Skip to content
KO · EN Start
Check in today
Sample results · not real answers

Sample report

Your mind through paintings Full + Personality Full + Work & career Quick + Relationships & love + Values Quick + Strengths Quick + Your mind lately · last check-in 2026-10-06

Mind lately · life ladder
6→8now → 5 yrs
Some things are fine, some feel heavy
Your core

Someone who plans ahead and follows through, is drawn to new ideas, and recharges in quiet time alone

Work interests · Holland code
I · A · S
Investigative · Artistic · Social

Your mind right now, through paintings

2026-10-06 · 24 paintings. The same painting looks different depending on how we feel; this reads your current state from that difference.

Feelings you chose
Calm
Curious
Longing
Joy
Tender
Lonely
Anxious
Sad
Excited
Afraid
Numb
Irritated

The colors of your mind right nowGrade C

Across 24 paintings, the feelings you chose most were "Calm", "Curious", "Longing", in that order. Weighted by intensity, about 59% of your reactions were pleasant, about 26% were heavy, and about 15% were other feelings such as longing or numbness. Calm: Your mind is fairly settled right now, or it welcomes quiet and rest. Notice which habits create this ease so you can return to them on shakier days. Curious: Your mind is turned outward and wants to explore what it does not yet know. This week, look up or go and see one thing you have been curious about. Longing: Your mind is reaching for a past time, someone who is not near, or something that has not arrived yet. Naming what you long for can show you what feels missing right now. People tend to see scenes in ways that match their current mood (Bower, 1981). So these colors say more about you lately than about the paintings.

Mostly pleasant reactionsGrade C

Weighing the feelings you chose, the pleasant side clearly came out ahead (emotional balance +0.38, on a scale from -1 to +1). It is a sign that your mind has room to notice good things lately. One theory holds that positive emotions like joy and curiosity broaden attention and, over time, build resources such as relationships and resilience (Fredrickson, 2001). Notice where this ease comes from, such as sleep, people or daily rhythm, and protect it.

You read open-ended scenes in a balanced wayGrade C

In the open-ended scenes, you chose a spread of good, uneventful and bad next steps (bad in about 25%). That is a balanced habit of keeping several possibilities open. On heavier days this mix can tilt toward the dark side, so try again later and compare.

Pleasant scenes still reach youGrade C

Among the scenes chosen for their bright, warm mood, you picked a pleasant feeling for about 88%. Your ability to enjoy what is enjoyable is alive and well. It is a way to refill on tiring days, so keep the places, people and music that warm you in your everyday life.

Coping with hard scenes: Problem solvingGrade C

Faced with a hard scene, your first move was to look for something you could do. This is problem-focused coping, which tackles the cause directly. Strength: When a situation can be changed, this is one of the most effective ways to cope. A meta-analysis found that people who use problem solving more tend to have fewer anxiety and depression symptoms (Aldao et al., 2010). Watch for: Trying to fix things that cannot be changed wears you out, and you may keep working without making room for your feelings. Try this: Split the problem into what you can change and what you cannot, and give the second part rest and comfort instead of solutions. Your second choice, "Stepping back," came up almost as often, so you seem to move between the two depending on the situation. Stress research divides coping into dealing with the problem and dealing with the feelings (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Rather than one right way, the flexibility to switch strategies to fit the situation is more closely tied to mental health (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). These answers come from only a few intense scenes, so your real-life coping may differ.

What your mind is asking for: RestGrade C

In the warm scenes, you were drawn most to stillness and rest. Your mind may be asking for time to recover. Recovery research points to experiences such as mentally detaching from work and relaxing as ways to reduce fatigue (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). This week: This week, block one empty hour in your calendar in advance, and do not check work messages during it. This is a guess based on a few warm scenes, so check for yourself whether it fits how you feel lately.

Personality profile

The dot is your position; the pale band is the margin of error. High and low are neither good nor bad; each has its uses.

ExtraversionSlightly low
Recharges in quiet timeRecharges around people
AgreeablenessSlightly high
Frank and competitiveCooperative and caring
ConscientiousnessHigh
Spontaneous and flexiblePlanful and thorough
Emotional stabilityAverage
Reacts sensitivelyReacts calmly
OpennessSlightly high
Prefers the familiarPrefers new ideas
Honesty-HumilitySlightly high
Puts practical gain firstPuts fairness and modesty first

Where you shineGrade A

You plan, organize and finish what you take on. Leaving tasks undone makes you uneasy. People see you as someone they can rely on. Conscientiousness is one of the most consistent personality predictors of job performance, health habits and even longevity.

