Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Feb 24;20(1):e70065. doi: 10.1002/pmh.70065

Personality Traits and Psychological Well‐Being: Association Within the “Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra” (SUN) Cohort

Virginia Basterra‐Gortari 1,2, Mario Gil‐Conesa 1, Carmen Sayón‐Orea 1,3,4, Francisca Lahortiga‐Ramos 1, Carmen De la Fuente‐Arrillaga 1,3,4, Miguel A Martínez‐González 1,3,4,5, Maira Bes‐Rastrollo 1,3,4,✉
PMCID: PMC12931997  PMID: 41734814

ABSTRACT

Psychological well‐being (PWB) is a core component of mental health influenced by personality; however, most prior research focused on subjective well‐being and normal‐range personality traits. Less is known about the longitudinal role of maladaptive personality traits in shaping eudaimonic well‐being. This study examined prospective associations between maladaptive personality domains and subsequent PWB in the SUN cohort. Personality traits were assessed at the 16‐year follow‐up using the Personality Inventory for DSM‐5 Abbreviated Form (PID‐5‐BF). PWB was evaluated 2 years later using Ryff's 29‐item scale. All domains were analyzed as continuous variables in multivariable linear regression models with mutual adjustment. Among 2080 participants (56.9% women, mean age 57 ± 10.9 years), higher levels of detachment (β: −2.43; 95% CI: −2.77, −2.09), negative affect (β: −1.09; 95% CI: −1.38, −0.80), psychoticism (β: −0.76; 95% CI: −1.21, −0.30) and disinhibition (β: −0.52; 95% CI: −0.93, −0.11) were prospectively associated with lower PWB, whereas antagonism showed a positive association (β: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.17). Detachment was consistently associated with lower scores across all six PWB dimensions, negative affect and psychoticism showed selective inverse associations with several PWB dimensions, and disinhibition showed an inverse association for autonomy. Nevertheless, antagonism displayed positive associations with environmental mastery, purpose in life, and self‐acceptance. In conclusion, maladaptive personality traits are prospectively associated with PWB, with domain‐specific patterns, highlighting the importance of a multidimensional perspective when examining personality–PWB relationships.

Keywords: personality, PID‐5‐BF, psychological well‐being, Ryff's scale

1. Introduction

Well‐being is increasingly recognized as a core component of mental health, extending beyond the mere absence of psychiatric symptoms to encompass positive functioning, self‐realization, and adaptive engagement with life challenges. Conceptual models commonly distinguish between hedonic well‐being—focused on pleasure, happiness, and life satisfaction (Diener 1984)—and eudaimonic well‐being—focused on meaning, personal growth, self‐realization, and optimal functioning (Ryff 1989; Ryff and Singer 2008). Although this distinction remains debated, empirical work suggests that hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being are moderately‐to‐strongly correlated yet not interchangeable, showing partially distinct patterns of associations (e.g., differential associations with personality, health behaviors, and long‐term outcomes) (Anglim et al. 2020; Blasco‐Belled et al. 2024).

Carol Ryff's model is one of the most influential frameworks, conceptualizing psychological well‐being (PWB) as six dimensions: self‐acceptance, positive relationships, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth (Ryff 1989). Evidence links higher PWB to reduced chronic disease risk and cardiovascular risk factors, lower mortality from noncommunicable disease, and promoting longevity (Chida and Steptoe 2008; Ryff 2013; Martín‐María et al. 2017; Basterra‐Gortari et al. 2025). PWB is influenced by life events, lifestyle habits (diet, smoking, or sedentarism), and heritable/dispositional factors (Prendergast et al. 2016; Takao et al. 2021; Mateos‐Lardiés et al. 2022) but can also be enhanced through positive psychology interventions (Trudel‐Fitzgerald et al. 2019). Promoting PWB is thus a public health priority (World Health Organization 2023).

Personality traits represent enduring patterns of perceiving, thinking, and relating to oneself and others, influencing how individuals interpret and evaluate life experiences (American Psychiatric Association 2013). Meta‐analytic evidence indicates that normal‐range personality traits—particularly low neuroticism and high extraversion—are consistently associated with higher levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being (Anglim et al. 2020). However, less is known about how maladaptive personality traits, as conceptualized within contemporary dimensional models of personality pathology, relate to well‐being outcomes, particularly from a longitudinal perspective. This gap is particularly relevant given the growing adoption of dimensional frameworks in personality research and clinical practice.

