Accepted Manuscript: Journal of Research in Personality

Accepted Manuscript
Full Length Article
Comparing Two Roads to Success: Self-Control Predicts Achievement and

Positive Affect Predicts Relationships
Incheol Choi, Sarah Lim, Rhia Catapano, Jongan Choi
PII: S0092-6566(18)30134-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.07.001
Reference: YJRPE 3728
To appear in: Journal of Research in Personality
Received Date: 28 November 2017

Revised Date: 29 June 2018
Accepted Date: 2 July 2018
Please cite this article as: Choi, I., Lim, S., Catapano, R., Choi, J., Comparing Two Roads to Success: Self-Control
Predicts Achievement and Positive Affect Predicts Relationships, Journal of Research in Personality (2018), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.07.001
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
SELF-CONTROL, POSITIVE AFFECT, AND SUCCESS 1
Comparing Two Roads to Success:
Self-Control Predicts Achievement and Positive Affect Predicts Relationships.
Incheol Choi
Seoul National University
Sarah Lim
Cornell University
Rhia Catapano
Stanford University
Jongan Choi
Seoul National University
Author Note
Incheol Choi, Department of Psychology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; Sarah
Lim, Department of Marketing, Cornell University, NY, USA; Rhia Catapano, Department of
Marketing, Stanford University, CA, USA; Jongan Choi, Center for Happiness Studies, Seoul
National University, Seoul, Korea
The datasets of all studies are available at on online supplement. All the studies were not
preregistered. I. Choi, S. Lim, and J. Choi developed the study conceptualization. S. Lim and J.
Choi were responsible for the data collection and preparation. I. Choi, S. Lim, and J. Choi
conducted the data analysis. All four authors contributed to the report writing. This research was
funded by a grant from the Center for Happiness Studies Seoul National University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jongan Choi, Center for
Happiness Studies, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu, Gwanak-ro 1, Bldg. 220, Seoul,
08826, South Korea; Phone: +82-2-880-6399; E-mail: therock2@snu.ac.kr

Abstract
Previous work suggests that two key predictors of success across a variety of domains are self-
control and emotional well-being (EWB). In the current project, we explore the relative
contributions of these two factors to success in two domains: academic and professional
achievement, and interpersonal relationships. Across five studies (N = 1130, 51.06% female), we
find that although both are important to success, self-control is more predictive of success in
achievement-related domains, while EWB is more predictive of success in relationship-related
domains. This finding holds for college students (Studies 1 and 5), middle-school students
(Study 2), East Asian adults (Study 3), and North American adults (Study 4), suggesting that it is
cross-cultural and robust across age and measurement.
Keywords: self-control, positive affect, emotional well-being, success, interpersonal
relationship, academic achievement, professional achievement