Worth watchingGrade A

The pull of new ideas can draw you on before the current one is finished, and routine work may bore you quickly.

How your traits combine

A combination that finds saying no especially hardGrade B

Caring about others (high agreeableness) makes you want to say yes, while stating your position out loud (extraversion) costs you a lot of energy. So you may say "it's fine" when it is not, and only feel worn out once things pile up. Research treats assertiveness as a skill that can be practiced, not a fixed trait.

Try this: Make "let me check and get back to you tomorrow" your default reply. Buying time lets you choose your words for a no calmly.

A combination that turns ideas into resultsGrade B

You have both the knack for new ideas (high openness) and the drive to finish them (high conscientiousness). These often come apart in people, so together they are a strong asset in research, planning or starting ventures. The catch is that wanting to do many things can overfill your schedule.

Try this: Cap "in progress" projects at three per quarter, and take on a new one only when you finish one.

A trusted collaborator who needs clear limitsGrade B

High warmth (agreeableness) and high fairness (honesty-humility) make you the person others trust and lean on first. These two traits are the strongest personality predictors of cooperative and sharing behavior. For the same reason, people who exploit trust may target you, so kindness needs to travel with clear limits.

Try this: If the same person asks three one-sided favors in a row, have a rule that the fourth gets "I can't this time."

A deep, independent explorerGrade C

You feed your curiosity about new ideas (high openness) in solitude more than in company (lower extraversion). This tends to build depth in long solo work such as reading, research or creative projects. The risk is that your thinking stays in your head and others never see its value.

Try this: Once a month, turn what you have been thinking about into a short note and show it to one person.

Work and career

Work that matches your interests helps performance and satisfaction, but the effect is meaningful rather than large, so weigh it with skills, experience and circumstances. Grade A

Six interests
Realistic
Investigative
Artistic
Social
Enterprising
Conventional
Job families to explore
User research (UX research)Data visualizationScience communication and writingArchitecture and spatial designGame systems and level designHumanities and social science research

Candidates to explore, not prescriptions.

This site includes information from the O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (USDOL/ETA). Used under the CC BY 4.0 license. O*NET® is a trademark of USDOL/ETA. The site has modified all or some of this information (Korean translation, response format, item selection for the quick version). USDOL/ETA has not approved, endorsed, or tested these modifications.

Interests are clues to work that fitsGrade A

Pooling more than 60 years of research, people whose work matches their interests tend to perform somewhat better and persist longer. The effect is real but modest, and the link between interest fit and job satisfaction is small. Treat the job families below as candidates to explore, not answers. Trying the work and talking to people who do it will tell you more than any score.

Try this: Pick one candidate and spend 30 minutes hearing from someone who does that work.

The quick test shows only the broad directionGrade C

With fewer items, quick-test scores can shift a little. If two types are close, their order could easily swap. If you plan to use this for a career decision, confirm it with the full test.

Investigative interest plus high conscientiousness: a reliable analystGrade B

You enjoy investigating and tend to be organized and thorough. Conscientiousness is consistently linked to performance across almost all jobs. Roles that require checking things accurately to the end, such as research operations, data quality or experimental design and validation, can let both strengths shine.

Interests and personality align: you enjoy new ideasGrade A

Artistic and investigative interests tend to go together with openness to experience, and your results fit that pattern. Work with plenty of chances to learn and experiment, where questions matter more than fixed answers, is likely to satisfy you. Pure repetition may bore you quickly.

Relationships and love

Rather than lists of people to pick or avoid, here are fitting roles, friction points and what to do then.

Who complements you: Someone who amplifies your voiceGrade C

Being caring and finding it costly to step forward means your views can get lost in groups and meetings. Someone who opens the floor ("let's hear what they think") helps a lot. Interpersonal research finds conversations feel smoother when dominance is complementary, one person leading and the other following. The key is someone who helps you speak, not someone who decides for you.

Try this: Ask one trusted colleague or friend in advance: "if I go quiet in the meeting, could you ask what I think?"

Friction point: When conflict grows, you shut down and leaveGrade B

With high attachment avoidance, emotionally heavy talks make you want to go silent, change the subject or leave. To you it is calming down; to your partner it signals being ignored. In couples research, this stonewalling was one of four signals predicting breakdown. Taking a break is fine. Disappearing without a promise to come back is the problem.

