Relationships between personality traits, general self-efficacy, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and entrepreneurial activity

Abstract

The present study focused on relationships between personality traits, self-efficacy, self-esteem and basic trust, and well-being in context of entrepreneurial activity. Participants were 301 unemployed people, 157 of whom had received a grant from an employment agency to start their own business. Participants completed measures of personality traits, self-efficacy, self-esteem, basic trust, satisfaction with life, positive and negative affect. To verify if beliefs about the self and about the world mediated relationships between personality traits and well-being we conducted a multiple-sample SEM. The study results confirm that the beliefs mediate relationships between personality traits and well-being. They also show that different types of beliefs serve a different function, depending on an individual’s circumstances. Among grant acceptors, self-efficacy did not impact well-being, while self-esteem and basic trust had similar functions in both groups.

Full text

Original Papers
Polish Psychological Bulletin
2018, vol. 49(2) 131–140
DOI - 10.24425/119480
Many research assumes that individual differences in
personality are relate to well-being (Diener & Lucas, 1999;
Lucas & Diener, 2008). Also beliefs, e.g. Self-Efficacy,
Self-Esteem and Basic Trust can predict subjective
well-being (Diener & Suh, 1996; Luszczynska, Scholz, &
Schwarzer, 2005; Trzebiński & Zięba, 2004). The present
study focused on relationships between personality, beliefs
about the self-and the world, and well-being in context of
entrepreneurial activity.
In the 1990s integrated models of human personality
began to emerge. Scientists aimed to integrate numerous
elements including biological dispositions, individual
identities, and life narratives. Among the models proposed
since then, two seem to be the most influential, a model
proposed by McCrae and Costa (1996, 2008), and a model
proposed by McAdams and Pals (McAdams, 1995, 2006;
McAdams & Pals, 2006).
The model introduced by McCrae and Costa includes
the following components: a) biological bases, which
directly influence basic tendencies, including temperament
and personality traits; b) characteristic adaptations and
self-concept (a subcomponent of characteristic adaptations),
c) objective biography, and d) external influences.
Personality Traits play the most significant role in this
model because they influence Characteristic Adaptations.
Characteristic Adaptations are habits, attitudes, skills, roles
and relationships: “They are characteristic because they
reflect the enduring psychological core of the individual,
and they are adaptations because they help the individual
fit into the ever-changing social environment” (McCrae &
Costa, 2008, pp. 163–164).
Elements of personality constitute a system of related
elements, and these relationships may be similar, or even
universal, across people. For example, Neuroticism is
related to Characteristic Adaptations such as self-esteem,
irrational perfectionist beliefs, and pessimistic attitudes.
Extraversion is related to Characteristic Adaptations, such
as social skills, the number of friendships people have,
and enterprising vocational interest. Conscientiousness is
related to leadership skills, long-term planning, and the
*
SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Faculty in Poznan
** Lomza State University of Applied Sciences, Poland
Corresponding author: Mariusz Zięba, e-mail: mzieba@swps.edu.pl
Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the grant 2013/11/B/HS6/01135
from the National Science Center, Poland, awarded to the third author.
Mariusz Zięba*
Monika Surawska**
Anna Maria Zalewska*
Relationships between personality traits, general self-efficacy, self-esteem,
subjective well-being, and entrepreneurial activity
Abstract: The present study focused on relationships between personality traits, self-efficacy, self-esteem and basic trust,
and well-being in context of entrepreneurial activity. Participants were 301 unemployed people, 157 of whom had received
a grant from an employment agency to start their own business. Participants completed measures of personality traits,
self-efficacy, self-esteem, basic trust, satisfaction with life, positive and negative affect. To verify if beliefs about the self
and about the world mediated relationships between personality traits and well-being we conducted a multiple-sample
SEM. The study results confirm that the beliefs mediate relationships between personality traits and well-being. They
also show that different types of beliefs serve a different function, depending on an individual’s circumstances. Among
grant acceptors, self-efficacy did not impact well-being, while self-esteem and basic trust had similar functions in
both groups.
Keywords: well-being, Five Factor Model of personality, beliefs, characteristic adaptations