Comparing Two Roads to Success:
Self-Control Predicts Achievement and Positive Affect Predicts Relationships.
Self-control and positive affect are arguably two of the most compelling predictors of
success in life. Numerous studies have repeatedly shown that both lead to positive outcomes
across an impressively wide range of domains (for reviews, see de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders,
Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Indeed, there is a
great deal of overlap in the realms where the two traits predict positive outcomes: academic
achievement (for self-control, Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; for positive affect, Gilman &
Huebner, 2006), work (for self-control, Converse, Piccone, & Tocci, 2014; for positive affect,
Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008), wealth (for self-control, Moffitt et al., 2011; for positive affect,
Marks & Fleming, 1999), health (for self-control, Tice & Baumeister, 1997; for positive affect,
Cohen & Pressman, 2006), and interpersonal relationships (for self-control, Tangney,
Baumeister, & Boone, 2004; for positive affect, Diener & Seligman, 2002). Hence, there appear
to be two roads to success: self-control and positive affect.
Yet, there seem to exist dilemmas in which exerting self-control and pursuing positive
affect are at odds with each other. Indeed, the various definitions of self-control contain a
possible conflict with pursuing the desire to feel good in the moment. The famous Marshmallow
experiment (Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970) is a good example. Should we eat the marshmallow right
away for instant gratification or delay eating it for a long-term goal? Dilemmas such as this occur
most often in domains such as eating, sleeping, and working, all of which are highly crucial to
happiness (Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs, 2012; Hofmann & Van Dillen, 2012). Eating
can be one of the happiest moments in people’s daily lives, not only in Western cultures, but also
in East Asian cultures (Choi, Catapano, & Choi, 2017; Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). In
contrast, working can oftentimes constitute the unhappiest moments in both cultures (Choi,
Catapano, & Choi, 2017; Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). Not having enough sleep also
substantially affects positive emotion (Dement & Vaughan, 1999; Gujar, Yoo, Hu, & Walker,
2011; Talbot, McGlinchey, Kaplan, Dahl, & Harvey, 2010). Thus, should we follow the advice
of the self-control literature and resist the temptation to eat, sleep, and pursue leisure? Or should
we follow the advice of positive psychology research and enjoy the emotional benefits of eating,
sleeping, and engaging in leisure?
Despite both academic and practical implications of comparing the relative importance
of self-control and positive affect, few studies have integrated the two lines of research by
examining both traits simultaneously to compare their relative importance in achieving success
(cf. Hofmann, Luhmann, Fisher, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2013; Wiese, et al., 2017). This surprising
lack of integration may be attributable to a long-standing trend to view positive affect as an
outcome, rather than a cause. Previous research has asked, ‘What brings positive affect?’ instead
of ‘What does positive affect bring?’ However, Lyubomirsky et al.’s (2005) systematic review,
along with Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004), has led to a
critical shift in thought by showing that positive affect is not only a consequence, but also an
antecedent of positive life outcomes. If positive affect is not only a result, but also a cause of
success, it makes sense to compare its causal power across domains with that of self-control,
sometimes championed as one of the most reliable predictors of success in life (Baumeister &
Exline, 1999; Baumeister & Tierney, 2011).
Achievement vs. Interpersonal Relationships
In the current paper, we argue and demonstrate that the extent to which self-control and
positive affect contribute to success may differ across life domains; specifically, self-control may
be a better predictor of achievement than positive affect, while positive affect may be a better
predictor of interpersonal relationships than self-control. Two lines of research give rise to this
prediction.
First, a recent debate regarding the ‘optimal’ level of things that are considered as
positive (Grant & Schwartz, 2011; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) has begun to examine how excessive
self-control or positive affect may each have side effects, leading to negative outcomes under
certain circumstances (Ford & Mauss, 2014; Gruber, Mauss, & Tamir, 2011; Mauss et al., 2012).
This body of research reveals that excessive levels of self-control and positive affect lead to less
success in systematically different outcome domains than do moderate levels. On the one hand,
growing evidence indicates that individuals with too much self-control may suffer from
interpersonal costs (Koval, van Dellen, Fitzsimons, & Ranby, 2015; Letzring, Block, & Funder,
2005). For example, people with excessive self-control, compared to those with moderate self-
control, are less willing to sacrifice in interpersonal relationships, and therefore are more likely
to experience difficulty in building and maintaining close relationships (Righetti, Finkenauer, &
Finkel, 2013). On the other hand, Oishi, Diener, and Lucas (2007) found an inverted U-shaped
relationship between happiness (life satisfaction, more specifically) and salary. Although there
remains the possibility of reverse causality (Cheung, Hill, & Jackson, 2017), this result suggests
that too much happiness may not be as beneficial to achievement as a moderate level of
happiness. In addition, other studies have shown that excessively high levels of positive affect
are often unrelated to, or even detrimental to, academic performance in college (Okun, Fairholme,
Karoly, Ruehlman, & Newton, 2006; Okun, Levy, Karoly, & Ruehlman, 2009). As a result, it is
evident that excessive levels of both self-control and positive affect do not mirror each other in
the domains of achievement and relationship, respectively. These findings suggest that the
relative associations between the two traits and outcomes may vary across different domains.
Specifically, self-control is more strongly associated with outcomes in the domain of
achievement than positive affect, whereas the reverse pattern may emerge in the domain of
interpersonal relationships.
Second, previous meta-analytic studies, which have individually investigated the effect
sizes of self-control and positive affect for various outcomes, provide suggestive evidence that
the beneficial effects of self-control and positive affect may vary across different domains. A
systematic meta-analysis by de Ridder et al. (2012) shows that the average effect size of self-
control for work and school performance (r = .36) was relatively larger than the effect size of
self-control for interpersonal functioning (r = .25). This difference suggests that self-control may
play a more critical role in success for achievement than for interpersonal relationships.
Meanwhile, we find the reverse pattern for positive affect effect sizes. In order to calculate the
effect sizes of positive affect for achievement and relationship outcomes, we conducted random-
effect meta-analyses with subsets of studies in the meta-analysis by Lybomirsky et al. (2005); the
models for achievement and relationship outcomes included 41 and 51 out of 338 studies,
respectively. The results revealed that the average effect size of positive affect for relationship
outcomes (r = .31) was larger than that of positive affect for achievement outcomes (r = .25),
suggesting that positive affect may play a greater role in interpersonal relationships than in
achievement. Although the effect size differences obtained from previous meta-analytic studies
were not very large, they support our speculation that the relative contributions of self-control
and positive affect to positive outcomes may vary as a function of life domains.
Despite such suggestive evidence, it still remains to be empirically tested as to which of
the two is more important, and in which domains. To the best of our knowledge, the current
research is among the first to do so.
Overview
Although previous work has suggested that both positive affect and self-control are
predictive of success in various domains, prior literature sheds little light on the relative strengths
of these effects, and how they varies by domain. The current research is the first to fill this gap
by systematically comparing the relative importance of self-control and positive affect in
predicting success across these domains and measuring the two simultaneously. We predict that
self-control is a stronger predictor of success in the achievement domain than is positive affect,
while positive affect is a stronger predictor of success in the relationship domain than is self-
control. As both Lyubormisky et al. (2005) and Fredrickson (2001, 2004) adopted emotional
well-being (EWB; balance between positive and negative emotions) to demonstrate the critical
role of EWB in predicting positive life outcomes, we used EWB in order to examine the role of
positive affect in these domains.
We conducted five studies to examine our prediction that self-control is a more
important predictor of success in the achievement domain than positive affect, while the reverse
is true in the relationship domain. Study 1 compared the relative contributions of the two traits in
the academic and interpersonal domains with a sample of college students. Study 2 extended
Study 1 in two ways: 1) it examined the results with middle-school students; and 2) it used
informant-reported outcome variables, as well as self-reported ones. Studies 3 and 4 extended
these findings to non-student samples, in both an East Asian culture (Study 3) and a North
American culture (Study 4). Finally, Study 5 employed a longitudinal design to establish
temporal precedence for our hypothesized relations.
Study 1
Study 1 examined the relative relationships of both self-control and EWB with academic
achievement and interpersonal relationships among college students. Each domain included both
subjective (i.e., academic and relationship satisfaction) and objective (i.e., GPA and number of
close friends) indices of success. Note that since GPA and the number of close friends were
proxies for objective consequences, rather than subjective perceptions or attitudes although they
were self-reported, these proxies were considered as objective indicators.
Method
Participants. One hundred and ten undergraduate students (39 male, 71 female; Mage =
22.59, SDage = 1.64) at a large university in Korea completed the survey in exchange for
monetary compensation (approximately US $30).
Previous meta-analyses examining the effects of self-control (de Ridder et al., 2012) and
those of positive affect (Lyubormisky et al., 2005) on achievement and relationships have shown
medium effect sizes (i.e., the average correlation coefficients range from .25 to .36). On the basis
of these meta-analyses, we estimated that the two traits would exhibit effect sizes of
approximately r = 0.30. Given this estimated effect size, with an alpha level of 0.05, and a power
level of 0.80, the power analysis revealed that a minimum sample size would be 82 participants.
Throughout all of the studies, we recruited more than 100 participants; our samples in Study 1 (N
= 110), Study 2 (N = 358), Study 3 (N = 176), Study 4, (N = 264), and Study 5 (N = 222) were
sufficiently sensitive to detect effect sizes equivalent to r = 0.26, 0.15, 0.21, 0.17, and 0.19,
respectively. It is noteworthy that although we determined the sample size by using a power
SELF-CONTROL, POSITIVE AFFECT, AND SUCCESS
10
analysis, the sample size of Study 1 might still be a bit small because the effect sizes obtained
from previous meta-analyses were likely overestimated due to publication bias. However, the
sample sizes of the other studies (Study 2 – 5) were large enough to achieve adequate power with
more conservative effect sizes.
Measures.
Emotional Well-Being (EWB). Emotional well-being was measured with the Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS is a 20-
item scale designed to measure an individual’s level of positive affect (PA) and negative affect
(NA). This scale includes ten PA items (e.g., “interested”, “excited”, “strong”; α = .88) and ten
NA items (e.g., “distressed”, “upset”, “nervous”; α = .86). Participants rated how frequently they
experienced 20 affective states in the past four weeks on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1
(very rarely) to 5 (very often). Emotional well-being was calculated by subtracting the mean of
the NA scores from the mean of the PA scores.
Trait self-control (TSC). The Trait Self-Control Scale (TSCS; Tangney et al., 2004) is a
well-validated scale to assess dispositional self-control. Participants indicated the extent to which
36 items (e.g., “I am good at resisting temptation”, “I have a hard time breaking bad habits”
(reverse coded), “I keep everything neat”; α = .91) described themselves on 5-point Likert scales
(1 = not at all; 5 = very much). The TSCS consists of five factors – self-discipline,
deliberate/nonimpulsive action, healthy habits, work ethic, and reliability. We further examined
the relationship between these multiple factors and outcomes and found no consistent results.
Thus, we used only the overall averages of the TSCS in the following analyses.
Domain satisfaction. As a subjective indicator of success in each domain, participants
rated their satisfaction with their own academic performance (“How much are you satisfied with
11
your academic performance?”) and interpersonal relationships (“How much are you satisfied
with your interpersonal relationships?”) on 7-point Likert scales (1 = completely dissatisfied; 7 =
completely satisfied).
Grade Point Average (GPA). Participants reported their GPA for the last semester.
Number of close friends. Participants reported the number of friends whom they know
very well and trust.
Analytic Strategy.
In order to examine the relative importance of self-control and EWB in success
throughout different domains, we used multiple statistical tools: bivariate correlation, multiple
regression, and dominance analysis. Historically, multiple regression has most commonly been
used to determine the relative importance of various predictors. However, standardized
coefficients from multiple regression models fail to partition variance into different predictors in
the presence of an intercorrelation between the predictors (Darlington, 1968). Moreover, a
number of studies provide empirical evidence that standardized coefficients are not appropriate
statistical indices to represent relative importance (Johnson, 2000; LeBreton, Ployhart, & Ladd,
2004, Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011). Hence, we used dominance analyses (Budescu, 1993) as a
supplement to our bivariate correlation and multiple regression analyses. Dominance analysis
(DA) is a method for determining relative importance among a set of related predictors. It fully
partitions the total variance explained and allows us to directly examine a predictor’s
contribution by producing estimates of importance, while addressing potential problems caused
by an intercorrelation of predictors. DA is particularly well-suited for investigating the relative
importance of variables in the case that a priori ordering of predictors is not theoretically or
empirically determined (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004), as in the case of self-control and EWB. In
12
the current research, dominance analyses were conducted to compare the relative importance of
self-control and EWB with regard to their ability to account for the variance in outcomes across
life domains. We were interested in the overall importance of the predictors, although dominance
analysis allows us to examine different types of dominance (e.g., complete dominance and
conditional dominance; Azen & Budescu, 2003). In the following analyses, only general
dominance was examined, which represents the variance of a predictor accounted for by itself,
and in combination with another predictor. As such, if the average amount of variance explained
by a predictor is greater than that of the variance explained by another, the predictor is said to be
dominant over the other predictor.
It is noteworthy that bivariate correlation, multiple regression, and DA provide different
types of information that are mutually complementary (LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald,
& Ployhart, 2007). Accordingly, we can gain a more complete understanding of the roles of self-
control and EWB in predicting outcomes across life domains by leveraging multiple analytic
approaches simultaneously.
Results
A correlation analysis revealed that both self-control and EWB were significantly related
to positive outcomes in each domain, corroborating previous research that both are reliable
predictors of success (see Supplemental Table 1 for descriptive statistics and zero-order
correlations of all variables).
A series of hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the unique contributions
of self-control and EWB to outcomes in academics and interpersonal relationships, after
controlling for each other. In each regression model, demographic variables (i.e., gender and age)
13
were entered at step 1, then self-control and EWB were simultaneously entered at step 2 (see
Table 1). 1
In the academic domain, self-control was positively associated with both academic
satisfaction (β = .41, p < .001) and GPA (β = .25, p = .026), while EWB was not significantly
associated with these variables (for academic satisfaction, β = .16, p = .108; for GPA, β = .05, p
= .643). Meanwhile, EWB was significantly associated with relationship satisfaction (β = .46, p
< .001) and showed a marginal trend with the number of close friends (β = .21, p = .062). Yet,
the association between self-control and these variables was not significant (for relationship
satisfaction, β = .17, p = .088; for the number of close friends, β = .17, p = .130). In short, self-
control outperformed EWB in predicting academic success, whereas EWB outperformed self-
control in the domain of interpersonal relationships. 2
In our dominance analysis, we estimated the general dominance of self-control and
EWB for outcomes after controlling for demographic variables (i.e., age and gender).
Specifically, the general dominance coefficients were computed by averaging the squared
semipartial correlations across all possible subset regressions; with 4 predictors (self-control,
EWB, age, and gender), there were 4 regressions of only one predictor, 6 regressions of two
different combinations of predictors, 4 regressions of three different combinations of predictors,
and 1 regression of all predictors, for a total of 15 regressions. General dominance coefficients
represent the average incremental variance of self-control and EWB across the regression
models. The relative weight coefficients indicate the proportion of variance explained by self-
control and EWB in relation to the total amount of variance explained. Table 2 presents the
results of the dominance analysis. Results demonstrated that self-control, as compared to EWB,
accounted for more explained variance in academic satisfaction (69% vs. 30%) and GPA (61%
vs. 18%), whereas EWB accounted for more explained variance in relationship satisfaction (70%
vs. 30%) and the number of close friends (54% vs. 44%) than did self-control.
In summary, both the regression and dominance analyses yielded converging results to
support the notion that self-control (vs. EWB) is relatively more associated with success in the
domain of academic achievement, while EWB (vs. self-control) is relatively more associated
with success in the domain of interpersonal relationships.
Discussion
Study 1 found that academic satisfaction and GPA are more strongly associated with
self-control than with EWB, whereas relationship satisfaction and the number of close friends
were more strongly associated with EWB than with self-control. This pattern provides initial
evidence that the relative contribution of self-control and EWB to success varies as a function of
domains. This pattern holds for both subjective and objective indices of success in each domain.
Although Study 1 provides initial evidence regarding the relative importance of self-
control and EWB in success, Study 1 was conducted only with college undergraduates and with a
limited number of outcome variables. Furthermore, although GPA was treated as an objective
index of achievement, we relied on self-reported GPA scores. Therefore, in Study 2, we
addressed these issues by testing whether the same pattern is applicable to a non-college student
sample and to a wider range of outcome variables.
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to extend Study 1 in two ways. First, Study 2 attempted to
replicate the results of Study 1 in a different population, adolescents. Second, we measured
participants’ school and social success with informant-reported measures, as well as self-reported
and objective measures. Previous research has posited that sometimes informant evaluations
provide more valid information than self-evaluations (e.g., Martin-Storey, Serbin, Stack,
Ledingham & Schwartzman, 2012). Hence, Study 2 added caregiver-reported measures to
examine the relative importance of self-control and EWB in a more comprehensive way, and
used test scores from the participants’ school, rather than using self-reports.
Method
Participants. Three hundred and fifty-eight middle school students in Korea (175 male,
183 female; Mage = 14.38, SDage = .72) participated in the survey. One hundred and eighty-four of
the students were in their first year of middle school, while the rest were in their second year.
Students’ caregivers (306 female, 51 male, 1 missing; Mage = 44.38, SDage = 5.88) offered
informant reports of the school and the social functioning of the students. The majority of
informants were students’ mothers (83.5%), while the remaining informants were fathers (14%)
or grandmothers (2.5%). Questionnaires were directly sent home and completed separately by
students and their caregivers.
Measures.
Self-control and EWB. The Trait Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004) was adjusted
to assess the dispositional self-control of adolescents. Some items were excluded because they
were inappropriate for adolescents (e.g., I sometimes drink or use drugs to excess). A total of
twelve items were used in the study (α = .75). As in Study 1, EWB was measured with the
PANAS (for PA, α = .84; for NA, α = .87).
School and social functioning. Subscales of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0
(PedsQL 4.0; Varni, Seid, & Kurtin, 2001) were adjusted to assess young students’ school and
social functioning. The PedsQL is composed of two identical questionnaires: a student self-
report and a caregiver report. The school functioning subscale consists of five items measuring
students’ general adjustment in school. In this study, we used two items that were relevant to
academic performance (e.g., “paying attention in class”; for the self-report, α = .78; for the
parent-report, α = .86). To assess participants’ relationships with their peers, five items of the
social functioning subscale were used (e.g., “getting along with other children”; for the self-
report, α = .88; for the parent-report, α = .88). For each item, both the participants and their
caregivers rated the frequency of their problems during the last semester using a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = never a problem; 5 = almost always a problem). In accordance with previous studies
(Upton et al., 2005; Varni, Seid, Knight, Uzark, & Szer, 2002), all items were reverse-coded and
linearly transformed to a zero-to-100 scale (i.e., 1 = 100, 2 = 75, 3 = 50, 4 = 25, 5 = 0), with
higher scores representing better functioning.
Test scores. Unlike Study 1, in which academic achievement (i.e., GPA) was self-
reported, test scores, a proxy for academic achievement, were obtained through their school. For
the first-year students, exam subjects included Korean, mathematics, English, science and social
studies. Second-year students took the same set of exams, excluding social studies.
Number of close friends. Participants reported the number of close friends, as in Study
1.
Results
Consistent with Study 1, self-control and EWB were significantly correlated with both
academic achievement and positive relationship outcomes (see Supplemental Table 2 for
descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of all variables).
We began by conducting hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 3). Self- and
informant-reported school functioning scores were significantly related to self-control (for the
self-report, β = .30, p < .001; for the informant-report, β = .21, p < .001) and EWB (for the self-
report, β = .24, p < .001; for the informant-report, β = .14, p = .010). Furthermore, test scores
were significantly associated with self-control (β = .12, p = .030), but not EWB (β = .04, p =
.529). On the other hand, EWB was significantly associated with both self- and informant-
reported social functioning (for the self-report, β = .41, p < .001; for the informant-report, β =
.18, p = .002), while the relationship between self-control and social functioning was not
significant (for the self-report, β = .08, p = .132; for the informant-report, β = .07, p = .230). The
same pattern was observed for the number of close friends: EWB served as a significant
predictor of the number of friends (β = .20, p = .001), whereas self-control did not (β = .003, p =
.963).
We also performed dominance analysis as in Study 1, to compare the relative
importance of self-control and EWB (see Table 4). Results demonstrated that self-control
explained more of the variance in academic achievement, whereas EWB accounted for more of
the variance in predicting positive interpersonal outcomes. Specifically, self-control explained
52% of the variance in self-reported and 48% of the variance in informant-reported school
functioning, whereas EWB explained 41% and 31% of the self- and informant-reported school
functioning, respectively. For test scores, self-control accounted for 12% of the explained
variance, while EWB explained only 4% of the variance. In contrast, EWB (vs. self-control)
played a more pivotal role in explaining the variance in students’ social functioning (for the self-
report, 79% vs. 16%; for the informant-report, 66% vs. 24%) and the number of close friends
(45% vs. 5%).
In short, both the regression and dominance analyses suggest that the school
achievement of middle-school students is better explained by self-control, whereas the quality of
their interpersonal relationships is better explained by emotional well-being.