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM‐5) represents a major shift from categorical diagnoses toward a dimensional understanding of personality pathology, separating impairments in personality functioning (Criterion A) from maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B) (American Psychiatric Association 2013). Dimensional trait models are increasingly favored over categorical diagnoses in contemporary research and classification systems (Tyrer et al. 2025). Within this framework, the Personality Inventory Brief Form (PID‐5‐BF) operationalizes five broad maladaptive personality domains (Krueger et al. 2013). These domains show clear conceptual and empirical links with normal‐range personality dimensions, while also capturing clinically relevant maladaptive extremes (Krueger and Markon 2014).

A growing body of research has examined associations between PID‐5 traits and constructs conceptually related to well‐being, including quality of life, emotional and PWB, perceived stress and psychosocial functioning. Cross‐sectional studies have generally reported inverse associations between maladaptive traits—particularly negative affect and detachment—and well‐being indicators (Hart et al. 2021; de Vos et al. 2022; Hobbs et al. 2023), although findings for antagonism appear more complex and sometimes counterintuitive, depending on the well‐being domain examined (Blasco‐Belled et al. 2024). Importantly, these studies highlight that maladaptive traits are not uniformly detrimental across all dimensions of well‐being and underscore the need for multidimensional approaches. Notably, Clark et al. (2024) showed that PID‐5 trait dimensions prospectively predicted psychosocial functioning outcomes, including Ryff's PWB total score, supporting the predictive value of dimensional models and the conceptual advantages of separating personality dysfunction from maladaptive traits. However, additional longitudinal studies with longer follow‐up and in nonclinical populations are needed to clarify how maladaptive traits shape later eudaimonic well‐being.

In this context, the present study aimed to examine the prospective associations between maladaptive personality traits assessed using the PID‐5‐BF and subsequent PWB, measured with Ryff's multidimensional model, in a large cohort of Spanish university graduates. Specifically, we hypothesized that higher levels of maladaptive personality traits would be prospectively associated with lower subsequent PWB after 2 years of follow‐up. By adopting a dimensional perspective, we sought to clarify whether distinct maladaptive trait domains show differential longitudinal associations with later eudaimonic well‐being dimensions, both globally and across specific PWB dimensions.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

Data were sourced from the “Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra” (SUN) project, a prospective dynamic cohort of Spanish university graduates investigating associations between diet, lifestyle, and disease outcomes (de la Fuente‐Arrillaga et al. 2025). Data are gathered biennially through mailed or online self‐reported questionnaires. Recruitment began in 1999 and remains ongoing. By May 2022, 3299 participants completed the 18‐year follow‐up. Those missing PWB data (n = 205) or ≥ 25% PID‐5_BF items (n = 1014) were excluded, leaving 2080 participants. Personality traits were measured at the 16‐year follow‐up and PWB at the 18‐year follow‐up, with an average interval of approximately 2 years.

The study was approved by the University of Navarra's Institutional Review Board, and voluntary participation in self‐reported questionnaires implied informed consent.

2.2. Personality Assessment

Personality was evaluated with the PID‐5‐BF in the 16‐year follow‐up of the SUN study (Krueger et al. 2013). This 25‐item self‐reported scale (range: 0–75 total; 0–15 per dimension) measures five maladaptive dimensions: antagonism (behaviors that lead to conflicts with others), detachment (avoiding socioemotional experiences and interpersonal interactions), disinhibition (impulsive behaviors seeking immediate gratification, without learning from past experiences or taking potential consequences into account), negative affect (frequent and intense experiences of negative emotions), and psychoticism (unusual behaviors, perceptions, and cognitions). Only when < 25% of items are missing, prorated scores are calculated and adjusted. Higher scores indicate greater personality dysfunction. Following the DSM‐5 framework, domain scores were the primary exposures in all main analyses. In addition, and consistent with the PID‐5‐BF clinical scoring instructions, an overall PID‐5‐BF total (and mean) score was computed and examined only in a secondary analysis.

The baseline questionnaire also included three personality traits (dependence, competitiveness, and psychological strain), based on 0–10 self‐rating scales (de la Fuente‐Arrillaga et al. 2025).

2.3. Psychological Well Being Assessment

At the 18‐year follow‐up, PWB was assessed using the Spanish 29‐item C. Ryff scale (Díaz et al. 2006). It yields a total score (range: 29–174 points) and measures six independent dimensions: self‐acceptance (positive self‐image while recognizing limitations), autonomy (self‐determination and independence/authority in social contexts), personal growth (developing potential and capabilities), environmental mastery (selecting/creating favorable environments for one's desires/needs), positive relationships with others (maintaining stable social relationships and trustworthy friends), and life purpose (defining meaningful life objectives) (Ryff and Singer 1996). Higher scores indicate greater PWB. Total PWB and dimensional scores were analyzed as continuous variables.

