Journal of Global Resources
Volume 6 (01a)https://doi.org/10.46587/JGR.2020.v06si01.002

Special Issue June 2020
Page 10-19
ISSN: 2455-2445 (Online)

02
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS DURING PANDEMIC LOCKDOWN
Kavita Gupta and B.S. Parimal
Assistant Professors, Department of Psychology, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of
Baroda, Vadodara (Gujarat) India
Email: 16kavitagupta@gmail.com, drbsparimal@gmail.com

Abstract: The present study was conducted through Google forms and a sample of 500 university
students (250 males; 250 females) in the age range of 18-24 years participated by filling up Sociodemographic measure, the International Personality Item Pool- Big Five Scale and the Ryff’s
Psychological Well-being scale. Pearson’s product correlations and t-test were performed todetermine the relationship between Personality dimensions and Psychological well-being of theresearch participants. Data was analyzed statistically at the level of p < 0.05. Students high on
Extraversion, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience traits are at increased risk of poor
Psychological well-being during the Lockdown period. Prospective longitudinal studies are neededto address the limited research on personality change during the Lockdown period. The resultsfrom the study showed that there was a statistically significant relationship between Personality
dimensions and Psychological well-being, with Extraversion, Openness to Experience, andNeuroticism traits having a negative correlation with Psychological well-being. However, the results
also indicated that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness traits have a statistically significant
positive relationship with Psychological well-being. Therefore, results indicated that the Big Five
Factors explained an important percentage of the variance of Psychological well-being among
university students during the Lockdown period.

