ArticlePDF Available

An examination of patience and well-being

The Journal of Positive Psychology

July 2012
7(4):263-280

DOI:10.1080/17439760.2012.697185

Authors:

Sarah Schnitker

Baylor University

Patience is the propensity to wait calmly in the face of frustration or adversity. The new 3-Factor Patience Scale (Study 1) measures three types of patience (interpersonal, life hardship, and daily hassles patience), which differentially relate to well-being and personality. In Study 2, goal pursuit and achievement mediated the relation between patience and well-being. Participants rated 10 personal goals on 15 dimensions of goal pursuit (e.g. patience enacted, difficulty, achievement satisfaction, effort). Patience facilitated goal pursuit and satisfaction especially in the face of obstacles. In Study 3, participants took part in a training program designed to increase trait patience. The program led to increased patience, decreased depression, and increased positive affect relative to a control condition, suggesting that patience may be modifiable.

Parameter estimates from confirmatory factor analysis of final measurement model of the 3-FPS (first item loading on each factor set constant to 1).

…

. Participant self-report and informant rating correlations.

…

. Informant and participant correlations between patience factors and life satisfaction/ depression.

…

Figures - uploaded by Sarah Schnitker

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Sarah Schnitker

Content may be subject to copyright.

This article was downloaded by: [Sarah Schnitker]

On: 26 June 2012, At: 19:09

Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,

37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to

furthering research and promoting good practice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

An examination of patience and well-being

Sarah A. Schnitker a

a School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91106, USA

Available online: 26 Jun 2012

To cite this article: Sarah A. Schnitker (2012): An examination of patience and well-being, The Journal of Positive

Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, 7:4, 263-280

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.697185

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to

anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents

will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should

be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,

proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in

connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Journal of Positive Psychology

Vol. 7, No. 4, July 2012, 263–280

An examination of patience and well-being

Sarah A. Schnitker*

School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91106, USA

(Received 18 May 2012; final version received 22 May 2012)

Patience is the propensity to wait calmly in the face of frustration or adversity. The new 3-Factor Patience Scale

(Study 1) measures three types of patience (interpersonal,life hardship, and daily hassles patience), which

differentially relate to well-being and personality. In Study 2, goal pursuit and achievement mediated the relation

between patience and well-being. Participants rated 10 personal goals on 15 dimensions of goal pursuit (e.g.

patience enacted, difficulty, achievement satisfaction, effort). Patience facilitated goal pursuit and satisfaction

especially in the face of obstacles. In Study 3, participants took part in a training program designed to increase

trait patience. The program led to increased patience, decreased depression, and increased positive affect relative

to a control condition, suggesting that patience may be modifiable.

Keywords: patience; well-being; goals; virtue

Introduction

Patience has long been upheld as a character strength

and desirable personality trait that promotes human

flourishing and well-being. Familiar maxims such as

‘good things come to those who wait’ exemplify the

desirability of the trait, and moral philosophers and

religious writers have emphasized the importance of

developing patience to achieve the ‘good life’ (Harned,

1997). Although touted as an important trait for

millennia, patience is only recently receiving attention

as a topic of empirical investigation in psychology.

What is patience?

In the most basic sense, patience is the propensity of a

person to wait calmly in the face of frustration,

adversity, or suffering. Patience is enacted across a

wide range of circumstances and timeframes. It is

enacted (or not!) in mundane activities, such as waiting

in traffic, as well as in more significant and long-term

situations, such as parenting or dealing with a serious

illness. Although it often involves a temporal or

waiting component, patience is also called forth in

situations with no direct focus on time (e.g. dealing

with a difficult person).

Typically construed as a disposition (e.g. ‘She is a

patient person’), patience can also be viewed as a state

(e.g. ‘She waited patiently’). These two conceptualiza-

tions of patience are intertwined (people with high

dispositional patience will experience more discrete

states of patience), so it is important to consider both

of them as meaningful features. Demonstration of

genuine patience depends on both behavioral (i.e.

waiting) and emotional (i.e. low arousal positive affect

and notable absence of high arousal negative affect)

components.

Why study patience?

Situations that require patience are fundamental to

human experience. People regularly encounter frus-

trating circumstances where they may or may not

exhibit patience (e.g. parenting, working with a diffi-

cult boss). Waiting is an unavoidable part of life; a poll

reported in The Daily Telegraph found that the average

Briton spends 5 h and 35 min each month – or six

months of an average lifetime – standing in line

(Britons Spent Six Months Queuing, 2009). Research

shows that daily hassles and frustrations have a

negative impact on physical health and well-being,

perhaps of a greater magnitude than major life events

(DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus,

1982). Given the pervasiveness of waiting and frus-

trating stimuli in daily life, research examining indi-

vidual differences in how people react to such

circumstances is needed to maximize human function-

ing. Initial evidence shows that patience is positively

correlated with subjective well-being, positive coping,

virtues, and thriving (Schnitker & Emmons, 2007).

Research on personality and social processes underly-

ing the relation between patience and well-being has

*Email: sschnitker@fuller.edu

ISSN 1743–9760 print/ISSN 1743–9779 online

ß2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.697185

http://www.tandfonline.com

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

applications to improving quality of life in a plethora

of settings.

Patience and well-being

Patience is hypothesized to affect both hedonic and

eudaimonic well-being – two long-established notions

representing distinct, but overlapping, paradigms to

understand ‘the good life’. Hedonism reflects the idea

that well-being consists of maximizing pleasure or

happiness and minimizing negative emotions (Ryan &

Deci, 2001). Patience directly influences hedonic well-

being as it buffers against emotions in stressful

situations, allows the person to cope more adaptively

with frustrations, and facilitates positive interpersonal

interactions. Though often misconstrued to concern

only physical pleasures, hedonism also comprises the

perspective that happiness arises from the achievement

of goals (Diener, Sapyta, & Suh, 1998). Thus, patience

may indirectly affect hedonic well-being by facilitating

goal attainment, which increases positive emotions and

life satisfaction.

A eudaimonic view of well-being maintains that the

‘good life’ lies in the realization of human potential

and the development of virtue (e.g. Ryff & Singer,

1998). Self-determination theory defines eudaimonic

well-being in terms of intrinsic motivation, integrity,

well-being, vitality, and self-congruence, which are

realized by the fulfillment of autonomy, competence,

and relatedness needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Patience is

proposed to increase eudaimonic well-being by facili-

tating the realization of goals that promote the

fulfillment of these basic needs.

Prior research related to trait patience

Patience was framed by Curry, Price, and Price (2008) as

low discounting rates across time. They operationally

define the patient person as one who is less likely to

discount the benefits of a reward if forced to wait for it,

and they found that patience positively correlated with

increased cooperation in a public-good game. This

conceptualization of patience highlights an important

distinction between patience and delay of gratification.

Although related to patience, delay of gratification is

distinguished as involving an overt choice between a

smaller reward now versus a larger reward later. In

contrast, patience is often demonstrated in situations

where there is no choice about whether or not to wait –

the only choice is how one waits.

Impatience has been examined in research on the

Impatience/Irritability factor of the Type A personality.

Spence, Helmreich, and Pred (1987) found that those

scoring high on the Impatience/Irritability factor

reported a greater number of physical complaints,

but studies indicate that it is hostility and hard-driving

competitiveness, rather than impatience alone, that

drives the association between Type A personality and

cardiovascular disease (Miller, Smith, Turner,

Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996). Although findings on

impatience inform an understanding of patience, it is

important to note that impatience and patience are not

mirror opposites. Patience is better conceptualized as a

mean between two poles of behavior. According to

Aristotle (Rorty, 1980), a virtuous action is always an

intermediate state between two extremes of vice that

are reflected in excess and deficiency. In this case,

patience is a mean between the excess of recklessness

and the deficiency of sloth.

Prior research related to state patience

Researchers have uncovered several key aspects of

situations that affect momentary patience and impa-

tience. First, marketing researchers have examined

impatience in customer service ratings. An impatient

state will arise and service satisfaction will decrease if a

person perceives that the time spent waiting has

surpassed expectations for waiting (Groth &

Gilliland, 2006). Moreover, when a wait is attributed

to the service provider, customers exhibit even greater

impatience and dissatisfaction (Rose, Meuter, &

Curran, 2005).

People differ in their ‘wait-time construals’, or how

long they believe they should have to wait in a specific

situation. Several factors (e.g. situation factors, past

experiences, basic personality disposition, socio-cul-

tural norms, etc.) lead to the formation of these

construals. Roy, Cristenfeld, and McKenzie (2005)

found that people especially underestimate how long it

will take them to complete a task when they are highly

motivated to finish quickly. In studies using a word

game (Buehler, Griffin, & MacDonald, 1997) or

origami task (Byram, 1997), participants who offered

a monetary incentive to perform faster underestimated

how long it would take them to complete the task

compared to participants who were not offered an

incentive; however, the incentive had no effect on how

quickly the participants actually completed the task.

Thus, when a person wants an activity to occur

quickly, construals of how long the situation should

last shorten, and patience will most likely decrease.

Time estimation may be involved in state patience.

Situations that emphasize temporally salient informa-

tion will increase time estimates, which may decrease

patience. Situations that lead to absorption and

engagement of attention (i.e. increased mindfulness)

will decrease time estimates, thus increasing patience

(Glicksohn, 2001).

Even after people’s situation construals are violated

and they recognize that they are waiting or enduring a

frustration longer than expected, they may still

264 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

respond patiently by utilizing emotion regulation

techniques. For example, patient people may utilize

reappraisals (Clore & Robinson, 2000) to change their

expectations and feel more patient. We hypothesize

that if people are taught such emotion regulation

strategies, they will be able to increase their ability and

propensity to wait patiently.

Preliminary understanding of patience: Correlates of

patience

Considering patience as a trait and character strength,

Schnitker and Emmons (2007) created The Patience

Scale-10 (PS-10) to measure a person’s self-evaluation

of patience (e.g. ‘Most people would say I am a patient

person’, or ‘Waiting in lines does not bother me’) and

attitudes about the importance of patience (e.g. ‘I

believe that when it comes to getting along with others,

patience is an important factor’). In response to claims

that patience is merely an amalgam of other virtues

(Peterson & Seligman, 2004), Schnitker and Emmons

(2007) established the discriminant validity of patience.

In a regression of patience on the 24 character

strengths of the Values in Action Inventory of

Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson, Park, & Seligman,

2005), the 24 strengths combined accounted for only

26% of the variance in patience scores, indicating that

patience is not reducible to other virtues. In a

regression on the three virtues specifically hypothesized

by Peterson and Seligman (2004) to compose patience

(i.e. persistence, open-mindedness, and self-regulation),

only open-mindedness significantly predicted patience,

and the three strengths combined accounted for only

9% of the variance in patience scores.

