Abstract
This article explored the role of personality disposition and value preference as predictors of social well-being in the context of ecological setting. Ecological contexts like rural and urban are critical, particularly in a developing country like India, because they represent significant disparities and variations in the lived experiences of the people. The participants (n = 360) from the age range of 15–65 years (M = 33.50, SD = 11.99) were drawn from two ecological settings, that is, rural (Gorakhpur Region, Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India) and urban (National Capital Region of Delhi, India) and from both the genders. They completed the measures of social well-being, value preference and personality dispositions. The results showed that the different facets of social well-being were differentially related to the aspects of personality and value preference. Ecological setting had significant influence on the measures of personality disposition, value preference and social well-being. Regression analysis showed that except neuroticism, all other factors of personality had consistent positive contribution as the predictors of social well-being. It was also observed that social value and growth factors of value preference had significant contribution, whereas personal value and protection—factors of value preference—had negative contribution as the predictors of social well-being.
Introduction
With the emergence of positive psychology, focused efforts have been directed towards understanding human strengths and promoting them to realize the human potentialities. Also, concerns for subjective well-being, life satisfaction and virtues have gained attention (Snyder et al., 2011). Interestingly, a vast majority of well-being research has concerned itself with the study of the nature, experience and correlates of individual-level functioning without much attention to the social facet of well-being, which looms large in the global discourses on sustainable developmental goals.
Social well-being is portrayed as the appraisal of one’s circumstance and functioning in the context of society. It entails perception of one’s social integration, acceptance of others, contribution to society, coherence of society and social actualization (Keyes, 1998). Past research in the Western world has examined the various correlates of social well-being as well as the factors that can modify the degree of social well-being over time (Hill et al., 2012; Joshanloo et al., 2012; Keyes & Ryff, 1998; Keyes & Shapiro, 2004; Li et al., 2015; Ozer & Benet, 2006; Rollero & Piccoli, 2010; Wilt et al., 2010; Van Lente et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).
In general, well-being is conceptualized in terms of subjective evaluation of satisfaction with life, positive affect and personal functioning. However, human lives are embedded in the social structures and have to fulfil a number of social responsibilities. Social well-being, therefore, forms a critical component of an individual’s overall well-being. Yet, it has received limited academic attention so far. Hence, the need was felt to expand the scope of the notion of well-being to incorporate social well-being in its orbit. Against this backdrop, this study focused on exploring the linkages of personality disposition and value preference with social well-being in rural and urban ecological settings. Ecological context is critical in a developing country like India, which has a significantly large size of rural population (about 66%) and rapidly growing urban sector. These two contexts represent wide-ranging and substantial variation in the lived experiences of the Indian people.
Social Well-being, Personality Disposition and Value Preference
There is consensus in contemporary scholarship that human well-being consists of the state of optimal psychological functioning and experience (Keyes et al., 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2001). It is structured into two different but related forms, that is, hedonic and eudaimonic. The position of hedonism describes well-being in terms of three factors, that is, life satisfaction, the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect (Snyder & Lopez, 2001). In contrast, the eudaimonic view considers well-being as a condition that occurs when people’s life activities are most congruent with deeply held values (Waterman, 1993). This distinction has led to focus on the constructs of psychological well-being and social well-being, respectively. Psychological well-being draws its source from humanistic-existential and developmental thought (Keyes & Magyar-Moe, 2003).
The notion of social well-being refers to the appraisal of one’s circumstances and functioning in society. Keyes (1998) has identified five dimensions of social well-being, that is, social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, social actualization and social coherence. One’s well-being is expressed not only in terms of satisfaction concerning interpersonal relationship, family life, employment, health and finances but also in terms of relations to different aspects of the physical environment (Moser, 2009). Earlier, Larson (1996) had also emphasized the need to include adult’s social well-being for understanding their optimal functioning and mental health. It may be noted that the quality of life measures generally comprise environmental characteristics (Moser & Robin, 2006), but it is not the physical environment but the people’s perception and experience about their environment that is critical to well-being (Uzzell & Moser, 2006). Empirical studies have revealed that the feeling of being at home in the neighbourhood and positive perception of the living place are closely connected with a sense of well-being and quality of life (Rioux, 2005; Rousseau & Dubé, 1993; Wright & Kloos, 2007). Further support for significance of social aspects of life comes from the research on place attachment. It has been reported that one’s relationship to living environment is a key to understand well-being (Rollero & Piccoli, 2010). Social well-being, especially social integration, increased as the level of perceived safety of one’s neighbourhood and trustworthiness of neighbours increased (Keyes, 1998). Keyes and Ryff (1998) noted that the level of overall social well-being was positively related to perceived civic responsibilities, perceptions of being caring, wise, and knowledgeable and generativity towards others.