Key words: Personality Dimensions; Psychological Well-being; University Students; COVID-19.
Introduction
Personality as a terminology could be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics
possessed by an individual that uniquely influence his or her cognitions, emotions, interpersonaland social orientation, motivations and behaviors in various aspects of situations. Personality canbe defined as the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that
determine his unique adjustment to his environment. (G.W. Allport). Field of personality addresses
three issues – human universal, individual differences and individual uniqueness. The Big Five
personality dimensions were derived from the analysis of natural-language terms used by people
to describe themselves (John & Srivastava, 1999). These were traditionally labeled as Surgency(Extraversion), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness (Dependability), Emotional Stability (vs.
Neuroticism) and Culture, Intellect or Openness. Consistency across a wide variety of studies
regarding trait-descriptive terms is found, with empirical evidence for the “Big-Five” representation
with various reviews (Goldberg, 1992). The usefulness of the structural model in predicting
important outcomes in people’s lives has been observed in school performance, internalizing
disorders, job performance, leadership, and so on. Although the personality traits are stable,
individuals can change their pattern of thought, feelings and behavior, indicating the links between
the Big Five and important life outcomes, which one can target for personal development and10change (John & Srivastava, 1999). Further, Psychological well-being can be defined as animportant index of quality of life at the individual and collective level (Siegrist, 2003). Marks andShah (2004) argued that Psychological well-being (PWB) is more than just happiness or
satisfaction – PWB referring to being able to develop as a person and to being fulfilled and happy,
and as contributing to the community. Psychological well-being has been defined as a dynamic
state characterized by a reasonable amount of harmony between an individual’s abilities, needs
and expectations, and environmental demands and opportunities (Levi, 1987). Identifying the traits
that are related to Psychological well-being is important in securing a complete understanding ofwell-being as a construct. Psychological well-being is based on a broader approach which includes
identity, meaning, and relatedness (Ryff & Singer, 1996). Psychological well-being is about
actualizing human potential and living well; “It is not so much an outcome or end state as it is aprocess of fulfilling or realizing one’s daimon or true nature” (Deci & Ryan, 2006, p.2).
Research on the good life has increased in recent years through the positive psychology
movement. Every individual strives for well-being in terms of Physical, Emotional, andPsychological aspects. Today, in the Pandemic crisis where a complete Lockdown has occurred
across the nation, the perceptions of university students regarding the external world in dealing
with day to day problems have been affected. With an increase in the Lockdown extension period,
the pressure and challenges confronting the individual are extremely high; therefore it is difficult tomaintain this sense of well-being in the present scenario. University students are particularly
demanding because conflicts relating to quest for identity, concerns for academic success, careerand uncertainty about the future all magnify the problems manifold. At this juncture, several mental
health disorders have been observed to appear in the majority of university students that would,
later on, affect their adjustment in society after the lockdown period is over. Intellectual capacities
increase and emotions intensify. Since Personality is a core factor which determines the reactions
and adjustments, Psychological-well-being during such a stressed phase among university
students should be studied within its perspective.
The present research study aims to study the relationship between Personality dimensions
and Psychological well-being amongst university students during pandemic COVID-19 Lockdown.
The specific objectives of the study were to find out the relationship between Personality domains(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Consciousness) thatprobe into a better understanding of the Personality dimensions and Psychological well-being ofyoung university-age male and female students in the present crisis lockdown period. Every
morning, with the sunrise, new hopes and many experiences occur that can make subjective
perceptions of the impact of Lockdown experiences by capturing the extent to which they felt atseveral times during their daily life in this crisis situation.
Material and Methods
The present explorative and cross-sectional study was conducted and a sample of 500 university
students (250 males; 250 females) in the age range of 18-24 years filled up the google forms
questionnaire. The data was collected through administration of standardized tools, ‘International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP) scale’ consisting of 50 items involving Big-five domains; and ‘Ryff
Psychological well-being scale’ consisting of 42 items. The obtained data was statistically analyzed
at the level of p < 0.05. The present study attempted to investigate the relationship of the Big Five
personality factors on Psychological well-being among university students.
Tools
The data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire through google forms. Google form
was developed covering the following domains: ‘Socio-demographic profile’, ‘International
11Personality Item Pool- Big Five Measurement (IPIP-Big Five) (Goldberg et al., 2006) that assesses
five traits: Extraversion (e.g. “Am the life of the party”), Agreeableness (e.g., “Sympathize withothers feelings”), Conscientiousness (e.g., “Get chores done right away”), Neuroticism (or‘emotional stability’ as the other end of the continuum: e.g., “Have frequent mood swings”), andOpenness to experience (e.g., “Have a vivid imagination”) with Cronbach alpha coefficients of 0.91
for Extraversion, 0.88 for Agreeableness, 0.88 for Conscientiousness, 0.91 for Neuroticism, 0.90
for Openness to experience; and ‘Ryff Psychological well-being scale’ developed by Ryff andKeyes, (1995) consisting of 42 items with Internal consistencies for the six scales ranging from
0.86 to 0.93. Inter-correlations between the six factors ranged from 0.32 to 0.76, raising concerns
regarding the distinctness of the factors, especially in terms of the high inter-correlations between
Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Personal growth, Positive Relations with others, Purpose inlife, and Self-acceptance. Descriptive statistics techniques were applied to discrete and continuous
data. Measures such as Mean and Standard deviation were developed from the continuous data.
The relative frequency was calculated for discrete data. Pearson correlation test and t-test were
performed. A p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Discussion
Personality may affect well-being either directly—independently of life events—, indirectly via life
events, or interactively with life events by moderating their effect on well-being, such as throughcognitive appraisal or coping (Bolger & Shilling, 1991; Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; McCrae &Costa, 1991; Magnus et al., 1993). While positive or negative events are associated with afluctuation in well-being, this effect is transient because stable person characteristics ensure thatan individual is quickly returned to his or her set point.
Table 01: Socio-Demographic Characteristics in the Form of Frequency and Percentage#.

1.

Variables

Age

Parameters

Males (N = 250)
Frequency
(n)
52
70
72
28
18
8
2
147
92
11
120
103
27
31
117
102

Percentage
(%)
20.8
28.0
28.8
11.2
7.2
3.2
0.8
58.8
36.8
4.4
48.0
41.2
10.8
12.4
46.8
40.8

Females (N = 250)
Frequency
(n)
42
74
84
37
9
2
2
176
66
8
107
112
31
23
118
109

a.
18 yearsb.
19 yearsc.
20 yearsd.
21 yearse.
22 yearsf.
23 yearsg.
24 years
2. Type of familya.
Nuclearb.
Jointc.
Extended
3. Presently Residinga.
Hostel
b.
Local
c.
PG
4. Socio-economic status a.
LMSES
b.
MSES
c.
UMSES
Source: Field Survey by author*Participants in the two groups, i.e., Male and Female University students (N = 500)

Percentage
(%)
16.8
29.6
33.6
14.8
3.6
0.8
0.8
70.4
26.4
3.2
42.8
44.8
12.4
9.2
47.2
43.6

