Personality and Psychological Well Being, Article Critique Example

The current review examines a study conducted by Salami (2011), entitled “Personality and psychological well-being of adolescents: the moderating role of emotional intelligence.” The purpose of the study was to explore the correlation between the Big Five personality traits (i.e., neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and psychological well being of youth. Salami also explored the potential moderating role of emotional intelligence with respect to these two variables. The purpose of Salami’s study is to simply compare the relationship between these three common and widely used personality measures. The only apparent difference in Salami’s study is that he is exploring these relationships and interaction effects in a group of adolescent Nigerian students.

According to Salami, adolescence is a period of change that can result in a variety of development problems when emotional tensions are not neutralized. While prior research has investigated relationships between affect, well-being, and personality, this research has failed to provide clear delineations between personality, affect, and well-being. Understanding these distinctions can help researchers promote psychological health and well being in youth. Similarly, few studies have used the Big Five personality traits as a means to understand psychological well-being. Problems in adolescence, Salami states, typically result in heightened emotionality which can ultimately lead to engagement in activities that potentially threaten their mental and physical well-being.

Salami proposes that emotional intelligence may moderate the relationship between the Big Five and psychological well-being. For example, students who have high emotional intelligence will likely also have high scores on certain components of psychological well-being. Specifically, Salami hypothesizes that each of the Big Five personality traits are significantly related to psychological well-being. Secondly, Salami hypothesizes that emotional intelligence will be significantly related to psychological well-being. Finally, Salami hypothesizes that emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between the Big Five and psychological well-being (i.e., that students scoring high in emotional intelligence will have a greater psychological well-being).

Previous research has examined relationships between affect, well-being, and personality, according to Salami. This previous research, however, has not provided clear distinctions, both theoretically and empirically, among each of the individual components of these psychological constructs. According to Salami, the contribution of personality to psychological health is not well-known. Furthermore, Salami attests that the operationalization of “well-being” was not based on relevant and current theory in personality research. This appears to be contrary to what most texts on personality psychology report. The concept of “well-being” is a well-researched and well-documented psychological construct, with studies published in a variety of fields and demographics regarindg factors related to well-being. Spirituality, counseling, sport psychology, drug and alcohol therapy, and numerous other branches of the social sciences have explored well-being as a key contributor to psychological health. Salami also makes the same case that emotional intelligence and the Big Five personality traits are not well understood, but goes on to highlight research that specifically examines the relationship between these variables.

While Salami provides a fairly extensive literature review regarding the Big Five personality traits, psychological well-being, and emotional intelligence research, he does little to incorporate those studies that have explored the relationship between these variables. In Salami’s review, he fails to explain the significance of the study. Whether or not these variables are related does little to advance personality research in any way. Even the common reader would likely understand that emotional intelligence and psychological well-being are correlated, and that those who score high in both will ultimately result in higher Big Five scores. Salami’s study appears to be little more than a validation of instruments that measure personality traits. While more research may be needed to examine the relationship between these three measures in a variety of unique demographics and contexts, Salami does little to build a case for this. Salami makes oversimplifications regarding the research conducted in these areas, and then does not support his statements regarding the paucity of research. The introduction section leaves the reader at a loss as to the actual significance of this study. The journal Social Behavior and Personality is one of the most well-respected and widely-read publications in the field of personality research. It seems surprising that a study that lacked novelty, such as Salami’s, would find its way into such a highly regarded journal.

Methodology

To explore the relationship between these three psychological constructs, Salami obtained a sample of 400 students from 10 schools in Nigeria. The sample had a mean age of 15.43 and 55% were male. Each student completed the NEO Five-Factor Inventory to assess the Big Five personality traits, the Emotional Intelligence scale, and the Psychological Well-Being Scale. Each of these instruments has undergone extensive internal and external validity measures, and all report alpha coefficients of greater than 0.68 for each subscale. Most of the subscales reported coefficients of greater than 0.8, which is well over what is deemed an acceptable measure in personality research.

While Salami’s sample size was impressive, he did little to explain the necessity for the number of students he assessed. Similarly, he did not explain if his sample was a true random sample, a self-selected sample, or if students were required to complete instruments by an external source. Such information may alter the validity of the study. Similarly, Salami did not report any potential ethical limitations, even though many of the students completing the instruments were underage. Most psychological review boards require parental consent when youth are involved. This may be different in Nigeria, but Salami does not report this. Because this study is published in an American Journal, he needs to reflect on this potential ethical limitation further. Interestingly, Salami explains that he obtained help from five research assistants in the collection of the data and the interpretation of the results. however, only his name is listed as an author of the study. Finally, Salami did not report possible sources of measurement error. Whether or not the instruments Salami used have been validated with youth populations, or adapted to non-Western populations such as Nigeria, was not apparent in Salami’s methodology study. These factors could contribute to a potential increase in measurement error.

Data Analysis

Results from the instruments were analyzed using hierarchical regression analyses. Salami controlled for extraneous demographic effects by accounting for each demographic variable into the regression equation at the first step. The second step of the regression analysis accounted for personality factors, and the third step included personality factors. Regression analysis is an effective means for comparing the relationship, in a hierarchical fashion, between a large number of individual variables. The output provides a correlation coefficient, commonly known as R squared, as well as a level of significance. When a correlation is above 0.3, this is generally considered to be a relationship worth noting in the social sciences. Stronger relationships are even more likely to imply a causal effect between one variable and another. However, if the relationship is strong, but the p-value is above a certain preset level, the finding is deemed insignificant. It seems unlikely that any of Salami’s strong relationships would be found to be insignificant because of his large sample size.

