More skill than trait,or more trait than skill? Relations of (mis)matches between personality traits and social,emotional,and behavioral skills with adolescent outcomes
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2026
More skill than trait,or more trait than skill? Relations of (mis)matches between personality traits and social,emotional,and behavioral skills with adolescent outcomes
Personality traits and social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills are closely related but incrementally predict life outcomes. This implies that although tightly connected, what a person tends to do (personality traits) and what they are capable of doing (skills) are not always perfectly aligned. In this study, we investigated whether matches and mismatches between traits and skills predict important life outcomes. We studied a diverse sample of high school students (N = 840) who self-reported their Big Five personality traits, five SEB skill domains, and an array of academic, social, and emotional outcomes. Using response surface analysis, we found that matching trait/skill levels did not confer a unique benefit for adolescents over the additive effects of traits and skills. In contrast, we found that trait/skill mismatches predicted outcomes, and in some cases, adolescents with mismatching trait/skills had the best and worst outcomes. Specifically, youth with higher skill levels relative to their traits reported better outcomes, and those with lower skills relative to their traits reported worse outcomes. Our findings provide insights into functioning that are missed by solely focusing on direct effects and show that SEB skills can enhance youth’s personality strengths and buffer against shortcomings.
Plain language summary
Personality traits are how a person tends to think, feel, and behave, whereas social, emotional, and behavioral skills are how someone is capable of acting at their best. Although personality traits and skills are related, what people tend to do and what they are capable of doing are not always perfectly aligned. Some theories propose that people will have better life outcomes if they have matching levels of traits and skills, meaning they tend to act in ways that match their capabilities. Other theories propose that people will have better outcomes if they have mismatching trait and skill levels, meaning they are capable of acting at higher levels than they usual act. This study tested these competing hypotheses in a sample of 840 high school students. Results only supported the benefits of mismatching trait and skill levels. Specifically, we found that youth with higher skill levels relative to their traits reported better academic, social, and mental health outcomes. Additionally, we found that having high skills and high trait levels predicted better outcomes, even though having matching levels did not provide additional benefits. Together, our study suggests that having high skill levels can help people compensate for personality shortcomings and that having high levels of traits and skills can enhance someone’s outcomes by allowing them to fully capitalize on their personality strengths.
AbrahamsL.PancorboG.PrimiR.SantosD.KyllonenP.JohnO. P.De FruytF. (2019). Social-emotional skill assessment in children and adolescents: Advances and challenges in personality, clinical, and educational contexts. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000591
2.
AndersonC.JohnO. P.KeltnerD.KringA. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116
3.
AthertonO. E. (2020). Typical and atypical self‐regulation in adolescence: The importance of studying change over time. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(1), Article e12514. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12514
4.
BarrantiM.CarlsonE. N.CôtéS. (2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research: Description and empirical demonstration of response surface analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698204
5.
BeckE.JacksonJ. (2021). A mega-analysis of personality prediction: Robustness and boundary conditions. Innovation in Aging, 5(Supplement_1), 562–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.2157
6.
BelskyJ.JaffeeS.HsiehK.-H.SilvaP. A. (2001). Child-rearing antecedents of intergenerational relations in young adulthood: A prospective study. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.6.801
7.
BlockJ. (1961). Ego identity, role variability, and adjustment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(5), 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042979
8.
BurrusJ.BrennemanM. (2016). Psychosocial skills: Essential components of development and achievement in K-12. In LipnevichA. A.PreckelF.RobertsR. D. (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century (pp. 3–27). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_1
9.
DenissenJ. J. A.van AkenM. A. G.PenkeL.WoodD. (2013). Self-regulation underlies temperament and personality: An integrative developmental framework. Child Development Perspectives, 7(4), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12050
10.
DeYoungC. G. (2015). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.CooperM. L.LarsenR. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 4: Personality processes and individual differences. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14343-017
11.
DeYoungC. G.GraziopleneR. G.PetersonJ. B. (2012). From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003
12.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
13.
DonahueE. M.RobinsR. W.RobertsB. W.JohnO. P. (1993). The divided self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 834–846. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.5.834
EdwardsJ. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). Jossey-Bass.
16.
EdwardsJ. R. (2007). Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 361–372). Jossey-Bass.
FleenorJ. W.McCauleyC. D.BrutusS. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90003-X
19.
FleesonW.WiltJ. (2010). The relevance of Big five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? Big five States and authenticity achievement. Journal of Personality, 78(4), 1353–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00653.x
20.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
21.
GuoJ.TangX.MarshH. W.ParkerP.BasarkodG.SahdraB.RantaM.Salmela-AroK. (2022). The roles of social–emotional skills in students academic and life success: A multi-informant and multicohort perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(5), 1079–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000426
HumbergS.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600
24.
KehlM.EdershileE. A.HopwoodC. J.WrightA. G. C. (2021). A response surface analysis investigation of the effects of (mis)alignment between interpersonal values and efficacies on interpersonal problems. Journal of Personality, 89(6), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12641
25.
KernisM. H.GoldmanB. M. (2005). Authenticity, social motivation, and psychological adjustment. In Social motivation: Conscious and unconscious processes. Cambridge University Press.
26.
KlesgesR. C.McGinleyH. (1983). Typical vs. Maximal measures of personological variables. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(6), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4706_10
27.
KlesgesR. C.McginleyH.JurkovicG. J.MorganT. J. (1979). The predictive validity of typical and maximal personality measures in self-reports and peer reports. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13(6), 401–404. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336907
28.
LearyT. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.
29.