In the present study, 250 male students with a mean of 19.68±1.35 and 250 female
students with a mean of 19.64±1.15 participated in the study. From the table no.1, it can beobserved that amongst the male participants, 58.8 percent were from the nuclear family, 36.8
percent were from a joint family, and 4.4 percent from extended family. On the other hand,amongst the female participants, 70.4 percent were from a nuclear family, 26.4 percent were froma joint family, and 3.2 percent from extended family. Moreover, 48 percent, 41.2 percent, and 10.8
12

percent male research participants were residing in a hostel, local and PG respectively at the timeof data collection. 42.8 percent, 44.8 percent, and 12.4 percent female research participants wereresiding in a hostel, local and PG respectively at the time of data collection. 12.4 percent of themale research participants belonged to lower economic status, followed by 46.8percent in the
middle class and 40.8 percent in the upper socio-economic status. 9.2 percent of the female
research participants belonged to lower economic status, followed by 47.2 percent in the middle
class and 43.6 percent in the upper socio-economic status.
Table 02: Socio-demographic characteristics in the form of Mean and Standard Deviations
Variables
Males (Mean ± SD)
Females (Mean ± SD)
Age
Type of family
Presently Residing
Socio-economic status19.68 ± 1.35
1.45 ± 0.58
1.62 ± 0.67
2.28 ± 0.67

19.64 ± 1.15
1.32 ± 0.53
1.69 ± 0.67
2.34 ± 0.64

Source: Field Survey by author*Participants in the two groups, i.e., Male and Female University students (N = 500)

Table 03: Tabular representation of the correlations between Personality dimensions andPsychological well-being of University students (N = 500)
Personality dimensions
Psychological well-being(r - value)
Openness to Experience-0.123**
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Overall Personality** Significant at 0.01 level; *Significant at 0.05 levels.

0.187**-0.171**0.261**-0.164**0.311**The group correlations were carried out between the dimensions of Personality and Psychologicalwell-being. The results illustrated above indicate that there is a significant correlation between
Personality dimensions and Psychological well-being of the research participants.
From table no. 3, it can be seen that Overall Personality dimensions are significantly
correlated with the psychological well-being of the students. Further, Openness to experience trait
was observed to be negatively correlated with Psychological well-being (r= -0.123**).
Conscientiousness trait was observed to be positively correlated with the Psychological well-being(r= 0.187**). Extraversion trait was observed to be negatively correlated with the Psychologicalwell-being (r= -0.171**). Agreeableness trait was observed to be positively correlated with the
Psychological well-being (r= 0.261**). Neuroticism trait was observed to be negatively correlatedwith the Psychological well-being (r= -0.164**). All the results were found to be statisticallysignificant at p<0.05.
From table no. 4, it could be depicted that there existed a significant gender difference in
the Psychological well-being of the research participants (t = -6.678**).

13

Table 04: Independent Samples t-Test for Gender & Psychological Well-Being
Group
Mean
Standard Deviation
t-value
Male
152.74
13.27-6.678**
Female163.428
21.51** Significant at 0.01 level; *Significant at 0.05 levels.
Table 05: Differences in responses of Male and Female Students
VariableAutonomyEnvironmental Mastery
Personal Growth
Positive Relations with others
Purpose in Life
Self-acceptance

