Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110562

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Individual differences, personality, social, family and work variables on

mental health during COVID-19 outbreak in Spain
Mª. Inmaculada López-Núñez *, Juan F. Díaz-Morales , Marta E. Aparicio-García
Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Somosaguas Campus, 28223 Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Spain is one of the countries with the highest number of Covid-19 cases per habitant. On March 14, 2020, the
Covid-19 Government declared the State of Alarm which included the mandatory confinement of all citizens. On March 30
Individual differences and April 11, we surveyed 1659 adults to research the relevance of social/work status and personality variables
Mental health
in the prediction of psychological health (anxiety, depression and life satisfaction). Results indicated that women
Job status
Conflict work-family
and young reported higher anxiety, depression, conflict between work and family relationship, conscientious­
Personality traits ness, and extraversion. Men reported higher emotional stability. The variables considered predicted a substantial
percentage of variance on anxiety (36%), depression (38%) and life satisfaction (19%), with a significant relative
contribution of personality traits. People with poorer psychological health also showed more conflict between
work and family relationships. Working at office was more related to anxiety while working at home was more
related to depression. We noted that the influence of impact of job status and conflict between work and family
relationship as mental health as performance might depend on individual differences. Depression, anxiety and
life satisfaction were predicted by personality and social/work variables, which highlights the importance of
consider these variables to address mental health in this situation.

1. Introduction
On March 14, the Spanish government declared State of Alarm (RD
463/2020, of March 14) to contain the progression of the global
pandemic of COVID-19 (WHO, 2020). Among other measures was the
mandatory confinement of all citizens.
Results of a systematic review on the prevalence of symptoms of
mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic indicated relatively high
rates of anxiety symptoms (6.33% to 50.9%), depression (14.6% to
48.3%), psychological distress (34.43% to 38%) in the population dur­
ing the COVID-19. Risk factors associated include to be a woman,
youngest age group (≤40 years), presence of chronic/psychiatric ill­
nesses, unemployment, student status, and frequent exposure to social
media/news related to COVID- 19 (Xiong et al., 2020).
However, less is known about the factors that could cushion the
negative effects and protect the psychological health, such as the in­
fluence of personality traits, and the life satisfaction (Bonanno et al.,
2008; Goodman et al., 2017). Although there is evidence of the rela­
tionship between personality traits and depressive and anxiety disorders
(Kotov et al., 2010) as well as with respect to negative affect (Strick­
houser et al., 2017) few studies have focused on investigating the role of
personality in mental health during the initial stage of confinement by
COVID-19. Some studies have explored how personality predicted
health behaviors such as social distancing and hygiene (Abdelrahman,
2020) or adherence to restrictions (Zajenkowski et al., 2020), but
overlooked the influence of personality traits. Meanwhile, the studies
that investigated its influence concluded that personality traits pre­
dicted mental health (Qian & Yahara, 2020) and that personality seemed
to protect the psychological distress of COVID-19 (Nikčević et al., 2020).
The lockdown situation also affects work and family and the effects
of telework on the work-family balance have also been analyzed
(Beauregard et al., 2019). Despite the fact that the side effects that
COVID-19 have on the social, economic and healthcare life have been
pointed out (Haleem et al., 2020), few studies have addressed its in­
fluence and those that have done so emphasize the importance of these
disruptive factors in health and well-being (Zhang et al., 2020).