Discussion
Consistent with Study 1, Study 2 revealed that the importance of self-control and EWB
vary across domains. Study 2 found that school functioning and test scores were better explained
by self-control, whereas social functioning and the number of friends were better explained by
EWB. Notably, this pattern was consistent across three different types of measures: self-report,
informant-report, and objective outcome measures. In addition, by replicating the same pattern as
in Study 1 with young adolescents, Study 2 supports the notion that this pattern is not limited to
certain ages or groups (i.e., college students).
Study 3
In Studies 1 and 2, we found that in student populations, self-control was a better
predictor of academic achievement than was EWB, while EWB was a better predictor of
interpersonal success than was self-control. In addition, Study 2 revealed that these factors are
not only associated with success as perceived by the actor, but also as perceived by close others.
Study 3 aimed to extend these findings by using an adult sample in order to determine whether
the findings of Studies 1 and 2 can indeed hold among different age groups (i.e., middle-aged
adults), and across additional metrics for success in the relationship and achievement domains.
To this end, Study 3 assessed not only relationship satisfaction in general, but also the quality of
relationships with a participant’s spouse, family members, and friends. Furthermore, we
extended the research to another achievement domain that is more pertinent to adults,
occupational achievement, as indexed by factors such as income.
Method
Participants. Participants were one hundred and seventy-six Korean adults (104 male,
72 female), ranging in age from 30 to 59 years (Mage = 43.65, SDage= 8.29). Participants
completed a survey online in exchange for monetary compensation (approximately US $10). All
participants had a college degree (76.1%) or post-graduate degree (23.9%). Seventy-one percent
of the participants were employed in business, finance, and administration, 15.9% in education,
law and government service, 5.7% in management, 4% in sales and service, and 3.4% in
manufacturing and utilities.
Measures.
Self-control and EWB. As in Studies 1 and 2, trait self-control was measured with the
TSCS (α = .90), and EWB was assessed with the PANAS (for PA, α = .90; for NA, α = .91).
Burnout. Burnout, or psychological and emotional drain, was measured as a subjective
indicator of successful job functioning. Three items adjusted from the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI; Maslach & Jackson, 1981) were used (e.g., “I feel burned out from my work”; α
= .86). Participants reported how much they agreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
not at all; 5 = very much).
Income. Participants’ monthly income was measured as a proxy for objective
occupational success. Due to its skewness, a log-transformed score of income was used for the
analysis.
Relationship satisfaction scores. Relationship satisfaction (“How satisfied are you with
your relationships with other people in general?”), marital satisfaction (“How satisfied are you
with your marriage?”), and family satisfaction (“How satisfied are you with your family?”) were
measured with one item each on 7-point scales (1 = completely dissatisfied; 7 = completely
satisfied).
Number of close friends. Participants reported the number of close friends whom they
know very well and trust.