Try this: Instead of vanishing, take a break with a return time: "my head is full, give me 30 minutes and let's talk again at 8." Then be the one to start at 8.

In romantic relationships: AvoidantGrade B

You value independence and can feel crowded when things get emotionally too close. When something is hard you prefer to handle it alone, and leaning on others feels awkward.

Anxiety 2.6 / 7 (vertical)
Avoidance 3.7 / 7 (horizontal)
Practice sharing small feelings in words; even "I was a bit tired today" counts. With people who wait without pressure, avoidant defenses gradually soften.

What kind of partner fits

A partner who respects your pace and independenceGrade B

With high attachment avoidance, you may want closeness yet feel smothered when it comes too fast or too strong. You fit well with a partner who does not read alone time as rejection and does not rush emotional talks, yet stays steadily present. Research shows avoidant individuals relax and relationships improve when partners approach gently and concretely instead of pressing.

Try this: Say early: "I take time to get close; it's not a lack of interest." When choosing, see whether the person responds with appreciation rather than hurt.

A partner who doesn't take your care for grantedGrade B

In a meta-analysis of couples, a partner's agreeableness related to satisfaction. A caring partner tends to suit you, not because you are alike but because care then flows both ways. The key question is whether they appreciate and return your care or simply take it.

Try this: For a week, write down what your partner did for you. If the list stays empty, say concretely: "I'd love to receive this kind of thing too."

Reliable is enough; they needn't be as meticulous as youGrade B

Planful people often want partners with the same standards, but research finds personality similarity itself explains little satisfaction. What matters is basic reliability: keeping promises. Expecting identical detail standards turns every day into an inspection, so be clear about just the few things that truly matter to you.

Try this: Sort your household standards into "three things I really need from you" and "things I'll just do myself," and share the list.

An outgoing partner can work; respect is the conditionGrade B

Quiet people do not need quiet partners. In representative samples, similarity in extraversion explained almost none of relationship satisfaction. What matters is whether your partner does not take your recharge time as rejection and is fine going to gatherings without you. An outgoing partner may even widen your world.

Try this: Look at the month's social calendar together and sort events into "together," "separately" and "stay-home days."

People who complement you

People who stay close without pushingGrade B

With high attachment avoidance, pressure to get emotionally close tends to close the door instead. You do best with people who respect your pace and alone time while staying steadily present. Research shows avoidant people soften when partners offer concrete, practical help instead of pressure and acknowledge their independence.

Try this: Saying early "I take time to get close, it isn't a lack of interest" helps you spot the people who fit.

People who say "this is good enough"Grade C

High standards make it hard to know when to stop. Perfectionism research links fear of mistakes with burnout risk. A relaxed person who trusts your work yet says "you don't need to polish this further" provides balance. See their looseness as a brake you lack, not as carelessness.

Try this: Hand the final pre-deadline check to someone you trust and ask: "only point out what truly must change."

A friend who says "you're allowed to say no"Grade C

Seeing the other side first can make it hard to notice when you are being shortchanged. You need a friend who sees things from your side and says plainly "that's not your job." Assertiveness is a trainable skill, and it grows much faster with someone to practice with.

Try this: When a hard no is coming, rehearse the words out loud once with that friend before saying them for real.

People who do not fit you, and how to keep distance

People who use your trustGrade B

Being caring while finding it costly to say "no" out loud can make you look like an easy yes to people who use others. Research shows a strategic, manipulative style overlaps strongly with low honesty-humility, and at work such people tend to use flattery and charm as tools of influence. Observable signs: heavy praise and special treatment soon after meeting, small favors that keep growing, invitations to bend rules "just between us," an attitude of being the exception, and broken promises followed by blame instead of apology.

Try this: Never answer a request on the spot: "let me think it over and get back to you tomorrow." When praise comes attached to a request, separate them: "thank you, I'll consider the request separately." Anything involving money, signatures or secrecy gets decided only after talking it over with someone else.

People who push and controlGrade B

They demand live location sharing, confront you when replies are slow, set the pace alone and take a wish for alone time only as rejection. Avoidant attachment tends to retreat and close off under pressure, so both of you wear out. They may be acting from anxiety, but monitoring and control are warning signs regardless of attachment style.

Try this: State the distance and the return time together: "I need some time alone to be able to come closer. I'll call you at 9 tonight." Then keep that promise. If monitoring continues anyway, reconsider the relationship.