* Corresponding author at: Department of Social, Work and Differential Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Somosaguas
Campus, 28223 Madrid, Spain.
E-mail address: mariai04@ucm.es (Mª.I. López-Núñez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110562
Received 18 September 2020; Received in revised form 14 November 2020; Accepted 25 November 2020
Available online 3 December 2020
0191-8869/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mª.I. López-Núñez et al.
1.1. Purpose of the present study
The main objective of this study was to analyze the influence of
personality on psychological health (anxiety, depression and life satis­
faction), controlling the effect of demographic variables (age and sex),
work variables (job status and conflict between work and family rela­
tionship), the number of people who live at home, and previous chronic
disease. Personality traits are expected to account for a higher per­
centage of the variance on psychological health.
2. Material and method
2.1. Participants
The participants were a total of 1659 people (77,4% female). It
consisted of 35.7% singles, 51.5% married, and 12.8% others. Mean age
of participants was 43.23 years old (SD = 12.50) and majority they work
at home during this period (51.7%).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Anxiety and depression
Anxiety and depression were measured by the PROMIS (Patient-Re­
ported Outcomes Measurement Information System, 2019) (PROMIS®)
in their short Spanish version of 8 items. Items were answered according
to a 5-point Likert scale containing a range of replies from 0 (never) to 5
(always). Previous studies have found adequate psychometric properties
(Vilagut et al., 2015). High score on both scales indicates higher anxiety
and depression. In the present study, reliability was excellent (α = 0.94
and α = 0.94) for depression and anxiety scales, respectively.
2.2.2. Life satisfaction
It was measured using the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener
et al., 1985), which consists of five items (7-point Likert scale) ranged
from 5 to 35. The Spanish translation by Díaz-Morales and Sánchez-
López (2001) was used. The SWLS has shown excellent psychometric
properties in the Spanish adult population (Atienza et al., 2003; Vázquez
et al., 2013). High score on the SWLS indicates higher satisfaction with
one’s life. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.89.
2.2.3. Work status
It was measured using the job status (three options: work at office,
work at home or other situation) and three items extracted from the
“Conflict between Work and Family Relationships” (CWFR) sub-factor of
the Gender Role Conflict Scale (O’Neil et al., 1986). CWFR captures
difficulties in reconciling labour demands and family relationships and
can be applied to both sexes. García-Sánchez et al. (2018) test the psy­
chometric properties of the GRCS-Short Form among Spanish men and
women supporting sex factor invariance and providing new evidence of
the applicability of the gender role paradigm to women. Other studies
suggested that a masculine traditional gender role is currently shared by
both genders and can produce distress and conflict in men and women
(Zamarripa et al., 2003).
A high score indicates conflict. Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.70.
2.2.4. Personality
Personality traits were measured by the Spanish version of the Five-
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003). Each of the five
items was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7
(agree strongly). The TIPI exhibited acceptable psychometric properties
for measuring the Big Five in terms of test–retest reliability, self–other
agreement, factor structure, convergence with the NEO-PI-R and cor­
relations with relevant criteria such as mood, life satisfaction, risk-
taking (Romero et al., 2012).
2
Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110562
2.2.5. Socio-demographic variables
Participants also provided their socio-demographic characteristics,
such as sex, age, education level, the number of persons living together
at home and chronic disease.
2.3. Procedure
We conducted a cross-sectional survey 14 days after the start of the
confinement by COVID-19 in Spain (from March 30 3to April 11, 2020).
The survey was distributed through social networks using the snowball
technique. All respondents agreed to participate in the study, which was
approved by the corresponding ethics committee of Psychology Faculty
(Ref. 2019/20-027). 1673 adults accessed the survey, of which they
finally answered 1659.
2.4. Data analysis
First, preliminary analysis were realized to test sex and age differ­
ences on socio-demographic variables, people living together at home,
job status, and chronic disease using Chi square (χ2) and General Lineal
Model (GLM). Bonferroni test was used in multiple post-hoc compari­
sons. Second, GLM was also used to contrast the effect of age and sex on
CWFR, personality traits, anxiety and depression. Finally, in order to
analyze the relative contribution of demographic variables, job status,
CFWR, chronic illness, people living together at home and personality
on anxiety, depression and SWLS, three hierarchical regression analysis
were performed. Job status was transformed to two dummy variables:
worked at home and worked at office. Partial eta-squared (η2p) was used
as a measure of effect size; effect sizes between 0.01 and 0.05 were
considered low, between 0.06 and 0.13 moderate, and those above 0.14,
high (Cohen, 1992). The Statistical Program for the Social Sciences
(v.25) was used (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analysis according to gender and age
Table 1 presents descriptive characteristics of the participants. Pre­
liminary analyzes indicated no differences according to sex in chronic
disease, χ 2 (1) = 1.45, p = 0.22, nor in job status, χ 2 (2) = 4.50, p = 0.10.
Regarding the number of people living at home, the results indicated
an effect of age (F = 20.11, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.035) with more people at
home in the 18–30 and 41–50 age groups (2.90 and 3.19), compared to
31–40 and 51–99 age groups (2.54 and 2.61, respectively). The effect of
sex and sex*age interaction was not significant. GLM indicated that
women reported higher anxiety, depression, CWFR, conscientiousness,
extraversion and agreeableness. Men reported higher emotional stability
(see Tables 2 and 3). Data indicated a decrease of mean scores on anx­
iety, depression, CWFR, conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional
stability in the older age groups. Older age groups reported higher SWLS
(see Tables 2 and 3).
3.2. Hierarchical regression analysis
Finally, respecting the contribution on anxiety, depression and SWLS
of demographic variables (sex and age), work variables (job status and
CWFR), people living together at home, chronic disease, and personality
traits, three hierarchical regression analysis were realized (see Table 4).
First, demographic variables (age and sex) were included in step one,
accounted a percentage of variance of 9.4% on anxiety, Fchange (2, 1653)
= 85.32, p < 0.001. Second step, work variables (job status and CWFR)
increased the percentage of variance in 11.8%, Fchange (3, 1650) = 82.48,
p < 0.001. Third, people living together at home and chronic disease
variables accounted an additional 1.1%, Fchange (2, 1648) = 11.21, p <
0.001, and finally, personality traits (agreeableness and emotional sta­
bility) increased the percentage of variance in 14.3%, Fchange (5, 1643) =
Mª.I. López-Núñez et al. Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110562