Male
M
26.01
25.07
25.46
24.84
26.39
24.96

SD
4.38
3.80
3.72
3.68
4.14
3.06

Female
M
SD
26.63
4.92
27.86
5.54
27.10
4.93
25.88
4.71
28.39
5.87
27.54
5.45

t-valueP-value-1.496-6.542-4.204-2.748-4.396-6.5410.05*<0.001**<0.001**0.001**<0.001**<0.001**** Significant at 0.01 level; *Significant at 0.05 levels.
The above table illustrates that there exists a significant difference in the sub-dimensions of
Psychological well-being among male and female respondents, viz., Autonomy, Environmental
Mastery, Personal Growth, Positive Relations with Others, Purpose in Life and Self-acceptance.
Estimates of correlations between the Big Five factors and Psychological well-being are
based on only a few empirical studies. Schmutte and Ryff (1997) examined the relationshipbetween Personality and Psychological well-being, controlling for source and measurement
overlap in the affective and evaluative content of items. They found that Psychological well-being
was linked to all of the Big Five factors. In particular, large correlations were observed between
Conscientiousness and purpose in life, Agreeableness and Positive relations, and Openness toexperience and personal growth. The study showed that neuroticism is negatively correlated withpsychological well-being. A similar result was observed in a study conducted (Abbott et al., 2008)
on a sample size of 1134 women in the age range of 16-26 years with an objective to assess therelationship between personality dimensions and psychological well-being by administering
Maudsley personality inventory and Ryff’s psychological well-being scale. This study clearly
indicated that people with high neuroticism possess a low level of psychological well-being due toirrational ideas, inability to control their impulses and cope up appropriately with stress. In a study
conducted (Salami, 2011) on a sample of 400 Adolescents from secondary school in South
Western Nigeria with an objective to examine the relationship between the BIG-FIVE Personality
factors and psychological well-being of adolescents and the moderating role of emotional
intelligence in that relationship by administering NEO-FFI, Emotional Intelligence and psychologicalwell-being scale (Ryff & Keys, 1995). As a result, it was observed that a significant correlation
existed between psychological well-being and personality factors. Past studies by Kjell, Nima,
Sikström, Archer and Garcia, (2013); and Motevaliyan, (2014) and Bradburn (1969); Librán (2006)
showed a significant relationship between neuroticism and adolescent psychological well-being.
Similarly, Joshanloo and Afshari, (2011) found a negative significant relationship between
neuroticism and psychological well-being. Moreover, respondents with low neuroticism personality
traits may present more social adjustment, modesty, dutifulness and well-being. Therefore,
the adolescent with high neuroticism personality traits is usually anxious, depression, moody,vulnerability and emotionally not stable (Garusifarshi, 2007). Clearly, adolescents with highneuroticism personality might not be able to do his/her duty well. The finding from this study also
indicated positive significant relationships between extraversion and agreeableness traits andadolescent psychological well-being. This finding is consisted of (Garusifarshi, 2007; HaghShenas, 2010; Joshanloo and Rastegar, 2007) argued that there were positive relationships
between extraversion and adolescent’s psychological wellbeing. Findings from Costa and McCrae
14

(1980) argued that satisfaction with life is related to a high level of extraversion and a low level ofneuroticism.
These research findings are to be discussed in the context of the "Big five factors" Model.
The five factors if Personality is very stable and has been validated in cultures around the world.
Personality is dynamic but as human beings grow up, the deeply rooted traits and beliefs needconsistent efforts to change it. The past researches support that the crisis brings with it anothercrisis; mental health is an integral part of Psychological well-being. There is no doubt that there is a
lot of uncertainty around the current coronavirus outbreak. This study conducted in this crisis
shows a negative correlation between three dimensions and Psychological well-being. In thislockdown period, a social animal has to be forced to be a social distancing animal. Extraverted
people are sociable, outgoing and actively engaged with the world. It becomes difficult to get
adapted to isolation and getting conditioned to detach from others. This study supports thesetypes of Personality lead towards adverse effect to Psychological well-being. Findings on
Extraversion, some studies reported positive and negative correlations with academic success(Trapmann, 2007; Goldberg 2001). This study also investigated the negative impact of this trait on
Psychological well -being of students. Adolescents and youth in the field of higher education havepeer group influence, and Sociability and the physical company gives them boost to their selfesteem but in this study, it is crystal clear that forced Social Distancing and isolation adversely
affected their Psychological well- being.
People high in neuroticism are tense, anxious, moody and more emotionally reactive toevents than emotionally stable people. In this crisis, many people have been observed having
a feeling of hopelessness and meaninglessness. During the corona, crisis loneliness is very
normal and the discomfort it brings leads to a lack of neurotransmitters in the brain called Oxytocin
this is also known as love hormone or a feel-good factor that is produced in response to physicaltouch and eye contact. Coronavirus has restricted the people to touch. So, the result shows higher
Neuroticism lowers the well-being. Prior research has established that both Neuroticism andlearning styles are associated with academic achievement. Neuroticism refers to the degree of
emotional instability and insecurity. This has been reflected in this study of students' behavior asa result of fear of death, sense of meaningfulness, homesickness in hostel staying for a prolonged
period due to the corona crisis. Students' high score on neuroticism indicates disengagement ofstudents from the learning process and inconsistency in facing difficulties hence it was found how
this dimension is related to the Psychological well-being of students.
The contradiction in the correlation between Openness to Experience and Psychologicalwell-being found people of these personalities usually are very creative and have a preference fora variety of novelty and aesthetics. During the lockdown period people have enough time to beinnovative and develop some skills. From the findings of this study perspective it is assumed due
to some limitations, restrictions or lack of sources needs are not satisfied which leads to negative
effects on open-minded personally. Openness to experience has been found positively related toacademic performance in several studies. (Barthelemy and Lounsbury, 2009). This was attributed
to the association of openness to experience with intellectual ability and curiosity (Premuzic andFurnham, 2003). The major focus of this study was students' well-being from personality traits
perspective. Openness to experience is a positive trait in the five-factor model which says a person
willing to try new things and be creative. In this study students’ responses are negatively related totheir well-being. Low scores on this dimension show a lack of ability in students to get adapted to a
big change like Quarantine. In field of Education, it is a transition period from traditional learning toonline learning. They are not open to new innovation is a reflection of anxiety which led them
stagnation surrounded by uncertainties for their future career and pressure of examination.
15