132 Mariusz Zięba, Monika Surawska, Anna Maria Zalewska
organization of support networks (McCrae & Costa, 2008).
This model depicts personality as a dynamic system that
regulates interactions between people, their characteristics,
and their environments. The things that people want to do,
what they feel, what they think about themselves, and what
they actually do depend on their social environments and
on Personality Traits as manifested through Characteristic
Adaptations.
McAdams and Pals (2006) introduced an integrative
model of personality that is based on the model proposed
by McCrae and Costa. They modified the model of McCrae
and Costa and stressed the importance of self-defining
life narratives. They also conceptualized the sources
and relationships of Characteristic Adaptations with
dispositional traits in different ways than McCrae and
Costa did. Through life narratives people self-reflect and
are able to understand their life stories and make sense
of the relations among the past, present, and future. In
McAdams’s and Pals’ model, Characteristic Adaptations
are influenced not only by basic tendencies and social
environments, but also by a person’s narrative identity.
“If dispositional traits sketch the outline and characteristic
adaptations fill in the details of human individuality, then
narrative identities give individual lives their unique
and culturally anchored meanings” (McAdams & Pals,
2006, p. 210).
In both the McCrae and Costa and McAdams
and Pals models, Personality Traits influence people’s
reactions to situations, their behaviors, and also their
general affective balance and satisfaction with life
through Characteristic Adaptations. According to Diener
(2000) subjective well-being consists of an affective
component, determined by the frequency and intensity
of positive and negative emotions, and of the cognitive
component expressed in satisfaction with life. As stated
by Lucas and Diener (2008, p. 795), “the strong influence
of personality is seen as one of the most replicable and
most surprising findings to emerge from the last four
decades of research on SWB [Subjective Well-being]”.
Research suggest that the strongest relationships between
Personality Traits and Subjective Well-being involve
Extraversion and Neuroticism (Diener & Lucas, 1999).
Extraversion correlates positively with the positive affect,
and Neuroticism with the negative affect (Costa & McCrae,
1980). It has been also found that beliefs about oneself or
about the world, expressed in optimism and self-esteem,
are positively related to Extraversion and are negatively
related to Neuroticism. Such beliefs are in turn, correlated
with satisfaction with life (Lucas, Diener, & Such, 1996).
McCrae and Costa (1991) explained these relation-
ships in two ways. Instrumental theories state that
personality traits determine which situations people will
typically engage in and which experiences they will
have. For example, extroverts will engage in more social
interactions than introverts, and extroverts will share
positive emotions with others than introverts. Temperament
theories point to a direct link between personality traits and
emotional reactions. Extroverts do not necessarily seek
specific situations, they simply react to what happens to
them in a different, more positive way. People who are
higher in Neuroticism are more sensitive to cues about
possible threats, including threats to their self-esteem,
than people who are lower in Neuroticism. Although most
studies on relationships between personality and Subjective
Well-being have examined the roles of Extraversion
and Neuroticism, there is also research that has found
positive correlations between Subjective Well-being and
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness (Shultz, Schmidt, &
Steel, 2008).
The integrative models of McCrae and Costa and of
McAdams and Pals state that beliefs are Characteristic
Adaptations, and people differ in terms of their beliefs about
the world and about themselves. According to Bandura
(1977, 1997), self-referent beliefs pertain to a specific
domain of activity and they predict the effects of actions
taken within that domain. Global beliefs should be treated
as relatively stable personal characteristics (Bandura,
1997; Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1992). People expect that
certain behaviors will have specific consequences. These
expectations are based on global beliefs, self-efficacy
beliefs, and on other beliefs about oneself, and on beliefs
about the typical course of events in a specific context.
According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is an
important aspect of these self-referent beliefs. As with other
beliefs, self-efficacy can also be divided into general and
domain-specific. General self-efficacy reflects a person’s
beliefs about her or his ability to deal with a broad
variety of challenging demands (Luszczynska, Scholz,
& Schwarzer, 2005). General Self-efficacy must also be
distinguished from positive expectations, such as hope or
optimism. General Self-efficacy may lead people to believe
that they will achieve successful outcomes and all will be
well, but this will take place because of personal efforts.
A person with high self-efficacy expects her or his efforts
and abilities are enough to deal with challenges and to
achieve goals. Compared to people who are low in General
Self-efficacy, People with higher General Self-efficacy
tend to undertake more activities, they devote more effort
to achieving what they set for themselves, and they are
more successful in coping with difficult situations and
stress. They are more persistent and when facing failure
they tend to increase their efforts rather than disengage
(Bandura, 1997). Consistent with such tendencies, General
Self-efficacy is positively related to Satisfaction with Life
(Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005).
General Self-efficacy is a set of beliefs that people
have about their abilities to cope and to achieve goals,
whereas self-esteem encompasses a wider array of beliefs
about oneself. Self-esteem is a positive or negative attitude
towards the Self (e.g., Rosenberg, 1965). People with high
self-esteem are generally happy about themselves and
self-esteem is positively related to how people perceive
their achievements, abilities, intelligence, and popularity.
It may not reflect objective levels of these dimensions
(Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). Self-
-esteem is positively linked to optimism (Lucas, Diener,
& Suh, 1996) and to a tendency to experience positive
emotions more frequently and more intensely.