Lately, some researchers have started examining the relationship between personality dispositions and social well-being (Hill et al., 2012; Howell et al., 2011; Kong et al., 2015). Overall, modest to robust correlations between subjective well-being and the traits of personality such as extraversion and neuroticism were observed (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Headey & Wearing, 1992; Kette, 1991; Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1992). In these studies, direct effects of personality on emotional and cognitive well-being are assumed. However, it is also likely that there are indirect or interactional effects, such that different events and life circumstances affect well-being differently, depending on one’s personality (Diener, 1984; Lucas, 2001; Oishi et al., 2001; Pavot et al., 1990).
Values define the pattern of preferred behaviour. They represent selective and preferred orientation of people in the matters of desires, needs, means, aversions and attractions (Pepper, 1958). Allport (1961) defined values as preferred behaviour in a cultural context. The preferred behaviour, in general, can be ordered on the basis of their relative importance in the social, cultural and time perspective (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Triandis, 1994). Rokeach (1973) described values in terms of instrumental and terminal values. The current conceptualization of values has been developed by Schwartz (1992, 2015). He has identified 10 broad values based on the motivation that underlies each one. They include self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence and universalism. There is evidence that they capture the major motivationally distinct values recognized across cultural groups (Schwartz, 2005).
Schwartz (2006) has grouped the values into those that regulate the expression of personal characteristics and interests (personal values: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement and power) versus those that regulate relations with others and effects on them (social values: universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and security). Simultaneously, the values are grouped into those that express anxiety-free self-expansion (growth values: self-direction, universalism, benevolence, stimulation and hedonism) versus those that express anxiety-based self-protection (protection values: security, power, achievement, conformity and tradition). Schwartz (2012, 2015) and Sortheix and Schwartz (2017) have argued that the growth orientation and the person focus both promote subjective well-being, whereas the self-protective, anxiety-control orientation and the social focus both undermine subjective well-being. Following this analysis, the present study adopted the classification of values in terms of the following two dimensions: social versus personal and protection versus growth.
It has been observed that well-being depends upon the congruence between personal values and the prevailing value environment (Basabe et al., 2002; Páez & Zubieta, 2004; Sagiv et al., 2004). Oishi et al. (1999) have suggested that values influence the associations between personality and well-being. They found that values moderated the relation between specific domain satisfactions and overall life satisfaction. People high in achievement orientation are more likely to take academic success into account than are low sensation seekers when evaluating their satisfaction.
The present study examined the experience of social well-being in relation to personality disposition and value preference in the rural and urban ecological settings. These two ecological settings offer broad societal contexts, representing significant disparities and variations in the lived experiences of the Indian people. With social change, the scenario has started changing, but many differences still persist and distinguish the two settings. Villages and cities vary in terms of affordances as well as constraints on the life world of the people. The inhabitants of these settings are allowed to pursue different vocations, have differential access to the civic facilities and organize interactions in diverse ways. In particular, a collectivist mindset is more prevalent in villages, while city dwellers are predominantly individualistic in their orientation. The norms of social life and values and aspirations shared by them do retain imprints of the distinctive cultural orientations operative in the ecological settings of village and city. Against this backdrop, this study sought to understand the pattern of variation in social well-being, value preferences and personality dispositions in the people from rural and urban ecological settings and examined the pattern of prediction of social well-being in rural and urban ecological settings.
Hypotheses
Method
Sample and Procedure
A total of 360 individuals, ranging from 15 to 65 years (M = 33.50, SD = 11.99), participated in this study. Equal number of male and female participants were drawn, following stratified random sampling in the specific locations in the two regions. They belonged to adolescence (15–20 years), young adulthood (30–40 years) and middle adulthood (50–65 years) stages of life. Adolescent participants were college students. The adult groups included people varying in their employment status and marital status. Majority of the participants belonged to lower-middle and upper-middle-class socio-economic backgrounds.