Table 1 variance of 7.7%, Fchange (2, 1653) = 69.09, p < 0.001; work variables
Demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 1659). (job status and CWFR) (step 2) increased the percentage of variance in
N % 8.7%, Fchange (3, 1650) = 57.53, p < 0.001. People living together at
home and chronic disease variables (step 3) accounted an additional
Sex
Male 375 22.6 1.1%, Fchange (2, 1648) = 11.41, p < 0.001, and finally, personality traits
Female 1284 77.4 (conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional stability) (step 4)
Education level increased the percentage of variance in 20.9%, Fchange (5, 1643) =
Elementary studies 37 2.2 111.87, p < 0.001. The model accounted for the 38.1% of total variance
High or professional school 383 23.1
Bachelor’s degree 627 37.81
on anxiety and was composed by next predictors (β): age (− 0.08), sex
Postgraduate degree 612 36.9 (women) (− 0.07), worked at home (− 0.09), CWFR (0.20), conscien­
Marital status tiousness (− 0.10), extraversion (− 0.18) and emotional stability
Single 593 35.76 (− 0.39).
Married 854 51.5
Finally, regarding SWLS, age and sex (step 1) accounted a percentage
Others 212 12.8
Job status of variance of 1.5%, Fchange (2, 1653) = 12.87, p < 0.001; work variables
Work at office 267 165.17 (job status and CWFR) (step 2) increased the percentage of variance in
Work at home 890 531.7 6.1%, Fchange (3, 1650) = 36.09, p < 0.001. People living together at
Other 502 30.2 home and chronic disease variables (step 3) accounted an additional
Chronic disease
Yes 345 20.8
2.4%, Fchange (2, 1648) = 21.69, p < 0.001, and finally, personality traits
No 1314 79.2 (conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability)
Children (step 4) increased the percentage of variance in 9.8%, Fchange (5, 1643) =
0 760 45.8 40.15, p < 0.001. The model accounted for the 19.2% of total variance
1 288 17.3
on SWLS and is composed by next predictors (β): worked at office (0.12),
2 461 27.8
3 to 5 151 9.1 worked at home (0.15), CWFR (− 0.15), people living together at home
People living together (0.11), conscientiousness (0.10), extraversion (0.13), agreeableness
1 266 16.0 (− 0.07), and emotional stability (0.25).
2 456 27.5
3 392 23.6
4. Discussion
4 417 25.1
5 to 7 129 7.8
In the present study we analyzed the influence of personality on
psychological health (anxiety, depression and life satisfaction), con­
74.31, p < 0.001. The final model accounted for the 36.1% of total trolling the effect of demographic, work and social variables.
variance on anxiety and was composed by next predictors (β): age The results indicate that these variables account for a substantial
(− 0.06), sex (women) (− 0.14), worked at office (0.07), CWFR (0.28), percentage of anxiety (36%), depression (38%) and life satisfaction
agreeableness (0.07) and emotional stability (− 0.40). (19%), with a substantial percentage of variance predicted by person­
Regarding depression, age and sex (step 1) accounted a percentage of ality traits in depression (20%), anxiety (14%) and life satisfaction (9%).