People who repeatedly break commitmentsGrade B

Lateness is routine, tasks get dropped right before deadlines, and "I forgot" keeps coming. High conscientiousness makes keeping your word feel basic, so you may read their lapses as disrespect and build up anger. Not every spontaneous person is disrespectful, though. The test is whether nothing changes after you state expectations concretely. Goal-setting research shows specific, clear goals raise performance far more than vague hopes.

Try this: State expectations in numbers: "send me a draft one day before the deadline." Announce the consequence in advance: "if you're more than 10 minutes late again, I'll start without you." If it keeps happening, stop giving that person the critical steps.

People who call rule-bending "being smart"Grade B

They pad expenses, present others' work as their own and call lies "what everyone does." Valuing fairness, you feel uneasy every time you work with them, and when things go wrong you risk sharing the blame. Meta-analysis links lower honesty-humility with more workplace deviance.

Try this: Say briefly, without long explanations: "I won't do that." Keep important agreements with them in email or messages, and log your contributions with dates.

One-way relationships where you only giveGrade C

They call only when they need something, do not listen to your side and take help without thanks. Caring people notice others' needs first, so they spot the imbalance late. Relationships need not be perfectly even, but a long one-way flow leads to exhaustion and quiet resentment.

Try this: List what you gave and received with this person over the last month. If it tilts heavily, answer the next request with a narrower yes: "I can't this time, but I can help with X."

Friction points and first words

"It's fine" in the moment, hurt later on your ownGrade C

Caring a lot and finding on-the-spot disagreement costly, you may say "it's fine" in meetings or conversations and then stew alone. The other person believes you agreed, so when the complaint surfaces later it sparks a new conflict: "why didn't you say so then?"

Try this: Memorize one opener: "just one thing to add." If you cannot speak up on the spot, say "I'll think and send my view today," and make sure you do.

You hold back, then it all bursts outGrade B

Wanting to avoid conflict and protect the relationship, you let small complaints slide. Those stored complaints then pour out over something minor, and the other person is baffled: "where did this come from?" Agreeable people are skilled at handling conflict gently, and that skill works best while issues are small.

Try this: Within 48 hours of feeling bothered, say it briefly: "I felt a bit hurt earlier when X. It's not a big deal, I just wanted to say it."

Getting along, by relationship

You can't say no to your parentsGrade C

Caring by nature plus a sense of filial duty means you may grant your parents' requests even when it is too much. Research finds that ambivalence, love and burden at the same time, is very common between adult children and parents. Think of saying no not as giving up on being a good child, but as pacing yourself to stay close for the long run.

Try this: Pair the no with an alternative in one sentence: "I understand, Mom. This week won't work, but next Saturday afternoon does."

Talks with your parents stay businesslikeGrade C

With high attachment avoidance you may skip emotional topics with parents, keeping check-ins factual. Parents may sense distance and call more or probe, which makes you want to retreat further.

Try this: When checking in, add one feeling word to one fact: "Busy week. It's nice to hear your voice, though."

You may shoulder all the parent care aloneGrade C

Planful and dependable, you may naturally end up handling parents' medical appointments, paperwork and family events alone among siblings. It is faster at first, but the load builds into fatigue and resentment toward other family members.

Try this: Post a role chart in the family chat: "I'll do hospital visits, X handles groceries, Y handles paperwork." Organize it yourself, but share the work.

What matters to you

1 Self-direction (thought)2 Universalism (tolerance)3 Self-direction (action)

Self-direction (thought) Freedom to cultivate your own ideas and abilities.

Universalism (tolerance) Acceptance and understanding of those who are different from you.

Self-direction (action) Freedom to decide your own actions.

Your top values are the first thing you reach for at a crossroadsGrade B

Values are your inner ranking of what matters more. Research links values to actual behavior, especially when you must choose between options. When a decision feels unusually hard, it is often because two of your top values point in different directions.

Try: Before your next decision, write one line on which top value each option protects.

The quick test shows only the broad patternGrade C

With fewer items, values with similar scores can easily swap places. Trust the four broad groups (openness to change, conservation, self-enhancement, self-transcendence) more than the exact ranking.

Doing things your own way matters to youGrade B

Freedom to think and decide for yourself, and new experiences, are among your top values. You likely ask first whether you chose it and whether there is room to learn and change. At work, roles with discretion, project-based work and cultures that allow experiments tend to satisfy you. Micromanagement and heavy approvals may feel stifling.

