Who Benefits from Which Activity? On the Relations Between Personality Traits, Leisure Activities, and Well-Being

Abstract

Leisure activities have been emphasized as an important predictor of well-being. However, little research has examined effects of leisure activity enactment on well-being over time. Moreover, it is unknown which activities are most beneficial for whom. We integrate diverse theoretical accounts of person-environment relations and propose a generic Personality- Activity-Well-Being (PAW) framework, which highlights different relations between personality traits, activities, and well-being. To investigate these relations, we used 11 annual waves from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel (total N = 12,703 participants, N = 59,108 assessments), which included measures of the Big Five personality traits, fifteen different leisure activities, and affective well-being and life satisfaction. Our pre-registered multi-level models revealed three sets of findings. First, we observed on average small expected between-person associations between leisure activities and well-being (e.g., higher average levels of holidays, evening socializing, talking to close others, exercise, and cultural activities were associated with higher well-being). Annual within-person fluctuations in several leisure activities also predicted well-being in expected ways, but effect sizes were very small and varied strongly across participants. Second, personality traits were related to leisure activities in hypothesized ways, yielding on average small but also some moderate and large correlations. Third, personality trait × leisure activity interactions were only evident on the between-person level, very small in size, and in the opposite direction of our expectations. Personality traits did not moderate well-being benefits from leisure within persons. We discuss the implications of our findings and sketch an agenda for future work.

What are the active ingredients in recovery activities? Introducing a dimensional approach.

“…Additional research is needed to extend knowledge on the antecedents of recovery activities both on the between-person level and the within-person level. For instance, previous research suggests that individuals scoring high on openness to experience are more likely to participate in physical (Wilson & Dishman, 2015) and outdoor activities (Kraaykamp & van Eijck, 2005), and there is some indication that neuroticism is positively and conscientiousness is negatively associated with participation in activities with a virtual component (Kuper et al, 2022). On the state level, ego depletion has been positively related to participation in virtual activities (Reinecke et al, 2014) and job stressors negatively related to physical activities (Sonnentag & Jelden, 2009).…”