Table 2
Means, standard deviations (SD) and number of participants according to age groups and sex for Anxiety, Depression, Life Satisfaction, Conflict Work and Family
Relationship (CWFR), Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability.
18–30 31–40 41–50 51–79 Total

M SD N M SD N M SD N M SD N M SD N

Anxiety W 23.71 7.62 255 22.06 7.52 295 21.36 7.74 396 18.53 6.74 335 21.25 7.62 1281
M 18.00 7.37 49 19.12 6.11 66 17.11 7.33 122 16.17 6.69 138 17.23 6.95 375
T 22.79 7.85 304 21.52 7.36 361 20.36 7.85 518 17.84 6.80 473 20.34 7.66 1656
Depression W 21.43 8.61 255 18.12 7.42 295 17.11 7.31 396 15.72 6.15 335 17.84 7.59 1281
M 18.41 7.82 49 17.20 7.31 66 14.72 6.74 122 14.79 5.85 138 15.66 6.81 375
T 20.94 8.55 304 17.95 7.40 361 16.54 7.25 518 15.45 6.07 473 17.35 7.48 1656
Life satisfaction W 22.78 6.77 255 24.18 6.47 295 24.85 6.51 396 24.76 5.87 335 24.26 6.43 1281
M 22.22 6.60 49 23.03 6.13 66 24.72 5.97 122 24.97 5.84 138 24.19 6.10 375
T 22.69 6.74 304 23.97 6.41 361 24.82 6.38 518 24.82 5.85 473 24.25 6.36 1656
CWFR W 3.99 1.45 255 3.95 1.61 295 3.77 1.51 396 3.12 1.43 335 3.68 1.54 1281
M 3.25 1.48 49 3.49 1.51 66 3.25 1.44 122 2.85 1.29 138 3.15 1.42 375
T 3.87 1.48 304 3.87 1.60 361 3.65 1.51 518 3.04 1.39 473 3.56 1.53 1656
Openness to experience W 5.17 1.18 255 5.08 1.21 295 5.05 1.26 396 5.12 1.29 335 5.10 1.24 1281
M 5.19 1.14 49 5.05 1.11 66 5.11 1.18 122 4.98 1.20 138 5.06 1.17 375
T 5.17 1.17 304 5.07 1.19 361 5.06 1.24 518 5.08 1.27 473 5.09 1.22 1656
Conscientiousness W 4.78 1.27 255 5.08 1.30 295 5.33 1.25 396 5.42 1.18 335 5.19 1.27 1281
M 4.35 1.49 49 4.86 1.38 66 5.09 1.35 122 5.23 1.16 138 5.00 1.33 375
T 4.71 1.32 304 5.04 1.31 361 5.28 1.28 518 5.36 1.17 473 5.15 1.29 1656
Extraversion W 4.50 1.65 255 4.89 1.50 295 5.05 1.44 396 5.04 1.38 335 4.90 1.50 1281
M 4.10 1.65 49 4.37 1.44 66 4.59 1.42 122 4.57 1.32 138 4.48 1.42 375
T 4.43 1.65 304 4.79 1.50 361 4.95 1.45 518 4.90 1.38 473 4.81 1.49 1656
Agreeableness W 4.92 1.13 255 5.04 1.14 295 5.05 1.08 396 5.10 1.08 335 5.03 1.10 1281
M 5.00 1.08 49 4.59 1.02 66 4.68 1.10 122 4.79 1.05 138 4.75 1.07 375
T 4.93 1.12 304 4.95 1.13 361 4.96 1.09 518 5.01 1.08 473 4.97 1.10 1656
Emotional stability W 4.08 1.44 255 4.56 1.43 295 4.73 1.34 396 5.06 1.27 335 4.65 1.40 1281
M 4.70 1.26 49 4.49 1.36 66 4.96 1.32 122 5.17 1.16 138 4.92 1.28 375
T 4.18 1.43 304 4.55 1.42 361 4.79 1.33 518 5.10 1.23 473 4.71 1.38 1656