2.4. Other Covariates

The baseline questionnaire collected sociodemographic information, including sex and age. Participants self‐reported various chronic diseases from the baseline questionnaire, with biennial frequency (Carlos et al. 2018). The study focused on the total number of self‐reported chronic diseases among 31 different pathologies, as assessed in the SUN cohort questionnaire (de la Fuente‐Arrillaga et al. 2025).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics summarized sociodemographic, health‐related, and personality variables for the overall sample. Continuous data were expressed as means and standard deviations (SD) and categorical variables as absolute numbers and percentages.

Multivariable linear regression models were used to estimate β coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between each continuous PID‐5‐BF domain and continuous PWB (total score and the six dimension scores). PID‐5‐BF domains were mutually adjusted in the same model. Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple comparisons across the six PWB dimensions.

Prorating of PID‐5‐BF scores affected very few participants (3.7% for the total score; 0.19–1.11% across domains), with > 96% complete total scores and > 98.8% complete domain scores. Missing covariates were singly imputed in Stata using variables from the regression models. Imputed variables included competitiveness (1.6%), strain (1.5%), and dependence (2.4%).

Potential confounders were selected based on existing literature rather than statistical thresholds, as recommended (Greenland et al. 2016). The main model (Model 1) examined the mutually adjusted associations between the five PID‐5‐BF domains and PWB adjusting for age and sex. In secondary models, sequentially expanded covariate adjustment was used to assess robustness: Model 2 further adjusted for number of chronic diseases; and Model 3 also adjusted for three baseline personality–related traits (dependence, competitiveness, and psychological strain). Both the number of chronic diseases and the baseline personality–related traits have been previously used in this cohort (Basterra‐Gortari et al. 2024; Lahortiga‐Ramos et al. 2018). Finally, associations between PID‐5‐BF total score and PWB were examined as a secondary analysis to allow comparison with clinical scoring conventions, given its limited theoretical support as a unidimensional construct, while acknowledging that DSM‐5 also refers to a total PID‐5 score.

Statistical analyses were performed using STATA 17. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

3. Results

The study included 2080 participants (56.88% women) with a mean age of 57.00 ± 10.85 years at 18‐year follow‐up. Table 1 shows participants' characteristics.

TABLE 1.

Baseline participants' characteristics among SUN cohort participants.

Variables Total sample
Participants (N) 2080
Age 57.00 (10.85)
Female (%) 1183 (56.88%)
Personality traits (PID‐5‐BF)
Negative affect 5.37 (2.80)
Detachment 3.24 (2.72)
Antagonism 1.49 (1.93)
Disinhibition 1.96 (2.05)
Psychoticism 1.89 (2.11)
PID‐5‐BF total score (descriptive) 13.95 (8.01)
Psychological well‐being (Ryff)
PWB total 139.00 (17.38)
Autonomy 27.26 (4.75)
Environmental mastery 24.36 (3.81)
Purpose in life 24.43 (4.01)
Personal growth 19.61 (3.14)
Positive relationships 23.91 (4.59)
Self‐acceptance 19.44 (2.97)
Chronic diseases (SD) 2.00 (1.87)
Baseline personality–related constructs
Dependence (0–10 points) 3.65 (2.82)
Competitiveness (0–10 points) 6.94 (1.77)
Strain (0–10 points) 6.09 (2.19)
Open in a new tab

Note: Continuous variables are expressed as means and standard deviation and categorical variables as absolute numbers and percentages.

Abbreviation: PID‐5‐BF: Personality Inventory for DSM‐5‐Abbreviated Form.