133
Relationships between personality traits, general self-efficacy, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and entrepreneurial activity
General beliefs about the world encompass beliefs
about the stability of rules governing reality and the beliefs
about the world being a predictable, fair, and friendly
place. These beliefs vary in scope, and they refer to the
relationships between a person and her or his surroundings.
The concept of Basic Trust introduced by Trzebiński and
Zięba (2004) draws from Erikson’s understanding of trust
as a basic virtue developed in early childhood. Basic Trust
expresses the convictions that the world makes sense and
that it is generally a people-friendly place. Therefore,
these beliefs constitute a ‘private theory of the world’
or an individual worldview. They are usually not very
clearly verbalized, and when they are, these verbalizations
are expressed through socially accepted metaphors and
institutions aimed at sustaining them. Basic Trust correlates
with Openness, Extraversion and Conscientiousness
(Trzebiński & Zięba, 2004). Basic Trust is positively
related to the employment of adaptive strategies in the
face of life challenges. It is even more important when
the situation is outside of individual control, for example
when a person faces irreversible loss (Trzebiński & Zięba,
2004, 2012). In these situations positive outcomes cannot
be traced back to beliefs about one’s abilities; rather, they
depend on the belief that the world makes sense and is
a friendly place.
McAdams and Pals’ model provides a general frame-
work for investigating relationships between personality
and entrepreneurial activity. Recent meta -analyses have
shown that individual differences on four of these five
dimensions of the FFM are related to the likelihood that
people will become entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs scored
higher on Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience
and lower on Neuroticism and Agreeableness (Zhao &
Seibert, 2006; Rauch & Frese, 2007) Although these two
studies found no differences in Extraversion between
entrepreneurs and other people, a study that used data from
the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in the United
States found that level of Extraversion during childhood
predicts owning a business in adulthood (Zhao & Seibert,
2006).
Relationships between personality and entrepreneurial
activity reflect various processes. Openness to experience
is important for entrepreneurs as they need to explore new
ideas and take innovative approaches to the development
of products and the organization of business (Zhao &
Seibert, 2006). Agreeable people are less likely to start
a business than less agreeable people because they are
less likely to pursue their own self-interest, drive difficult
bargains, or use others to achieve their objectives (Zhao &
Siebert, 2006). Less agreeable people are more skeptical
of others than more agreeable people (Costa & McCrae,
1992), which makes them more critical towards business
information (Shane, 2003). Entrepreneurs need to be
highly conscientious to achieve their goals. People who
are emotionally stable are more likely to start their own
businesses than people who are neurotic, because owning
a business may be highly stressful, it is associated with
significant risks, social isolation, pressure, insecurity, and
personal financial difficulties (Rauch & Freese, 2007).
The findings of prior research have shown that many
decisions, including choosing an occupation and deciding
to start a business, depend to some degree on self-referent
beliefs (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). Among these
beliefs, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), hope (Snyder,
Sympson, Michael, & Cheavens, 2000), and self-esteem
(Rosenberg, 1965) refer to perceptions about one’s own
effectiveness. Also beliefs about the world, e.g. belief in
a just world (Lerner, 1980) and Basic Trust (Trzebinski &
Zięba, 2004), can play important roles in the formulation
and implementation plans to establish one’s own
business.
We examine the roles played by Self-Efficacy, Self-
-Esteem and Basic Trust as mediators relationships between
personality traits and well-being. It was hypothesized
that Self-Esteem would mediate between Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness and well-being;
Self-Efficacy would mediate between Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Openness, Conscientiousness and well-being;
and Basic Trust would mediate relationships between
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and
well-being. It was also expected that received (or not)
a grant from an employment agency to start their own
business would moderate the relationships between
personality traits, beliefs and well-being.
Method
Sample and procedure
Participants were 301 unemployed people (138
women), aged 19–65 years (M = 33.74, SD = 10.74), 157
of whom had received a grant from an employment agency
to start their own business. All participants were officially
registered as unemployed during the six or more months
before the study, and the length of their unemployment
was less than 12 months. They all participated in a support
program conducted by an employment agency, and
157 (52.16%) received a grant for launching their own
business (approximately 5,000 Euro). They had to run
their businesses for at least 12 months. If they did not,
they would have to return the money. They were asked
to participate in the study a few weeks after getting the
grant while they were registering their business. The
second subsample consisted of people who were registered
as unemployed and did not choose to apply for a grant,
although they could receive other support such as training
or assistance in job seeking. Participants lived in small or
medium sized towns (less than 100,000 inhabitants), and
they were registered in employment agencies in Łomża,
Kolno, Leszno, Szamotuły, K ościan, and in Poznan (for
people living in the vicinity of Poznan).
The study was conducted in employment offices,
during unemployment registration or during a meeting
with the employment assistant. Participation was voluntary,
and participants were not compensated. Participants were
told about the study aims and procedure both verbally
and in writing. At this meeting they were given paper
questionnaires that were completed immediately.

134 Mariusz Zięba, Monika Surawska, Anna Maria Zalewska
Measures
Personality traits
Personality was measured with the Polish adaptation
(Zawadzki et al., 1995) of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae,
1992). The NEO-FFI is a 60-item inventory, that consists
of five 12-items subscales measuring Neuroticism, Extra-
version, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. Participants responded on 5-point
scales labeled 1 = definitely don’t agree and 5 = definitely
agree.
Self-Efficacy
General Self-Efficacy was measured using the
Polish version (Juczyński, 2001) of Schwarzer’s General
Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1995). The
questionnaire has 10 items (e.g. “Thanks to my resource-
fulness, I can handle unforeseen situations”, “I can always
manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”).
Possible responses were 1 “not at all true,” 2 “hardly
true,” 3 “moderately true,” and 4 “exactly true.”
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem was measured with the Polish version
(Łaguna, Lachowicz-Tabaczek, & Dzwonkowska, 2007)
of Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale. The 4-point
scale consists of 10 items (e.g. “I take a positive attitude
toward myself” labeled 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly
agree.
Basic Trust
Basic trust was measured using an 8-item scale
(Trzebiński & Zięba, 2004). Participants indicated how well
each statement expressed or represented their feelings and
beliefs (e.g. “The world is good even if we are not doing
well,” “The world is just and everyone will get what they
deserve, sooner or later.” Participants provided their ratings
using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree).
Subjective well-being
Subjective well-being was measured using a Polish
adaptation (Juczyński, 2001), of the Satisfaction with Life
Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985). The measure asks the
subject to agree or disagree, using a seven-point Likert-type
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), with five
statements regarding the overall satisfaction with his or her
life (e.g. “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”, “I am
satisfied with the current state of affairs in my life”). Higher
scores indicate greater life satisfaction.
Positive and negative mood
Mood Questionnaire by Zalewska (2011) consisted
of 12 items that referred to positive affective states (e.g.,
happy, enthusiastic) and 12 that referred to negative
affective states (e.g. sad, nervous). Subjects indicated how
often they experienced each mood using the following
scale: 0 “not at all,” 1 “less than once a month,” 2 “once
a month,” 3 “several times a month,” 4 “once a week,”
5 “several times a week,” 6 “everyday.”
Results
Differences between grant recipients and non-
-recipients on our measures of personality, characteristic
adaptations, and beliefs were examined with series of
t-tests, and the results of these analyses are summarized
in Table 1. These analyses found that compared to
non-recipients, grant recipients had significantly higher
scores on Extraversion, Conscientiousness, General
Self-Efficacy, and Satisfaction With Life, and had
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and the results of comparisons of means for grant recipients (N = 157) and
non-recipients (N = 144)
Grant recipients Non-recipients
tpCohen’s d
MSD MSD
Neuroticism 18.33 7.37 20.63 7.20 -2.74 .006 .32
Extraversion 31.42 6.00 29.78 6.15 2.34 .020 .27
Openness 25.80 5.34 25.41 5.02 .65 .515 –
Agreeableness 30.06 5.73 30.42 4.56 -.60 .546 –
Conscientiousness 36.51 5.74 35.04 6.08 2.16 .032 .25
Self-Esteem 31.20 4.11 29.70 3.84 3.38 .001 .38
General Self-Efficacy 32.80 3.58 31.02 4.01 4.05 .001 .47
Basic Trust 30.49 5.00 29.50 4.63 1.78 .076 –
Satisfaction with life 23.82 4.66 21.70 5.44 3.62 .001 .42
Positive affect 57.12 9.23 55.37 9.92 1.58 .115 –
Negative affect 30.42 13.05 32.10 12.82 -1.13 .260 –