The study was conducted in two ecological settings, that is, Gorakhpur region in the state of Uttar Pradesh and the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi. The NCR represents urban ethos and has modern means of transportation, communication and recreation, while Gorakhpur region represents the rural ethos. Both regions reflect different levels of economic, technological, social and cultural development. The measures along with demographic datasheet, seeking information related to age, gender, socio-economic status and ecological settings, were completed by the participants, and in case of difficulty in understanding the instructions, the same was clarified. On average, the participants took about an hour to complete the measures. The participation in the study was voluntary, and prior consent was obtained before data collection.
Measures
Measure of Social Well-being
The measure originally developed by Keyes (1998) was employed to tap social well-being. It contains five subscales of 33 items with 5-point rating scales, ranging from very true (1) to very untrue (5). It was adapted in Hindi and validated. The items dealt with five aspects of social well-being, that is, social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, social actualization and social coherence. The coefficient alpha values for these were 0.54, 0.59, 0.57, 0.52 and 0.62, respectively. Examples of the items include The world is too complex for me and I believe that people are self-centred.
Measure of Personality
The personality inventory developed by Gosling et al. (2003) was used. It has 10 items having 5-point rating scales, ranging from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). It covers five dimensions of personality, that is, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to others. It was adapted in Hindi. The coefficient alpha values for the preceding five dimensions were 0.68, 0.40, 0.50, 0.73 and 0.45, respectively. Examples of the items include I see myself as someone who is reserved and I see myself as someone who is generally trusting.
Measure of Value Preferences
To tap value preferences, the tool developed by Schwartz (1992) was used. It has 57 items with 9-point rating scale, ranging from Is for rating any value opposed to the principle that guide you (1) to Is for rating a value of supreme importance as a guiding principle in your life (7). It provides a theory-based aggregate assessment of key human values such as social, personal, growth and protection. It was adapted from English to Hindi. The coefficient alpha values ranged from 0.53 to 0.81 for the different value types.
Results
The scores on the measures of personality disposition, value preference and social well-being were subjected to independent sample t-test with two levels of ecological settings (Table 1). The product moment correlations among the scores on five dimensions of personality disposition, four value preferences and social well-being were computed (Table 2). Finally, stepwise multiple regression analyses were performed in order to explore the role of personality disposition and value preference as predictors of social well-being in both ecological settings (Tables 3 and 4).
Mean Scores on the Components of the Measures of Social Well-being, Personality Disposition and Value Preference Across Rural and Urban Ecological Settings
Ecological Differences in Social Well-being, Personality and Values
Table 1 presents the mean difference in the scores for the five components of social well-being, five factors of personality disposition and four factors of value preference obtained by the participants in rural and urban ecological settings.
It was observed that the participants from rural setting displayed consistently greater degree of social well-being on all the components than their counterparts from the urban ecology. All these differences were statistically significant ( p < 0.01). In regard to personality dispositions, also, the participants from rural ecology reported higher scores on all the subscales of personality than their counterparts from the urban region, except neuroticism. All the mean differences, however, were statistically non-significant ( p > 0.05). On the measure of values, the participants from rural ecological setting exhibited significantly higher scores on social value preference than their counterparts from the urban setting ( p < 0.05). In contrast, the urban participants displayed greater personal value preference than the participants from rural setting ( p < 0.01). The scores on growth and protection subscales of value preferences were non-significant ( p > 0.05).
Correlations Among Social Well-being, Personality and Values
Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness factors of personality were positively related to all the dimensions of social well-being, except social coherence (see Table 2). However, neuroticism was not significantly related to social coherence dimension of social well-being. Out of the four components of the value measure, only social value was positively correlated to social well-being. The social component of value preference measure was found to be positively related to extraversion and openness factors of personality.
It is evident that the pattern of interrelationships among variables under study had similar trends across the two ecological settings. However, there were some important differences and peculiarities. For instance, social integration and social coherence—factors of social well-being—did not share any significant relation in either of the ecological settings. In general, most factors of social well-being are not significantly interrelated with the dimensions of value preference, except few of them across the two ecologies (see Table 2).