Schnitker and Emmons (2007) distinguished

patience from basic personality traits while also pro-

viding evidence of convergent validity. In a regression

of patience on the Big Five (John, Donahue, & Kentle,

1991), the five factors accounted for 25% of the

variance in patience scores. Patience was correlated

with higher Agreeableness, higher Openness, and lower

Neuroticism. They also found a robust relation

between patience and well-being. Higher patience

correlated with decreased negative affect, decreased

depression, and lower incidence of health problems.

Patience positively correlated with prosocial traits (e.g.

empathy) and character strengths of the VIA-IS

(Peterson et al., 2005), namely strengths of

Temperance (Forgiveness r¼0.38, Prudence r¼0.29)

and Justice (Equity r¼0.41, Leadership r¼0.33).

However, the PS-10 suffered several weaknesses as

a measure of patience. First, the confirmatory factor

analysis of the PS-10 reported by Schnitker and

Emmons (2007) did not show good fit with a root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of

0.098 (an RMSEA less than 0.10 is considered pass-

able, but good fit would be indicated with an RMSEA

at or less than 0.05; see Byrne, 1998). Second, the

PS-10 is limited to obtaining a person’s beliefs about

the importance of patience and a general self-evalua-

tion of patience. The scale does not capture theoretical

distinctions and nuances of patience that are important

for well-being outcomes. For example, patience in

dealing with chronic illness (life hardship patience)

differs considerably from patience when dealing with a

recalcitrant child (interpersonal patience) or when

stuck in traffic (daily hassles patience).

Research objectives

Given that the heretofore described research summa-

rizes nearly all published work on patience, many

opportunities for data collection and theory building

abound. To limit our scope of inquiry, we focus on

three main objectives in our research.

Objective 1 – Establish construct validity and distinguish

different types of patience. As expounded by John and

Soto (2007), we seek to amass evidence of construct

validity for patience and build a nomological network

around the trait. In this vein, we present a more valid

and reliable new patience scale, capturing distinctive

dimensions of patience based on the nature of the

patience-eliciting stimuli. We hypothesize that the

antecedents and well-being outcomes from these three

types of patience will differ. We develop a new scale

measuring these three factors in Study 1, and we

construct a multitrait–multimethod matrix (Campbell

& Fiske, 1959) with the collection of informant reports

in Study 2.

Objective 2 – Test the directionality and causality of the

patience-well-being relation. The second objective of the

present research is to better understand the relation

between patience and well-being. Previous findings on

the relation between patience and well-being (Schnitker

& Emmons, 2007) were ascertained from concurrent

correlational data and do not provide insight into the

directionality or causality of effects. Collection of

longitudinal data in Study 2 and experimental data in

Study 3 correct this deficit.

Addressing possible negative outcomes. Although

patience is theorized to engender beneficial effects, it

is possible that the trait may lead to negative outcomes.

It has been suggested that patience leads to passivity

and that too much patience can be injurious (Burke,

1769). Block (1996) found negative outcomes for

people at the extreme high end of the ability to delay

gratification, and Robins, John, Caspi, Moffitt, and

Stouthamer-Loeber (1996) found that boys with an

overcontrolled personality type (compared to those

with resilient and undercontrolled types) were prone to

internalizing problems. Like these positive traits, can

too much patience also have negative effects?

The Journal of Positive Psychology 265

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

Variables that may point to the deleterious effects of

patience, such as assertiveness and passivity in goal

pursuit, are included in the succeeding studies to

specifically test for possible negative effects.

Objective 3 – Examine mediation of the relation between

patience and well-being by goal pursuit and achievement.

We endeavor to understand the personality processes

mediating the relation between patience and well-

being, particularly looking at the processes of goal

pursuit and achievement. We hypothesize that patience

will increase goal achievement, which will increase

well-being.

The goal striving literature has traditionally con-

cerned itself with the relation between goals and well-

being outcomes. Palys and Little (1983) maintain that

goal enjoyability, difficulty, social support, and tem-

poral importance are associated with life satisfaction.

Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, and Kasser (2004) provide

evidence that goal content and motives affect quality

of life in a 1-year prospective study of change in well-

being. Within the goal framework, one way to conceive

of patience is as a coping tool in response to goal delay

or potential failure. Echteld, Elderen, and Kamp

(2001) highlight the adaptive function of avoidant

coping when a person has no sense of control over a

situation. Approach coping in an uncontrollable situ-

ation may cause high goal disturbance and high

perceptions of stress caused by that disturbance – a

combination that leads to the lowest quality of life

scores. Although patience is not tantamount to

avoidant coping, this research illuminates possible

pathways from patience to beneficial outcomes.

Brandtstadter and Renner’s (1990) findings on

tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment are

also informative. Tenacious goal pursuit refers to the

assimilative process of transforming external circum-

stances to fit personal preferences, and flexible goal

adjustment refers to the accommodative tendency to

adjust personal preferences and goal orientations to fit

situational constraints (akin to patience). Brandtstadter

and Renner report that both tenacious goal pursuit and

flexible goal adjustment predict high life satisfaction

and low depression, and both are positively correlated

with internalized control beliefs. Brandtstadter and

Rothermund (2002) findings support the importance of

utilizing accommodative strategies in uncontrollable

circumstances: the negative relation between measures

of control and depression disappear in circumstances

that are impervious to change (Wolk, 1976).

Study 1: Creating a three factor patience scale

The purpose of this study is to create and validate a

measure that distinguishes between interpersonal

patience,life hardship patience, and daily hassles

patience.

Method

Participants

Participants were 389 UC Davis undergraduates (296

females, 85 males; mean age ¼19.8 years) recruited

through the psychology subject pool who received

course credit. Participants were primarily Asian

American (43%) and Caucasian (24%), though other

ethnic minority groups were represented (11%

Hispanic, 3% African American, 2% Middle Eastern,

15% other).

Measures

Patience items.Participants were administered 40 items

hypothesized to measure interpersonal patience (e.g.

‘When someone is having difficulty learning something

new, I will be able to help them without getting

frustrated or annoyed’), life hardship patience (e.g. ‘I

am able to wait-out tough times’), and daily hassles

patience (e.g. ‘Although they’re annoying, I don’t get

too upset when stuck in a traffic jam’). Items were

rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼very much unlike

me;7¼very much like me).

PS-10. The Schnitker and Emmons (2007) PS-10 was

used to assess beliefs about the importance of patience

and self-evaluation of patience. The 10 items were

rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼very much unlike

me;7¼very much like me).

Well-being indicators

CES-D. The Center for Epidemiological Studies

Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) was used to

measure depression with 20 self-report items.

Participants rated (1 ¼rarely or none of the time;

4¼most or all of the time) how often they exhibited

depressive symptoms during the week prior to com-

pleting the questionnaire.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory. Ten items of the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965)

were rated on a 1 ¼strongly disagree to 4 ¼strongly

agree scale.

Satisfaction with Life Scale. This 5-item scale (Diener,

Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was used to

measure global life satisfaction (1 ¼strongly disagree;

7¼strongly agree).

Hope. Snyder et al.’s (1991) 8-item Hope Scale was

used to measure the dispositional trait of hope

(1 ¼definitely false;8¼definitely true).

R-UCLA Loneliness Scale (Short Form).This 3-item

scale of general loneliness (Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, &

Cacioppo, 2004) asks subjects to rate how often they

feel isolated, left out, and lacking companionship

(1 ¼hardly ever,2¼some of the time, and 3 ¼often).

266 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

Personality measures

Big Five Inventory (BFI).The 44-item BFI (John et al.,

1991) measured the personality factors of

Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,

Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience on a 5-

point Likert scale (1 ¼disagree strongly;5¼agree

strongly).

Assertiveness. The Rathus Assertiveness Schedule

(1973) was used to measure assertive behaviors. The

30 items of this measure are scored on a 3toþ3 scale

(3¼very unlike me;þ3¼very like me). Example

items include ‘Anyone attempting to push ahead of me

in line is in for a good battle’ and ‘I have a hard time

saying no’ (reverse scored).

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS).Brown

and Ryan’s (2003) 15-item scale was used to measure

present and mindful engagement (1 ¼almost always;

6¼almost never).

Attachment. The Experiences in Close Relationships

Scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) is a

36-item measure of adult attachment (1 ¼disagree

strongly;7¼agree strongly) indicating secure, inse-

cure-anxious, or insecure-avoidant attachment in

relationships.

Procedure

Participants took the survey online using the

Concentus Assessment survey platform. They com-

pleted the preliminary patience items and then com-

pleted the other personality and well-being measures.

Two weeks later, participants were asked via e-mail to

take a second online survey. Participants (N¼317)

again completed the preliminary patience items, as well

as other measures from the Time 1 survey, to establish

test–retest reliability.

Results

Initial analyses of scale construction: Exploratory

factor analyses

Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs, maximum-like-

lihood extraction/promax rotation) were run on the

initial pool of patience items. Examination of the

scree plot revealed one large factor and two or three

additional factors before the plot leveled off (Figure 1a).

Factor loadings for 1 -, 2 -, 3 -, and 4-factor solutions

were examined; the 3-factor solution demonstrated the

most simple structure and greatest interpretability.

Factors appeared to represent interpersonal, life hard-

ship, and daily hassles patience, respectively.

The pool of 40 items was reduced to 11. Items

loading less than 0.30 on a factor, with content loading

equally on multiple factors, or with content that did

not match the theoretical conceptualization of the

factors were eliminated. Reliability and item analyses

were employed to remove additional items that did not

correlate with other items or were redundant. An EFA

of these 11 items produced three factors (interpersonal,

life hardship, and daily hassles patience) with eigen-

values greater than one (4.23, 1.25, 1.08), accounting

for 38.48%, 11.35%, and 9.85% of the variance,

respectively. However, the scree plot supported a

1-factor solution (Figure 1b). Thus, the goodness-of-

fit for the 1 -, 2 -, and 3-factor models were tested.

Confirmatory factor analyses of EFA factor structure

Confirmatory factor analyses were run with 1 -, 2 -, and

3-factor models (both orthogonal and non-orthogo-

nal). Models were tested using maximum-likelihood

estimation in LISREL Version 8.54. Fit statistics for

all the models are shown in Table 1. As expected, the

non-orthogonal 3-factor model best fit the data, V

(41,

N¼359) ¼107.30, p<0.001. Akaike’s information

criterion (AIC) was 158.25, and the comparative fit

index (CFI) was 0.96. These indices and an RMSEA of

0.054 indicate fair to good fit (Byrne, 1998). The next

best-fitting model, the 3-factor orthogonal model, had

poorer indicators of fit (AIC ¼226.64,

RMSEA ¼0.094, CFI ¼0.90), so we adopted the

3-factor correlated model with confidence. Figure 2

depicts the adopted model and parameter estimates.