135
Relationships between personality traits, general self-efficacy, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and entrepreneurial activity
lower score on Neuroticism. In contrast, the analyses
found that the two groups not differ significantly in
terms of Openness, Agreeableness, Basic Trust, and
either measure of affect. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for the
significant differences were small to medium (Sawilowsky,
2009).
Correlations between the study variables for both
groups are presented in Table 2. According to Cohen’s
(1988) standard, in which correlation coefficients in the
order of .30 are “medium,” and those of .50 are “large”,
most of the study correlations are medium.
To verify if beliefs about the self and about the world
mediated relationships between Personality Traits and
Subjective Well-being (SWB), and examined differences
between grant acceptors and the non-grant groups, we
conducted a multiple-sample SEM (Byrne, 2010; Kline
2005) using AMOS 23.
In the both models, of Satisfaction with Life
and of Positive Affect, all five Personality Traits,
Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Basic Trust were included.
Based on the literature review presented earlier, we
assumed that Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness,
Agreeableness and beliefs about the self and about the
world predict Satisfaction with Life and Positive Affect;
Extraversion, Neuroticism and Openness relate to
Self-Esteem; Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness and
Conscientiousness predict Self-Efficacy; Extraversion,
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness relate to Basic Trust.
We assumed that relationships between Personality Traits
and both aspects of subjective well-being were decomposed
into direct effects and indirect effects through the beliefs.
The models of Satisfaction with Life are presented in
Figure 1 and Figure 2. The models of Positive Affect are
presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients for the grant acceptors (N = 157; lower triangular matrix) and in the non-grant
group (N = 144; upper triangular matrix)
1234567891011
1. Neuroticism -.42*** -.05 -.27** -.39*** -.48*** -.33*** -.24** -.42*** -.49*** .50***
2. Extraversion -.37*** .17* .28** .47*** .35*** .35*** .14 .35*** .55*** -.28**
3. Openness -.27** .23** .18* .12 -.02 .21* .18* -.01 .17* -.03
4. Agreeableness -.38*** .21** .12 .42*** .15 .17 .12 .17* .29** -.19*
5. Conscientiousness -.46*** .36*** .19* .40*** .27** .36*** .28** .31*** .47*** -.24**
6. Self-Esteem -.58*** .37*** .32*** .21** .34*** .41*** .13 .47*** .47*** -.27**
7. General Self-Efficacy -.30*** .32*** .22** .13 .35*** .35*** .35** .47*** .48*** -.41***
8. Basic Trust -.23** .34*** .26** .26** .31*** .32*** .25** .37*** .38*** -.16
9. Satisfaction with life -.34*** .37*** .26** .31*** .34*** .44*** .38*** .32** .46*** -.36***
10. Positive affect -.43*** .40*** .30*** .35*** .36*** .37*** .33*** .35** .37*** -.41***
11. Negative affect .43*** -.32*** -.16 -.24** -.25** -.33*** -.28** -.11 -.30*** -.29**
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Figure 1. The model of relationships between
Personality Traits, Beliefs and Satisfaction with Life in
the group of grant acceptors (N = 159)












Ͳ͘ϰϲΎΎΎ
͘ϭϱΎ
͘ϭϱΎ
͘ϮϰΎΎ
͘ϮϮΎΎΎ
͘ϯϮΎΎΎ
͘ϭϳΎ
͘ϭϰΎ
͘ϮϱΎΎΎ
͘ϭϴΎ
͘ϰϯΎΎΎ
͘ϯϭΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϰϰΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϯϵΎΎΎ ͘ϯϲΎΎΎ
͘Ŷ͘ŝ͘
͘ϭϮdž
Ͳ͘ϯϳΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϮϵΎΎΎ
͘ϮϱΎΎ
͘ϭϲΎdžƚƌĂǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ
EĞƵƌŽƚŝĐŝƐŵ
KƉĞŶŶĞƐƐ
^ĞůĨͲƐƚĞĞŵ
^ĂƚŝƐĨĂĐƚŝŽŶ
ǁŝƚŚ
>ŝĨĞ
^ĞůĨͲĨĨŝĐĂĐLJ
ŽŶƐĐŝĞŶƚŝŽƵƐŶ͘
ŐƌĞĞĂďůĞŶĞƐƐĂƐŝĐdƌƵƐƚ
Note. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; X p = .051
Figure 2. The model of relationships between
Personality Traits, Beliefs and Satisfaction with Life in
the non-grant group (N = 144)











͘ϭϴ
Ύ
Ͳ͘ϯϴ
ΎΎΎ
͘ϮϮΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϭϳΎ
Ͳ͘ϭϴΎ
͘ϮϭΎΎ
͘ϯϰΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϭ
ϲ
dž͘ϮϬΎΎ
Ŷ͘ŝ͘
͘ϯϯΎΎΎ
͘ϮϭΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϰϭΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϮϳΎΎΎ ͘ϰϵΎΎΎ
͘ϭϲΎ
͘ϮϮΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϰϴΎΎΎ
Ŷ͘ŝ͘
͘ϮϯΎΎ
͘ϮϭΎΎ
džƚƌĂǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ
EĞƵƌŽƚŝĐŝƐŵ
KƉĞŶŶĞƐƐ
^ĞůĨͲƐƚĞĞŵ
^ĂƚŝƐĨĂĐƚŝŽŶ
ǁŝƚŚ >ŝĨĞ
^ĞůĨͲĨĨŝĐĂĐLJ
ŽŶƐĐŝĞŶƚŝŽƵƐŶ͘
ŐƌĞĞĂďůĞŶĞƐƐĂƐŝĐdƌƵƐƚ
Note. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; X p = .055