Figure 1 summarizes the primary analysis of total PWB. In mutually adjusted linear regression models, a one‐unit increment in detachment was significantly linked to a 2.43 points reduction in total PWB, while negative affect, psychoticism, and disinhibition were also inversely related to PWB (−1.09; −0.76; and −0.52 points, respectively). Conversely, antagonism showed a significant positive association with total PWB (+0.76 points). Focusing on domain‐specific associations with total PWB and each Ryff dimension, detachment was consistently and strongly associated with lower scores across all six dimensions, with the largest decrements observed for positive relationships (−0.66). Negative affect was also inversely related to all PWB dimensions with particularly pronounced associations for autonomy (−0.37); all remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction except positive relationships. Psychoticism showed moderate negative associations with autonomy (−0.21), positive relationships (−0.19), and environmental mastery (−0.15), whereas purpose in life and self‐acceptance did not reach significance after Bonferroni correction. Antagonism displayed small positive associations with purpose in life (0.27), environmental mastery (0.19), and self‐acceptance (0.19). Disinhibition showed a modest inverse association for autonomy (−0.20), while its weaker associations with other dimensions were attenuated after Bonferroni correction. The PID‐5‐BF domains explained 26.4% of the variance in total PWB, with incremental variance ranging from 11.0% (personal growth) to 19.7% (positive relationships) across PWB dimensions.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Associations between PID‐5‐BF domains and psychological well‐being (Ryff total score and dimensions). Adjustment model for age and sex. Points represent β coefficients and horizontal bars 95% confidence intervals from mutually adjusted linear regression models including all five PID‐5‐BF domains simultaneously. Results that remained significant after Bonferroni correction (α = 0.0083) are highlighted in bold italics. Statistical significance levels are denoting as follows: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Sequential adjustment for chronic disease burden and baseline personality–related traits (Models 2 and 3) resulted in no material changes in direction or statistical significance (Table 2). Higher PID‐5‐BF total score was significantly associated with lower total PWB and lower scores across all PWB dimensions.

TABLE 2.

Secondary analyses of additional multivariable associations between maladaptive personality and psychological well‐being.

PID‐5‐BF PWB total Autonomy Environmental mastery Purpose in life Personal growth Positive relationships Self‐acceptance
Model 2: Adjustment: age, gender, and chronic disease
Antagonism 0.78 (0.38 to 1.18)*** 0.05 (−0.07 to 0.17) 0.20 (0.11 to 0.29)*** 0.04 (−0.03 to 0.12) 0.01 (−0.09 to 0.12) 0.28 (0.18 to 0.38)*** 0.19 (0.12 to 0.27)***
Detachment ‐2.43 (−2.77 to −2.09)*** −0.15 (−0.24 to −0.06)** −0.42 (−0.49 to −0.34)*** −0.35 (−0.42 to −0.29)*** −0.68 (−0.77 to −0.59)*** −0.52 (−0.60 to −0.43)*** −0.31 (−0.38 to −0.24)***
Disinhibition −0.49 (−0.89 to −0.08)* −0.19 (−0.30 to −0.08)*** −0.08 (−0.17 to 0.01) −0.08 (−0.15 to −0.00)* 0.04 (−0.07 to 0.14) −0.11 (−0.21 to −0.01)* −0.06 (−0.14 to 0.01)
Negative affect −1.04 (−1.34 to −0.75)*** −0.37 (−0.46 to −0.28)*** −0.23 (−0.30 to −0.17)*** −0.09 (−0.15 to −0.04)*** −0.07 (−0.15 to 0.00) −0.11 (−0.18 to −0.04)** −0.17 (−0.22 to −0.11)***
Psychoticism −0.72 (−1.17 to −0.26)** −0.21 (−0.34 to −0.08)** −0.13 (−0.23 to −0.04)** 0.04 (−0.04 to 0.13) −0.19 (−0.31 to −0.07)** −0.13 (−0.24 to −0.02)* −0.10 (−0.18 to −0.01)*
Model 3: Adjustment: age, gender, chronic disease, and baseline personality traits
Antagonism 0.63 (0.23 to 1.02)** 0.01 (−0.11 to 0.13) 0.18 (0.10 to 0.27)*** 0.02 (−0.06 to 0.09) −0.01 (−0.11 to 0.10) 0.24 (0.14 to 0.34)*** 0.17 (0.10 to 0.25)***
Detachment −2.39 (−2.72 to −2.06)*** −0.14 (−0.23 to −0.05)** −0.41 (−0.49 to −0.34)*** −0.35 (−0.41 to −0.29)*** −0.68 (−0.77 to −0.59)*** −0.51 (−0.59 to −0.42)*** −0.30 (−0.37 to −0.24)***
Disinhibition −0.30 (−0.69 to 0.10) −0.14 (−0.25 to −0.03)* −0.06 (−0.14 to 0.03) −0.05 (−0.13 to 0.02) 0.06 (−0.04 to 0.17) −0.08 (−0.17 to 0.02) −0.04 (−0.11 to 0.04)
Negative affect −0.94 (−1.23 to −0.65)*** −0.33 (−0.42 to −0.24)*** −0.21 (−0.27 to −0.14)*** −0.08 (−0.14 to −0.03)** −0.06 (−0.14 to 0.02) −0.11 (−0.18 to −0.04)** −0.15 (−0.20 to −0.10)***
Psychoticism −0.70 (−1.13 to −0.26)** −0.21 (−0.33 to −0.08)** −0.13 (−0.23 to −0.04)** 0.05 (−0.04 to 0.13) −0.19 (−0.31 to −0.07)** −0.12 (−0.23 to −0.01)* −0.10 (−0.18 to −0.02)*
PID‐5‐BF total score (n = 2080)
−0.97 (−1.08; −0.86)*** −0.20 (−0.23;−0.17)*** ‐0.17 (−0.20; −0.15)*** −0.16 (−0.19; −0.13)*** −0.11 (−0.12; −0.09)*** −0.21 (−0.24; −0.19)*** −0.12 (−0.15; −0.10)***
Open in a new tab