Salami includes tables of the regression analyses to explain the relationships between the three instruments, each of their subscales, and demographic variables. According to the results, demographics did not significantly influence scores on any of the instruments. Salami then briefly explains the significant relationships between the subscales. The results from the regression analyses showed some relationships between subscales, as well as interactions from one instrument to another, but these relationships were mostly insignificant. Salami’s hypothesis that emotional intelligence predicted psychological well-being was partly supported, although his other two hypotheses were not. It’s surprising that a number of the subscales were not found  to be related in Salami’s findings, since previous research has continually supported a correlation between them.

Interestingly, the interaction effects that Salami proposes are not presented in the results section, but rather, the discussion section. These line graphs show an interaction between neuroticism and emotional intelligence as a predictor of psychological well-being, as well as an interaction between extraversion and emotional intelligence as a predictor of psychological well-being. While these two findings were significant, Salami does little to interpret these findings or tie them into theory presented in the introduction and literature review section.

Although Salami includes the necessary regression tables to present his findings, he fails to address each of his hypotheses. He only discusses his third hypothesis, which was partially supported. The keen reader can observe that he neglects to address the relationships that were not supported. Salami also fails to conclude information about the normality of the distribution and the homogeneity of the sample. Conceivably, the sample had either a positively or negatively skewed distribution, thus confounding the entire study. Salami also neglects to mention post-hoc tests. The failure to address these concerns leaves the reader wary of any results in this study, or the interpretation of these results in the subsequent discussion section.

Communicating Findings

Salami begins his discussion section by explaining what previous research has already demonstrated ad nauseam, that the Big Five personality traits are significantly related to psychological well-being, and that emotional intelligence is significantly related to psychological well-being. Salami unnecessarily elaborates on why these factors may be related, although the reader should have an understanding of these finding from previous research simply from reading the literature review. What Salami fails to mention is why emotional intelligence did not moderate the relationship between the Big Five and Emotional Intelligence. Salami draws on previous research investigating these relationships, which he cites in his literature review in the introduction section as well. According to Salami, personality provides “instrumental avenues through which different aspects of well-being are achieved,” (p. 791).

Salami also provides implications for findings of the current study, including the notion that counseling psychologists must assess the Big Five and emotional intelligence when working with adolescents. According to Salami, understanding personality traits and Emotional Intelligence can help identify psychological strengths and weaknesses. One begs the question, however, if these variables are related, as this and previous research has shown, what is the necessity of including multiple instruments. Research has already expounded on the fact many Big Five, Emotional Intelligence, and Psychological Well-Being subscales are related, so theoretically it would be superfluous for counselors to require youth to complete additional instruments.

Salami also fails to elaborately report on potential limitations of the study. He mentions one limitation as being that “questionnaires were used to collect data from respondents,” (p. 791). According to Salami, future researchers may consider interviews and observational techniques to “obtain a clearer picture.” A clearer picture of what, Salami does not mention. Each of the instruments used has undergone extensive validation procedures and reliability checks. If these instruments are, in fact, internally and externally valid and reliable, using questionnaires should not be a limitation to this study. Each of these instruments was initially developed through extensive qualitative data analysis, as Salami suggests obtaining through interviews and observations.

A more accurate limitation would be to say that these instruments have not been validated or adapted to youth populations, as well as non-Western populations. Previous research has demonstrated that instruments must include a different level of readability for youth to obtain the same level of reliability, and non-Western populations interpret instruments much differently than Western populations. For example, while Western cultures value individuality as an important psychological attribute, many non-Western cultures would view this characteristic as shameful.

Overall, Salami’s study does little to advance knowledge in the area of personality research. In the introduction, he fails to explain the significance of the study, and his results are fairly equivocal. He fails to elaborate on the hypothesis that was not confirmed, and the interpretation of the findings was scarce. While the study helps provide validation for the instruments in a non-Western, youth population, Salami barely mentions this in his study.

Salami also fails to mention any possible alternative explanations for his findings. Because of the fact that the results were equivocal, Salami is provided the opportunity to discuss the role that cultural and age differences may play in the interpretation of Western psychological instruments. It could very well be the case that students did not understand the instruments or emphasized alternative psychological constructs as being advantageous, different from those of Western cultures. It’s widely known that personality research must account for cultural, ethnic, sociological, and economic differences. Similarly, counselors must account for these differences when engaging in applied practice. However, Salami does not provide implications for these possible areas of future research.

Future research can help advance Salami’s findings by accounting for these multicultural differences. A much more fruitful path for research than the one chosen by Salami would be to test the validity and reliability of the Big Five, Emotional Intelligence, and Psychological Well-Being instruments in the unique population utilized in the current study. No known current research specifically addresses the extent to which these instruments accurately assess their intended outcome in a sample of adolescent Nigerian students. Salami is provided with a unique opportunity to apply findings from research in Western cultures to a population that likely has never experienced much psychological training or information regarding personality research.

By validating these instruments in this unique population, Nigerian counselors can more adequately understand the role that personality, well-being, and emotional well-being play in the success of students in their respective regions. Counselors can then more effectively target those variables that are actually related to well-being and minimize emotional tension created from unmet psychological needs. Salami is accurate in stating that counselors can use these findings to design more effective interventions for students, helping to reduce anxiety, stress, and worry. However, past research has already stated this fact. Future research must use Salami’s findings to design context-specific interventions that account for ethnic and age-related differences.