Conscientiousness personality is very self-disciplined and well organized and selfcontrolled. These people don't face difficulties to observe law and order situations. Whereas onother end, against this in this crisis many cases have been recorded on dimension directedness
where people lose their temper, restore to violence. These unprecedented COVID- 19 situations
led to many problems like economy disaster, unemployment, poverty, health issues, mental healthproblem, interpersonal relationship problems. People on the Agreeableness dimension show in thisstudy high Psychological well-being. These people have concern for other people, cooperative andhelping nature. They donate money, they standby people in crisis.
Limitations
1. Firstly, this research employed a google form survey method.
2. Secondly, data was collected from students studying in universities in Vadodara at a single
point in time. Therefore, the generalizability of the findings is limited.
3. Lastly, to collect data only self-report measures were used and future research shouldattempt to include other sources of data.
4. On the other hand, the study was also limited to the assumption that the students truthfully
participated in the study by marking the best options in the surveys to reflect themselves
and providing the researchers with genuine information about their Personality andPsychological well-being.
Recommendations
1. It is recommended that Longitudinal or Experimental studies may be conducted todetermine how personality traits might affect one’s vitality and to establish the direction of
causality of Psychological well-being in this lockdown period.
2. Furthermore, cross-cultural studies can be conducted in order to determine the impact of
personality traits on Psychological well-being among the students under pandemic
lockdown situation.
3. The future studies may investigate variables such as Self-esteem, Cognitive flexibility andPsychological vulnerability that may mediate the relation between Personality traits andPsychological well-being.
4. Future studies may use multiple assessment methods such as telephonic interviews tostrengthen the validity of the findings in this lockdown phase.
5. Considering the above negative impacts of the crisis on students' Psychological well-being
for enhancement of mental health and adjustment ability, Rational Emotive Behavior
Therapy, Existential Counselling and other coping strategies to develop resilience instudents to be suggested.
Implications
The findings of the present study shed lights on the relationship between Personality dimensions
and Psychological well-being of the university students during a pandemic COVID-19 Lockdown.
The results obtained from this study would lay a foundation for future studies on the same lines.
1.
2.
3.
4.

It will be helpful to solve the problem of university students in the present scenario.
To evaluate the effect of counseling.
Treatment planning.
Guidance.

This awareness could help the university instructors with new roles in educating andsupporting students struggling with Psychological well-being. These new roles may necessitate
16

them to help their students regulate their daily schedule and learn how to adjust in the present
situation more efficiently. The major tasks during this phase include establishing self-exploration,
self-expression, realizing one’s identity and capabilities and preparing for self-reliance.
Conclusion
After going through all the steps of the investigation, an effort had been made to present various
findings incoherent manner as follows:
1. There is a positive co-relation between Personality dimensions and Psychological well-being ofuniversity students.
2. There is a negative relationship between Openness to Experience and the Psychological wellbeing of university students.
3. There is a positive relationship between Conscientiousness and Psychological well-being ofuniversity students.
4. There is a negative relationship between Extraversion and Psychological well-being ofuniversity students.
5. There is a positive relationship between Agreeableness and Psychological well-being ofuniversity students.
6. There is a negative relationship between Neuroticism and the Psychological well-being ofuniversity students.
7. There exist a gender difference with respect to Psychological well-being among research
participants.
The findings of the study revealed that there exists a significant positive relationshipbetween Personality dimensions and Psychological well-being of university students. The study
revealed that a significant positive relationship exists between Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
and Psychological well-being followed by a significant negative relationship between Extraversion,
Openness to experience and Neuroticism and Psychological well-being of the research
participants. All the results were found to be significant at p < 0.05.
Despite considerable research on Personality and Psychological well-being, the current
study investigated the relationship between the Big Five traits and Psychological well-being among
500 university students. Results indicated that the relationship between Personality factors andPsychological well-being was stronger suggesting that these traits represent the personality
predispositions for general well-being. However, the Personality correlates of the dimensions withineach broad well-being type varied, suggesting that the relationship between personality andPsychological well-being is best modeled in terms of associations between specific traits and wellbeing dimensions.
In conclusion, the results from this study showed that personality traits play a vital role todetermine the level of Psychological well-being among university students in Vadodara, Gujarat.
Thus, it is necessary that students should be equipped with appropriate abilities, skills andknowledge through parental or peer group support or through tele-counseling so that they canhave better adjustment with the present situation of the Pandemic COVID-19 Lockdown scenario.
References
1. Abbott, R. A., Croudace, T. J., Ploubidis, G. B., Kuh, D., Richards, M., & Huppert, F. A. (2008).
The relationship between early personality and midlife psychological well-being: evidence froma UK birth cohort study. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 43(9), 679.