Note: Outcomes are continuous Ryff scores; β coefficients and 95% confidence intervals are reported. Results that remained significant after Bonferroni correction (α = 0.0083) are highlighted in bold italics. Statistical significance levels are denoting as follows: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

4. Discussion

Our longitudinal findings indicate that maladaptive personality traits assessed with the PID‐5‐BF are prospectively associated with subsequent PWB, with predominantly inverse associations for several domains. In mutually adjusted models, detachment and negative affect showed the most consistent inverse associations with later PWB, while psychoticism and disinhibition showed more modest and domain‐specific effects. In contrast, antagonism exhibited positive associations with certain PWB dimensions, underscoring the complexity of its relationship with well‐being. These positive associations should not be interpreted as indicating overall adaptiveness, given the interpersonal and broader psychosocial costs associated with antagonistic traits (Ro et al. 2017; Schiemainski et al. 2025).

These results align with prior research linking personality traits to well‐being outcomes. Meta‐analytic evidence consistently indicates that neuroticism is the strongest negative correlate of well‐being, while extraversion is positively associated with both subjective and PWB (Anglim et al. 2020). Within the AMPD framework, negative affect closely parallels neuroticism, and detachment represents the maladaptive pole of low extraversion. Interpreted in this context, our findings suggest that well‐established associations between normal‐range personality traits and well‐being extend into their maladaptive extremes (Krueger et al. 2013).

Beyond domain‐specific associations, the proportion of variance in PWB explained by maladaptive personality traits in our study is consistent with prior evidence indicating that personality accounts for a substantial share of individual differences in well‐being. Previous studies using dimensional models similarly highlight the strong explanatory contribution of personality traits to well‐being outcomes (Anglim et al. 2020; Clark et al. 2024).

Across domains, detachment was the strongest predictor of lower PWB, showing robust inverse associations across all six dimensions. This pattern is consistent with prior evidence linking detachment to poorer social functioning and quality of life and diminished emotional and PWB in healthy and clinical populations (de Vos et al. 2022; Hobbs et al. 2023). Our prospective results extend this evidence by suggesting that sustained interpersonal withdrawal and emotional constriction may precede subsequent declines in eudaimonic functioning over time.

Negative affectivity also showed broad inverse associations with PWB, reinforcing evidence that chronic negative emotionality undermines adaptive functioning and well‐being. These findings are consistent with studies showing that negative affectivity predicts internalizing symptoms, perceived stress, and reduces well‐being in community samples (Cox et al. 2025).

By contrast, disinhibition showed a less consistent pattern of associations, suggesting that impulsivity‐related features may be less central to long‐term eudaimonic outcomes in this context. Antagonism showed small positive associations with total PWB and some dimensions; however, meta‐analytic evidence indicates that antagonistic traits may relate differently to hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being, with some agentic or self‐enhancing components showing weak positive associations with self‐evaluations or goal pursuit, while simultaneously undermining interpersonal functioning and social integration (Blasco‐Belled et al. 2024). Prior research on aversive traits similarly indicates that narcissistic features, conceptually related to antagonism, may show positive associations with eudaimonic well‐being, whereas psychopathy is consistently linked to poorer well‐being outcomes (Aghababaei and Błachnio 2015). These associations may, in part, be related to self‐evaluative processes, particularly self‐esteem, which may be associated with more favorable self‐perceptions of well‐being even in the presence of interpersonal difficulties linked to antagonistic traits (Hart et al. 2021).

Importantly, our results converge with recent longitudinal work using dimensional models of personality pathology. Clark et al. (2024) reported that PID‐5 trait dimensions prospectively predicted psychosocial functioning outcomes, including Ryff's PWB, over an 8‐month follow‐up period, outperforming traditional categorical personality disorder diagnoses. Extending this work, our study provides 2‐year prospective evidence in a large nonclinical cohort and estimates the independent contribution of each maladaptive domain to multiple eudaimonic dimensions. Together, these findings suggest that maladaptive personality traits are relevant not only for predicting psychopathology but also for understanding trajectories of positive psychological functioning.