136 Mariusz Zięba, Monika Surawska, Anna Maria Zalewska
To verify what is the role of the type of group
(grant-acceptors vs non-grant), we compared two types
of models. In model 1a and 1b, we assumed that loads on
paths may vary depending on the group. For models 2a and
2b, we have added an additional limitation by constraining
all parameters to be equal across the two groups.
All models fitted the data well (see Table 3 and
Table 4). Next analysis indicated that Model 1a and 1b did
not differ significantly (difference of χ2 = 50.412; df = 36;
p = .056). We also did not find a significant difference
between models 2a and 2b (difference of χ2 = 45.430;
df = 36; p = .135).
Thus, as Model 1b and Model 2b were more
parsimonious than Model 1a and Model 2a (i.e., had more
degrees of freedom; Edwards, 2001) the results were
preferable to Model 1a and Model 2a.
Table 5 and Table 6 summarize the standardized total,
direct, and indirect effects of the Personality Traits and
Beliefs on Satisfaction with Life and Positive Affect.
These results indicate that from among Personality
Traits Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism are
best at predicting Satisfaction With Life, but the entire
effect of Neuroticism and part of the effect of Extraversion
is mediated by Beliefs. Conscientiousness and Openness
affect Satisfaction With Life to a small extent, primarily
through Beliefs. In both groups, one of the most important
predictors of Satisfaction with Life was Self-Esteem
and Basic Trust. Comparison of the significance of the
parameter differences indicates that the groups of grant-
acceptors and non-grant differ in the effects of General
Self-Efficacy (Critical Ratios = 2,33) and Openness
(Critical Ratios = -2,25) on Satisfaction with Life. Both
Figure 3. The model of relationships between
Personality Traits, Beliefs and Positive Affect
in the group of grant acceptors (N = 159)









Ͳ͘ϰϲΎΎΎ
͘ϭϱΎ
͘ϮϰΎΎ
͘ϮϮΎΎΎ
͘ϯϮΎΎΎ
͘ϭϳΎ
͘ϭϲΎΎ
͘ϭϴΎ
͘ϰϯΎΎΎ
͘ϯϭΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϰϰΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϯϵΎΎΎ ͘ϯϲΎΎΎ
͘Ŷ͘ŝ͘
͘ϭϵΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϯϳΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϮϵΎΎΎ
͘ϮϱΎΎ
͘ϭϲΎdžƚƌĂǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ
EĞƵƌŽƚŝĐŝƐŵ
KƉĞŶŶĞƐƐ
^ĞůĨͲƐƚĞĞŵ
WŽƐŝƚŝǀĞ
ĨĨĞĐƚ
^ĞůĨͲĨĨŝĐĂĐLJ
ŽŶƐĐŝĞŶƚŝŽƵƐŶ͘
ŐƌĞĞĂďůĞŶĞƐƐĂƐŝĐdƌƵƐƚ
Note. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Figure 4. The model of relationships between
Personality Traits, Beliefs and Positive Affect
in the non-grant group (N = 144)











Ͳ͘ϯϴ
ΎΎΎ
͘ϮϮΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϭϴΎ
͘ϮϭΎΎ
͘ϭϴΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϭϱdž͘ϭϴΎΎ
Ŷ͘ŝ͘
͘ϯϯΎΎΎ
͘ϮϭΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϰϭΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϮϳΎΎΎ ͘ϰϵΎΎΎ
͘ϭϲΎ
͘ϮϯΎΎΎ
Ͳ͘ϰϴΎΎΎ
Ŷ͘ŝ͘
͘ϮϯΎΎ
͘ϮϭΎΎ
džƚƌĂǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ
EĞƵƌŽƚŝĐŝƐŵ
KƉĞŶŶĞƐƐ
^ĞůĨͲƐƚĞĞŵ
WŽƐŝƚŝǀĞ
ĨĨĞĐƚ
^ĞůĨͲĨĨŝĐĂĐLJ
ŽŶƐĐŝĞŶƚŝŽƵƐŶ͘
ŐƌĞĞĂďůĞŶĞƐƐĂƐŝĐdƌƵƐƚ
͘ϭϴ
Ύ
Note. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; X p = .056
Table 3. Fit indices in the tested models of Satisfaction with Life
Model chi2df p chi2/df NFI GFI RMSEA (LO 90; HI 90) CFI ECVI
Model 1a
no constraints 33.866 18 .013 1.88 .951 .976 .054 (.024; .082) .974 .595
Model 2a
with constraints 84.278 54 .002 1.56 .877 .943 .043 (.024; .061) .951 .523
NFI – Normed Fix Index, GFI – Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI – Comparative Fit
Index, ECVI – Expected Cross-Validation Index.
Table 4. Fit indices in the tested models of Positive Affect
Model chi2df p chi2/df NFI GFI RMSEA (LO 90; HI 90) CFI ECVI
Model 1b
no constraints 35.563 18 .002 1.98 .949 .975 .057 (.028; .085) .972 .601
Model 2b
with constraints 80.993 54 .010 1.50 .883 .945 .041 (.002; .058) .956 .512
NFI – Normed Fix Index, GFI – Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI – Comparative Fit
Index, ECVI – Expected Cross-Validation Index.