Friendship intimacy. Participants rated the degree of their friendship intimacy (“How
much intimacy do you feel in your relationships with friends?”) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not
at all; 7 = very much).
Results
A correlation analysis indicated that both self-control and EWB showed significant
relationships with the outcome variables (see Supplemental Table 3 for descriptive statistics and
zero-order correlations of all variables).
A series of hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to identify the relative
contributions of self-control and EWB to positive outcomes (see Table 5). Although burnout was
significantly associated with both self-control (β = -.32, p < .001) and EWB (β = -.16, p = .05),
the coefficient of self-control was larger in magnitude than that of EWB. Additionally, income
was significantly related to self-control (β = .26, p = .001), but not to EWB (β = .05, p = .489). In
the interpersonal domain, EWB was significantly related to general relationship satisfaction (β =
.40, p < .001), family satisfaction (β = .53, p < .001), and marital satisfaction (β = .48, p < .001).
Self-control was also significantly related to all three variables (for general relationship
satisfaction, β = .20, p = .014; for family satisfaction, β = .18, p = .009; for marital satisfaction, β
= .16, p = .033); however, in general, the coefficients of self-control were smaller than those of
EWB. In addition, we created a composite index of social relationships (α = .82)by averaging
the standardized scores of the three variables and found that EWB (β = .55, p < .001) was more
strongly correlated with success in social relationships than self-control (β = .21, p = .002).
Furthermore, EWB was significantly associated with friendship intimacy (β = .38, p < .001) and
the number of close friends (β = .19, p = .034), whereas self-control was not (for friendship
intimacy, β = .01, p = .923; for the number of close friends, β = .14, p = .153).
A dominance analysis was also performed to compare the relative contributions of self-
control and EWB (see Table 6). In the work domain, self-control accounted for more of the
explained variance in occupational outcomes than did EWB (for burnout, 56% vs. 32%; for
income, 19% vs. 6%). In the domain of interpersonal relationships, however, EWB (vs. self-
control) accounted for more of the explained variance in relationship satisfaction (62% vs. 34%),
family satisfaction (61% vs. 25%), and marital satisfaction (56% vs. 22%). Likewise, EWB
accounted for more of the explained variance in friendship intimacy (79% vs. 15%) and the
number of close friends (49% vs. 34%) than did self-control. Taken together, these results
suggest that occupational success was better explained by self-control, whereas the quality of
social relationships was better explained by EWB.
Discussion
The results of Study 3 replicated those of Studies 1 and 2 with a different sample (i.e.,
middle-aged adults) and with measures of a different achievement domain (e.g., income). By
doing so, Study 3 provides additional evidence that self-control, as compared to EWB, is more
strongly related to achievement, whereas EWB is more significantly associated with
interpersonal relationships.
This finding builds on Studies 1 and 2 in a number of key ways. First, we find that
burnout is more related to self-control than to EWB. Given that burnout is heavily tied to
emotions, as it reflects the experience of negative emotions and emotional drain, one might
expect EWB to act as a better predictor of burnout. However, we find that self-control accounts
for more of the explained variance of burnout than EWB, which underscores the significant
impact of self-control in the occupational sphere. Second, Study 3 sheds further light on the
scope of EWB’s role in interpersonal relationships; EWB is not only important more generally in
interpersonal success, but also in specific and diverse relationships, including an individual’s
spouse, family, and friends.
Finally, it is worth noting that the difference in the relative importance of self-control
and EWB was more pronounced in the subjective indicators (e.g., relationship satisfaction) than
in the objective indicators (e.g., the number of friends) in both Studies 1 and 3. For instance, the
variance explained by EWB (vs. self-control) was greater for relationship satisfaction (for Study
1, 70% vs. 30%; for Study 3, 62% vs. 34%) than for the number of friends (for Study 1, 54% vs.
44%; for Study 3, 49% vs. 34%). This pattern suggests that the relative influences of EWB (vs.
self-control) on interpersonal outcomes (vs. achievement) may be more significant in terms of
one’s subjective perceptions or attitudes than for the objective consequences themselves.
Study 4
Study 4 had two major aims. First, it aimed to examine the cultural generality of our
findings. All participants in Studies 1–3 were recruited in Korea; therefore, it is an open question
as to whether this relationship can be generalized to other cultures, particularly Western cultures.
Therefore, in Study 4, we recruited participants from the United States to examine whether our
findings would be replicated among American participants.
In addition, we included another achievement indicator, occupational prestige (Nakao &
Treas, 1994), which represents the shared belief regarding the “social standing” of a profession
for a certain society and time period (Christ et al., 2012; Nakao & Treas, 1992). A high-prestige
job implies that it is not only highly paid, but also engenders admiration and respect within a
society. For example, doctors and teachers score higher in occupational prestige than do taxi
drivers and sales clerks. Previous work has found that occupational prestige scores are highly
correlated with other measures of socioeconomic status (SES), suggesting that occupational
prestige is an objective indicator of achievement (Nakao & Treas, 1994).
Method
Participants. Two hundred and sixty-four U.S residents (133 males, 131 female),
ranging in age from 20 to 65 (Mage = 34.46, SDage= 10.18) were recruited through Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk. They received monetary compensation (US $1) in exchange for their
participation. Participants included 10 African Americans, 216 Caucasians, 18 Asians, and 20
Others. A total of 69.7% of the participants had a college degree or higher degree, 21.2% had
some college credit without a degree, and 9.1% had a high school diploma. Participants had
occupations in business, finance, and administration (42.6%), education, law, and government
service (8%) management (9.5%), sales and service (18.9%), manufacturing and utilities (9.9%),
transportation and material moving (3.4%), health (2.7%), and natural resource, agriculture and
related production (2.3%); the remaining 2.7 % of participants did not report their occupation.
Measures.
Self-control and EWB. Trait self-control and EWB were assessed with the TSCS (α =
.92) and the PANAS (for PA, α = .92; for NA, α = .93), respectively.
Burn out. As in Study 3, three items from the MBI (α = .81) were used to assess
psychological and physical exhaustion resulting from their work.
Income. Participants self-reported their monthly gross income. Due to its skewness, we
log-transformed income and used the log-transformed score for analysis.
Occupational prestige. Occupational prestige was included as an indicator of
occupational achievement. Participants self-reported their occupation (“Please specify your
occupation”), which was used to generate an occupational prestige score based on Nakao and
Treas’ (1994) occupational prestige ratings. For example, a salesperson in a retail shop was
assigned an occupational prestige score of 29, whereas a lawyer in a law firm was assigned a
score of 75. The scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing higher prestige.
Relationship satisfactions. Using the same items as in Study 3, participants self-reported
their satisfaction with their relationships in general, their marital relationship, and their family
relationships.
Friendship intimacy. Participants reported the extent to which they feel intimacy with
their friends on a 7-point Likert scale.
Number of close friends. Participants self-reported the number of their close friends.
Results
Again, both self-control and EWB were significantly correlated with the outcome
variables, with the exception of the number of close friends, which was not significantly
correlated with self-control (see Supplemental Table 4 for descriptive statistics and zero-order
correlations of all variables).
We conducted a series of hierarchical multiple regressions to examine the relative
predictive power of self-control and EWB on occupational and interpersonal outcomes (see
Table 7). As in Study 3, self-control, compared to EWB, showed a stronger relationship with
outcomes in occupational domains. Specifically, although burnout showed a significant
relationship with both self-control (β = -.35, p < .001) and EWB (β = -.26, p < .001), the
magnitude of self-control’s coefficient was larger than that of EWB. In addition, occupational
prestige was positively related to self-control (β = .19, p = .015), but not to EWB (β = .02, p =
.820). Income was not significantly predicted by self-control (β = 11, p = .177) or EWB (β = .04,
p = .654). Conversely, EWB was more strongly related to outcomes in interpersonal domains
than was self-control. Both self-control (β = .15, p = .038) and EWB (β = .36, p < .001) were
significantly related to marital satisfaction; however, the coefficients of EWB were more than
twice the size of those related to self-control. General relationship satisfaction and family
satisfaction were associated with EWB (for general relationship satisfaction, β = .56, p < .001;
for family satisfaction, β = .45, p < .001), but not with self-control (for general relationship
satisfaction, β = .04, p = .571; for family satisfaction, β = .05, p = .459). As in Study 3, the index
of social relationships (α = .74) was computed. EWB (β = .56, p < .001) was significantly
predictive of success in relationships, but self-control (β = .10, p = .121) was not. Furthermore,
friendship intimacy had a positive relationship with EWB (β = .57, p < .001), whereas it had a
marginally significant trend in the opposite direction with EWB (β = -.12, p = .08). Neither self-
control nor EWB was predictive of the number of close friends (for self-control, β = -.02, p =
.852; for EWB, β = .13, p = .105).
The dominance analysis (see Table 8) shows that, as in Studies 1-3, self-control, as
compared to EWB, accounted for more of the explained variance in occupational outcomes: for
burnout, 51% vs. 41%; for income, 9% vs. 5%; for occupational prestige, 70% vs. 21%. On the
other hand, EWB explained more of the variance in interpersonal outcomes than did self-control:
for relational satisfaction, 72% vs. 21%; family satisfaction, 73% vs. 24%; for marital
satisfaction, 59% vs. 32%; for friendship intimacy, 81% vs. 12%; for the number of close
friends, 50% vs. 10%.
Discussion
In Study 4, we replicated, in general, our findings with a Western sample. As in Studies
1-3, outcomes in the occupational domain, such as burnout and occupational prestige, were more
strongly related to self-control than to EWB. On the other hand, outcomes in the interpersonal
domain, such as relationship/family/marital satisfaction and friendship intimacy, were more
strongly associated with EWB than self-control. In Study 4, we also find that self-control is a
better predictor of occupational prestige than is EWB, which suggests that self-control, rather
than positive affect, may be a more important predictor of obtaining socially desirable jobs. It is
worth noting that self-control and positive affect could not significantly predict the number of
friends or income, respectively, although their trends were consistent with the results in Study 3.
These discrepancies might be due to differences in the sampling methods (offline vs. online) or
in the sample characteristics, such as cultural background (Eastern Asian vs. Western), age, and
socioeconomic status. Whether this is the case remains to be tested in further work.
Study 5
Results obtained from multiple samples (college students, middle-school students,
Korean/American adults) and measures (self-reports, informant-reports, objective indices)
provided converging evidence that the relative importance of self-control and EWB in success
varies, according to domain. However, due to the cross-sectional design of the previous studies
in which self-control, EWB, and outcomes were measured simultaneously, it did not allow us to
examine the temporal precedence of self-control and EWB over outcomes across the domains.
Moreover, the relationship between the two traits and outcomes, particularly subjective
indicators of success (e.g., satisfaction with relationships and job burnout) might be inflated due
to common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To empirically
address these limitations, in Study 5, we conducted a longitudinal study in which self-control and
EWB were assessed at an initial time point as predictor variables. Then, approximately 6 months
later, subsequent outcomes in academic and interpersonal relationship domains were measured.
In Study 5, we examined the prospective associations of the two traits with outcomes in the
achievement and relationship domains, and we compared their magnitudes in each domain.
Method
Participants. Two hundred and eighty-five first-year students at a large university in
Korea completed the first questionnaires. Of these students, 222 completed the second
questionnaire3, and are included in the below analyses (102 male, 120 female; Mage = 19.10,
SDage = .69). They completed two surveys in the exchange of monetary compensation
(approximately US $40).
Procedure. Participants visited a laboratory and completed the first survey packet,
including the TSCS and the PANAS (along with other measures, which were irrelevant to this
project, and are therefore not reported) in April, early in the first semester (Time 1). In October,
during the middle of the second semester, they returned to the laboratory and completed the
second packet containing questionnaires assessing their success in the academic and
interpersonal relationship domains (Time 2). As in the first packet, several surveys were included
in the second packet for multiple research projects.
Measures.
Self-control and EWB. Trait self-control and EWB were measured in the same manner
as in previous studies. Participants completed the TSCS (α = .89) and the PANAS (for PA, α =
.84; for NA, α = .75) at Time 1.
Domain satisfaction. Using the same questions as in Study 1, participants reported their
subjective satisfaction with their academic and interpersonal relationships at Time 2.
Grade Point Average (GPA). Participants reported their GPA for their first semester at
Time 2.
Number of new friends. Participants reported the number of new friends they made in
college at Time 2.
Results
First, we examined the correlation between self-control and EWB and the outcome
variables. Consistent with Studies 1-4, the results revealed that self-control and EWB were
positively correlated with the outcome variables; specifically, self-control at Time 1 was
associated with academic satisfaction, GPA, and interpersonal relationship satisfaction at Time 2,
while EWB was correlated with academic satisfaction, interpersonal relationship satisfaction and
the number of new friends (see Supplemental Table 5 for descriptive statistics and zero-order
correlations of all variables)
As in Studies 1-4, we generated multiple hierarchical multiple regression models to
examine the predictive power of self-control and EWB in academic and interpersonal outcomes,
after controlling for each other (see Table 9). Self-control was more predictive of academic
outcomes, using both subjective and objective indicators, than was EWB. That is, although
academic satisfaction was significantly predicted by self-control (β = .35, p < .001) and EWB (β
= .14, p = .035), the coefficients for self-control were more than twice as large as those of EWB.
Furthermore, self-control predicted GPA (β = .35, p < .001), but EWB did not (β = -.06, p =
.368). In addition, we found the same pattern, even after controlling for participants’ SAT scores,
which were collected at Time 1 (for self-control, β = .38, p < .001; for EWB, β = -.09, p = .752).
Meanwhile, the reverse pattern was observed for interpersonal outcomes. EWB prospectively
predicted relationship satisfaction (β = .39, p < .001) and the number of new friends (β = .15, p =
.033). However, self-control did not predict either interpersonal outcome (for relational
satisfaction, β = .08, p = .192; for the number of new friends, β = .04, p = .599).
The dominance analysis yielded converging evidence that the relative importance of
self-control varied by the outcome domain (see Table 10). For academic satisfaction and GPA,
self-control explained more of the variance in predicting positive outcomes than did EWB (for
satisfaction, 70 % vs. 20%; for GPA, 77% vs. 2%). In contrast, EWB explained more of the
variance in relationship outcomes, as compared to self-control. Specifically, EWB explained
83% of the variance in relationship satisfaction and 56% of the variance in the number of new
friends, while self-control explained 12% and 11% in relationship satisfaction and the number of
new friends, respectively.
Discussion
In Study 5, we employed a longitudinal design to explore the relationship between initial
self-control and EWB, and subsequent outcomes in the academic and relationship domains, and
we compared their predictive power. Consistent with Studies 1-4, self-control predicted
subsequent academic outcomes, such as academic satisfaction and GPA, to a greater extent than
did EWB. Conversely, EWB was more strongly related to subsequent relationship-related
outcomes, including future relationship satisfaction and the number of new friends than was self-
control.
As in Studies 1-4, we found that self-control was more strongly associated with success
in achievement, while EWB was more strongly associated with success in relationships, even
after minimizing common method variance. Furthermore, Study 5 provides initial evidence
supporting the temporal precedence of self-control and EWB over outcomes in life domains,
although it is difficult to establish casual directionality conclusively without experimental
evidence.
Meta-Analysis
We conducted further meta-analyses to explore the overall pattern across studies. The R
package metafor (Viechtbauer, 2010) was used to specify four random-effect models with self-
control as the predictor and achievement variables as the outcomes; self-control as the predictor
and relationship variables as the outcomes; EWB as the predictor and achievement variables as
the outcomes; and EWB as the predictor and relationship variables as the outcomes. We used
standardized betas as predictors in the meta-analyses (Kim, 2011; Nieminen, Lehtiniemi,
Vähäkangas, Huusko, & Rautio, 2013; Woolley & Fishbach, 2017). 4 Twelve regressions from
Studies 1-5 were included in the models for the achievement outcomes; 17 regressions were
included in the models for the relationship outcomes.
The results of the tests for heterogeneity revealed that there was significant or marginal
heterogeneity within the effects in the models (for the model of self-control and the achievement
outcomes, Q(11) = 20.88, p = .005; for the model of self-control and the relationship outcomes,
Q(16) = 24.85, p = .072; for the model of EWB and the achievement outcomes, Q(11) = 27.11, p
= .004; for the model of EWB and the relationship outcomes, Q(16) = 120.08, p < .001). This
pattern suggests that moderators likely influence the effect sizes of self-control and EWB on
success. Future research is necessary to understand which individual and contextual factors act as
moderators for these effects.
The effect of self-control on the achievement outcomes was significant after controlling
for EWB (β = .27, SE = .03, 95% CI = [0.21, 0.32], p < .001), as was the effect of EWB on
achievement after controlling for self-control (β = .11, SE = .03, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.16], p < .001).
Although the effect sizes of self-control and EWB on the achievement outcomes were significant,
the magnitude of the effect size for self-control was larger than that of EWB, and their 99% CIs
did not overlap (self-control 99% CI = [0.19, 0.34]; EWB 99% CI = [0.03, 0.18]). This finding
supports our account that self-control is a stronger predictor of achievement outcomes than EWB
(p < .01). For the relationship outcomes, the effects of both self-control and EWB were
significant after controlling for the other (for self-control, β = .07, SE = .02, 95% CI = [0.03,
0.11], p < .001; for EWB, β = .36, SE = .04, 95% CI = [0.29, 0.43], p < .001). Here we see a
reversal, such that for relationship outcomes, EWB had significantly greater predictive power
than did self-control (p < .01), as their 99% CIs did not overlap (self-control 99% CI = [0.02,
0.12]; EWB 99% CI = [0.27, 0.45]). These meta-analyses provide further evidence that the
relative importance of self-control and EWB in predicting success varies across life domains; our
data suggest that self-control plays a pivotal role in predicting success in the achievement
domain, while EWB plays a critical role in predicting success in the interpersonal relationship
domain.
General Discussion
The current research makes both conceptual and practical contributions regarding what it
means and what it takes to be successful. Achievement and relationships are arguably two of the
most important life domains. According to the current research, achieving success in these two
domains seems to require different combinations of self-control and EWB. Specifically, for
academic and occupational achievement, self-control seems to be more important than EWB,
which indicates that pursuing positive affect and neglecting self-control has the potential to limit
an individual’s ability to succeed in academics and in their occupation. This finding supports a
recent meta-analysis revealing that self-control is most strongly associated with success at work
and school rather than in other domains (de Ridder et al., 2012). As for interpersonal
relationships, however, the opposite was true. Both subjective and objective indices of
interpersonal success were more strongly associated with EWB than with self-control. This
contrast between self-control and EWB in achievement versus social relationships is in line with
Oishi et al. (2007)’s finding that higher happiness leads to better social relationships, but not
necessarily to better achievement. The current project builds on this work not only by exploring
the role of positive affect, but also by exploring its comparative strength with self-control across
these domains.
As readers might have noted, we did not include the interaction term in our analysis and
instead looked at the main effects of self-control and positive affect. However, one might argue
that self-control moderates the effect of positive affect, or vice versa. To address this issue, we
examined whether the levels of self-control and EWB serve as a moderator to one another across
our five studies. Our analysis suggests that self-control and positive affect do not have an
interactive effect on success; out of 29 models, only 4 reached significance, and there was no
consistent interaction effect across Studies 1-5. The lack of significant interaction effects
between self-control and EWB suggests that self-control and EWB have an additive effect on
success in these domains. In other words, although self-control and EWB have different levels of
contribution to achievement and relationships, individuals with high levels of both self-control
and EWB are more likely to achieve success in these domains than those with only high self-
control or high EWB. That is, success is best predicted by a combination of high self-control and
high EWB.5
It is also worth noting that the correlations between self-control and EWB were found to
be significant in all five studies (r = .52, .45, .54, .64, and .31), suggesting the possibility that
there may exist a positive loop between trait self-control and positive affect. Prior empirical
work also provides support for the positive loop hypothesis. For instance, participants in a
positive mood were less susceptible to ego depletion (Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli & Muraven,
2007) and temporal discounting (Pyone & Isen, 2011). Additionally, Hofmann et al. (2013)
found that trait self-control predicted greater experiences of positive emotions and fewer
experiences of negative emotions. These studies and the current research, taken together, suggest
the possibility of a virtuous cycle between self-control and positive emotions, such that positive
emotions are likely to boost one’s resources for self-control; in turn, an increased ability to
exercise self-control is likely to evoke positive emotions.
Although the current research expands our understanding of the beneficial roles of self-
control and positive affect by demonstrating that their effects vary across life domains, several
limitations should be considered for future research. First, since the current research is
correlational in nature, we are unable to make strong causal inferences. Although Study 5
adopted a longitudinal design and provided initial evidence in regard to establishing temporal
precedence between the two traits and outcomes while minimizing concerns about common
method variance, our longitudinal analyses are limited because different variables were measured
at each point; thus, we did not apply statistical modeling techniques to directly examine casual
directionality (e.g., the bivariate latent score change model). In addition, the time interval
between two points (6 months) might not be sufficient for psychological change to manifest
itself. Thus, it is important for future research to systematically examine the causal relationship
between self-control and positive affect, and outcomes in various life domains. In particular, a
longitudinal intervention design in which participants regularly engage in practicing activities to
enhance self-control or positive affect can provide experimental evidence for causality.
Next, our findings were repeatedly observed with different ages, ranging from young
adolescents and young adults to middle-aged adults. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether
the pattern holds across the lifespan, particularly among older adults. Aging theories, such as
socioemotional selective theory (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999) and strength and
vulnerability integration theory (Charles, 2010), propose that older adults, compared with
younger adults, are more likely to focus on emotionally meaningful goals and avoid negativity.
Age-related changes in goals and emotional experiences might qualify the positive roles of self-
control and positive affect across the life domains. Further work is necessary to systematically
examine the possible moderating effect of age.
Another important area for future research is the mechanism underlying these
differential effects of self-control and EWB on achievement versus relationship success. One
possible mechanism for this finding is the thinking-mode, which can be influenced by levels of
self-control and positive affect. Previous research suggests that people with high self-control are
likely to engage in deliberative, analytical, and systematic thinking (Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs,
2009; Janssen, Fennis, Pruyn, & Vohs, 2008; Pocheptsova, Amir, Dhar, & Baumeister, 2009),
while those with greater positive affect are more likely to engage in intuitive, holistic and
heuristic thinking (Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985; Isen & Means, 1983; Isen,
Niedenthal, & Cantor, 1992). Based on these findings, one possibility is that people with high
self-control may tend to rigidly adhere to rational rules in interacting others, which may appear
to be cold and calculating, and in turn, may be less likely to build positive social relationships
than those with high positive affect. Conversely, people with high levels of positive affect may
be inclined to make intuitive and heuristic decisions, even in academic and occupational contexts
where deliberative and critical thinking may improve performance; thus, they may not achieve as
much as those with high self-control. In future research, it would be interesting to directly test
this possibility.
Our findings offer a clearer picture of the prerequisites for a successful life. While both
self-control and EWB are important to overall success, the two dominate in different domains.
Success is not as simple as strong self-control or high EWB. Rather, success is a nuanced
product of a number of factors, including self-control and positive affect.