LechnerC. M.KnopfT.NapolitanoC. M.RammstedtB.RobertsB. W.SotoC. J.SpenglerM. (2022). The behavioral, emotional, and social skills inventory (BESSI): Psychometric properties of a German-language adaptation, temporal stabilities of the skills, and associations with personality and intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030063
30.
LeckyP. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality (rev. Ed). Anchor Books.
31.
MartinJ. E.MentenA.WaltonK. E.Anguiano-CarrascoC.OlaruG.RobertsR. D. (2019). A Rosetta Stone for social and emotional skills: Using the Big Five personality factors to understand, assess, and enhance social and emotional skills in primary and secondary education worldwide. Asia Society & ACT, Inc. https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/A_Rosetta_Stone_for_SEL_AS-ACT.pdf
32.
NapolitanoC. M.SewellM. N.YoonH. J.SotoC. J.RobertsB. W. (2021). Social, emotional, and behavioral skills: An integrative model of the skills associated with success during adolescence and across the life span. Frontiers in Education, 6(27), Article 679561. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.679561
33.
NestlerS.HumbergS.SchönbrodtF. D. (2019). Response surface analysis with multilevel data: Illustration for the case of congruence hypotheses. Psychological methods, 24(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000199
34.
NiggJ. T. (2017). Annual Research Review: On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12675
PaulhusD. L.MartinC. L. (1987). The structure of personality capabilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.354
37.
PaunonenS. V. (2003). Big Five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.411
38.
PrimiR.SantosD.JohnO. P.FruytF. D. (2016). Development of an inventory assessing social and emotional skills in Brazilian youth. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000343
39.
R core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R core Team.
40.
RobertsB. W.KuncelN. R.ShinerR.CaspiA.GoldbergL. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
41.
RogersC. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. Psychology: A study of a science. Formulations of the person and the social context. McGraw Hill.
SchönbrodtF. D.HumbergS.NestlerS. (2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169
44.
SewellM. N.YoonH. J.LechnerC. M.NapolitanoC. M.RammstedtB.RobertsB. W.SotoC. J. (2024). Assessing Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skills in Just a Few Minutes: 96-, 45-, and 20-Item Short Forms of the BESSI. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241256434
45.
ShanockL. R.BaranB. E.GentryW. A.PattisonS. C.HeggestadE. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4
46.
SheldonK. M.RyanR. M.RawsthorneL. J.IlardiB. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1380–1393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380
47.
SkinnerE.FurrerC.MarchandG.KindermannT. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
48.
SmithG. T.McCarthyD. M.AndersonK. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102
49.
SnyderM. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039
50.
SotoC. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The life outcomes of personality replication project. Psychological Science, 30(5), 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619831612
51.
SotoC. J. (2021). Do links between personality and life outcomes generalize? Testing the robustness of trait–outcome associations across gender, age, ethnicity, and analytic approaches. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619900572
52.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017a). Short and extra-short forms of the Big five inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004
53.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017b). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
54.
SotoC. J.NapolitanoC. M.RobertsB. W. (2021). Taking skills seriously: Toward an integrative model and agenda for social, emotional, and behavioral skills. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420978613
55.
SotoC. J.NapolitanoC. M.SewellM. N.YoonH. J.MuranoD.CasillasA.RobertsB. W. (2023). What I Do and what I Can Do: Testing the convergence and incremental validity of social, emotional, and behavioral skills vs. traits for predicting academic success. Journal of Researchin Personality, 104, Article 104382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104382
56.
SotoC. J.NapolitanoC. M.SewellM. N.YoonH. J.RobertsB. W. (2022a). An integrative framework for conceptualizing and assessing social, emotional, and behavioral skills: The BESSI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(1), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000401
57.
SotoC. J.NapolitanoC. M.SewellM. N.YoonH. J.RobertsB. W. (2022b). Going beyond traits: Social, emotional, and behavioral skills matter for adolescents success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(1), Article 194855062211274. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221127483
58.
SotoC. J.TackettJ. L. (2015). Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure, development, and outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415589345
59.
StantonA. L.KirkS. B.CameronC. L.Danoff-BurgS. (2000). Coping through emotional approach: Scale construction and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1150–1169. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1150
60.
SyvertsenA. K.Wray-LakeL.MetzgerA. (2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Search Institute.
61.
TurnerR. G. (1978). Consistency, self-consciousness, and the predictive validity of typical and maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 12(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(78)90088-0
62.
WallaceJ. (1966). An abilities conception of personality: Some implications for personality measurement. American Psychologist, 21(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023298
63.
WaltonK. E.BurrusJ.MuranoD.Anguiano-CarrascoC.WayJ.RobertsR. D. (2022). A Big five-based multimethod social and emotional skills assessment: The MosaicTM by ACT® social emotional learning assessment. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040072
64.
WaltonK. E.MuranoD.BurrusJ.CasillasA. (2023). Multimethod support for using the Big five framework to organize social and emotional skills. Assessment, 30(1), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211045744
65.
WaszczukM. A.HopwoodC. J.LuftB. J.MoreyL. C.PerlmanG.RuggeroC. J.SkodolA. E.KotovR. (2022). The prognostic utility of personality traits versus past psychiatric diagnoses: Predicting future mental health and functioning. Clinical Psychological Science, 10(4), 734–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026211056596
66.
WillermanL.TurnerR. G.PetersonM. (1976). A comparison of the predictive validity of typical and maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 10(4), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(76)90063-5
67.
WilmotM. P.WanbergC. R.Kammeyer-MuellerJ. D.OnesD. S. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1447–1470. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000415
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