Coefficients of Correlations Showing Relationship Among Scores on the Measures of Social Well-being, Personality and Value Preference Among Participants from Urban (n = 180) (upper diagonal) and Rural (n = 180) (lower diagonal) Ecologies
Prediction of Social Well-being
With a view to determine the contribution of value preferences and personality factors towards the prediction of social well-being, separate stepwise regression analyses were run for the participants of the two ecological settings. The results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Social Well-being for Urban Participants (n = 180)
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Social Well-being for Rural Participants (n = 180)
With a view to gain a comparative picture of the prediction of various components of social well-being with each component, the findings are described separately.
Social integration: It was predicted by a joint constellation of values and personality factors, which differed across the two settings. It was found that social values ( β = 0.32), conscientiousness ( β = 0.25) and agreeableness ( β = 0.15) factors of personality in the urban setting and openness (β = 0.42) and agreeableness ( β = 0.25) factors of personality along with personal value preference ( β = −0.14) in the rural setting emerged as significant predictors of social integration.
Social acceptance: In the rural setting, three personality factors, that is, extraversion ( β = 0.32), conscientiousness ( β = 0.21), neuroticism( β = −0.17), openness ( β = 0.15) and personal ( β = −0.14) and social ( β = 0.27) value preferences were significant predictors. In contrast, social ( β = 0.39) and personal ( β = −0.23) value preferences and openness ( β = 0.17) personality factor were found significant predictors of social acceptance in the urban setting.
Social contribution: The set of four aspects of value preference, that is, social ( β = 0.46), personal ( β = −0.39), growth ( β = 0.19) and protection ( β = −0.58) and openness ( β = 0.24) personality factor ( β = 0.24) emerged as significant predictors in the rural setting. On the other hand, social ( β = 0.39) and personal ( β = −0.21) values and neuroticism ( β = −0.33) and extraversion ( β = 0.23) factors of personality were significantly predicted in urban setting.
Social actualization: Extraversion ( β = 0.33) personality factor and social ( β = 0.23) and personal ( β = −39) values in rural setting and extraversion ( β = 39) personality disposition and three values, that is, social (β = −25), protection ( β = −20) and growth ( β = 63) in urban ecological setting were significant predictors.
Social coherence: It was jointly predicted by social and personal values. In rural ecological setting, social ( β = 0.24) and personal ( β = −0.26) value preference emerged as significant factors, whereas social ( β = 0.29) and personal ( β = −0.27) value preferences in urban ecological setting emerged as significant predictors of social coherence.
Discussion
This research was undertaken with a view to explore the relationship between personality disposition, value preference and social well-being in a key societal context, that is, ecological settings (rural and urban). Thus, the Gorakhpur region in the eastern Uttar Pradesh that typifies rural setting and the cosmopolitan National Capital Region, Delhi, were chosen as two distinct eco-cultural sites, emphasizing collectivistic and individualistic lifestyles and environments, respectively. The use of ecological context as categorical variable in the design presented an occasion to investigate how this variable interacts and shapes social well-being, personality disposition and value preference. In addition, the study examined the role of personality dispositions and value preferences in predicting social well-being. The study particularly delved into the notion of social well-being and its relationship with personality disposition and value preference in the typical rural and urban contexts.
In order to examine the dynamics of ecology, personality dispositions, value preferences and social well-being, the relationships among the variables were examined, and multiple regression analyses were run. The preceding analysis showed important influences of ecological setting on the variables. While the personality dispositions and value preferences functioned as important contributors to the levels of well-being, the role of circumstances too is important. People’s set points appear to move up or down, depending on the favourability of the circumstances in their lives.
It was decided to examine the pattern of linkages separately for the rural and urban ecological settings. Hence, correlations and stepwise regression were run separately for the participants from rural and urban settings. The stepwise regression was carried out using personality dispositions and value preference as predictors and social well-being as the criterion. The results of stepwise regression suggest that there exist multiple pathways for social well-being, and they are structured by the personal and social characteristics.