References
Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors
in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–141. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12303
Baumeister, R. F., & Exline, J. J. (1999). Virtue, personality, and social relations: SelfǦcontrol as
the moral muscle. Journal of Personality, 67, 1165-1194. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00086
Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength.
New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness promote career success? Journal of
Career Assessment, 16, 101-116. doi: 10.1177/1069072707308140
Bradburn N.M.(1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative
importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181. doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.54.3.165
Charles, S. T. (2010). Strength and vulnerability integration: A model of emotional well-being
across adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1068-1091. doi: 10.1037/a0021232
Cheung, F., Hill, P., & Jackson, J. J. (2017, February 3). Does upward mobility result in greater
well-being? Evidence from a pre-registered study on a large population-based survey.
doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZQ49M
Choi, J., Catapano, R., & Choi, I. (2017). Taking stock of happiness and meaning in everyday
life: An experience sampling approach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8,
641-651. doi: 10.1177/1948550616678455
Christ, S. L., Fleming, L. E., Lee, D. J., Muntaner, C., Muennig, P. A., & CabanǦMartinez, A. J.
(2012). The effects of a psychosocial dimension of socioeconomic position on survival:
Occupational prestige and mortality among US working adults. Sociology of Health &
Illness, 34, 1103-1117. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01456.x
Cohen, S., & Pressman, S. D. (2006). Positive affect and health. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15, 122-125. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00420.x
Converse, P. D., Piccone, K. A., & Tocci, M. C. (2014). Childhood self-control, adolescent
behavior, and career success. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 65-70. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.007
Darlington, R. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research and practice.
Psychological Bulletin, 69, 161-182. doi: 10.1037/h0025471
Dement, W. C., & Vaughan, C. (1999). The promise of sleep: A pioneer in sleep medicine
explores the vital connection between health, happiness, and a good night's sleep. New
York, NY: Dell.
de Ridder, D. T., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012).
Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide
range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76-99. doi:
10.1177/1088868311418749
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81-84.
doi: 10.1111/jopy.12050
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic
performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939-944. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2005.01641.x
Fennis, B. M., Janssen, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Acts of benevolence: A limited resource
account of compliance with charitable requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 906–
924. doi:10.1086/593291
Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2014). The paradoxical effects of pursuing positive emotion: When
and why wanting to feel happy backfires. In J. Gruber & J. Moskowitz (Eds.), The light
and dark sides of positive emotion (pp. 363–381). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical
Transactions-Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1367-1377.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life
satisfaction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 293-301. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-
9036-7
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity
of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61-76. doi:
10.1177/1745691610393523
Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why
happiness is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 222-233. doi:
10.1177/1745691611406927
Gujar, N., Yoo, S. S., Hu, P., & Walker, M. P. (2011). Sleep deprivation amplifies reactivity of
brain reward networks, biasing the appraisal of positive emotional experiences. Journal
of Neuroscience, 31, 4466-4474. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3220-10.2011
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An
experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102, 1318-1335. doi: 10.1037/a0026545
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2013). Yes, but
are they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life satisfaction.
Journal of Personality. 82, 265-277. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12050
Hofmann, W., & Van Dillen, L. (2012). Desire: The new hot spot in self-control research.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 317-322. doi:
10.1177/0963721412453587
Isen, A. M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy.
Social Cognition, 2, 18-31. doi: 10.1521/soco.1983.2.1.18
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive
affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 1413-1426. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1413
Janssen, L., Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). The path of least resistance:
Regulatory resource depletion and the effectiveness of social influence techniques.
Journal of Business Research, 61, 1041–1045. doi:10.1016/j .jbusres.2007.09.013

Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor
variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19. doi:
10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1
Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238–257. doi:
10.1177/1094428104266510
Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science,
330, 932-932. doi: 10.1126/science.1192439
Kim, R. S. (2011). Standardized regression coefficients as indices of effect sizes in meta-analysis
(Paper 3109). Tallahassee: Florida State University
Koval, C. Z., VanDellen, M. R., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Ranby, K. W. (2015). The burden of
responsibility: Interpersonal costs of high self-control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108, 750-766. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000015
LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A
multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and
practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475-498. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00080.x
Lebreton, J. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Ladd, R. T. (2004). A Monte Carlo comparison of relative
importance methodologies. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 258-282. doi:
10.1177/1094428104266017
Letzring, T. D., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (2005). Ego-control and ego-resiliency:
Generalization of self-report scales based on personality descriptions from acquaintances,
clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 395-422. doi:
10.1016/j.jrp.2004.06.003
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.131.6.803
Marks, G. N., & Fleming, N. (1999). Influences and consequences of well-being among
Australian young people: 1980–1995. Social Indicators Research, 46, 301-323. doi:
10.1023/A:1006928507272
Martin-Storey, A., Serbin, L. A., Stack, D. M., Ledingham, J. E., & Schwartzman, A. E. (2012).
Self and peer perceptions of childhood aggression, social withdrawal and likeability
predict adult personality factors: A prospective longitudinal study. Personality and
Individual Differences, 53, 843-848. doi: 10.1007/BF00912327
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2, 99-113. doi: 10.1002/job.4030020205
Mauss, I. B., Savino, N. S., Anderson, C. L., Weisbuch, M., Tamir, M., & Laudenslager, M. L.
(2012). The pursuit of happiness can be lonely. Emotion, 12, 908-912. doi:
10.1037/a0025299
Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 16(2), 329-337. doi: 10.1037/h0029815
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., ... & Caspi,
A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2693-2698. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1010076108
Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1992). The 1989 socioeconomic index of occupations: Construction from
the 1989 occupational prestige scores. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.
Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1994). Updating occupational prestige and socioeconomic scores: How
the new measures measure up. Sociological Methodology, 24, 1–72. doi: 10.2307/270978
Niedenthal, P. M., & Cantor, N. (1992). An influence of positive affect on social categorization.
Motivation and Emotion, 16, 65-78.doi: 10.1007/BF00996487
Nieminen, P., Lehtiniemi, H., Vähäkangas, K., Huusko, A., & Rautio, A. (2013). Standardised
regression coefficient as an effect size index in summarising findings in epidemiological
studies. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health, 10, doi: 10.2427/8854
Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum level of well-being: Can people be too
happy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 346-360. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2007.00048.x
Okun, M. A., Fairholme, C., Karoly, P., Ruehlman, L. S., & Newton, C. (2006). Academic goals,
goal process cognition, and exam performance among college students. Learning and
Individual Differences, 16, 255-265. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2006.04.001
Okun, M. A., Levy, R., Karoly, P., & Ruehlman, L. (2009). Dispositional happiness and college
student GPA: Unpacking a null relation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 711-715.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.010
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management.
Journal of Management, 39, 313-338. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410060
Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding without resources:
Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 344–355.
doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.3.344
Pyone, J. S., & Isen, A. M. (2011). Positive affect, intertemporal choice, and levels of thinking:
Increasing consumers' willingness to wait. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 532-543.
doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.3.532
Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Low self-control promotes the willingness to
sacrifice in close relationships. Psychological Science, 24, 1533-1540. doi:
10.1177/0956797613475457
Talbot, L. S., McGlinchey, E. L., Kaplan, K. A., Dahl, R. E., & Harvey, A. G. (2010). Sleep
deprivation in adolescents and adults: Changes in affect. Emotion, 10, 831-841. doi:
10.1037/a0020138
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High selfǦcontrol predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72, 271-324. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,
stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454-458.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive
affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 379–384. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.007
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to
regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1-9. doi: 10.1007/s10869-
010-9204-3
Upton, P., Eiser, C., Cheung, I., Hutchings, H. A., Jenney, M., Maddocks, A., & Williams, J. G.
(2005). Measurement properties of the UK-English version of the Pediatric Quality of