Reliability and scale descriptives

The appendix shows the final 3-Factor Patience Scale

(3-FPS). As can be seen in Table 2, the scale demon-

strates adequate internal reliability (¼0.66–0.80) and

an average 2-week test–retest reliability of 0.66. Scores

are normally distributed and do not systematically

differ by gender or ethnicity. Scores on the 3-FPS

correlate moderately to highly with the self-evaluation

factor of the PS-10 (r¼0.66, 0.38, 0.66 for interpersonal,

life hardship, and daily hassles patience, respectively)

and moderately with beliefs about the importance of

patience (r¼0.43, 0.20, 0.33, respectively).

Patience and personality: External validity and

possible antecedents of patience

Big Five. The three patience factors have significant

zero-order correlations with four of the five Big Five

traits (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism,

and Openness; p<0.01). Of note, interpersonal patience

has a strong correlation with Agreeableness (r¼0.60),

whereas life hardship and daily hassles patience have

moderate correlations (r¼0.22, 0.30). Table 3 shows

each of the factors of the 3-FPS regressed on the Big

Five. When interpersonal patience is regressed on the

The Journal of Positive Psychology 267

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Scree plot of EFA of (a) the original 40 items and (b) the final 11 items.

Table 1. Model fit indices for 3-Factor Patience Questionnaire compared with alternate models.

Description Chi-sq. df AIC RMSEA CFI

Final model:

3-Factor Model (Correlated) 107.30 41 158.25 0.054 0.96

Alternate models:

3-Factor Model (Orthogonal) 227.49 44 226.63 0.094 0.90

2-Factor Model (Correlated) 186.84 43 246.37 0.100 0.92

2-Factor Model (Orthogonal) 294.07 44 309.42 0.120 0.86

Single-Factor Model 279.19 44 348.99 0.130 0.87

268 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

Big Five, all five factors are significant predictors, but

Agreeableness is the strongest predictor (¼0.48) and

Neuroticism has a smaller effect (¼0.17). Only

Neuroticism (¼0.33) and Conscientiousness

(¼0.33) are significant predictors of life hardship

patience. All the factors, except Openness, significantly

predict daily hassles patience.

Other antecedent traits. Avoidant attachment is nega-

tively correlated with interpersonal patience (r¼0.26,

p<0.01) and daily hassles patience (r¼0.16, p<0.01).

Anxious attachment is negatively correlated with all

three patience factors (r¼0.22 to 0.27, p<0.01).

Mindfulness is positively correlated with interpersonal

(r¼0.27), daily hassles (r¼0.34) and life hardship

patience (r¼0.11). When mindfulness is added to a

regression equation after controlling for the Big Five, it

remains a predictor of only daily hassles patience,

¼0.22, p<0.001; DR

¼0.04, F(1,374) ¼17.56,

p<0.001. This supports the conceptualization of daily

hassles patience as enabling the person to endure

frustrations in the present moment.

Differential prediction of well-being outcomes by

patience factors

To assess discriminant validity of the three factors of

the 3-FPS, the well-being outcomes (life satisfaction,

hope, self-esteem, depression, and loneliness) were

regressed on the three factors in a series of five

regressions to test a priori expectations of differential

prediction (Table 4). Looking first at loneliness,

interpersonal patience was hypothesized as its primary

predictor since patience with others is integral to

maintaining relationships; interpersonal patience was

the only significant predictor of loneliness (¼0.15,

Item 1

Item 4

Item 7

Item 9

Item 2

Item 11

Item 5

Item 8

Item 3

Item 6

Item 10

1.00

1.10

–0.66

0.61

0.78

1.09

0.98

–0.77

0.82

Interpersonal

patience

Life hardships

patience

Daily hassles

patience

0.37

0.21

0.23

0.35

0.23

0.58

0.43

1.03

0.48

0.58

0.60

0.74

0.49

0.88

0.57

0.63

0.34

Figure 2. Parameter estimates from confirmatory factor analysis of final measurement model of the 3-FPS (first item loading on

each factor set constant to 1).

Table 2. Internal reliability, means, and SDs of the 3-FPS.

Cronbach’s alpha Test–retest reliability Mean SD

Patience factor Study 1 Study 2 Study 1 Study 2 Study 1 Study 2 Study 1 Study 2

Interpersonal patience 0.80 0.76 0.74 0.73 3.53 3.56 0.73 0.71

Life hardships patience 0.70 0.76 0.49 0.55 3.19 3.21 0.76 0.79

Daily hassles patience 0.66 0.58 0.75 0.69 3.24 3.32 0.86 0.79

Note: Test–retest reliability is over two weeks for Study 1 and eight weeks for Study 2.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 269

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

p¼0.01). Second, we expected life hardship patience to

influence hope because of its role in creating a positive

future outlook. Life hardship patience predicted hope

(¼0.22, p<0.001), as did interpersonal patience

(¼0.25, p<0.001). Next, only interpersonal (¼0.13,

p¼0.03) and daily hassles patience (¼0.13, p¼0.02)

were significant predictors of life satisfaction, which

asks about satisfaction ‘so far’ in life. Interpersonal

patience was the strongest predictor of self-esteem

(¼0.18, p¼0.002). Finally, daily hassles patience was

the primary predictor of depression (¼0.19,

p¼0.002).

Assertiveness and patience

In the prior discussion of the possible negative

outcomes of patience, assertiveness was presented as

a trait that may be lacking in individuals with ‘too

much’ patience. This was not supported. The zero-

order correlations between all three patience factors

and assertiveness were not significantly different

from zero at the p<0.05 level (r¼0.06, 0.04,

and 0.02), which indicates independence.

Moreover, a scatter plot of the data did not show

any curvilinear effects.

Discussion

Study 1 fulfilled its expressed research goals. A new

3-factor survey was created to measure interpersonal,

life hardship, and daily hassles patience. Considerable

support of construct validity was garnered under John

and Soto’s (2007) five forms of evidence. Looking at

content validity, the 3-FPS is face valid, and its items

are representative of trait patience as expressed across

different domains. Structural validity is supported by

good indicators of fit from the confirmatory factor

analyses. The 3-FPS demonstrates both internal reli-

ability and test–retest reliability. Evidence of external

validity – both convergent and discriminant – is

copious; the 3-FPS relates to other personality traits

and well-being outcomes in theoretically expected

ways.

Study 2: Patience, goal pursuit, and well-being

The main purpose of Study 2 is to examine patience

and well-being in the context of goal pursuit and

achievement. Traditionally, researchers examining goal

striving have tied certain goal characteristics and

content to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being

(McGregor & Little, 1998). For example, goal achieve-

ment increases positive affect and hedonic happiness

Table 3. Regression of patience on the Big Five.

Patience factor

Beta

Personality

variable

Total

patience score

Beta

Regression 1:

interpersonal

patience

Regression 2:

daily hassles

patience

Regression 3:

daily hassles

patience

Extraversion 0.13** 0.11** 0.08 0.11*

Neuroticism 0.29** 0.17** 0.29** 0.22**

Agreeableness 0.33** 0.48** 0.07 0.18**

Conscientiousness 0.14** 0.09* 0.13* 0.12*

Openness 0.16** 0.19** 0.09 0.07

R0.62 0.66 0.40 0.40

Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Table 4. Regressions predicting well-being indicators from three patience factors.

Well-being indicator

Beta

Patience factor

Regression 1:

loneliness

Regression 2:

hope

Regression 3:

life satisfaction

Regression 4:

self-esteem

Regression 5:

depression

Interpersonal patience 0.15* 0.25** 0.13* 0.18** 0.00

Life hardships patience 0.03 0.22** 0.08 0.13* 0.04

Daily hassles patience 0.08 0.06 0.13* 0.07 0.19**

R0.22 0.37 0.27 0.31 0.20

Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

270 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

(Ryan & Deci, 2001). Study 2 elicits ten goals from

participants and then tracks goal achievement and

patience on those goals across time. It is hypothesized

that (a) patient people exert more effort in pursuit of

their goals and (b) pursue them with more patience

than less patient people. Previous research has shown

that goal progress across the course of the quarter

predicts well-being measured at the end of the quarter

and that satisfaction with goal progress directly affects

well-being (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Similarly, we

theorize that patience enacted on goals will increase

goal progress/satisfaction, which will then increase

well-being.

Study 2 also serves to provide additional evidence

of construct validity for patience and the 3-FPS.

Reliability and validity indices will replicate Study 1

results, and multimethod assessment with informant

reports will check for social-desirability effects.

Method

Participants

Participants were 259 (179 females, 58 males, 11

unknown) UC Davis undergraduates recruited through

the department subject pool. They received course

credit as remuneration. Data on ethnicity were not

collected in order to shorten the length of the surveys.

However, participants are assumed to match the

general UCD psychology subject pool, which is gen-

erally 40–45% Asian American, 40–45% Caucasian,

8–12% Hispanic, and 2–12% Other Ethnicity.

Design

Data were collected five times across the 10-week

academic quarter (at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10). At Times

1 and 5, participants completed a personal projects

assessment, as well as measures of patience, personality

traits, and well-being variables. At Times 2, 3, and 4,

participants completed only the personal projects

assessment and well-being measures.

Measures

Patience self-report measure administered at Times 1

and 5

3-Factor Patience Scale. See description under Study 1

Measures.

Personal projects measures

Self-reported projects. Little’s (1983) personal projects

assessment method was utilized to measure partici-

pants’ goals. Personal projects are a desirable unit to

analyze goals, as they are inherently temporal and

interactive (Palys & Little, 1983). At Time 1,

participants were given a definition of a personal

project and asked to list 10 projects they were working

on over the course of the academic quarter (e.g. ‘lose

ten pounds’ or ‘complete my thesis’).

Project ratings at Times 1–5. Participants were asked to

rate their projects on a number of dimensions. Using

the previous two weeks as the criterion, they were

asked at each time point to rate how much patience

each project required and their patience in the pursuit

of each project (‘This project requires me to be patient

as I strive for it’ and ‘I am patient in my pursuit of this

project’ 0 ¼strongly disagree;10¼strongly agree).

They were also asked to rate each project on variables

hypothesized to relate to patience, well-being, and goal

achievement. These variables included commitment,

control, effort, difficulty, obstacles, time adequacy,

progress, expected outcome, satisfaction, competence,

expected time frame, meaningfulness, and sanctifica-

tion. The collection of personal projects over time

provides a unique platform to view the effects of

patience on multiple levels of analysis.