Beyond domain‐specific associations, our findings are also consistent with emerging evidence pointing to a close structural link between personality organization and well‐being. Rogoza et al. (2024) showed that a general factor of personality—reflecting socially adaptive configurations of traits—is strongly associated with a general factor of well‐being, with particularly robust links to PWB. From this perspective, maladaptive personality traits may be conceptualized not only as risk factors for mental disorders but also as indicators of reduced capacity for self‐realization, meaning, and adaptive engagement with life challenges. This integrative view reinforces the relevance of studying PWB as a meaningful outcome in personality research.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, mutual adjustment of PID‐5‐BF domains reduces confounding across maladaptive traits, but some conceptual proximity between certain domains and specific PWB facets may remain and could contribute to the magnitude of observed associations. Second, both personality and PWB were self‐reported, which may introduce information bias; self‐report measures can facilitate detection of anomalous traits but may overestimate dysfunction compared with structured interviews (Fernández‐Montalvo and Echeburúa 2006). However, participants' educational level may enhance response reliability. In addition, Ryff's model is a widely used model (Yiğit and Çakmak 2024); and the PID‐5‐BF is a reliable, cross‐culturally validated tool for measuring dysfunctional personality traits. Thus, both instruments should provide robust and appropriate assessments (Barchi‐Ferreira Bel and Osório 2020). Third, although the study design allows for a possible causal interpretation, causality cannot be definitively established. Fourth, sensitivity analyses including sociodemographic, baseline traits, and health variables yielded similar estimates, yet residual confounding remains possible. Fifth, because the SUN cohort comprises university graduates, findings may not fully generalize to the broader Spanish population or to other age groups; thus, replication in diverse samples is warranted. Finally, the moderate PID‐5‐BF completion rate (67.4%) may limit representativeness, though it seems unlikely to fully explain the consistent prospective pattern. Lower participation in the personality questionnaire compared with lifestyle and medical assessments may stem from participants perceiving personality traits as more intimate and potentially subject to judgment or stigma (Sheehan et al. 2016).

Despite these limitations, strengths include the large sample size, prospective design, use of validated multidimensional measures of both personality and well‐being, and analytic strategies that preserve their dimensional structure to provide more precise estimates of trait‐specific associations with PWB. Identifying detachment and negative affect as key prospective correlates of lower PWB suggests potential targets for preventive strategies. A recent meta‐analysis showed that personality traits are modifiable through interventions, with significant lasting changes (Roberts et al. 2017), supporting the possibility that reducing maladaptive dispositional patterns could contribute to improved eudaimonic functioning.

In conclusion, our study in the SUN cohort shows that higher maladaptive personality domains are prospectively associated with lower continuous PWB score 2 years later. These findings highlight the clinical and theoretical relevance of dimensional models of personality pathology and underscore the value of considering eudaimonic well‐being as a meaningful outcome in personality research.

Author Contributions

Virginia Basterra‐Gortari: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Mario Gil‐Conesa: software, writing – review and editing. Carmen Sayón‐Orea: supervision, visualization, writing – review and editing. Francisca Lahortiga‐Ramos: conceptualization, writing – review and editing. Carmen De la Fuente‐Arrillaga: data curation, project administration, writing – review and editing. Miguel A. Martínez‐González: methodology, funding, writing – review and editing. Maira Bes‐Rastrollo: conceptualization, formal analysis, funding, methodology, supervision, writing – review and editing.

Funding

This work was supported by the Spanish Government‐Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), co‐funded European Union: PI23/01332, PI24/0173, and the Navarra Regional Government (19/2023).

Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the University of Navarra's Institutional Review Board.