137
Relationships between personality traits, general self-efficacy, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and entrepreneurial activity
variables explain a significant part of the Satisfaction with
Life variance only in the non-grant group.
Discussion
Our findings add to the existing knowledge about the
relationships among Personality Traits, Characteristics
Adaptations and well-being, and about the impact of
situational factors on these relationships. In our sample,
Personality Traits and Beliefs about the self and about the
world explained 45% of the variance of Satisfaction With
Life, 42% of the variance of Positive Affect. Similar to
the results of previous research (Costa & McCrae, 1980;
Lucas & Diener, 2008) Extraversion and Neuroticism were
related to both the cognitive (Satisfaction with Life) and
to the affective (Positive Affect) component of well-being.
Consistent with the conclusions of the meta-analysis of
Steel, Schmidt, and Shultz (2008) we also found positive
correlations between Agreeableness and Conscientiousness,
and Satisfaction with Life and Positive Affect.
Hierarchical regression and SEM suggested that
Satisfaction with Life is related to Personality Traits, Beliefs
about the self (Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy), and beliefs about
the world (Basic Trust). These variables were related to
Table 5. The standardized total, direct, and indirect effects of the variables included in the model of Satisfaction
with Life for grant acceptors (N = 157) and non-grant (N = 144)
Grant acceptors Non-grant
Total Direct Indirect effects Total Direct Indirect effects
Neuroticism -.123 .016 -.129 by Self-Esteem
-.010 by Self-Efficacy -.285 -.155 -.072 by Self-Esteem
-.059 by Self-Efficacy
Extraversion .261 .158
.043 by Self-Esteem
.017 by Self-Efficacy
.043 by Basic Trust
.213 .117 .042 by Self-Esteem
.054 by Self-Efficacy
Openness .127 ,051 .063 by Self-Esteem
.013 by Self-Efficacy -.103 -.158 -.001 by Self-Esteem
.056 by Self-Efficacy
Agreeableness .196 .170 .026 by Basic Trust .094 .084 .010 by Basic Trust
Conscientiousness .040 .027 by Self-Efficacy
.013 by Basic Trust .122 .074 by Self-Efficacy
.048 by Basic Trust
Self-Esteem .286 .286 .184 .184
General Self-Efficacy .106 .106 .335 .335
Basic Trust .141 .141 .209 .209
Table 6. The standardized total, direct, and indirect effects of the variables included in the model of Positive Affect
for grant acceptors (N = 157) and non-grant (N = 144)
Grant acceptors Non-grant
Total Direct Indirect effects Total Direct Indirect effects
Neuroticism -.197 -.150 -.037 by Self-Esteem
-.009 by Self-Efficacy -.248 -.149 -.067 by Self-Esteem
-.032 by Self-Efficacy
Extraversion .221 .134
.013 by Self-Esteem
.015 by Self-Efficacy
.060 by Basic Trust
.373 .304 .039 by Self-Esteem
.029 by Self-Efficacy
Openness .090 .061 .018 by Self-Esteem
.011 by Self-Efficacy -.021 -.051 -.001 by Self-Esteem
.030 by Self-Efficacy
Agreeableness .214 .179 .036 by Basic Trust .078 .067 .010 by Basic Trust
Conscientiousness .041 .023 by Self-Efficacy
.018 by Basic Trust .090 .040 by Self-Efficacy
.049 by Basic Trust
Self-Esteem .083 .083 .172 .172
General Self-Efficacy .091 .091 .183 .183
Basic Trust .198 .198 .217 .217