Note: W = women; M = men; T = total.

3
Mª.I. López-Núñez et al. Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110562

Table 3
Statistical data (Fs, signification level and partial eta squared) on Anxiety, Depression, Life Satisfaction, Conflict Work and Family Relationship (CWFR), Openness to
Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability according to sex and age.
Sex Age Sex * age

F (1,1648) η2p F (3,1648) η2p Bonferroni test F (3,1648)

Anxiety 68.43*** 0.04 13.70*** 0.02 1 > 3, 4; 2, 3 > 4 2.46

Depression 15.95*** 0.01 18.88*** 0.03 1 > 3, 4 1.32
Life satisfaction 1.04 7.07*** 0.01 1 > 3, 4 0.58
CWFR 27.99*** 0.02 15.50*** 0.03 1, 2, 3 > 4 1.10
Openness to experience 0.08 0.47 0.42
Conscientiousness 11.52*** 0.01 15.68*** 0.03 1 < 2, 3, 4; 2 < 4 0.37
Extraversion 24.45*** 0.01 5.78*** 0.01 1 < 2, 3, 4 0.05
Agreeableness 14.15*** 0.01 0.95 2.12
Emotional stability 7.10*** 0.00 15.63*** 0.03 1 < 2, 3, 4; 2, 3 < 4 2.25

Note: Age groups: 1 = 18–30 years; 2 = 31–40 years; 3 = 41–50 years; 4 = 51–79 years.
***
p < 0.001.

Table 4
Hierarchical regression analysis on Depression, Anxiety and Life Satisfaction considering Age, Sex/gender (step 1), Work Status (Job Status and Conflict between Work
and Family Relationships, CWFR) (step 2), People Living Together, Chronic Disease (step 3), and Personality (step 4).
Anxiety Depression Life satisfaction

β t β t β t

1 ΔR2 0.094*** 0.077*** 0.015***

Age − 0.21 − 9.11*** − 0.25 − 10.56*** 0.12 5.07***
Sex − 0.19 − 8.15*** − 0.09 − 3.79*** − 0.02 − 0.83
2 ΔR2 0.118*** 0.087*** 0.061***
Age − 0.14 − 6.28*** − 0.19 − 8.02*** 0.08 3.13***
Sex − 0.15 − 6.66*** − 0.05 − 2.11 − 0.05 − 2.22
Worked at office 0.03 1.28 − 0.07 − 2.62** 0.15 5.55***
Worked at home − 0.04 − 1.82 − 0.15 − 6.00*** 0.19 7.29***
CWFR 0.35 15.41*** 0.29 12.20*** − 0.19 − 7.79***
3 ΔR2 0.011*** 0.011*** 0.024***
Age − 0.16 − 7.03*** − 0.21 − 8.80*** 0.10 4.05***
Sex − 0.15 − 6.75*** − 0.05 − 2.19 − 0.05 − 2.22
Worked at office 0.03 1.32 − 0.06 − 2.53** 0.15 5.73***
Worked at home − 0.04 − 1.44 − 0.14 − 5.55*** 0.19 6.99***
CWFR 0.36 15.49*** 0.29 12.21*** − 0.21 − 8.47***
People living together − 0.06 − 2.75** − 0.05 − 2.21 0.13 5.24***
Chronic disease 0.08 3.52*** 0.09 3.96*** − 0.08 − 3.37***
4 ΔR2 0.143*** 0.209*** 0.098***
Age − 0.06 − 2.94*** − 0.08 3.95***
− 0.01 0.60
Sex − 0.14 − 6.61*** − 0.07 3.55***
− − 0.04 − 1.73
Worked at office 0.07 2.97*** − 0.02 0.84
− 0.12 4.65***
Worked at home − 0.01 − 0.30 − 0.09 4.27***
− 0.15 5.86***
CWFR 0.28 13.39*** 0.20 9.60*** − 0.15 − 6.35***
People living together − 0.04 − 2.16 − 0.02 − 1.10 0.11 4.73***
Chronic disease 0.04 1.82 0.05 2.30 − 0.05 − 2.18
Openness to experience 0.00 − 0.22 0.01 0.64 0.01 0.43
Conscientiousness − 0.03 − 1.50 − 0.10 − 4.70*** 0.10 4.19***
Extraversion − 0.03 − 1.35 − 0.18 − 8.73*** 0.13 5.32***
Agreeableness 0.07 3.38*** 0.02 0.80 − 0.07 − 2.74***
Emotional stability − 0.40 − 17.66*** − 0.39 − 17.35*** 0.25 9.82***
Total R2 0.361 0.381 0.192