17

2. Barthelemy, J.J., Lounsbury, J.W. (2009). The Relationship Between Aggression and the Big
Five Personality Factors in Predicting Academic Success. Journal of Human Behavior in theSocial Environment, 19:2, 159-170, DOI: 10.1080/10911350802687125
3. Baumgardner, S. R. & Crohters, M. K. (2009). Positive Psychology, published by D.
Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd. Licensees of Pearson Education in South Asia.
4. Chamorro-Premuzic, T, Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37:
319-338.
5. Christopher, J.C. (1990). Stating psychological well-being; exploring the structural roots of its
theory and research. Journal of counseling and development, 77, 144-152.
6. Ciccarelli, S.K., & White, J.N. (2015) Psychology. (4th ed.), 1-785. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
7. Dinner, E. (1994). Subjective well-being, psychological bulletin 95, 542-575.
8. Engin, Deniz M., & Ahmet Satici, Seydi (2017). The Relationships between Big Five
Personality Traits and Subjective Vitality. Anales de Psicología, 33(2),218-224. [fecha deConsulta
27
de
Abril
de
2020].
ISSN:
0212-9728.
Disponibleen:https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=167/16750533002
9. Fayombo, G. (2010). The relationship between personality traits and psychological resilienceamong the Caribbean adolescents. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2(2), 105116.
10. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain
personality
measures.
Journalof
Research
in
Personality,
40(1),
84–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
11. Goldberg, L.R. (2001). Frozen by success: Why we don’t know nearly enough about therelations between personality attributes and academic performance. Remarks delivered at the
E.T.S. Workshop: Applications to new constructs, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
12. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
13. Hall, C.S., Lindzey, G., & Campbell, J.B. (1988). Theories of Personality. (4th ed.), 1-722. New
York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons.
14. John, O. P., Naumann, L., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Fivetaxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114-158). New
York, NY: Guilford.
15. Mohanty, G. (2012). Textbook of Psychology. (3rd ed.), 1-450. New Delhi, DL: Kalyani
Publishers.
16. Mobarakeh, M.R.V., Juhari, R., Yacoob, S.N., Redzuan, M., Mobarakeh, S.I. (2015). The
Effects of Personality Traits and Psychological Well-Being among Iranian Adolescent Migrants
in Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia. IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science, Volume 20,
Issue 7, Ver. I, 25-28. e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
17. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of researchon hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 141-166.
18. Ryff, C (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it not? Exploration of the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of personality & social psychology, 57,1064-1081.
19. Ryff, C. & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revised. Journal of
Personality & social Psychology 69, 719-727.
20. Perez, J.A(2012). Gender differences in psychological wellbeing among Filipino college
students’ sample. International journal of humanities & social sciences, 2.
21. Pervin, L.A., Cervone, D., & John, O.P. (2005). Personality theory research, 9th ed.
18

22. Sagone, E., & De Caroli, M. E. (2014). Relationships between psychological well-being andresilience in middle and late adolescents. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 881887.
23. Salami, S.O. (2011). Social behavior and personality. An international journal, 39, 785-794.
24. Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction. In Flowand the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 279-298). Springer, Dordrecht.
25. Singh, A.K. (2006). Uchchatar Samanya manovigyan, 5th ed.
26. Synder, C. R. & Lopez, S.J. positive psychology. The scientific & practical exploration ofhuman strengths. University of Kansas, Lawrence. Sage publication.
27. Trapman, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J. W., & Schuler, H. (2007). “Meta-Analysis of the Relationshipbetween the Big Five and Academic Success at University”. Journal of Psychology, 215, 132151.

19