[Link] Personality change key to improving wellbeing
‘Is Personality Fixed? Personality Changes as Much as “Variable” Economic Factors and More Strongly Predicts Changes to Life Satisfaction,’ published in Social Indicators Research (doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0006-z)
[...] small positive personality changes may lead to greater increases in happiness than earning more money, marrying, or gaining employment.
[...]
We found that our personalities can and do change over time – something that was considered improbable until now – and that these personality changes are strongly related to changes in our wellbeing.
[...]
Previous studies have shown that personality accounts for up to 35% of individual differences in life satisfaction, compared to just 4% for income, 4% for employment status and between 1% and 4% for marital status. However, because it was believed our personalities were fixed, policies to improve wellbeing have focused on these lower-impacting external factors.
[...]
“Fostering the conditions where personality growth occurs – such as through positive schooling, communities, and parenting—may be a more effective way of improving national wellbeing than GDP growth.”
[...]
Personality was measured using a well-validated personality questionnaire assessing five broad dimensions which cover the breadth of a person’s personality: openness-to-experiences, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. The researchers then looked at the extent to which personality changed and how these changes related to life satisfaction in comparison to external factors, such as changes to income, changes to employment and changes to marital status. They found that personality changes at least as much as these external factors and predicted about twice as much of changes to life satisfaction over the study period.
From the paper:
...contrary to the authors’ own statements that “Fostering the conditions where personality growth occurs – such as through positive schooling, communities, and parenting—may be a more effective way of improving national wellbeing than GDP growth.”
This is a subtle but extremely common form of “burying the lead”. Not directly committing the sin of confusing correlation and causation, but freely allowing correlation to “waggle its eyebrows and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’”—letting readers draw the almost inevitable unwarranted conclusions.
This makes the study sound very politically motivated.
It makes the study sound like political double-talk regardless of motivation. Are there any political parties in favor of negative schooling, communities, and parenting? No? Then that phrase doesn’t actually say anything remarkable, it just acts as priming to benefit any candidate or policy proponents whose propaganda uses similar phrasing.
It might be unwarranted to make those conclusions, but it might not be unwarranted to act on the assumption that those conclusions could be correct. If previously I was attempting to influence the well being of myself or someone else through economic gain, this study would suggest that spending at least some time considering making personality changes would be more effective.
My thinking is that if two factors are correlated in some data, and it’s not a fluke/fraud/coincidence/etc., it’s reasonable to conclude that at least one of these three is true:
The first factor (directly or indirectly) causes the second.
The second factor (directly or indirectly) causes the first.
Some third factor (directly or indirectly) causes both.
In other words, if you can only think of one plausible explanation for a correlation, it’s reasonable to assign it a lot of probability mass (in the same way that if you can think of only one plausible explanation for a murder, it’s reasonable to assign it a lot of probability mass). Of course, it’s important to keep in mind unknown unknowns, things you didn’t think of, and all of the improbable scenarios that might add up to a lot of probability.
These often aren’t exhaustive. There’s the example of a prestigious university that only admits students who are exceptional either academically or musically. Among students at that university, academic ability is negatively correlated with musical ability, since either one is enough to be admitted, but it is rare to be exceptional in both, assuming they are uncorrelated in the general population. This does not fit into any of those three common reasons for correlation.
A similar, possibly more politically fraught example is the university that grants scholarships either on the basis of academic merit or financial need.
That’s a good scenario to think about. So maybe we can add an additional case where there’s some filtering process that’s affecting the data we see.
If personality correlates with well-being more strongly than economic factors then it seems unlikely that economic factors would influence personality to any significant extent. Because otherwise we would see a stronger correlation between those factors and well-being. So I don’t see a contradiction there.
Edit: now I see a possible contradiction. But I don’t agree with the reading of the second quoted sentence as drawing unwarranted conclusions.
The contradiction is between “nothing to say about causality” on the one hand, and “something to say about causality” on the other hand.
I think they meant that they can’t say anything concrete about the causal relationship between personality change and change of life satisfaction, not about any kind of causal relationship at all. But you’re still right. It’s possible that personality change doesn’t cause changes in life satisfaction and then we still can’t do better than trying to make people richer.
On the other hand, the hypothesis that changes in life satisfaction follow changes in personality seems quite reasonable. They said “Fostering the conditions where personality growth occurs [...] may be a more effective way of improving national wellbeing than GDP growth.” This seems to me more like raising that hypothesis rather than presenting a conclusion. (And if readers can’t tell the difference then it’s hardly the scientists’ fault.)
So, this was a longitudinal study of Big Five changes. That there are changes is already known, but this bit may be helpful to me in the future:
What does this do usefully?
I don’t actually regard #1 as in serious question, but #2 and #3 are certainly interesting.
To me, this suggests a way to test causality: we discussed earlier the recent research which seemed to demonstrate that psilocybin increased Openness. Record income for experimental and control groups, see if the relationship is maintained.
(I was going to suggest meditation as another possible intervention, but a quick googling seems to indicate meditation has no clear causation or correlation with Big Five factors.)
So, how can we translate this knowledge into action, and how can we measure the outcome of the action?
For measuring we could use some “questions on life satisfaction”, but I would recommend to use them for a few weeks before experimenting, just to make sure that the repeated exposure to questions is not causing the change in results. Then we could try some exercises for increasing extroversion or neuroticism (we could start by “fake it till you make it” strategy).
There seems to be an assumption that the same personality change would benefit everyone. But some changes may be bad for some people, or just incompatible with some professions. Maybe there is some optimum distribution of personalities in society, such as: if almost everyone would be extravert, there could be high demand for people able to work alone. Maybe some skills are relative: if everyone would be extravert, only the most extraverted extraverts would get the happiness bonus.
While I personally agree that “personality can and does change” and that such changes have the potential to trump so-called “external” factors, the research cited in this article doesn’t seem to pack much of a punch.
Furthermore, I think that there are some major obstacles in the way of this kind of research in general. The average person’s concept of what shapes one’s personality is still heavily influenced by poorly understood notions of genetic determinism, philosophically naive definitions of free-will, and lingering ideas about human beings possessing a “soul” (even if such ideas are subconscious or secularly re-imagined).
Until there is a significant paradigm shift in those respects, I don’t think we’ll see the support or funding necessary to produce studies that yield actionable data.