Note: Sex: 0 = men; 1 = women; Job status was transformed into two dummy variables, being the reference “other”.
***
p < 0.001.
**
p < 0.01.

Women report higher anxiety, depression, work and family conflict,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and men report higher
emotional stability. The youngest age group (18–30 years) report higher
anxiety, depression, and life satisfaction. All age groups show work and
family conflict except the oldest group (51–79 years). We found high
scores of anxiety in people younger than 35 years and that women report
worse psychological health in line with other studies (Gao et al., 2020;
Huang & Zhao, 2020).
High scores of anxiety are predicted more frequently by younger
people (under 30), women, work at office, work and family conflict,
high scores on agreeableness and lower levels of emotional stability.
High scores of depression are predicted by younger people, women,
work at home, work and family conflict and lower scores on
conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional stability. Finally, satis­
faction with life is predicted by worked at office, work at home, a greater
number of people living together at home, higher scores of conscien­
tiousness, extraversion and emotional stability and lower scores of
agreeableness.
Working at office predicted anxiety, while working at home pre­
dicted depression. People with poorer psychological health also show
more work and family conflict. In addition, our study highlights that
women report worst health because work and family conflict. Previous
research indicated that the influence on the psychological health of work
and family variables would depend on individual differences, such as sex
(Liu et al., 2020) and personality (Beauregard et al., 2019; Soto, 2020)
whereas other studies indicated that work variables, the number of

