larsen McClarty, Pranjal Mehta, and James Pennebaker for their comments on an earlier draft of this article and to Crystal Bailey, Jessica Blackshear, Tom Goheen, Brittany Graves, Tiffany Graves, Melissa Morris, Marianna Ravitsky, Roxy Rodriguez, Amy Tao, Jenny Wang, and Jason Yeh for their assistance with data collection Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard B Slatcher, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, email: slatcher@mail.utexas.edu Contextualized Personality and Relationships 36 Table Correlations between Romantic Relationship Satisfaction and FFM Dimensions for Being and Acting in Different Relationship Contexts - Study Five-Factor Model Dimension Context Being Acting – around partner Acting – around coworkers Acting – around friends Acting – around parents Acting – around siblings Extra .05 34*** -.02 02 13*** 05 Agree Cons .14*** 42*** 03 01 03 07 19*** 27*** 13*** 08* 15*** 14*** Neur Open -.21*** -.40*** -.08* -.08* -.15*** -.10** |Mean| 09* 31*** 01 00 03 03 14*** 35*** 05 04 10** 08* Note Overall N = 703 Exra = Extraversion; Agree = Agreeableness; Cons = Conscientiousness; Neur = Neuroticism; Open = Openness * p < 05, two-tailed ** p < 01 *** p < 001, two-tailed Table Correlations between Self and Partner Romantic Relationship Satisfaction and FFM Dimensions for Being and Partner-Context Acting – Study Five-Factor Model Dimension Context Extra Agree Cons Neur Open |Mean| Self-Reported Satisfaction Being Acting – around partner 13 07 35*** 41*** 15 14 -.30*** -.24** 10 07 21 19 Partner-Reported Satisfaction Being Acting – around partner 06 06 18* 31*** 07 26** -.15 -.21** 09 02 11 17 Note Overall N = 703 Exra = Extraversion; Agree = Agreeableness; Cons = Conscientiousness; Neur = Neuroticism; Open = Openness * p < 05, two-tailed ** p < 01 *** p < 001, two-tailed Contextualized Personality and Relationships 37 Figure Captions Figure Hierarchical model of being (global personality traits) and acting (contextualized personality traits) and their influence on life outcomes Figure Mediation analyses – Study Panel A: Mediation of being agreeable and relationship satisfaction by acting agreeable Panel B: Mediation of being conscientious and relationship satisfaction by acting conscientious Panel C: Mediation of being neurotic and relationship satisfaction by acting neurotic Panel D: Mediation of being open and relationship satisfaction by acting open Values are standardized beta weights from three separate regression analyses * p < 05, two-tailed ** p < 01, two-tailed *** p < 001, two-tailed Figure Mediation analyses – Study Panel A: Mediation of being agreeable and relationship satisfaction by acting agreeable Panel B: Mediation of being neurotic and relationship satisfaction by acting neurotic Panel C: Mediation of being agreeable and partner’s relationship satisfaction by acting agreeable Values are standardized beta weights from three separate regression analyses * p < 05, two-tailed ** p < 01, two-tailed *** p < 001, two-tailed Contextualized Personality and Relationships 38 BEING Global Trait (e.g., Agreeableness) ACTING Romantic relationship Contextualized Personality (e.g., warm towards partner) Outcome (e.g., relationship satisfaction) Figure At work Contextualized Personality (e.g., argumentative with co-workers) At school Contextualized Personality (e.g., cooperate with classmates) Outcome (e.g., does not get promoted) Outcome (e.g., gets good grades) Contextualized Personality and Relationships 39 A B C D Figure Contextualized Personality and Relationships 40 A B C Figure ... demonstrate how personality influences major life outcomes Contextualized Personality and Relationships It's Not Just Who You Are, It's How You Act: Influences of Global and Contextualized Personality. .. member’s personality in the context of their relationship (acting) The results showed that contextualized personality (acting) predicted relationship satisfaction above and beyond global personality. .. Mediation of being agreeable and relationship satisfaction by acting agreeable Panel B: Mediation of being conscientious and relationship satisfaction by acting conscientious Panel C: Mediation of