Past research has shown significant links of personality traits and values with various forms of well-being such as cognitive well-being, emotional well-being and psychological well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Headey & Wearing, 1992; Hill et al., 2012; Howell et al., 2011; Kong et al., 2015; Schwartz, 2012; Sortheix & Lönnqvist, 2014; Sortheix & Schwartz, 2017; Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1992). However, the link between personality disposition, value preference and social well-being dimensions had not been attended so far. This study tried to bridge this gap. The results of the present study showed that personality disposition and value preference are important associates of social well-being across both the ecological settings in the Indian context. As Moser (2009) has pointed out, one’s well-being is expressed not only in terms of satisfaction concerning interpersonal relations, family life, employment, health and finances but also in terms of relations to different aspects of the physical environment. The present results revealed greater social well-being among the participants from rural setting than their counterparts from the urban setting.
The pattern of prediction of the five components of social well-being in the two settings shared some commonalities and differences. Thus, in the rural setting, social integration was predicted most by personality dispositions of openness to experience and agreeableness and personal value preference. Taken together, they explained 32 per cent of variance. In case of social acceptance, four personality traits and personal and social values emerged as predictors in which extraversion was most salient. It may be noted that the personality disposition, neuroticism and personal value preference had negative contribution. Social and growth values and personality factor of openness to experience predicted social contribution, whereas personal and protection values had negative relationship with social contribution. Social actualization was predicted by extraversion personality disposition and social value preference. Personal and social, and value preference predicted social coherence. The personality trait of extraversion figured in explaining social contribution and social actualization.
The regression findings indicated that the most potent predictors included personality traits of agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience, and the social and personal factors of value preference. Viewing the group-level differences, it may be observed that while value preferences worked as predictors across both the settings, personality dispositions were more relevant to the rural setting as predictors of social well-being.
Taken together, the present findings implicate that the different facets of social well-being differentially engage with various personality disposition and value preferences (Diener, 1984; Kette, 1991; Lucas, 2001; Pavot et al., 1990; Schwartz, 2012; Sortheix & Schwartz, 2017; Tamir et al., 2002). Reducing the observed patterns to a few factors would be overgeneralization. However, a few remarks seem to be in order. First, personality factors like extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness and social value preference positively contributed to several facets of social well-being, whereas personality factor neuroticism and personal value preference had negative contribution towards several facets of social well-being. Second, the context in which people live exerts considerable influence on social well-being (Acock & Hurlbert, 1993; Andrews & Withey, 1976; Ball & Robbins, 1986; Moser, 2009; Moscowitz & Cot´e, 1995; Oishi et al., 2001; Stock et al., 1983).
In brief, the results indicate personality dispositions and value preference as contributors to the experience of social well-being. This implies that the stable dispositions and one’s value preferences are critical to the experience of social well-being. It may be noted that personality dispositions and value preferences are nurtured in the socio-cultural context. The group comparisons across ecology did indicate substantial influence of the broad ecological factors on the measures of personality disposition and value preference and social well-being. They showed that how people visualize social well-being varies depending on the ecological context to which they belong. In this study, the rural people had reported greater degree of social well-being than the people from the urban setting.
We need to realize that human life itself is based on exchange with the environment, and human beings are relational beings (Gergen, 2009). The human existence, identity and growth are deeply entrenched in the social and cultural order (Bruner, 1990). The ‘social’ is not merely a context or collectivity. Beyond that surface reality, the social plays a constitutive role, and that must be recognized, acknowledged and nourished. The spate of consumerism, materialism and individualism is not going to continue for long. With depletion of resources, the planet Earth is due to face troubles. In fact, it has already started facing the troubles in various regions. It is therefore necessary to start working on the mandate of bringing sociality at the centre stage. Promoting social well-being, therefore, is to be systematically incorporated into the personal and organizational agendas.
Limitations and Future Implications
The study being exploratory in nature has obvious limitations, and its sample too was a constraint. Despite these limitations, the study did help in mapping the linkages among the chosen variables and suggested that there is an association between personality dispositions, value preference and social well-being in the Indian context. However, this association is moderate. The present study has some pointers for parenting and educational settings. It suggests that there is need to promote personality dispositions that relate to group, community and society. In the long run, a focus on narrow individual growth alone would prove a self-defeating venture. This study has been a humble beginning to bring the social wellness/well-being to the centre of discourse on happiness/well-being/health. It has shown how the individual and social are interconnected and situated in the embedding context that we inhabit.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflict of interests with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.