Consent

Voluntary participation in self‐reported questionnaires implied informed consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Aghababaei, N. , and Błachnio A.. 2015. “Well‐Being and the Dark Triad.” Personality and Individual Differences 86: 365–368. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association , ed. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM‐5. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anglim, J. , Horwood S., Smillie L. D., Marrero R. J., and Wood J. K.. 2020. “Predicting Psychological and Subjective Well‐Being From Personality: A Meta‐Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 146, no. 4: 279–323. 10.1037/bul0000226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barchi‐Ferreira Bel, A. M. , and Osório F. L.. 2020. “The Personality Inventory for DSM‐5: Psychometric Evidence of Validity and Reliability‐Updates.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 28, no. 4: 225–237. 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Basterra‐Gortari, V. , Gil‐Conesa M., Sayón‐Orea C., et al. 2024. “Daily Time Spent on Screens and Psychological Well‐Being: Cross‐Sectional Association Within the SUN Cohort.” Preventive Medicine 181: 107912. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Basterra‐Gortari, V. , Sayón‐Orea C., Martinez‐Gonzalez M. A., and Bes‐Rastrollo M.. 2025. “Influence of Psychological Well‐Being on Health: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Hypertension, Overweight/Obesity, and Mortality, Including Suicide.” Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association 44, no. 8: 745–755. 10.1037/hea0001475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Blasco‐Belled, A. , Tejada‐Gallardo C., Alsinet C., and Rogoza R.. 2024. “The Links of Subjective and Psychological Well‐Being With the Dark Triad Traits: A Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Personality 92, no. 2: 584–600. 10.1111/jopy.12853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlos, S. , de la Fuente‐Arrillaga C., Bes‐Rastrollo M., et al. 2018. “Mediterranean Diet and Health Outcomes in the SUN Cohort.” Nutrients 10, no. 4: 439. 10.3390/nu10040439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chida, Y. , and Steptoe A.. 2008. “Positive Psychological Well‐Being and Mortality: A Quantitative Review of Prospective Observational Studies.” Psychosomatic Medicine 70, no. 7: 741–756. 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31818105ba. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, L. A. , Ro E., Vittengl J. R., and Jarrett R. B.. 2024. “Longitudinal Prediction of Psychosocial Functioning Outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section‐II Personality Disorders versus Alternative Model Personality Dysfunction and Traits.” Personality Disorders 15, no. 5: 341–351. 10.1037/per0000673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cox, S. M. L. , McQuaid R. J., Ogunlana A., and Jaworska N.. 2025. “Associating Internalizing and Externalizing Symptom Features With the Personality Inventory for DSM‐5 Brief Form (PID‐5‐BF) in a Large Community Sample.” Psychological Reports 128, no. 5: 3357–3376. 10.1177/00332941231204306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Díaz, D. , Rodríguez‐Carvajal R., Blanco A., et al. 2006. “Spanish Adaptation of the Psychological Well‐Being Scales (PWBS).” Psicothema 18, no. 3: 572–577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Diener, E. 1984. “Subjective Well‐Being.” Psychological Bulletin 95, no. 3: 542–575. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fernández‐Montalvo, J. , and Echeburúa E.. 2006. “Uso y Abuso de los Autoinformes en la Evaluación de los Trastornos de Personalidad. [Use and Abuse of Self‐Reports in the Assessment of Personality Disorders.].” Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica 11, no. 1: 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  15. de la Fuente‐Arrillaga, C. , Carlos S., Toledo E., et al. 2025. “Cohort Profile Update: The “Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra” (SUN) Study After 24 Years of Follow‐Up.” International Journal of Epidemiology 54, no. 5: dyaf149. 10.1093/ije/dyaf149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Greenland, S. , Daniel R., and Pearce N.. 2016. “Outcome Modelling Strategies in Epidemiology: Traditional Methods and Basic Alternatives.” International Journal of Epidemiology 45, no. 2: 565–575. 10.1093/ije/dyw040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hart, W. , Richardson K., Breeden C. J., and Kinrade C.. 2021. “Self‐Esteem Mediates Effects of Normal and Pathological Personality Traits on Subjective Well‐Being.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 62, no. 5: 735–745. 10.1111/sjop.12738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hobbs, K. A. , Mann F. D., Latzman R. D., et al. 2023. “Pathological Personality in Relation to Multiple Domains of Quality of Life and Impairment: Evidence for the Specific Relevance of the Maladaptive Poles of Major Trait Domains.” Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science 132, no. 2: 135–144. 10.1037/abn0000810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Krueger, R.F. , Derringer Jaime, Markon Kristian E., Watson David, and Skodol Andrew E.. 2013) ‘The Personality Inventory for DSM‐5—Brief Form (PID‐5‐BF)—Adult.’, Educational Resources, pp. 5–7.