Your signature strengths

CuriosityLove of learningFairnessPerseveranceKindness

Curiosity Taking an interest in experience and exploring for its own sake. Pick one "why" question from work or life and dig into it for 30 minutes.

Love of learning Mastering new skills and bodies of knowledge, and enjoying it. Spend 15 minutes this week explaining something you learned to one person.

Fairness Treating all people the same according to fairness and justice. In a meeting or gathering this week, ask the quietest person for their view.

Use a signature strength in a new wayGrade B

Your top strengths are likely your signature strengths: the ones that feel most like you and energize you when used. In one experiment, people who used a signature strength in a new way each day for a week reported more happiness and fewer depressive symptoms for six months. Replications have sometimes found smaller effects, so treat it as a small habit worth trying, not a miracle.

Quick-test rankings are approximateGrade C

Strength scores are often close, so with fewer items the 5th and 8th can easily swap. Choosing the ones that feel truly like you matters more than the exact ranking.

You hold strengths closely tied to life satisfactionGrade B

Hope, zest, gratitude, love and curiosity are the five strengths most strongly related to life satisfaction, and at least one is among your top strengths. Deliberately make more room for it in your week. The research is correlational, so it does not prove these strengths cause happiness, but it is an easy, low-cost place to start.

Your mind lately

Life ladder history
09-15
09-22
09-29
10-06

Some things are fine, some feel heavyGrade B

You rated your present or your future, or both, in the middle range. In Gallup's terms this is "struggling": people in this group report more daily stress and money worries than those thriving. It is not failure; it signals that some part of life needs attention. Think of one thing that would need to change to move up a single rung.

Your well-being over the past two weeks looks goodGrade A

Your everyday mood, energy, rest and interest have mostly held up. Keep the habits that are working, such as sleep, movement and connection.

PleasantGrade B

Your energy is moderate and your mood is good. Notice one thing that is lifting your mood. You feel you can manage the situation to some degree.

Parent · 3/7Grade B

You are connected to your parent at a moderate distance, which many adults find comfortable. To get a little closer, asking about their childhood or younger years is a good start.

Friend · 4/7Grade B

You are comfortably connected to this friend. To go deeper, share one current worry first. Experiments show closeness grows when people gradually exchange more personal disclosures.

Partner · 5/7Grade B

You feel very close to your partner. In the study that introduced this scale, couples with higher scores were more likely to still be together months later. Respecting each other's own time and interests keeps closeness healthy.

Some things are fine, some feel heavyGrade B

You rated your present or your future, or both, in the middle range. In Gallup's terms this is "struggling": people in this group report more daily stress and money worries than those thriving. It is not failure; it signals that some part of life needs attention. Think of one thing that would need to change to move up a single rung.

Close relationships are tied to mental and physical healthGrade A

Pooling studies that followed hundreds of thousands of people, those with stronger social relationships clearly tended to live longer. Not every relationship needs to be close, but having one or two people you can open up to is a major resource.

You do not have to carry this alone If you are struggling a lot or having thoughts of harming yourself, there are people you can talk to right now. Calls are confidential, and it is fine not to know what to say.
  • If you are in immediate danger: Call your local emergency number
  • Find a free, confidential helpline in your country: findahelpline.com
  • In Korea: mental health crisis line (24h): 1577-0199
  • In Korea: suicide prevention line (24h): 109

Words for you

What does your conscience say? "You shall become the person you are."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882), §270

The phrase goes back to the ancient Greek poet Pindar, and Nietzsche later used a version of it as the subtitle of his autobiography. Becoming who you are is not finding a self already finished, but unfolding the possibilities within you. Being yourself is something you discover and something you build at the same time.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ... Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance" (1841)

What Emerson warned against was not consistency itself but foolish consistency: suppressing what you think now to match what you said before. Changing your mind can be evidence of growth. When your current thinking differs from a past choice, instead of feeling ashamed, look at what changed you.

The great person is one who has not lost the heart of a newborn child.
Mencius, Mencius 4B.12

A newborn's heart is explained as one without pretense or deceit. As experience piles up we calculate faster and speak more carefully, yet Mencius held that the greater a person is, the more they keep that first heart. Recall the last time you felt plain wonder or uncomplicated joy.

Small practices for this week

0 / 3 done
Go to the next check-in

What this result does not mean

  • It is not a medical or psychological diagnosis.
  • It does not reduce you or anyone else to one type.
  • Tendencies can change with time and situation.
  • Norms are reference values from international samples; Korean items are this site's translations.

Evidence grades and key sources

A meta-analysis or representative sample · B multiple empirical studies · C theory or expert consensus

77 sources used in this report
  1. Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217-237. link
  2. Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307-324.
  3. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612. link
  4. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363-377.
  5. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166. link
  6. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The IPIP-HEXACO scales: An alternative, public-domain measure of the personality constructs in the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8), 1515-1526. link
  7. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1220.
  8. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
  9. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Pt. 2), 1-103.
  10. Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887-919.
  11. Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591-612. link
  12. Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129-148. link
  13. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59. link
  14. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press.
  15. Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92-100. link
  16. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475.
  17. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880-896. link
  18. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. link
  19. Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43(3), 301-314.
  20. Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690-702. link
  21. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
  22. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350-365. link
  23. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226. link
  24. Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228-245.
  25. Gächter, S., Starmer, C., & Tufano, F. (2015). Measuring the closeness of relationships: A comprehensive evaluation of the 'Inclusion of the Other in the Self' scale. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0129478. link
  26. Gallup. (n.d.). Understanding how Gallup uses the Cantril Scale. Gallup News. link
  27. Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive interventions: Further evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(4), 1241-1259.
  28. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42. link
  29. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. link
  30. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. Crown Publishers.
  31. Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  32. Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528-550.
  33. Hall, J. A. (2019). How many hours does it take to make a friend? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1278-1296.
  34. Hill, A. P., & Curran, T. (2016). Multidimensional perfectionism and burnout: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 269-288.
  35. Hirsch, C. R., Meeten, F., Krahé, C., & Reeder, C. (2016). Resolving ambiguity in emotional disorders: The nature and role of interpretation biases. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 281-305.
  36. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
  37. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316.
  38. International Personality Item Pool. (n.d.). [Scoring key for the IPIP Big-Five factor markers]. Retrieved from https://ipip.ori.org/newBigFive5broadKey.htm link
  39. International Personality Item Pool. (n.d.). The items included in each of the 24 revised IPIP-VIA scales. Retrieved from https://ipip.ori.org/newVIAKey.htm link
  40. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323-362.
  41. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114-158). Guilford Press.
  42. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 449-453.
  43. Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 217-239.
  44. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
  45. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571-1582.
  46. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
  47. Lüscher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2), 413-425.
  48. Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124-127. link
  49. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  50. Mongrain, M., & Anselmo-Matthews, T. (2012). Do positive psychology exercises work? A replication of Seligman et al. (2005). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 382-389.
  51. Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 384-401. link
  52. Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2017). Interest congruence and performance: Revisiting recent meta-analytic findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 138-151.
  53. Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance: An analysis of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413-441.
  54. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619.
  55. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. link
  56. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. American Psychological Association; Oxford University Press.
  57. Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873-932.
  58. Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & de Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369-383.
  59. Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Deković, M., Reijntjes, A. H. A., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents' Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351-362.
  60. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. 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. link
  61. Rounds, J., Su, R., Lewis, P., & Rivkin, D. (2010). O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form psychometric characteristics: Summary. National Center for O*NET Development. link
  62. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178. link
  63. Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you're talking with? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 80-96. link
  64. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 177-198.
  65. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28-58.
  66. Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-688. link
  67. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421. link
  68. Sibley, C. G., Luyten, N., Purnomo, M., Mobberley, A., Wootton, L. W., Hammond, M. D., Sengupta, N., Perry, R., West-Newman, T., Wilson, M. S., McLellan, L., Hoverd, W. J., & Robertson, A. (2011). The Mini-IPIP6: Validation and extension of a short measure of the Big-Six factors of personality in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 142-159.
  69. Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2014). Partner buffering of attachment insecurity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 54-59.
  70. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204-221. link
  71. Soto, C. 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. link
  72. Speed, B. C., Goldstein, B. L., & Goldfried, M. R. (2018). Assertiveness training: A forgotten evidence-based treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 25(1), e12216.
  73. Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30-90.
  74. Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167-176. link
  75. Tsabari, O., Tziner, A., & Meir, E. I. (2005). Updated meta-analysis on the relationship between congruence and satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 13(2), 216-232.
  76. Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187-204. link
  77. World Health Organization. (1998). Wellbeing measures in primary health care: The DepCare Project. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Full methods and sources