Well-being measures administered at all time points

CES-D. Participants took the CES-D (see description

under Study 1 Measures) to report depressive symp-

toms for the past two weeks.

Satisfaction with Life Scale. See description under

Study 1 Measures.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. The PANAS

(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to assess

the extent to which subjects felt positive (i.e. interested,

enthusiastic, determined, excited, inspired, alert, active,

strong, proud, attentive) and negative (i.e. hostile,

irritable, guilty, ashamed, nervous, jittery, distressed,

upset, afraid, scared) emotions over the past two weeks

on a 1 (very slightly or not at all)to5(extremely) scale.

The PANAS was revised to include more low-arousal

positive affect terms (e.g. calm, serene).

Personality measures administered at Times 1 and 5

BFI and self-regulation. See descriptions under Study 1

Measures.

Procedure

Participants were asked to fill out the Time 1 project

assessment measure online during the second week of

the academic quarter. Every two weeks (i.e. during

weeks 4, 6, and 8 of the quarter), they rated their 10

original projects on the rating dimensions and com-

pleted well-being questionnaires. During week 10 of

the quarter, participants completed the final survey

The Journal of Positive Psychology 271

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

packet, comprising project ratings, well-being mea-

sures, and personality questionnaires.

Informant reports. At Time 1, participants were asked

to provide the names and email addresses of three

close-others, including, but not limited to, ‘a best

friend, significant other, person who sees you daily,

and/or family member’. Informants were contacted via

e-mail and asked to fill out a survey about the

participant. The informant survey contained the same

personality and well-being measures taken by the

participant with the questions reformatted to reference

the participant.

Of the 857 informants asked to complete the

survey, 533 completed a report about the participant.

Of participants, 94% had at least one informant report

and 75% had two or more informant reports. The

informants were mostly friends (46%), but there were

also a substantial number of parents (23%), siblings

(16%), and significant others (10%).

Results

Construct validation for the 3-FPS

To provide evidence of generalizability, scale statistics

for the 3-FPS were calculated with Study 2 data to

replicate findings from Study 1. As can be seen in

Table 2, current data yielded analogous descriptive

statistics, internal reliability, and test–retest reliability

coefficients. Life hardship patience had a lower test–

retest correlation than the other factors in both studies.

Rather than instability in the measurement instrument,

we suspected that life hardship patience judgments are

more susceptible to state influences than other types of

patience in our college student samples. Additionally,

Cronbach’s alpha was slightly lower than typical cut-

off norms for daily hassles patience (¼0.58), but this

low alpha was not too alarming considering that the

factor contains just three items. Moreover, the factor

structure developed in Study 1 was replicated with the

new data, and the fit statistics for Study 2 show

good fit: RMSEA ¼0.046, CFI ¼0.98, and

(41, N¼260) ¼62.67, p<0.001. Factor loadings

and other parameter estimates closely resembled those

produced in the original sample.

Informant reports: Evidence of construct validity and

social-desirability check

Informant reports were used to formulate a multi-

method assessment matrix for patience. Beyond the

benefit of adding non-self-report data to the under-

standing of a trait (Vazire, 2005), informant reports are

a preferred way to check social desirability biases that

may appear in self-report measurement of positive

traits (Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, & Angleitner,

2000).

Factor structure of informant ratings of patience. The

factor structure of the 3-FPS was replicated. Factor

loadings for informant reports were congruent to

previous samples, and the new fit statistics mirror

previous indices, denoting good/fair fit:

RMSEA ¼0.061, CFI ¼0.98, and V

(41,

N¼533) ¼121.21, p<0.001.

Consensus. Consensus among informants, or infor-

mant-informant agreement, was calculated from the

first two informant ratings collected of participants

who had more than one informant (N¼192). As can

be seen in Table 5, consensus correlations were 0.24,

0.16, and 0.22 for daily hassles,life hardship, and

interpersonal patience, respectively. Informants varied

in their level of agreement depending on the person-

ality trait of interest. Consensus correlations on

patience were similar to those for low arousal positive

affect (r¼0.21) and depression (r¼0.24).

Informant–participant agreement correlations.

Agreement between participants’ self-reports and

informant ratings was examined. The informant rat-

ings for each participant were averaged to create a

mean informant rating score per participant for each

variable. These mean scores were correlated with the

participants’ self-reported scores (N¼243), such that

each participant counted as a case in the agreement

calculations. Informant–participant agreement corre-

lations for patience and related variables can be viewed

in Table 5. Agreement was lowest for life hardship

patience and highest for interpersonal patience, which

Table 5. Participant self-report and informant rating

correlations.

Consensus

informant–

informant

agreement r

(N¼192)

Mean

informant–

participant

agreement r

(N¼243)

3-FPS

Daily hassles 0.24** 0.25**

Life hardship 0.16* 0.21**

Interpersonal 0.22** 0.35**

Other traits

Self-regulation 0.39** 0.36**

Well-being variables

Life satisfaction 0.28** 0.43**

Depression 0.24** 0.28**

Affect

Positive – low arousal 0.21** 0.27**

Positive – high arousal 0.29** 0.31**

Negative 0.24** 0.32**

Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

272 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

may reflect the fact that information relevant to

interpersonal patience is highly available to others.

Social desirability. Participants generally rated them-

selves as lower in patience (M¼3.40, standard devia-

tion (SD) ¼0.58) than they were rated by their

informants (M¼3.68, SD ¼0.64), F(1, 790) ¼36.14,

p<0.001. This self-diminishment bias is most likely due

to the informants’ limited accessibility to the partici-

pants’ internal negative emotionality (the expression of

which is often regulated), rather than an actual depres-

sion of participant self-ratings from a higher ‘true

score’.

Correlation between patience and well-being in infor-

mants. Informant ratings of participant patience were

correlated with informant ratings of participant life

satisfaction and depression (Table 6), and these corre-

lations were of equal or greater magnitude than those

observed in participant self-reports.

Patient people exert more patience and effort in

pursuit of their goals

The first step in looking at patience and goal pursuit

was to empirically demonstrate that people high in

trait patience pursue goals with more patience and

effort than people low in patience. This provides

evidence of substantive validity and shows that patient

people are not passively disengaged from goals.

We examined correlations between trait patience,

goal patience, and goal effort. Moderate correlations

were found between patience enacted on goals and

interpersonal patience (r¼0.31, p<0.01) as well as life

hardship patience (r¼0.24, p<0.01). There was only a

small correlation between daily hassles patience and

patience enacted on goals (r¼0.14, p<0.05). This

reflects the goal directed aspects of interpersonal and

life hardship patience versus the more reactive aspects

of daily hassles patience. A similar pattern of results

was found for effort correlated with interpersonal

(r¼0.35, p<0.01), life hardship (r¼0.17, p<0.01),

and daily hassles (r¼0.13, p<0.05) patience.

Likewise, we examined if trait patience predicts the

amount of effort enacted on a goal after controlling for

basic personality. In Step 1 of a hierarchical linear

regression predicting effort enacted on individual

goals, the Big Five accounted for 20% of the variance

in goal effort. At Step 2, trait patience (measured at

Time 1) was entered into the equation. Interpersonal

patience accounted for significant variance in predict-

ing goal effort after controlling for the Big Five,

¼0.27, DR

¼0.05, F(1, 255) ¼14.734, p<0.001.

Neither life hardship nor daily hassles patience

accounted for significant variance in predicting effort

after controlling for the Big Five.

Patient people report higher goal achievement

satisfaction

Trait patience also predicts goal progress and goal

achievement satisfaction. We found moderate zero-

order correlations between interpersonal patience and

goal progress (r¼0.30, p<0.01) as well as goal

achievement satisfaction (r¼0.34, p<0.01; averaged

across goals and time). Correlations with goal progress

and satisfaction were also found for life hardship

patience (r¼0.23, 0.28, p<0.01). Small correlations

with goal progress and satisfaction were found for

daily hassles patience (r¼0.13, 0.15, p<0.05).

We also examined if trait patience predicts goal

progress and goal achievement satisfaction after con-

trolling for basic personality. In Step 1 of a hierarchical

linear regression predicting goal progress, the Big Five

accounted for 17% of the variance in progress. At Step

2, trait patience (measured at Time 1) was entered into

the equation. Interpersonal patience accounted for

significant variance in predicting goal progress after

controlling for the Big Five, ¼0.23, DR

¼0.03, F(1,

255) ¼9.554, p¼0.002. Neither life hardship nor daily

hassles patience accounted for significant variance in

predicting progress after controlling for the Big Five.

Similarly, in Step 1 of a hierarchical linear regression

predicting goal achievement satisfaction, the Big Five

accounted for 20% of the variance in satisfaction. At

Table 6. Informant and participant correlations between patience factors and life satisfaction/

depression.

Informants

Participants

Life satisfaction Depression Life satisfaction Depression

Daily hassles patience 0.34** 0.25** 0.17** 0.13*

Life hardship patience 0.35** 0.27** 0.28** 0.27**

Interpersonal patience 0.40** 0.34** 0.26** 0.17**

Notes:

Individual informant ratings, N¼533.

N¼259.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 273

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

Step 2, trait patience was entered into the equation.

Interpersonal patience accounted for significant vari-

ance in predicting goal satisfaction after controlling for

the Big Five, ¼0.22, DR

¼0.03, F(1, 255) ¼9.691,

p¼0.002. Neither life hardship nor daily hassles

patience accounted for significant variance in predict-

ing satisfaction after controlling for the Big Five.

Goal satisfaction mediates the relation between

patience and well-being over time

To test the hypothesis that increased goal achievement

satisfaction mediates the effect of trait patience at Time

1 on life satisfaction measured at Time 5, nonpara-

metric bootstrapping analyses to compare indirect

effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) were performed

with a 99% bias corrected confidence interval (CI).

In bootstrapping, mediation is significant if the CIs do

not include zero. Results based on 1000 bootstrapped

samples indicated that there was a significant indirect

effect for goal satisfaction across time as a mediator of

the relation between patience at Time 1 and life

satisfaction at Time 5 (b¼0.30, lower 99%

CI ¼0.1154, upper 99% CI ¼0.5057). In the mediation

model, patience predicted increased goal satisfaction

(b¼0.80, standard error (SE) ¼0.13, p<0.001) and

goal satisfaction predicted increased life satisfaction

(b¼0.38, SE ¼0.07, p<0.001).The initial direct effect

from patience to life satisfaction (b¼0.50, SE ¼0.15,

p<0.001) was reduced to a non-significant direct after

including goal achievement satisfaction in the regres-

sion equation (b¼0.20, SE ¼0.15, p¼0.192). Thus, we

can say that goal satisfaction nearly fully mediates the

relation between patience at Time 1 and life satisfac-

tion at Time 5.