  20. Krueger, R. F. , and Markon K. E.. 2014. “The Role of the DSM‐5 Personality Trait Model in Moving Toward a Quantitative and Empirically Based Approach to Classifying Personality and Psychopathology.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 10: 477–501. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lahortiga‐Ramos, F. , Unzueta C. R., Zazpe I., et al. 2018. “Self‐Perceived Level of Competitiveness, Tension and Dependency and Depression Risk in the SUN Cohort.” BMC Psychiatry 18, no. 1: 241. 10.1186/s12888-018-1804-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Martín‐María, N. , Miret M., Caballero F. F., et al. 2017. “The Impact of Subjective Well‐Being on Mortality: A Meta‐Analysis of Longitudinal Studies in the General Population.” Psychosomatic Medicine 79, no. 5: 565–575. 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mateos‐Lardiés, A. M. , López‐García P., Morillo D., et al. 2022. “Relationship Between Healthy Lifestyle Behaviours and Subjective Wellbeing: An European Observational Study.” Revista Española de Salud Pública 96: e202210078. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Prendergast, K. B. , Schofield G. M., and Mackay L. M.. 2016. “Associations Between Lifestyle Behaviours and Optimal Wellbeing in a Diverse Sample of New Zealand Adults.” BMC Public Health 16, no. 1: 62. 10.1186/s12889-016-2755-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ro, E. , Nuzum H., and Clark L. A.. 2017. “Antagonism Trait Facets and Comprehensive Psychosocial Disability: Comparing Information Across Self, Informant, and Interviewer Reports.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 126, no. 7: 890–897. 10.1037/abn0000298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Roberts, B. W. , Luo J., Briley D. A., Chow P. I., Su R., and Hill P. L.. 2017. “A Systematic Review of Personality Trait Change Through Intervention.” Psychological Bulletin 143, no. 2: 117–141. 10.1037/bul0000088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rogoza, R. , Blasco‐Belled A., Rogoza M., and Alsinet C.. 2024. “The General Factor of Personality Is Related to Emotional, Psychological, and Social Well‐Being.” Current Issues in Personality Psychology 12, no. 1: 74–77. 10.5114/cipp/171609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ryff, C. D. 1989. “Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well‐Being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, no. 6: 1069–1081. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ryff, C. D. 2013. “Eudaimonic Well‐Being and Health: Mapping Consequences of Self‐Realization.” In The Best Within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia, edited by Waterman A. S., 77–98. American Psychological Association. 10.1037/14092-005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ryff, C. D. , and Singer B.. 1996. “Psychological Well‐Being: Meaning, Measurement, and Implications for Psychotherapy Research.” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 65, no. 1: 14–23. 10.1159/000289026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ryff, C. D. , and Singer B.. 2008. “Thriving in the Face of Challenge: The Integrative Science of Human Resilience; Postscript.” In Interdisciplinary Research: Case Studies From Health and Social Science, edited by Kessel F., Rosenfield P. L., and Anderson N. B., 198–227. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195324273.003.0014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Schiemainski, P. L. A. , Kunz J. I., Nagl S., et al. 2025. “Interpersonal Problems and the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders: An Investigation Using the Interpersonal Circumplex.” Personality and Mental Health 19, no. 4: e70045. 10.1002/pmh.70045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sheehan, L. , Nieweglowski K., and Corrigan P.. 2016. “The Stigma of Personality Disorders.” Current Psychiatry Reports 18, no. 1: 11. 10.1007/s11920-015-0654-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Takao, T. , Sumi N., Yamanaka Y., Fujimoto S., and Kamada T.. 2021. “Associations Between Lifestyle Behaviour Changes and the Optimal Well‐Being of Middle‐Aged Japanese Individuals.” BioPsychoSocial Medicine 15, no. 1: 8. 10.1186/s13030-021-00210-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Trudel‐Fitzgerald, C. , Millstein R. A., von Hippel C., et al. 2019. “Psychological Well‐Being as Part of the Public Health Debate? Insight Into Dimensions, Interventions, and Policy.” BMC Public Health 19, no. 1: 1712. 10.1186/s12889-019-8029-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Tyrer, P. , Mulder R., and Sharp C.. 2025. “Classification of Personality Pathology.” Personality and Mental Health 19, no. 4: e70043. 10.1002/pmh.70043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. de Vos, J. A. , Radstaak M., Bohlmeijer E. T., and Westerhof G. J.. 2022. “Exploring Associations Between Personality Trait Facets and Emotional, Psychological and Social Well‐Being in Eating Disorder Patients.” Eating and Weight Disorders: EWD 27, no. 1: 379–386. 10.1007/s40519-021-01107-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. World Health Organization . 2023. Achieving Well‐Being: A Global Framework for Integrating Well‐Being Into Public Health Utilizing a Health Promotion Approach. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/376200. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yiğit, B. , and Çakmak B. Y.. 2024. “Discovering Psychological Well‐Being: A Bibliometric Review.” Journal of Happiness Studies 25, no. 5: 43. 10.1007/s10902-024-00754-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Articles from Personality and Mental Health are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES