Personality researchers should modify models of traits to include mechanisms of differential reaction to situations. Whole Trait Theory does so via five main points. First, the descriptive side of traits should be conceptualized as density distributions of states. Second, it is important to provide an explanatory account of the Big 5 traits. Third, adding an explanatory account to the Big 5 creates two parts to traits, an explanatory part and a descriptive part, and these two parts should be recognized as separate entities that are joined into whole traits. Fourth, Whole Trait Theory proposes that the explanatory side of traits consists of social-cognitive mechanisms. Fifth, social-cognitive mechanisms that produce Big-5 states should be identified.

In this target article, we argue that personality processes, personality structure, and personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide comprehensive responses to the key questions of personality psychology. The psychological processes and mechanisms that explain concrete behaviour in concrete situations should provide explanation for patterns of variation across situations and individuals, for development over time as well as for structures observed in intra-individual and inter-individual differences. Personality structures, defined as patterns of covariation in behaviour, including thoughts and feelings, are results of those processes in transaction with situational affordances and regularities. It cannot be presupposed that processes are organized in ways that directly correspond to the observed structure. Rather, it is an empirical question whether shared sets of processes are uniquely involved in shaping correlated behaviours, but not uncorrelated behaviours (what we term 'correspondence' throughout this paper), or whether more complex interactions of processes give rise to population-level patterns of covariation (termed 'emergence'). The paper is organized in three parts, with part I providing the main arguments, part II reviewing some of the past approaches at (partial) integration, and part III outlining conclusions of how future personality psychology should progress towards complete integration. Working definitions for the central terms are provided in the appendix.

This target article focuses on the construct of post‐traumatic growth—positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Prominent theories of post‐traumatic growth define it in terms of personality change, and as a result, this area of research should be of great interest to personality psychologists. Despite this fact, most of the research on this topic has not been sufficiently informed by relevant research in personality psychology, and much of the extant research suffers from significant methodological limitations. We review the literature on post‐traumatic growth, with a particular focus on how researchers have conceptualized it and the specific methodological issues associated with these conceptualizations. We outline some ways in which personality science can both be enriched by the study of this phenomenon and inform rigorous research on post‐traumatic growth and provide a series of guidelines for future research of post‐traumatic growth as positive personality change. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

The study of well-being is hampered by the multiplicity of approaches, but focusing on a single approach begs the question of what “well-being” really is. We analyze how well-being is defined according to the three main kinds of theories: “Liking” approaches (generally adopted by psychologists), “Wanting” approaches (predominant among economists), and “Needing” approaches (used in both public policy and psychology). We propose an integrative framework, the engine model of well-being, drawing on Seligman (Seligman, M. E. P., 2011, Flourish. New York, NY: The Free Press) and Sen's (Sen, A. K., 1999, Development as freedom. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press) emphasis on the plurality of this construct by distinguishing among (a) inputs (resources that enable well-being), (b) processes (internal states of mechanisms influencing well-being), and (c) outcomes (the intrinsically valuable behaviors that reflect the attainment of well-being). We discuss implications for research, measurement, and interventions.

The literature on resilience and posttraumatic growth has been instrumental in highlighting the human capacity to overcome adversity by illuminating that there are different pathways individuals may follow. Although the theme of strength from adversity is attractive and central to many disciplines and certain cultural narratives, this claim lacks robust empirical evidence. Specific issues include methodological approaches of using growth-mixture modeling in resilience research and retrospective assessments of growth. Conceptually, limitations exist in the examination of which outcomes are most appropriate for studying resilience and growth. We discuss new research intended to overcome these limitations, with a focus on prospective longitudinal designs and the value of integrating these disciplines for furthering our understanding of the human capacity to overcome adversity.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-line-height-alt: 1.1pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt;" lang="EN-GB">Many experts now recognize that income is not a measure that alone captures the wellbeing of individuals, and governments around the world are starting to rethink the ways in which they measure the welfare of their citizens. Wellbeing is best understood as a multifaceted phenomenon that can be assessed by measuring a wide array of subjective and objective constructs. This review summarizes the state of research on the various domains of wellbeing measured by psychologists and social scientists, and provides an overview of the main theoretical perspectives that integrate these domains. Among these theoretical perspectives, we highlight Well-being Theory, which decomposes the wellbeing construct into five domains: Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA). We conclude by formulating recommendations for future research on the measurement of wellbeing. These recommendations include the need to combine both objective and subjective indicators, and the use of a <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dashboard approach</em> to measurement. This approach conveys the multifaceted nature of wellbeing and will help policy-makers and citizens understand which domains of wellbeing should constitute priorities for public policy. </span></p>

ObjectivePost‐traumatic growth typically refers to enduring positive psychological change experienced as a result of adversity, trauma, or highly challenging life circumstances. Critics have challenged insights from much of the prior research on this topic, pinpointing its significant methodological limitations. In response to these critiques, we propose that post‐traumatic growth can be more accurately captured in terms of personality change—an approach that affords a more rigorous examination of the phenomenon.MethodWe outline a set of conceptual and methodological questions and considerations for future work on the topic of post‐traumatic growth.ResultsWe provide a series of recommendations for researchers from across the disciplines of clinical/counseling, developmental, health, personality, and social psychology and beyond, who are interested in improving the quality of research examining resilience and growth in the context of adversity.ConclusionWe are hopeful that these recommendations will pave the way for a more accurate understanding of the ubiquity, durability, and causal processes underlying post‐traumatic growth.

No abstract