Moderating effects of goal difficulty, obstacles, and

patience required

Patience was hypothesized to have a larger effect on

goal satisfaction when goals were more difficult and

obstacle-ridden, because patience is most essential

when people face frustrations. A hierarchical multiple

regression was run to test moderation of the relation

between patience enacted and goal satisfaction by goal

difficulty. In the first step, standardized values of goal

satisfaction (ratings entered as specific goals averaged

across time alone) were regressed on patience enacted

and goal difficulty. Both variables significantly pre-

dicted goal satisfaction (Patience Enacted: ¼0.51,

p<0.001; Difficulty: ¼0.40, p<0.001) and

accounted for 41% of the variance in goal satisfaction

scores (R¼0.64, p<0.001). In the second step of the

regression, the interaction term of Patience

enacted Difficulty was significant, ¼0.10,

¼0.01, F(1, 2,359) ¼40.90, p<0.001. The effect

of patience on goal satisfaction is larger for difficult

goals. When goals are one SD above the mean on

difficulty, moving from low to high patience predicts a

1.18 SD increase in goal satisfaction, but when goals

are one SD below the mean on difficulty, moving from

low to high patience predicts only a 0.85 SD increase

in satisfaction. A similar pattern of results is seen for

Patience enacted Obstacles, ¼0.09, DR

¼0.01,

F(1, 2,359) ¼29.01, p<0.001, and Patience

enacted Patience required, ¼0.18, DR

¼0.03, F(1,

2,359) ¼118.65, p<0.001.

Discussion

Participant and informant data afforded further evi-

dence of construct validity of the 3-FPS. Informant

reports supported scale generalizability by demonstrat-

ing internal reliability and stable factor structure of the

3-FPS across multiple assessment methods.

Informant–participant agreement fell within the range

of agreement scores observed for other traits, and the

relation between patience and well-being was repli-

cated. Moreover, patient people, as measured by

3-FPS, effortfully pursued their personal projects and

enacted more patience as they worked toward their

goals. Patience facilitates goal pursuit and satisfaction

to improve well-being, and patience is especially crucial

for well-being when people are facing difficulties and

obstacles.

Study 3: Patience intervention increases well-being

The function of Study 3 is to examine if a patience

training intervention can increase trait patience and

well-being. The formulation of patience as a character

strength connotes that it is a somewhat malleable trait

that can be increased by specific practices or cognitive

strategies, and increases in the virtue should enhance

well-being. The experimental nature of Study 3 allows

for testing causality, similar to research designs that

have been utilized to examine the well-being effects of

other virtues (e.g. gratitude journaling in Emmons &

McCullough, 2003)

In this study, a patience training intervention was

developed to increase trait patience. Presented as a

stress reduction study, activities included group dis-

cussions, individual activities, and guided meditation.

This study aimed to test two hypotheses: (a) the

patience training program increases patience, and (b)

the patience training program increases well-being.

Method

Participants

Participants were 71 (61 females, 10 males) UC Davis

undergraduates recruited through the department

274 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

subject pool. They received course credit for remuner-

ation. Participants were primarily Caucasian (40%)

and Asian American (34%), though other ethnic

minority groups were also represented (11%

Hispanic, 7% Middle Eastern, 3% African American,

4% other). Participants were 18–27 years old, with an

average age of 20.6 years (SD ¼1.8).

Measures

3-Factor Patience Scale. See description under Study 1

Measures.

Satisfaction with Life Scale. See description under

Study 1 Measures.

CES-D. Participants took the CES-D (see description

under Study 1 Measures) to report depressive symp-

toms for the past week.

PANAS.The PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,

1988) was used to assess the extent to which subjects

felt positive (e.g. interested, enthusiastic, determined)

and negative (e.g. hostile, irritable, guilty) emotions

over the past week on a 1 (very slightly or not at all)to5

(extremely) scale.

Subjective Happiness Scale.Lyubomirsky and

Lepper’s (1999) four items, rated on a 7-point Likert

scale, were used to measure participant happiness. For

example, one items reads, ‘In general, I consider

myself ...not a very happy person (1) to a very happy

person (7)’.

Gratitude Questionnaire.The GQ-6 (McCullough,

Emmons, & Tsang, 2002) is a 6-item measure of

gratitude with items such as ‘If I had to list everything

that I feel grateful for, it would be a very long list’

rated on a 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree)

scale.

Emotion regulation. Gross and John’s (2003)

10-item Emotion Regulation Questionnaire assesses

individual differences in utilizing the two emotion

regulation strategies of cognitive reappraisal and

expressive suppression (1 ¼strongly disagree;

7¼strongly agree).

MAAS.See descriptions under Study 1 Measures.

Procedure

Upon agreement to participate in the study, which was

presented as a stress and personality study, partici-

pants attended a 45-minute introductory session and

completed the study measures. They were then ran-

domly assigned to the experimental or control

condition.

Participants in the experimental condition (i.e. the

patience training intervention) signed up for four

training sessions to be held across the following two

weeks. After the last training session, participants were

instructed to complete an online survey, retaking the

well-being and personality measures from Time 1.

Participants in the control group took the Time 1

survey at the initial training session and were sent a

link for the Time 2 survey when it was sent to the

experimental group. One month following the second

survey, all participants were e-mailed a link for a third

survey, also containing the original measures.

Experimental group patience training sessions. The

patience training was administered by the experimenter

to groups of three to six participants over four

30-minute sessions. The training consisted of teaching

and activity components, and it was formulated by

drawing upon interventions and methods utilized in

prior studies, specifically deriving insight from the

meditation, Type A, self-control, CBT, and character

strengths literatures.

Didactic component. The first session was focused on

increasing participants’ awareness of their positive and

negative emotions, as well as the precipitating causes

and triggers of those emotions. Meditative practice was

also introduced and discussed in the first session. The

second session focused on emotion regulatory strate-

gies, both preventive and reactionary. The third and

fourth sessions were focused on coping with interper-

sonal stress and fostering a sense of empathy and

compassion. Participants reflected upon past situations

in which they were frustrated with another person and

answered questions meant to encourage perspective-

taking. Participants also completed a reframing/reap-

praisal exercise. They were asked to consider a variety

of frustrating situations and write their typical negative

thoughts before writing a reappraisal of the situation.

For instance, participants were given the following

scenario,

You are catching a new release at the movies. The person

behind you keeps kicking your chair and chewing her

popcorn really loudly. As the movie progresses, she

proceeds to answer her phone twice,

and asked to describe their typical negative response

(e.g. ‘People are so annoying! Can’t they understand

that I’m trying to watch a movie?’), as well as

the reframe (e.g. ‘I’ve probably accidently kicked the

chair in front of me before, too, so maybe it was an

accident’).

Guided meditation. Each session contained a 10–15-

minute guided meditation. Meditations began with

instructions for participants to attend to their breath-

ing and posture in a non-judgmental manner. During

the first two training sessions, the meditation was

focused on replacing negative emotions with positive

emotions. The third and fourth sessions included a

loving-kindness meditation. Loving-kindness

The Journal of Positive Psychology 275

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

meditation involves directing warm and positive emo-

tions toward other people, beginning with the self and

extending gradually outward (i.e. to a benefactor, good

friend, neutral person, enemy, all beings of the world;

Carson et al., 2005; Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffery, Pek,

& Finkel, 2008; Kristeller & Johnson, 2005). The

loving-kindness meditation was included due to the

highly interpersonal nature of patience.

Results

One-way analyses of variance indicate there were no

differences between the experimental and control

groups at Time 1 on all study variables (at p<0.05).

Effect of patience training on Time 2 variables

controlling for Time 1 scores

Patience training increases trait patience. Interpersonal

patience at Time 2 was regressed on interpersonal

patience at Time 1 and accounted for 54% of the

variance in Time 2 patience scores (¼0.733,

p<0.001). At Step 2, treatment group (dummy

coded: 0 ¼control, 1 ¼experimental) accounted for

significant variance in Time 2 scores, ¼0.21,

¼0.05, F(1, 54) ¼5.65, p¼0.02. Participation in

the treatment intervention predicted higher interper-

sonal patience scores at Time 2, controlling for Time 1

patience. Treatment did not predict Time 2 life

hardship patience,¼0.08, DR

¼0.01, F(1,

54) ¼0.54, p¼0.47, nor did it predict daily hassles

patience,¼0.16, DR

¼0.02, F(1, 54) ¼2.70, p¼0.11.

Patience training predicts changes in positive, but not

negative, affect. Time 2 positive affect was regressed on

Time 1 positive affect, which accounted for 48% of the

variance in Time 2 scores (¼0.69, p<0.001). At Step

2, treatment group accounted for significant variance,

¼0.20, DR

¼0.04, F(1, 54) ¼4.37, p¼0.04, such

that participation in the intervention predicted higher

positive affect at Time 2. Treatment group did not

predict Time 2 negative affect controlling for Time 1

negative affect, ¼0.02, DR

<0.001, F(1, 54) ¼0.02,

p¼0.88.

Patience training decreases depression. Time 2 depres-

sion was regressed on Time 1 depression, which

accounted for 15% of the variance in Time 2 depres-

sion scores (¼0.39, p¼0.004). At Step 2, treatment

group accounted for significant variance in scores,

¼0.26, DR

¼0.067, F(1, 54) ¼4.53, p¼0.04, such

that patience training significantly decreased

depression.

Patience training and emotion regulation. Time 2

reappraisal was regressed on Time 1 reappraisal,

which accounted for 44% of the variance in Time 2

scores (¼0.66, p<0.001). Treatment group then

accounted for marginally significant variance,

¼0.19, DR

¼0.03, F(1, 54) ¼3.41, p¼0.07.

Patience training may increase participants’ use of

reappraisal. Treatment had no effect on suppression,

¼0.12, DR

¼0.012, F(1, 54) ¼1.03, p¼0.31.

Life satisfaction, happiness, gratitude, and mindfulness.

Effects of the intervention at Time 2 did not reach

statistical significance for life satisfaction, ¼0.13,

¼0.02, F(1, 54) ¼1.77, p¼0.19; happiness,

¼0.10, DR

¼0.01, F(1, 54) ¼0.93, p¼0.34; grati-

tude, ¼0.09, DR

¼0.01, F(1, 54) ¼0.86, p¼0.36; or

mindfulness, ¼0.001, DR

<0.001, F(1, 54) ¼0.001,

p¼0.94.

Mediation effects

To test the hypothesis that increased patience mediates

the effect of the patience intervention on well-being

measured at Time 2, nonparametric bootstrapping

analyses to compare indirect effects with covariates

(Preacher & Hayes, 2008) were performed. Given the

small sample size and exploratory approach, 90% bias

corrected CIs were examined for the indirect effects

(mediation is significant if the CI does not include

zero).