138 Mariusz Zięba, Monika Surawska, Anna Maria Zalewska
Satisfaction with Life over and above relationships between
Satisfaction with Life and Personality.
Although relationships between Personality Traits and
Satisfaction with Life were significant when personality
was examined alone, when Beliefs were introduced into the
model the coefficients for personality were not significant.
This suggested that Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Basic
Trust mediated the relationships between Personality
Traits and Satisfaction with Life, and the SEM analyses
confirmed this supposition. The model with all five
Personality Traits fits the data best, but direct effects of
those traits on Satisfaction with Life were modest and
limited to Extraversion and Agreeableness. Relationships
between Neuroticism, Openness, Conscientiousness, and
Satisfaction with Life were fully mediated by Beliefs.
According to the Five-Factor Theory the effects of
Personality Traits on behaviour should be mediated by
Characteristic Adaptations, including beliefs about the
self and the world (McCrae & Costa, 2008). McCrae and
Sutin (2018) noted that when discussing Personality Traits
and behaviours, simple statistical mediation should be
distinguished from causal mediation. These authors stressed
that studies may show that a particular Characteristic
Adaptation mediates between a Personality Trait and
an outcome variable, but this does not mean that this
Characteristic Adaptation is the only significant predictor
of an outcome. For example, social skills may mediate the
effect of Extraversion on leadership and their effect may
be stronger than the effect of Extraversion itself, but this
does not mean that leadership depends solely on social
skills. A full model explaining the impact of Extraversion
on leadership effectiveness would have to entail numerous
Characteristic Adaptations. A study may include a specific
Characteristic Adaptation and it may mediate the
relationship between a trait and an outcome variable fully,
but this does not mean that other Characteristic Adaptations
should be ignored as possible predictors – they may even be
stronger than the one included in the study. The role played
by specific Characteristic Adaptations may also depend on
the specificity of a situation (McCrae & Costa, 2008).
McCrae and Sutin seem to question the search for
specific mediators between Personality Traits and behaviors.
“If one knew which specific Characteristic Adaptations
were relevant to the outcome, for practical purposes it might
make sense to assess them and ignore the underlying traits.
But a small number of (…) personality traits are associated
with a myriad of Characteristic Adaptations, so systematic
exploration of potential predictors of some outcome is
probably easier at the trait level.” (McCrae & Sutin, 2018).
In reference to these remarks, we are uncertain how
the mediating role of Beliefs (Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy,
Basic Trust) explains the relationships between Personality
Traits and Satisfaction with Life. First, our model may not
have included other, possibly more important mediators
between Personality Traits and Satisfaction with Life.
Characteristic Adaptations include habits, attitudes,
skills, roles, and relationships (McAdams & Pals, 2006;
McCrae & Costa, 2008). All Characteristic Adaptations
are influenced by Personality Traits and by the interaction
between Personality Traits and the environment. Research
on Satisfaction with Life has shown, that it depends on
positive beliefs, coping strategies, personal projects (Little
& Joseph, 2007; Wiese, 2007), and numerous other factors,
which, according to the Five-Factor Theory, would fall into
the category of Characteristic Adaptations.
The inclusion of other Beliefs or Characteristic
Adaptations other than Beliefs, might explain the
relationships between Personality Traits, Characteristic
Adaptations and Satisfaction with Life equally well or
better. Consequently, our findings should not be used to say
that the level of self-esteem, self-efficacy, or Basic Trust
explain how Personality Traits impact Satisfaction with
Life. Rather, we assume, that these Beliefs may be one of
the many mediators of this relationship. Future research
is needed to determine if other Beliefs (or Characteristic
Adaptations other than Beliefs) mediate relationships
between personality and satisfaction (see: Zalewska, 2018).
According to Bandura (1977, 1997) and Mischell and
Shoda (1995, 2008) beliefs about the self and about the
world are hierarchical. People hold global, very general
beliefs about themselves and about the world, but they
also hold beliefs referring to specific situations, objects,
and aspects of reality. In the present study we analyzed the
role of global beliefs. However, in our sample Satisfaction
with Life could possibly be predicted more accurately by
specific aspects of self-efficacy and self-esteem referring to
our participants’ specific circumstances (being unemployed,
seeking employment through grants) or work-related
self-efficacy. When a person is unemployed, her or his
Satisfaction with Life may not necessarily depend on the
general belief that the world is friendly, rather, it may
depend on the beliefs about those aspect of reality that are
relevant to job seeking (e.g. the mechanisms of free trade,
efficacy of the institutions supporting the unemployed).
Future research may therefore consider the global, as well
as domain specific beliefs and their interaction with the
participants’ specific circumstances.
Our findings confirm that Beliefs mediate relation-
ships between Personality Traits and Satisfaction with
Life. They also show that different types of Beliefs
serve a different function, depending on an individual’s
circumstances. Only in the non-grant group did the level
of Self -efficacy impact Satisfaction with Life and mediate
between other variables and Satisfaction with Life. Among
grant acceptors, Self-efficacy did not impact Satisfaction
with Life, while Self-esteem and basic trust had similar
functions in both groups.
Naturally, the study has some limitations. The choice
of the sample and the procedures require additional
comment. Participants were all Polish so our results
might not generalize to other cultural contexts in which
the antecedents and conditions of unemployment or the
institutional support (or lack thereof) may be different.
The cross-sectional design also limits conclusions
about causality. A longitudinal study would be more valid if
Personality Traits and Characteristic Adaptations were to be
studied before applying for the start-up grant and some time