Life Inventory™ 4.0 (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales. Health and Quality of Life
Outcomes, 3, 22-29. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-22
Varni, J. W., Seid, M., & Kurtin, P. S. (2001). PedsQL™ 4.0: Reliability and validity of the
Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ Version 4.0 Generic Core Scales in healthy and
patient populations. Medical Care, 39, 800-812. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200108000-
00006
Varni, J. W., Seid, M., Knight, T. S., Uzark, K., & Szer, I. S. (2002). The PedsQLTM 4.0
Generic Core Scales: Sensitivity, responsiveness, and impact on clinical decision-making.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 175-193. doi:10.1023/A:1014836921812
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of
Statistical Software, 36, 1-48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Wiese, C. W., Tay, L., Duckworth, A. L., D'Mello, S., Kuykendall, L., Hofmann, W., ... & Vohs,
K. D. (2017). Too much of a good thing? Exploring the invertedǦU relationship between
selfǦcontrol and happiness. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.12322
Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2017). Immediate rewards predict adherence to long-term goals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 151-162. doi:
10.1177/0146167216676480
Footnotes
1
We conducted a series of hierarchical regressions, wherein positive affect and negative
affect were separately and simultaneously entered, along with self-control, as predictors of each
outcome variable. Consistent with our predictions, positive affect and negative affect were more
related to outcomes in the interpersonal domains, relative to those in the achievement domains.
Across five studies, both positive affect and negative affect were significant predictors of
interpersonal relationship outcomes, except that negative affect was not significantly associated
with the number of close friends or new friends (see the Supplemental Material for details).
2
In order to examine the nonlinear effects of self-control and EWB, we conducted
hierarchical polynomial regressions in which self-control and EWB were each entered as a
predictor for each outcome variable, and then the squared values of self-control and EWB were
entered as additional predictors. In 9 out of 29 polynomial models, either self-control squared or
EWB squared significantly predicted the outcome variable. We did not find any consistent
nonlinear effects of self-control or EWB, which is consistent across the five studies.
3
Further analyses revealed no difference between the 63 dropouts and the 222 remaining
participants in terms of age, gender, self-control, and EWB.

4
All standardized betas were computed from models in which age and gender were
included as covariates. No significant difference was found when the standardized betas from the
model without the two covariates were applied.

5
Additionally, we conducted mediation analyses in which either self-control or EWB was
entered as an independent variable, and the other served as a mediator throughout all studies. Out
of 58 mediation models, EWB or self-control emerged as a significant mediator in 31 models.
We found that EWB consistently mediated the relationship between self-control and outcomes in
the domain of relationships (17 out of 19 models). This finding suggests that that emotional
experience could be a potential mechanism underlying the association between self-control and
the positive quality of interpersonal relationships. Further research should be undertaken to
systematically examine this possibility.

47
Tables:
Table 1. Results of Hierarchical Regressions on Academic and Interpersonal Success (Study1)
Academic Relationship Number of

Independent GPA
Satisfaction satisfaction close friends
variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
-.11 .02 .12 .14 -.01 .02 .11 .21
Gender
[-.69, .47] [-.48, .53] [-.09, .33] [-.06, .34] [-.56, .54] [-.45, .48] [-1.14, 1.36] [-.99, 1.42]
.02 -.003 .04 .03 .03 .02 -.08 -.08
Age
[-.17, .20] [-.17, .16] [-.02, .10] [-.03, .09] [-.13, .19] [-.11, .16] [-.44, .29] [-.44, .27]
*** * †
1.07 .23 .42 .97
SC
[.54, 1.59] [.03, .44] [-.06, .90] [-.29, 2.22]
*** †
.19 .02 .51 .52
EWB
[-.04, .42] [-.07, .11] [.30, .72] [-.03, 1.07]
2
ΔR .26 .08 .31 .11
2
R .002 .26 .02 .10 .001 .31 .002 .11
Note. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. 95% confidence intervals are reported in the brackets. SC = self-control; EWB =
emotional well-being; GPA = grade point average.
†
p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
48
Table 2. Dominance Analysis: Contributions of Self-Control and EWB in Predicting Academic and Interpersonal Success (Study 1)

GPA
Independent satisfaction satisfaction close friends
variable
GDa RWb GD RW GD RW GD RW
SC .18 69% .06 61% .09 30% .05 44%
EWB .08 30% .02 18% .22 70% .06 54%
R2 .26 .10 .31 .11
Note. SC = self-control; EWB = emotional well-being; GPA = grade point average; GD = general dominance; RW = relative weight.
a
General dominance coefficients reflect the average contribution to R2 that a predictor makes across all possible subset regressions (Budescu, 1993).
b
Relative weight coefficients restate this contribution as a percentage of the total R2 explained by predictor variables.
49
Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression on Academic and Interpersonal Success (Study 2)
School functioning School functioning Social functioning Social functioning Number of

Independent (self)

(parents)
Test scores
(self)

(parents)

close friends
variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
* * ** ** * ** **
-1.82 -.16 5.12 6.31 4.37 4.74 1.93 2.84 1.21 1.67 -5.70 -5.35
Gender
[-6.40, 2.56] [-4.25, 3.93] [.56, 9.81] [1.89, 10.74] [1.22, 7.51] [1.60, 7.87] [.06, 5.62] [.56, 5.62] [-1.74, 4.16] [-1.23, 4.56] [-8.84, -2.58] [-8.44, -2.27]
* † *** ** * †
-3.72 -2.33 -3.04 -2.12 -6.31 -6.04 -1.45 -.50 -1.08 -.63 -2.38 -1.97
Age
[-6.91, -.54] [-5.17, .52] [-6.25, .18] [-5.20, .97] [-8.50, -4.12] [-8.22, -3.86] [-3.61, .71] [-2.44, 1.44] [-3.13, .97] [-2.65, 1.38] [-4.55, -20] [-4.12, .18]
*** *** *
12.58 9.11 3.67 2.28 1.89 0.08
SC
[8.21, 1695] [4.39, 13.85] [.35, 7.05] [-.69, 5.25] [-1.20, 4.99] [-3.22, 3.37]
*** * *** ** **
6.24 3.76 0.65 7.17 2.95 3.46
EWB
[3.60, 8.89] [.89, 6.62] [-1.38, 2.68] [5.37, 8.97] [1.08, 4.83] [1.47, 5.46]
2
ΔR .21 .10 .02 .19 .04 .04
2
R .02 .23 .02 .12 .11 .13 .01 .20 .01 .05 .04 .08
emotional well-being.
†
p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
50
Table 4. Dominance Analysis: Contributions of Self-control and EWB in Predicting Academic and Interpersonal Success (Study 2)
School School Social Social

Number of
functioning functioning Test scores functioning functioning
close friends
(self) (parent) (self) (parent)
Independent
GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW
variable
SC .12 52% .06 48% .02 12% .03 16% .01 24% .00 5%
EWB .09 41% .04 31% .005 4% .16 79% .03 66% .04 45%
R2 .23 .12 .13 .20 .05 .08
Note. SC = self-control; EWB = emotional well-being; GD = general dominance; RW = relative weight.