4
Mª.I. López-Núñez et al.
people living together and chronic disease are relevant too to under­
stand psychological health during confinement by COVID-19 (Zhang
et al., 2020).
Our results show an increase of psychological problems during this
epidemic as several previous studies have indicated (Lima et al., 2020).
These results could be interpreted from the vulnerability model since it
postulates that neuroticism fosters processes that lead to mental disor­
ders (Ormel et al., 2013) and increases the impact of causal risk factors
such as stressful life events (COVID-19). The personality traits could
account to the variation in mental health (Quilty et al., 2008), with
neuroticism as a vulnerability factor and extraversion and conscien­
tiousness as protective factors (Kotov et al., 2010; Strickhouser et al.,
2017).
Our study has certain limitations. First, our sample is not a national
representative sample. However, people of all provinces of Spain
participated in it. Second, brief measures were used, although previous
studies have shown good validity. Third, it is a cross sectional study.
Although it shows evidence of the relationships between personality
traits and other work/social factors and psychological health, we cannot
conclude that there are significant differences in the effects of person­
ality on psychological health during the COVID-19 outbreak, since we
do not have previous data. This limitation has also been pointed out in
other studies indicating that the evidence on the change in mental health
of the population potentially attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic
was unclear (Pierce, McManus, et al., 2020). Based on this limitation,
longitudinal investigations were conducted and found differences in
mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Pierce, Hope,
et al., 2020; Twenge & Joiner, 2020).
This study was conducted during the first 14 days of confinement;
thus we have a baseline to replicate the study and analyze a model in
which anxiety and depression mediate the relationship between per­
sonal traits and work-family conflict and satisfaction with life. Other
authors have proposed a similar model to explain that depression and
anxiety mediate the relationship between personality traits and psy­
chotic experiences (Prochwicz & Gawęda, 2016) and the relationships
between the Big Five personality and generalized anxiety and depressive
symptoms during COVID-19 pandemic (Nikčević et al., 2020) with
interesting results.
5. Conclusion
We provide evidence on the importance to considerer personality
traits as a relevant predictor of differences in health conditions of adults
during confinement into COVID-19 epidemic. These findings have
important theoretical and practical implications, on one hand, they
would help to better understand the psychological health of COVID-19,
on the other hand, considering personality traits is clinically useful for
diagnosis, but also for treatment planning and to predict its results.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mª. Inmaculada López-Núñez: Conceptualization, Supervision,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Juan F. Díaz-Mo­
rales: Methodology, Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Marta E.
Aparicio-García: Visualization, Writing - review & editing.
References
Abdelrahman, M. (2020). Personality traits, risk perception, and protective behaviors of
Arab residents of Qatar during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Mental Health and Addiction, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00352-7.
Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcı ́a-Merita, M. L.. (2003). Satisfaction with life scale:
Analysis of factorial invariance across sexes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35
(6), 1255–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00332-X.
Beauregard, T. A., Basile, K. A., & Canonico, E. (2019). Telework: Outcomes and
facilitators for employees. In R. N. Landers (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
technology and employee behavior (pp. 511–543). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017//9781108649636.020.
5
Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110562
Bonanno, G. A., Ho, S. M., Chan, J. C., Kwong, R. S., Cheung, C. K., Wong, C. P., &
Wong, V. C. (2008). Psychological resilience and dysfunction among hospitalized
survivors of the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong: A latent class approach. Health
Psychology, 27, 659.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.
Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Sánchez-López, M. P. (2001). Relevance of personality styles and
personal goals in the prediction of life satisfaction. Anales de Psicología/Annals of
Psychology, 17(2), 151–158. Retrieved from https://revistas.um.es/analesps/article
/view/28701.
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R.J., y Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Gao, W., Ping, S., & Liu, X. (2020). Gender differences in depression, anxiety, and stress
among college students: A longitudinal study from China. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 263, 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112954.
García-Sánchez, R., Almendros, C., Gámez-Guadix, M., Martín, M. J., Aramayona, B., &
Martínez, J. M. (2018). Assessment of conflicts associated with a traditional
masculine gender role in Spanish college men and women. Sex Roles, 78(1–2),
81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0765-8.
Goodman, F. R., Disabato, D. J., Kashdan, T. B., & Machell, K. A. (2017). Personality
strengths as resilience: A one-year multiwave study. Journal of Personality, 85(3),
423–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12250.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-
Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Vaishya, R. (2020). Effects of COVID 19 pandemic in daily life.
Current Medicine Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/2Fj.
cmrp.2020.03.011.
Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system, 2019. PROMIS
Translations. PROMIS web page http://nihpromis.org/measures/translations.
Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de marzo, por el que se declara el estado de alarma para la
gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el COVID-19. Boletín Oficial
del Estado, 14 de marzo de 2020, núm. 67, pp. 25390–25400. [consultado el 01 de
abril 2020]. Disponible en: https://boe.es/boe/dias/2020/03/14/pdfs/BOE-A-2020
-3692.pdf.
Huang, Y., & Zhao, N. (2020). Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and
sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: A web-based cross-sectional
survey. Psychiatry Research. , Article 112954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychres.2020.112954.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits
to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 136(5), 768. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327.
Lima, C. K. T., de Medeiros Carvalho, P. M., Lima, I. D. A. S., de Oliveira Nunes, J. V. A.,
Saraiva, J. S., de Souza, R. I., … Neto, M. L. R. (2020). The emotional impact of
Coronavirus 2019-nCoV (new Coronavirus disease). Psychiatry Research, 112915.
Liu, N., Zhang, F., Wei, C., Jia, Y., Shang, Z., Sun, L., … Liu, W. (2020). Prevalence and
predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit areas: Gender
differences matter. Psychiatry Research, 112921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychres.2020.112921.
Nikčević, A. V., Marino, C., Kolubinski, D. C., Leach, D., & Spada, M. M. (2020).
Modelling the contribution of the Big Five personality traits, health anxiety, and
COVID-19 psychological distress to generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Affective Disorders.. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.053.
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender-
Role Conflict Scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14(5–6), 335–350.
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., …
Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and
utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003.
Pierce, M., Hope, H., Ford, T., Hatch, S., Hotopf, M., John, A., … Abel, K. M. (2020).
Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal probability
sample survey of the UK population. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(10), 883–892. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30308-4.
Pierce, M., McManus, S., Jessop, C., John, A., Hotopf, M., Ford, T., … Abel, K. M. (2020).
Says who? The significance of sampling in mental health surveys during COVID-19.
The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(10), 567–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)
30237-6.
Prochwicz, K., & Gawęda, Ł. (2016). Depression and anxiety mediate the relationship
between temperament and character and psychotic-like experiences in healthy
subjects. Psychiatry Research, 246, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychres.2016.09.037.
Qian, K., & Yahara, T. (2020). Mentality and behavior in COVID-19 emergency status in
Japan: Influence of personality, morality and ideology. PloS one, 15(7), Article
e0235883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235883.
Quilty, L. C., Meusel, L. C., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). Neuroticism as a mediator of
treatment response to SSRIs in major depressive disorder. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 111(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.02.006.
Romero, E., Villar, P., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., & López-Romero, L. (2012). Measuring
personality traits with ultra-short scales: A study of the Ten Item Personality
Inventory (TIPI) in a Spanish sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3),
289–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.035.
Soto, C. J. (2020). Do links between personality and life outcomes generalize? Testing
the robustness of trait–outcome associations across gender, age, ethnicity, and
analytic approaches. Social Psychological and Personality Science. , Article
1948550619900572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619900572.
Mª.I. López-Núñez et al.
Strickhouser, J. E., Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2017). Does personality predict health and well-
being? A metasynthesis. Health Psychology, 36(8), 797. https://doi.org/10.1037/
hea0000475.
Twenge, J. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2020). US Census Bureau-assessed prevalence of anxiety
and depressive symptoms in 2019 and during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.
Depression and Anxiety, 37(10), 954–956. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.23077.
Vázquez, C., Duque, A., & Hervás, G. (2013). Satisfaction with life scale in a
representative sample of Spanish adults: Validation and normative data. The Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 16(82), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.82.
Vilagut, G., Forero, C. G., Adroher, N. D., Olariu, E., Cella, D., Alonso, J., & InSAyd
investigators. (2015). Testing the PROMIS Depression measures for monitoring
depression in a clinical sample outside the US. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 58,
140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.06.009.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). Current novel coronavirus disease (2019-
nCoV) outbreak. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavir
us-2019. (Accessed 31 March 2020).
Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110562
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M., Gill, H., Phan, L., … McIntyre, R. S. (2020).
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A
systematic review. Journal of affective disorders.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jad.2020.08.001.
Zajenkowski, M., Jonason, P. K., Leniarska, M., & Kozakiewicz, Z. (2020). Who complies
with the restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19?: Personality and perceptions
of the COVID-19 situation. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110199.
Zamarripa, M. X., Wampold, B. E., & Gregory, E. (2003). Male gender role conflict,
depression, and anxiety: Clarification and generalizability to women. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 50(3), 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.50.3.333.
Zhang, S. X., Wang, Y., Rauch, A., & Wei, F. (2020). Unprecedented disruption of lives
and work: Health, distress and life satisfaction of working adults in China one month
into the COVID-19 outbreak. Psychiatry research. , Article 112958. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112958.