There was partial support that interpersonal

patience mediates the effect of the patience training

intervention on T2 depression. Results based on 1000

bootstrapped samples indicated that there was a

significant indirect effect for interpersonal patience

(b¼0.0193, lower 90% CI ¼0.0855, upper 90%

CI ¼0.0001), controlling for T1 depression.

Although there seems to be a significant indirect

effect, the path coefficients from the intervention to

interpersonal patience and from interpersonal patience

to depression do not reach statistical significance.

Given the small sample size of the mediation analysis

(N¼55), this may be from a lack of power. Therefore,

we cannot conclude that interpersonal patience medi-

ates the effect of the patience training, but neither

should we reject the mediating effect. Instead, future

studies are needed to clarify the effect with more

statistical power.

Patience was also tested as a mediator of the

intervention’s effect on T2 positive affect. Results

based on 1000 bootstrapped samples indicated that

there was no significant indirect effect for interpersonal

patience (b¼0.0193, lower 90% CI ¼0.0090, upper

90% CI ¼0.1235).

Effect of patience training on Time 3 variables

controlling for Time 1 scores

Time 3 trait patience. Interpersonal patience at Time 3

was regressed on interpersonal patience at Time 1,

which accounted for 39% of the variance in Time 3

276 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

scores (¼0.622, p<0.001). Treatment group was

then added to the equation, ¼0.230, R

change ¼0.049, F(1,42) ¼3.475, p¼0.07. Even

though this effect only reaches marginal significance,

the beta coefficient is actually larger than the coeffi-

cient for predicting patience at Time 2 (¼0.21).

Although there was no effect of treatment on life

hardship patience at Time 2, there was a marginally

significant effect of treatment on life hardship patience

at Time 3. Life hardship patience at Time 1 accounted

for 27% of the variance in Time 3 life hardship patience

scores (¼0.52, p<0.001). At Step 2, treatment group

accounted for a marginally significant variance not

explained by Time 1 scores, ¼0.24, DR

¼0.06, F(1,

42) ¼3.49, p¼0.07. The beta is substantially larger

than was given for predicting life hardship patience at

Time 2 (¼0.08). This evidence of a delayed effect of

the patience training on life hardship patience fits a

priori hypotheses that participants will only become

aware of changes in their life hardship patience when

they have sufficient opportunity to observe themselves

reacting to long-term stressors over time.

There was no effect of the intervention on ratings

of daily hassles patience at Time 3, controlling for Time

1 scores, ¼0.05, DR

¼0.003, F(1, 42) ¼0.23,

p¼0.64.

Time 3 depression. Time 3 depression was regressed on

Time 1 depression, which accounted for 6% of the

variance in Time 3 scores (¼0.25 p¼0.11).

Treatment group was then added to the regression

equation, ¼0.19, DR

¼0.03, F(1, 42) ¼1.51,

p¼0.23. Although treatment was not a significant

predictor of Time 3 depression, the beta coefficient was

similar in size to the beta for predicting Time 2

depression (¼0.26). Also, Time 1 depression scores

failed to reach statistical significance for predicting

depression at Time 3, which indicates a power issue.

Discussion

Study 3 provided evidence in partial support of its two

hypotheses. First, levels of trait patience were imme-

diately raised by the patience training intervention, and

results from a one month follow up point to a

sustained increase in patience (even though results do

not reach significance because of subject attrition).

These results support the conceptualization of patience

as a character strength that can be strengthened with

specific practices and activities.

The second hypothesis was also supported: the

patience training program increased well-being.

Controlling for Time 1 scores, participants who

partook in the patience training reported lower depres-

sion and higher positive affect at Time 2. Time 3 effects

were not significant, but the pattern of results suggests

they would most likely reach significance with higher

power.

As this was the first attempt to directly test if trait

patience could be increased through intentional activ-

ities, the patience training intervention was constructed

to minimize Type II errors by including a broad range

of exercises and activities. With initial results support-

ing the efficacy of the intervention, the separable

effects of the particular components (meditation,

cognitive reappraisal training, etc.) can now be exam-

ined to see which activities (or combination of them)

are driving the increase in patience. A limitation

resulting from the broad scope of the patience training

exercises is that we cannot exclusively attribute the

well-being effects of the manipulation to increased

patience. The intervention could also be enhancing

related psychological attributes, such as adaptive

coping, mindfulness, emotion regulation, and compas-

sion. However, the non-significant effects of the

intervention on Time 2 and Time 3 mindfulness and

gratitude suggest that the intervention is increasing

patience – not other virtues!

While some may propose that our control condi-

tion does not rule out the possibility that our effects are

primarily the result of demand characteristics, such an

explanation is not supported by the pattern of results.

If demand characteristics were driving our effects, we

would expect the patience training to increase scores on

all of the well-being outcomes equally. Instead, we

observe that the training alleviates depression, but does

not significantly change life satisfaction or happiness.

Of these three well-being indicators, depression is least

susceptible to demand characteristics (with non-intui-

tive items such as ‘I did not feel like eating; my appetite

was poor’ and ‘My sleep was restless’), whereas the life

satisfaction and happiness are more susceptible to

demand characteristics (with transparent items such as

‘I am satisfied with my life’ and ‘I consider myself a

happy person’). Future studies with additional control

conditions (e.g. a control condition that teaches

organization skills) will further rule out this

alternative.

General discussion

Studies 1–3 fulfill their three research objectives: they

provide evidence of construct validity for the 3-FPS,

longitudinal and experimental data support that

patience increases well-being, and longitudinal data

support mediation of the patience–well-being relation

by goal pursuit and satisfaction.

Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being

Patience consistently relates to indicators of hedonic

well-being. Even after controlling for personality,

The Journal of Positive Psychology 277

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

patience predicts depression, life satisfaction, happi-

ness, and affect in both self- and informant-reports.

Goal achievement satisfaction mediates the relation

between patience and life satisfaction, supporting the

hypothesis that patience increases hedonic well-being

through increased goal achievement. Future studies

should be designed to collect more objective measures

of goal achievement (i.e. grades, relationship out-

comes, performance on a laboratory task, etc.) in

addition to participant ratings of goal achievement,

which are confounded with achievement satisfaction.

Objective measures will distinguish if patience increases

goal satisfaction because (a) it increases actual goal

progress/achievement, or (b) it changes the standards

by which people evaluate their goal progress and

construct satisfaction judgments.

Patience also relates to eudaimonic well-being.

Higher self-esteem in patient people points to higher

fulfillment of their competence and autonomy needs,

and lower loneliness points to the fulfillment of

relatedness needs. In addition, patient people score

higher on measures of other virtues that are a part of

the eudaimonic notion of ‘the good life’.

Patience does not lead to ill-being. In addition to

predicting well-being, patience does not predict nega-

tive outcomes, nor is there evidence that ‘too much’

patience is maladaptive. Instead, data support

Kierkegaard’s assertion that ‘patience is not resigna-

tion, passivity, or inaction; rather, it is the emergence

of freedom within the domain where necessity rules’

(Harned, 1997, p. 101). Study 1 results show that

patience and assertiveness are orthogonal, and Study 2

shows that patient people pursue goals with more

effort than less patient people.

State and trait patience

Patience was originally presented both as a trait and a

state. Although the trait formulation of the virtue

received the most attention in the three studies, a more

state-like form of patience was also examined: patience

enacted on specific goals (Study 2). Patience enacted

on goals was moderately correlated with trait patience,

but there was considerable unshared variance between

the two. Future studies could use a multileveling

modeling framework (of goals nested within persons)

to examine this state-trait connection.

Moderation of the patience–well-being relation

In Study 2, the difficulty of goals moderated the impact

of patience enacted on goal satisfaction, such that

patience played a more prominent role in predicting

satisfaction for goals that were difficult and obstacle-

ridden. Studies should further examine the moderating

role of situation characteristics. Patience, like

secondary control, may be most adaptive when the

person is unable to exert an influence on the environ-

ment and primary control efforts prove futile (Lam &

Zane, 2004). For example, Rothermund and

Brandtstadter (2003) found that switching to an

accommodative strategy of flexible goal adjustment

mitigated the negative impact of performance declines

on self-evaluations in older people.

On the flip side, are there certain situations in which

patience may lead to negative outcomes? Is patience a

maladaptive response when the person does have

control over the environment? If such situations are

found, the distinction between state and trait patience

may play into our understanding of the virtue. Moral

philosophers would argue that trait patience is always

beneficial and required for effective action, because only

when a person is dispositionally patient can he or she

clearly recognize when a situation requires an elevated

emotional response (low state patience) and when to

wait calmly (high state patience; Harned, 1997). From

this perspective, high state patience – but not high trait

patience – could lead to negative outcomes in particular

situations. Such an argument would apply to positive

traits and virtues more broadly, and research in this area

would deepen our understanding of person–situation

interactions.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express gratitude to Dr Robert Emmons for

his guidance in this research.

References

Block, J. (1996). Some jangly remarks on Baumeister and

Heatherton. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 28–32.

Brandtstadter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal

pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-

related analysis of assimilative and accommodative strat-

egies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5, 58–67.

Brandtstadter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course

dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-

process framework. Developmental Review, 22, 117–150.

Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-

report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative

overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.),

Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Britons spent six months queuing: Britons will spend almost

six months of their life queuing. (2009, March 26). The

Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.

co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5052956/Britons-

spent-six-months-queuing.html

Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being

present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-

being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,

822–848.

278 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & MacDonald, H. (1997). The role

of motivated reasoning in optimistic time predictions.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 238–247.

Burke, E. (1769). Observations on a late state of the nation.

London, UK: J. Dodsley.

Byram, S.J. (1997). Cognitive and motivational factors

influencing time prediction. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Applied, 3, 216–239.

Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel,

Preslis, and Simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and

discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod

matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Carson, J.W., Keefe, F.J., Lynch, T.R., Carson, K.M., Goli,

V., Fras, A.M., & Thorp, S.R. (2005). Loving-kindness

meditation for chronic low back pain: Results from a pilot

trial. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 23, 287–304.

Clore, G.L., & Robinson, M.D. (2000). What is emotion

regulation? In search of a phenomenon. Psychological

Inquiry, 11, 163–166.

Curry, O.S., Price, M.E., & Price, J.G. (2008). Patience is a

virtue: Cooperative people have lower discount rates.

Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 780–785.

DeLongis, A., Coyne, J.C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., &

Lazarus, R.S. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts,

and major life events to health status. Health Psychology,

1, 119–136.