51
Table 5. Results of Hierarchical Regressions on Occupational and Interpersonal success in Korean sample (Study 3)
Relationship Family Marital Friendship Number of
Independent Burn Out Income(log) satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction intimacy close friends
variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
† *** *** *** ** *** † *
.22 .31 -.18 -.20 .12 .01 -.39* -.54 -.60 -.76 .17 .12 -.46 -.55
Gender [-1.00,
[-.04, .48] [.08, .55] [-.24, -.13] [-.26, -.15] [-.21, .45] [-.28, .30] [-.77, -01]. [-.82, -.25] [-1.05, -.15] [-1.12, -.39] [-.17, .52] [-.20, .45] [-1.07, -.03]
07]
** * *** *** ***
-.01 .003 .005 .003† -.01 -.02 -.04** -.05 -.05 -.06 .01 .004 -0.003 -0.01
Age
[-.02, .01] [-.01, .02] [.002, 010] [.00, .01] [-.31, .01] [-.04, -.004] [-.06, -.01] [-.07, -.03] [-.07, -.02] [-.08, -.04] [-.01, 03] [-.02, 0.2] [-.03, .03] [-.05, .02]
** * ** *
-.67 .14 .54 .57 .59 .02 0.57
SC
[-1.02, -.31] [.06, .22] [.11, .97] [.14, .99] [.05, 1.13] [-.46, .51] [-.21, 1.34]
† *** *** *** **
-.12 .01 .39 .61 .66 .39 .29
EWB
[-.25, .00] [-.02, .04] [.24, .54] [.46. .76] [.47, .85] [.22, .56] [.02, .56]
2
ΔR .18 .08 .28 .42 .34 .15 .08
2
R .02 .20 .24 .32 .01 .29 .07 .49 .09 .42 .01 .16 .02 .10
†
p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
52
Table 6. Dominance Analysis: Contributions of Self-Control and EWB in Predicting Occupational and Interpersonal Success in
Korean Sample (Study 3)
Income Relationship Family Marital Friendship Number of

Burnout
(log) satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction intimacy close friends
Independent
variables GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW
SC .11 56% .06 19% .10 34% .12 25% .09 22% .02 15% .03 34%
EWB .06 32% .02 6% .18 62% .30 61% .24 56% .12 79% .05 49%
R2 .20 .32 .29 .49 .42 .16 .10
Note. SC = self-control; EWB = emotional well-being; GD = general dominance; RW = relative weight

53
Table 7. Results of Hierarchical Regressions on Occupational and Interpersonal success in American sample (Study 4)
Occupational Relationship Family Marital Friendship Number of

Independent Burn Out Income(log) prestige satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction intimacy close friends
variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
** ** * * † *
-.06 .03 -.21 -.22 -1.34 -1.80 .33 .25 .19 .11 .33 .24 .36* .30 .06 -.10
Gender
[-.31, .19] [-.18, .24] [-.34, .08] [-.35, -.09] [-4.23, 1.48] [-4.61, 1.02] [.06, .60] [.03, .47] [-.14, 53] [-.18, .41] [-.005, .661] [-.06, .54] [.03, .68] [.10, .58] [-.54, .41] [-.57, .38]
* *** *** **
-.02 -.01 .01 .01 .04 .003 .001 -.01 .004 -.01 -.01 -.02 -.002 -.01 .02 .01
Age
[-.03, -.004] [-.02, .003] [.01, .02] [.01, .02] [-.10, .18] [-.14, .14] [-.01, .01] [-.02, .003] [-.01, .02] [-.02, .01] [-.03, .003] [-.04, -.01] [-.02, .01] [-.02, .004] [-.01, .04] [-.01, .04]
*** * *
-.66 .11 4.11 .08 .13 .37 -.30† -.05
SC
[-.91, -.41] [-.05, .27] [.80, 7.42] [-.18, .33] [-.22, .48] [.02, .73] [-.64, .03] [-.64, .53]
*** *** *** *** ***
-.21 .02 .17 .50 .50 .40 .61 .21
EWB
[-.32, -.10] [-.05, .08] [-1.30, 1.64] [.38, .61] [.34, .65] [.24, .55] [.46, .75] [-.04, .47]
2
ΔR .29 .02 .04 .33 .23 .20 .24 .01
2
R .03 .32 .11 .13 .004 .05 .02 .35 .01 .24 .02 .23 .02 .26 .01 .02
†
p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
54
Table 8. Dominance Analysis: Contributions of Self-Control and EWB in Predicting Occupational and Interpersonal Success in
American sample (Study 4)
Income Occupational Relationship Family Marital Friendship Number of

` Burnout
(log) prestige satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction intimacy close friends
Independent
GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW
Variables
SC .16 51% .01 9% .03 70% .08 21% .06 24% .08 32% .03 12% .003 10%
EWB .13 41% .007 5% .01 21% .26 72% .17 73% .14 59% .21 81% .01 50%
R2 .32 .13 .05 .35 .24 .22 .26 .02
Note. SC = self-control; EWB = emotional well-being; GD = general dominance; RW = relative weight

55
Table 9. Results of Hierarchical Regressions on Academic and Interpersonal Success (Study5)

Independent GPA
satisfaction satisfaction new friends
variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
* † * †
.23 .35 .14 .18 .07 .16 -.73 -.65
Gender
[-.14, .61] [.01. .70] [-.01, .30] [.03, .32] [-.28, .42] [-.16, .48] [-1.49, .03] [-1.41, .10]
-.13 -.17 -.07 -.08 -.14 -.16 -.04 -.06
Age
[-.41, .14] [-.41, 08] [-.18, .04] [-.18, .03] [-.39, .11] [-.39, .07] [-.59, .51] [-.60, .48]
*** ***
1.04 .42 .23 .22
SC
[.66, 1.42] [.26, .58] [-.12, .58] [-.60, 1.04]
* *** *
.20 -.04 .52 .44
EWB
[.01, .38] [-.11, .04] [.35, .69] [.04, .84]
2 .17 .11 .18 .03
ΔR
2 .01 .18 .02 .13 .01 .19 .02 .04
R
Note. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. 95% confidence interval are reported in the brackets. SC = self-control; EWB =
emotional well-being; GPA = grade point average.
†
p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
56
Table 10. Dominance Analysis: Contributions of Self-Control and EWB in Predicting Academic and Interpersonal Success (Study
5)

GPA
satisfaction satisfaction new friends
Independent variable GD RW GD RW GD RW GD RW
SC .13 70% .10 77% .02 12% .005 11%
EWB .04 20% .003 2% .15 83% .02 56%
R2 .18 .13 .19 .04
Note. SC = self-control; EWB = emotional well-being; GD = general dominance; RW = relative weight; GPA = grade point average
57
58
Highlights:
· Self-control and positive affect are important predictors of success in life

· The relative contributions of self-control and positive affect to positive outcomes vary as
a function of life domains.
· Self-control is more strongly related with success in the achievement domain than
positive affect.
· Positive affect is more strongly related with success in the interpersonal relationship
domain.

Accepted Manuscript: Journal of Research in Personality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript: Journal of Research in Personality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

Full Length Article

Comparing Two Roads to Success: Self-Control Predicts Achievement and

Incheol Choi, Sarah Lim, Rhia Catapano, Jongan Choi

To appear in: Journal of Research in Personality

Received Date: 28 November 2017

Comparing Two Roads to Success:

Self-Control Predicts Achievement and Positive Affect Predicts Relationships.

Seoul National University

Seoul National University

National University, Seoul, Korea

08826, South Korea; Phone: +82-2-880-6399; E-mail: therock2@snu.ac.kr

achievement-related domains, while EWB is more predictive of success in relationship-related

cross-cultural and robust across age and measurement.

Keywords: self-control, positive affect, emotional well-being, success, interpersonal

relationship, academic achievement, professional achievement

Comparing Two Roads to Success:

Self-Control Predicts Achievement and Positive Affect Predicts Relationships.

to be two roads to success: self-control and positive affect.

sleeping, and engaging in leisure?

lack of integration may be attributable to a long-standing trend to view positive affect as an

Exline, 1999; Baumeister & Tierney, 2011).

Achievement vs. Interpersonal Relationships

Specifically, self-control is more strongly associated with outcomes in the domain of

Despite such suggestive evidence, it still remains to be empirically tested as to which of

research is among the first to do so.

by systematically comparing the relative importance of self-control and positive affect in

positive affect in these domains.

We conducted five studies to examine our prediction that self-control is a more

informant-reported outcome variables, as well as self-reported ones. Studies 3 and 4 extended

temporal precedence for our hypothesized relations.

were self-reported, these proxies were considered as objective indicators.

monetary compensation (approximately US $30).

more conservative effect sizes.

the NA scores from the mean of the PA scores.

Domain satisfaction. As a subjective indicator of success in each domain, participants

with your interpersonal relationships?”) on 7-point Likert scales (1 = completely dissatisfied; 7 =

very well and trust.

In order to examine the relative importance of self-control and EWB in success

used to determine the relative importance of various predictors. However, standardized

the presence of an intercorrelation between the predictors (Darlington, 1968). Moreover, a

contribution by producing estimates of importance, while addressing potential problems caused

by an intercorrelation of predictors. DA is particularly well-suited for investigating the relative

dominant over the other predictor.

It is noteworthy that bivariate correlation, multiple regression, and DA provide different

correlations of all variables).

A series of hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the unique contributions

of self-control and EWB to outcomes in academics and interpersonal relationships, after

control in the domain of interpersonal relationships. 2

In our dominance analysis, we estimated the general dominance of self-control and

different combinations of predictors, 4 regressions of three different combinations of predictors,

with success in the domain of interpersonal relationships.

index of achievement, we relied on self-reported GPA scores. Therefore, in Study 2, we

sample and to a wider range of outcome variables.

replicate the results of Study 1 in a different population, adolescents. Second, we measured

Ledingham & Schwartzman, 2012). Hence, Study 2 added caregiver-reported measures to

students and their caregivers.

PANAS (for PA, α = .84; for NA, α = .87).

higher scores representing better functioning.

descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of all variables).

We also performed dominance analysis as in Study 1, to compare the relative

the variance in predicting positive interpersonal outcomes. Specifically, self-control explained

(45% vs. 5%).