139
Relationships between personality traits, general self-efficacy, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and entrepreneurial activity
after (e.g. after a year). Obtaining data on Satisfaction with
Life after a year is still possible, but a prospective design
would require a new group of participants, who would have
to be approached before they were awarded the start-up
grants.
Additionally, the interpretation of the group compar-
isons is constricted because the groups differed not only
in terms of Satisfaction with Life and Beliefs, but also in
terms of personality. This last difference is perplexing.
Compared to the non-grant group, the grant acceptors
had higher levels of Extraversion and Conscientiousness,
and lower levels of Neuroticism. This difference may
be coincidental but it may also stem from systematic
differences. Possibly, employment assistants in the job
centres may have evaluated some of the grant applicants
as better adjusted because of their personalities and
therefore, these applicants were more likely to be awarded
the grant. It is less likely that getting the grant impacted
the participants’ personality. According to the Five-Factor
Theory, Personality Traits are stable (Costa & McCrae,
2008), and the changes in their levels can be observed for
whole life-spans and not weeks; periods and not single
events or transient circumstances (Helson, & Kwan, 2000;
McCrae et al., 2000; Roberts, 1997). Also, we were unable
to control for the differences in personality between people
who participated in our study and those who refused. Grant
acceptors and the non-grant group differed in terms of three
Personality Traits and these differences must be taken into
account when interpreting the differences between them
in terms of the links of Personality Traits, Characteristic
Adaptations and Satisfaction with Life. However, it
should be noticed that despite the differences in terms
of personality traits, self-beliefs and life satisfaction, the
examined relationships between personality on both levels
(traits and characteristic adaptations) and Subjective
well-being were similar in both groups. This allow to
infer that these findings can reflect some universal
relationships.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford, England: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-effi cacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY,
US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., & Vohs, K.D. (2003).
Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal suc-
cess, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 4, 1–44.
Burke, A.E., FitzRoy, F.R., & Nolan, M.A. (2000). When Less is More:
Distinguishing Between Entrepreneurial Choice and Performance.
Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics, 62(5), 561–587.
Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. 2nd ed. New York, NY,
US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1980). Infl uence of Extraversion and Neu-
roticism on Subjective Well-Being: Happy and Unhappy People.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and
a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1),
34–43. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
Diener, E., & Lucas, R.E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of
progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276.
Edwards, J.R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational be-
havior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational
Research Methods, 4(2), 144–192. doi: 10.1177/109442810142004
Helson, R., & Kwan, V.Y. (2000). Personality development in adult-
hood: The broad picture and processes in one longitudinal sample.
In: S.E. Hampson, S.E. Hampson (Eds.), Advances in personality
psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 77–106). New York, NY, US: Psychology
Press.
Juczyński, Z. (2000). Poczucie własnej skuteczności – teoria i pomiar.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Psychologica, 04/2000.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
ling. 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Krueger Jr., N.F., & Reilly, M.D. (2000). Competing models of entrepre-
neurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411.
Lerner, M. (1980). Belief in a just world: a fundamental delusion. New
York, NY, US: Plenum Press.
Little, B.R., & Joseph, M.F. (2007). Personal projects and free traits:
Mutable selves and well beings. In: B.R. Little, K. Salmela-Aro,
S.D. Phillips (Eds.), Personal project pursuit: Goals, action, and
human fl
ourishing (pp. 375–400). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates Publishers.
Lucas, R.E., & Diener, E. (2008). Personality and subjective well-being.
In: O.P. John, R.W. Robins, L.A. Pervin, (Eds.), Handbook of per-
sonality: Theory and research (pp. 795–814). New York, NY, US:
Guilford Press.
Lucas, R.E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-
-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71(3), 616–628. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616
Łaguna, M. (2010). Przekonania na własny temat i aktywność celowa.
[Self-referents and purposeful activity] Gdańsk: GWP.
Łaguna, M. (2013). Self-effi cacy, self-esteem, and entrepreneurship
among the unemployed. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43,
253–262. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00994.x.
Łaguna, M., Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K., & Dzwonkowska, I. (2007). Skala
samooceny SES Morrisa Rosenberga – polska adaptacja metody.
Psychologia społeczna 2(02), 164–176.
Łaguna, M., Trzebiński, J., & Zięba, M. (2005). Kwestionariusz Nadziei
na Sukces. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The General Self-
-Effi cacy Scale: Multicultural Validation Studies. Journal of Psy-
chology, 139(5), 439.
Schwarzer, R., Jerusalem, M., & Juczyński, Z. (2001). Narzędzia pomiaru
w promocji i promowaniu zdrowia. Warszawa, Pracownia Testów
Psychologicznych.
McAdams, D.P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Jour-
nal of Personality, 63, 365–396.
McAdams, D.P. (2006). The person: A new introduction to personality
psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
McAdams, D.P., & Pals, J.L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental prin-
ciples for an integrative science of personality. American Psycholo-
gist, 61(3), 204–217. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full
fi ve-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 17(2), 227–232. doi: 10.1177/014616729101700217
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.J. (1996). Toward a new generation of per-
sonality theories: Theoretical contexts for the fi ve-factor model.
In: J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The fi ve-factor model of personality: The-
oretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York, NY, US: Guilford
Press.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.J. (2008). The fi ve-factor theory of personality. In:
O.P. John, R.W. Robins, L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personal-
ity: Theory and research (pp. 159–181). New York, NY, US: Guilford
Press.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.J., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková,
M., Avia, M.D., ... & Smith, P.B. (2000). Nature over nurture:
Temperament, personality, and life span development. Jour-
nal of Personality And Social Psychology, 78(1), 173–186. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173

140 Mariusz Zięba, Monika Surawska, Anna Maria Zalewska
McCrae, R.R., & Sutin, A.R. (2018). A fi ve-factor theory perspective on caus-
al analysis. European Journal of Personality, doi: 10.1002/per.2134
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of
personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions. Dynamics,
and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102,
246–268.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unifi ed theory of personal-
ity: Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within the
cognitive-affective processing system. In: O.P. John, R.W. Robins,
L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(pp. 208–241). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). ‘Let’s put the person back into entrepre-
neurship research: A meta-analysis of the relationship between busi-
ness owners’ personality characteristics and business creation and
success’. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 16(4), 353–285.
Roberts, B.W. (1997). Plaster or plasticity: Are adult work experiences as-
sociated with personality change in women? Journal of Personality,
65(2), 205–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00953.x
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. New York:
Princeton University Press.
Sawilowsky, S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern
Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 467–474.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Effi cacy scale.
In: J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psy-
chology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37).
Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individu-
al-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Michael, S.T., & Cheavens, J. (2000). Op-
timism and hope constructs: variations on a positive expectancy
theme. In: E.C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implica-
tions for theory, research and practice. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. 101–123.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refi ning the relationship be-
tween personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 134(1), 138–161. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138
Trzebiński, J., & Zięba, M. (2004). Basic hope as a world-view: an outline
of a concept. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 2, 171–182.
Trzebiński, J., & Zięba, M. (2013). Basic Trust and Posttraumatic Growth
in Oncology Patients. Journal Of Loss & Trauma, 18(3), 195–209.
doi:10.1080/15325024.2012.687289
Wiese, B.S. (2007). Successful pursuit of personal goals and subjective
well-being. In: B.R. Little, K. Salmela-Aro, S.D. Phillips (Eds.),
Personal project pursuit: Goals, action, and human fl ourishing
(pp. 301–328). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Zalewska, A.M. (2011). Relationships between anxiety and job satisfac-
tion – Three approaches: ‘Bottom-up’, ‘top-down’, and ‘transac-
tional’. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 977–986. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.13
Zalewska, A.M. (2018). Big-Five and Subjective Well-Being: The mediat-
ing role of Individualism or Collectivism beliefs and the moderating
role of life periods. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 49, 166–183.doi:
10.24425/119484
Zawadzki, B., Szczepaniak, P., & Strelau, J. (1995). Diagnoza psycho-
metryczna Pięciu Wielkich czynników osobowości: adaptacja
Kwestionariusza NEO-FFI Costy i McCrae do warunków pol-
skich. = Psychometric assessment of the Big Five personality fac-
tors: Polish adaptation of Costa and McCrae’s NEO-FFI question-
naire. Studia Psychologiczne, 33(1–2), 189–225.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S.E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and
entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 259–271.