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.E., & Griffin, S.

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

Diener, E., Sapyta, J.J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-

being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9,

33–37.

Echteld, M.A., Elderen, T.M.T., & van der Kamp, L.J.T.

(2001). How goal disturbance, coping and chest pain relate

to quality of life: A study among patients waiting for

PTCA. Quality of Life Research, 10, 487–501.

Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting

blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation

of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,

377–389.

Fredrickson, B.L., Cohn, M.A., Coffery, K.A., Pek, J., &

Finkel, S.M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive

emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation,

build consequential personal resources. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062.

Glicksohn, J. (2001). Temporal cognition and the phenom-

enology of time: A multiplicative function for apparent

duration. Consciousness and Cognition, 10(1), 1–25.

Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two

emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect,

relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.

Groth, M., & Gilliland, S.W. (2006). Having to wait

for service: Customer reactions to delays in service

delivery. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

55, 107–129.

Harned, D.B. (1997). Patience: How we wait upon the world.

Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications.

Hughes, M.E., Waite, L.J., Hawkley, L.C., & Cacioppo, J.T.

(2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large

surveys. Research on Aging, 26, 655–672.

John, O.P., Donahue, E.M., & Kentle, R.L. (1991). The big

five inventory—versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: UC

Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O.P., & Soto, C.J. (2007). The importance of being

valid: Reliability and the process of construct validation.

In R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, & R.F. Krueger (Eds.),

Handbook of research methods in personality psychology

(pp. 461–494). London: Guilford Press.

Kristeller, J.L., & Johnson, T. (2005). Cultivating loving

kindness: A two-stage model of the effects of meditation

on empathy, compassion and altruism. Zygon, 40,

391–407.

Lam, A.G., & Zane, N.W.S. (2004). Ethnic differences in

coping with interpersonal stressors: A test of self-con-

struals as cultural mediators. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 35, 446–459.

Little, B.R. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and

method for investigation. Environment and Behavior, 15,

273–309.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H.S. (1999). A measure of

subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct

validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.

McCullough, M.E., Emmons, R.A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The

grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topogra-

phy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82,

112–127.

McGregor, I., & Little, B.R. (1998). Personal

projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and

being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 494–512.

Miller, T.Q., Smith, T.W., Turner, C.W., Guijarro, M.L., &

Hallet, A.J. (1996). Meta-anlaytic review of research on

hostility and physical health. Psychological Bulletin, 119,

322–348.

Palys, T.S., & Little, B.R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction

and the organization of personal project systems. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1221–1230.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2005).

Assessment of character strengths. In G.P. Koocher, J.C.

Norcross, & S.S. Hill III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk

reference (2nd ed., pp. 93–98). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths

and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Piedmont, R.L., McCrae, R.R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner,

A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence

from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer

samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

78, 582–593.

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and

resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect

effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods,40, 879–891.

Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report

depression scale for research in the general population.

Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

Rathus, S.A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing

assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4, 398–406.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 279

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

Robins, R.W., John, O.P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., &

Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled,

and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality

types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,

157–171.

Rorty, A. (1980). Essays on Aristotle’s ethics. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Rose, G.M., Meuter, M.L., & Curran, J.M. (2005). On-line

waiting: The role of download time and other important

predictors on attitude toward E-retailers. Psychology &

Marketing. Special Issue: Experiments in E-commerce, 22,

127–151.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rothermund, K., & Brandtstadter, J. (2003). Coping with

deficits and losses in later life: From compensatory

action to accommodation. Psychology and Aging, 18,

896–905.

Roy, M.M., Christenfeld, N.J.S., & McKenzie, C.R.M.

(2005). Underestimating the duration of future events:

Memory incorrectly used or memory bias? Psychological

Bulletin, 131, 738–756.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory

and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social devel-

opment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2001). On happiness and human

potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudai-

monic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

141–166.

Ryff, C.D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive

human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.

Schnitker, S.A., & Emmons, R.A. (2007). Patience as a

virtue: Religious and psychological perspectives. Research

in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18, 177–207.

Sheldon, K.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving, need

satisfaction and longitudinal well-being: The self-concor-

dance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

76, 482–497.

Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., & Kasser, T. (2004).

The independent effects of goal contents and motives on

well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you

pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,

475–486.

Snyder, C.R., Harris, C., Anderson, J.R., Holleran, S.A.,

Irving, L.M., Sigmon, S.T., & Harney, P. (1991). The will

and the ways: Development and validation of an

individual differences measure of hope. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.

Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Pred, R.S. (1987).

Impatience versus achievement strivings in the Type A

pattern: Differential effects on students’ health and

academic achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,

522–528.

Vazire, S. (2005). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy

method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in

Personality, 40, 472–481.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).

Development and validation of brief measures of positive

and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Wolk, S. (1976). Situation constraint as a moderator of the

locus of control-adjustment relationship. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 420–427.

Appendix: 3-Factor Patience Questionnaire

Instructions: For each of the statements below, please indicate how much the statement is like/unlike you.

1¼Not like me at all

2¼Unlike me

3¼Neutral

4¼Like me

5¼Very much like me

___ 1. My friends would say I’m a very patient friend.

___ 2. I am able to wait-out tough times.

___ 3. Although they’re annoying, I don’t get too upset when stuck in traffic jams.

___ 4. I am patient with other people.

___ 5. I find it pretty easy to be patient with a difficult life problem or illness.

___ 6. In general waiting in lines does not bother me.

___ 7. I have trouble being patient with my close friends and family.

___ 8. I am patient during life hardships.

___ 9. When someone is having difficulty learning something new, I will be able to help them without getting frustrated or

annoyed.

___ 10. I get very annoyed at red lights.

___ 11. I find it easy to be patient with people.

Factor 1 – Interpersonal patience: 1, 4, 7(r), 9, 11

Factor 2 – Life hardship patience: 2, 5, 8

Factor 3 – Daily hassles patience: 3, 6, 10(r)

280 S.A. Schnitker

Downloaded by [Sarah Schnitker] at 19:09 26 June 2012

TEVEKKÜL ANLAYIŞININ İNSAN PSİKOLOJİSİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ

Article

Jan 2024

Aydın ONUK

Managerial strategies to reduce stress and brain drain in tourism through moral values

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Purpose: This research explores effective managerial practices to reduce brain drain in tourism by promoting moral values such as compassion and empathy. It investigates how a supportive work environment can decrease employee stress, improve job satisfaction and retain skilled professionals. Design/methodology/approach: The study employed a structural equation modelling partial least squares (SEM-PLS) longitudinal model over three periods in 2023–2024. Invitations were sent to 47 inland hotels, with only 6 participating. It aimed to provide tools for employees to cope with pandemic-related crises. Managers distributed the questionnaires, yielding 267 responses out of 290. Findings/results: The research highlights how managerial practices focussed on moral values such as compassion and empathy can reduce brain drain in tourism by alleviating employee stress. It shows that values-driven training programmes foster a supportive work environment, leading to greater job satisfaction and talentretention. Limitations call for further longitudinal studies. Practical implications: A key limitation was the lack of longitudinal studies on training’s impact on values within the same population. Additionally, focus groups were needed because of employees’ unavailability for scheduled meetings. Originality/value: It was observed that the training helps not only overcome stressful situations but also provided a sense of commitment and excellence towards the company, helping to connect workers and customers. Similarly, it contributed to reducing the level of stress by improving its customer-facing training, which helped to overcome unforeseen changes in the hotel.

THE IMPACT OF HARDINESS PERSONALITY AND PATIENCE ON HOMESICKNESS ACTIONS IN ANTAU STUDENTSThe Influence of Patience and Hardiness Personality on Homesickness Behavior among out-of-town Students: an Islamic Psychology Perspective

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Leaving their nest creates a distance between students and their hometown, which can lead to homesickness. Prolonged homesickness can create various adverse effects. It is speculated that a hardiness personality can mitigate the impacts of homesickness behavior for out-of-town students. Another factor that is assumed to reduce the impact of homesickness behavior is patience. In the context of Islamic teachings, patience (sabr) and hardiness, which closely aligns with the concept of istiqamah, are highly valued virtues. This study aimed to examine the influence of patience and hardiness personality on homesickness behavior for out-of-town students. The respondents in this study were 102 out-of-town students. Purposive sampling method was used to select the respondents by setting specific criteria. Data were collected using scales. This study analyzed the data using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method with the help of the smartPLS 3.0 software. The conclusion of this study was based on the path coefficient values, which showed a negative influence of hardiness personality on homesickness behavior with a coefficient of -0.313 and a significant effect with a value of 0.011. The path coefficient values also showed a negative influence of patience on homesickness behavior with a coefficient of -0.318 and a significant effect with a value of 0.006. Therefore, it can be interpreted that both patience and hardiness personality have an influence on homesickness behavior for out-of-town students.

Investigating the Essential Soft Skills (SS) that Engineering Graduates Need to Enhance their Employability in Bangladesh

Article

Nov 2024

Syed Nazim Obayed

Soft skills (SS) significantly influence engineering graduate’s employability. In addition to their academic knowledge and technical capabilities, graduates need soft skills. Employers give a greater value on soft skills than on technical abilities. For career-long employment sustainability, these skills are essential success factors. Employability is significantly correlated with soft skills. To succeed in the job, engineers require soft skills. Technical skills are valued by employers throughout the hiring process, but as engineering careers progress, employers give more emphasis on soft skills. However, not every level of a person's career requires the same set of soft skills. At a certain point in a career, employers look for different soft skills. Starting with early career, moving through mid-career, and ending with advanced career, this research attempts to uncover those soft skills accountable for workplace success meeting employer’s expectations. Both graduates with a diploma and a bachelor's degree in engineering have been covered by this study. The majority of engineers share the same Intelligent Quotient (IQ) on an average. Technical skill gaps are easily bridged with quick trainings. The only things that set engineers apart from the masses are soft skills, which are primarily characterized by personality traits and Emotional Intelligence (EQ). Employability is influenced by numerous factors. Only the employability's absolute dimension is the subject of the inquiry. Absolute dimension is contingent upon the candidate’s skill sets. It is true that having technical abilities is a requirement for employment. But in addition to technical skills, modern employers now prioritize soft skills. Of course, an engineer continues to be measured by his/her soft skills in mapping their Annual Compensation Review (ACR). The study identifies 46 distinct soft skills that engineers need. Since not all skills are equally valuable at every level of a career, they are grouped according to career stage.

The Healing Power of Compassion (Rahmah) Forgiveness (Istighfar), Gratitude (Shukr), Hope (Raja), and Patience (Sabr)

Chapter

Dec 2024

Professor Dr. G.Hussein Rassool

This chapter examines the integration of key Islāmic virtues, compassion (rahmah), forgiveness (istighfar), gratitude (shukr), hope (raja), and patience (sabr) within the framework of Islāmic psychotherapy. It begins by exploring rahmah, highlighting its alignment with emotional resilience, empathy, and ethical conduct. Moving to istighfar, the chapter outlines an Islāmic process model for forgiveness, emphasising its role in emotional healing and mental health. Shukr is discussed next, focusing on its ability to foster positive emotions and enhance life satisfaction. The practical integration of gratitude into Islāmic psychotherapy is then provided, offering strategies to cultivate a grateful mindset. The chapter then examines the healing power of hope (raja), illustrating its importance for personal transformation and resilience. Practical approaches for nurturing hope in therapy are presented, showing how hope can be a catalyst for overcoming challenges. The wisdom of patience (sabr) is subsequently explored, linking it to psychological coping mechanisms and emotional regulation. The integration of sabr into therapy is discussed, providing tools to cultivate patience and foster emotional well-being. Concluding, the chapter highlights the profound intersection of these Islāmic virtues with contemporary psychological practices. By offering practical guidance for integrating these virtues into psychotherapy, it empowers therapists and clients alike to harness the transformative potential of these timeless principles, fostering resilience, emotional well-being, and psychospiritual growth.

Spiritual Well-being and Fate in the Patience Self-compassion Link Among University Students: A Turkish Perspective

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024
J RELIG HEALTH

This study investigates the mediating roles of spiritual well-being and belief in fate in the relationship between patience and self-compassion among university students. The research was conducted with 670 students. Data were collected using the “Patience Scale”, “Self-Compassion Scale,” “Theistic Fate Perception Scale,” and a “Personal Information Form.” Analyses were performed using Process Macro Model 4 and Model 8. The findings indicate no significant relationship between self-compassion and spiritual well-being. However, an optimistic prediction was identified between spiritual well-being and patience. Furthermore, the study's findings have significant implications. It was found that spiritual well-being does not serve as a mediating role in the relationship between self-compassion and patience. Instead, belief in fate plays a regulatory role that strengthens the relationship between self-compassion and spiritual well-being. Among individuals with a high belief in fate, the prediction of spiritual well-being by self-compassion becomes more pronounced. Moreover, belief in fate regulates the indirect prediction of patience by self-compassion through spiritual well-being, opening up new avenues for research and practice. A number of limitations regarding this study are also noted.

Examining the Relationship Between Positive Thinking Skills and Patience Tendency in Women

Article

Nov 2024

This study investigates the relationship between positive thinking skills and patience tendencies among women in Istanbul, Turkey. A sample of 405 female participants with an average age of 32 years completed measures of positive thinking and patience. Results revealed a significant positive correlation between positive thinking and overall patience tendency, as well as its sub-dimensions (short-term, long-term, and interpersonal patience). Furthermore, positive thinking was found to be a significant predictor of patience disposition. These findings suggest that positive thinking may serve as a valuable resource for enhancing women’s patience tendencies, potentially contributing to improved life quality and resilience. This study highlights the interconnected nature of these psychological traits and their potential importance in women’s psychological well-being.

Exploring the Essential Higher Order Cognitive Skills (HOCS) for the Employability of Engineering Graduates in Bangladesh

Article

Nov 2024

Syed Nazim Obayed

Employability of engineering graduates is largely impacted by their higher order cognitive skills. In addition to their academic knowledge and technical capabilities, graduates need HOCS. Employers give a larger value on HOCS than on technical abilities. For career-long employment sustainability, these skills are essential success factors. Employability is significantly correlated with HOCS. To succeed in the job, engineers require HOCS. Technical skills are valued by employers throughout the hiring process, but as engineering careers progress, employers give more emphasis on HOCS. However, not every level of a person's career requires the same set of HOCS. At a certain point in a career, employers look for different HOCS. Starting with early career, moving through mid-career, and ending with advanced career, this research attempts to uncover those HOCS accountable for workplace success meeting employer’s expectations. Both graduates with a diploma and a bachelor's degree in engineering have been covered by this study. The majority of engineers share the same Intelligent Quotient (IQ) on an average. Technical skill gaps are easily bridged with quick trainings. The only things that set engineers apart from the masses are HOCS, which are primarily higher order brain-based executive functions. Employability is influenced by numerous factors. Only the employability's absolute dimension is the subject of the inquiry. Absolute dimension is contingent upon the candidate’s skill sets. It is true that having technical abilities is a requirement for employment. But in addition to technical skills, modern employers now prioritize HOCS. It is an indisputable fact that engineer’s HOCS play a major role in their Annual Compensation Review (ACR). The study identifies 14 distinct HOCS that engineers need. Since not all skills are equally valuable at every point of a career, they are grouped according to career stage.

When Time Is the Enemy: An Initial Test of the Process Model of Patience

Article

Oct 2024

The process model of patience attempts to reconcile disparate approaches to understanding patience. This investigation provides an initial test of the tenets of this new theoretical model, which positions impatience as a discrete emotion and patience as a targeted form of emotion regulation. In three studies with diverse samples ( N = 1,401; data collected 2022–2023), participants responded to hypothetical scenarios designed to tap into familiar experiences of impatience. Regarding impatience, findings support our claim that impatience arises in response to the perception that a delay is unreasonable or unfair, and situational and intrapersonal characteristics emerged as predictors of impatience. Regarding patience, findings were consistent with the conceptualization of patience as driven more by intrapersonal than situational factors and revealed a set of individual differences that predicted patience. This investigation lends support to the process model of patience as a viable approach, generative of testable research questions, with implications for well-being.

تنمية الصبر والأمل لدى أمهات الأطفال ذوي الاضطرابات النمائية العصبية- اضطرابات التواصل أنموذجًا- دراسة تجريبية في علم النفس الإيجابي

Article

Oct 2024

د. أمل محمد حسن غنايم

The Grateful Disposition: A Conceptual and Empirical Topography

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2002

In four studies, the authors examined the correlates of the disposition toward gratitude. Study 1 revealed that self-ratings and observer ratings of the grateful disposition are associated with positive affect and well-being prosocial behaviors and traits, and religiousness/spirituality. Study 2 replicated these findings in a large nonstudent sample. Study 3 yielded similar results to Studies 1 and 2 and provided evidence that gratitude is negatively associated with envy and materialistic attitudes. Study 4 yielded evidence that these associations persist after controlling for Extraversion/positive affectivity, Neuroticism/negative affectivity, and Agreeableness. The development of the Gratitude Questionnaire, a unidimensional measure with good psychometric properties, is also described.

Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1998

What is emotion regulation? In search of a phenomenon

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2000

Psychologists have long been fascinated with the phenomenon of emotion regulation. Freud’s assertions about defense and anxiety, for example, represent an early but influential approach. Today, there is again a wave of interest in emotion regulation (e.g., Gross, 1999), and progress in this area is likely to be rapid. Excellent examples of this new interest can be seen in the three target articles in this issue. Each offers a set of principles to guide future work, but the principles highlighted in each are different. In our reading of the target articles, we were struck with several questions that were not answered. First, should we use the term emotion regulation narrowly or more broadly? And second, how can one separate the informational functions of a feeling from attempts to regulate that feeling?

Counting Blessings Versus Burdens: An Experimental Investigation of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being in Daily Life

Article

Feb 2003

The effect of a grateful outlook on psychological and physical well-being was examined. In Studies 1 and 2, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental conditions (hassles, gratitude listing, and either neutral life events or social comparison); they then kept weekly (Study 1) or daily (Study 2) records of their moods, coping behaviors, health behaviors, physical symptoms, and overall life appraisals. In a 3rd study, persons with neuromuscular disease were randomly assigned to either the gratitude condition or to a control condition. The gratitude-outlook groups exhibited heightened well-being across several, though not all, of the outcome measures across the 3 studies, relative to the comparison groups. The effect on positive affect appeared to be the most robust finding. Results suggest that a conscious focus on blessings may have emotional and interpersonal benefits.

Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming

Book

Jan 1998

Barbara M. Byrne

Society and the adolescent self-image

Article

Jan 1965

M. Rosenberg

PERCEIVED LIFE SATISFACTION AND THE ORGANIZATION OF PERSONAL PROJECT SYSTEMS

Article

Jan 1983

A new methodology for the systemic appraisal of personal project systems was utilized as an approach to understanding perceived life satisfaction. Variables derived from the Personal Projects Matrix were shown to explain variability in reported life satisfaction in two separate, studies, one with a university sample, the other in a small community. High life satisfaction was found to be associated with (a) involvement in projects of high short-term importance that were highly enjoyable and moderately difficult, and (b) the presence of a social network that shared project involvements and offered social support. A cross-validation analysis revealed that the results obtained with the larger university sample generalized to the community group. The studies reported below were based on three interrelated assumptions: (a) that perceptions of life satisfaction are related to the way in which individuals structure and organize their projects and concerns; (b) that these projects and concerns may be conceived as being organized in systems whose properties can be assessed; and (c) that indexes based on such measurement will explain significant proportions of variance in global measures of perceived life satisfaction.

The Life-Course Dynamics of Goal Pursuit and Goal Adjustment: A Two-Process Framework

Article

Mar 2002

A dual-process framework is proposed for understanding how the self-system negotiates the conflicting demands of ensuring a stable pursuit of goals and plans while adjusting to changes that affect their attainability. The model distinguishes two basic modes of reducing discrepancies between desired and factual situations or developmental outcomes: The assimilative mode comprises intentional efforts to modify the actual situation in accordance with personal goals, whereas the accommodative mode engages mechanisms that promote the adjustment of goals to constraints and changes in action resources. Differential conditions, underlying cognitive mechanisms, as well as life-course implications of these regulatory modes are specified. Empirical findings are presented that illustrate the explanatory scope of the model and its implications for well-being, efficacy, and successful aging.

The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework

Article

Jan 2002

The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope

Article

Apr 1991

Defining hope as a cognitive set that is composed of a reciprocally derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed determination) and (2) pathways (planning of ways to meet goals), an individual-differences measure is developed. Studies with college students and patients demonstrate acceptable internal consistency and test–retest reliability, and the factor structure identifies the agency and pathways components of the Hope Scale. Convergent and discriminant validity are documented, along with evidence suggesting that Hope Scale scores augmented the prediction of goal-related activities and coping strategies beyond other self-report measures. Construct validational support is provided in regard to predicted goal-setting behaviors; moreover, the hypothesized goal appraisal processes that accompany the various levels of hope are corroborated.

An examination of patience and well-being

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Conscientiousness in the Classroom: A Process Explanation