J Happiness Stud (2019) 20:523–540

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9955-x

RESEARCH PAPER

Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People

with a Higher Dispositional Malicious Envy Experience
Lower Subjective Wellbeing? A Cross‑Sectional Study

Walid Briki1 

Published online: 16 January 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract  The literature reveals that dispositional benign and malicious envy can influ-
ence subjective wellbeing. Nevertheless, no study has yet explored the mechanisms
accounting for their relationships. Therefore, the present study is the first to examine the
interrelationships between dispositional benign and malicious envy, trait self-control,
demographics (i.e., sex and age) and subjective wellbeing. Four hundred six people (234
females and 172 males; Mage = 32.07, SDage = 10.98, from 18 to 71 years old) took part
voluntarily in the study and answered questions related to demographics, dispositional
envy, trait self-control, and subjective wellbeing. The main results revealed that: (a) dis-
positional benign envy positively predicted subjective wellbeing; and (b) dispositional
malicious envy negatively predicted subjective wellbeing and that decreased sense of trait
self-control accounted for this relationship (full mediation). Finally, this study supports the
views that trait self-control represents a personality trait that can play a central role in the
development of wellbeing, and that trait self-control could help advance our understanding
of the complex phenomenon of envy.

Keywords  Benign envy · Malicious envy · Personality · Social comparison · Self-

regulation · Happiness

1 Introduction

Subjective wellbeing has drawn the attention of scholars and politicians around the world
since research has evidenced that that variable could reflect reliably people’s and coun-
tries’ functioning (e.g., Diener 2000; Diener et al. 2015). Research has revealed that sub-
jective wellbeing could promote health, longevity, moral behavior, positive social relation-
ships, and success (e.g., see Diener 2000). It is defined as “people’s evaluations of their

* Walid Briki
wbriki@qu.edu.qa
1
Sport Science Program, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

13
 W. Briki
524

lives—the degree to which their thoughtful appraisals and affective reactions indicate that
their lives are desirable and proceeding well” (Diener et al. 2015, p. 234), and is thought to
result from “experiencing more pleasant than unpleasant emotions” (Diener et al. 2017, p.
91). A crucial question addressed by positive psychology is ‘What does make a life worth
living?’ (e.g., Peterson and Seligman 2004) and authors demonstrated that personality
traits could strongly influence subjective wellbeing (e.g., Briki 2016, 2017, 2018; Chen
2015; Nes et al. 2006; Soto 2015). Although the Big Five personality traits (e.g., neuroti-
cism, extraversion, agreeableness) have received important attention from psychologists,
there have not been any studies designed yet to address the relationships between disposi-
tional envy—corresponding to “people’s [stable] tendency to experience envy” (Rentzsch
and Gross 2015, p. 532)—and subjective wellbeing.

2 Dispositional Benign and Malicious Envy and Subjective Wellbeing

Individuals will often draw comparisons to others in order to judge their own value (e.g.,
Festinger 1962; Markman and McMullen 2003). Although such social comparisons can
generate pleasurable feelings of pride and satisfaction, they can also elicit painful feelings
of deprivation and envy.1 Feelings of envy result from social comparisons with individuals
who are initially perceived as similar (e.g., Alberoni 1991; Elster 1991; Salovey and Rodin
1984), but have since become superior through the acquisition of something important or
central to oneself (Bers and Rodin 1984). Rentzsch and Gross (2015) defined envy as “an
intense, unpleasant feeling when a person realizes that someone else has something that
the person longs for, strives for or desires” (p. 531). Though often assumed to be a hostile
and immoral feeling because of its association with negative thoughts, intentions or behav-
iors toward a person (e.g., Alberoni 1991), envy is actually multifaceted (e.g., Foster 1972;
Frank 1999; Sayers 1949) and can be construed in a relatively positive manner (i.e., benign
envy) or a relatively negative manner (i.e., malicious envy) (e.g., Van de Ven et al. 2009).
Authors provided empirical support for the existence of benign and malicious envy, and
revealed that benign and malicious envy were equally negative and intense but differed in
their motivational contents (e.g., Van de Ven et al. 2009). In the case of benign envy, envi-
ous individuals report a desire to level the differences between themselves and the supe-
rior other by seeking means for raising their own standing (e.g., Crusius and Lange 2014;
Lange and Crusius 2015a, b; Van de Ven et al. 2009). Malicious envy, by contrast, is char-
acterized by the attempt of the envious ones to lower down the superior other’s standing
and may be associated with schadenfreude experiences, referring to states of happiness
about the other person’s misfortune (e.g., Crusius and Lange 2014; Van de Ven et al. 2015;
Van de Ven et al. 2009; Van Dijk et al. 2009). In sum, manifesting themselves as feelings of
frustration, benign and malicious envy correspond to upward social comparison emotions,
which can yield a variety of psychological responses as a function of their specific motiva-
tional orientations.
According to the reflection and evaluation model (REM) of comparative thinking (Mark-
man and McMullen 2003), social comparisons elicit self-evaluations and related emotions
that, in turn, influence the way individuals achieve desired end-states. Specifically, the

1
  Envy is not jealousy though both constructs are often used in an interchangeable way. While envy devel-
ops when a person misses something that another person possesses, jealousy develops when a person has
already something but is afraid of losing it to another person (e.g., Parrott and Smith 1993).

13
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 525

model proposes that negative emotion can either be elicited by upward comparisons that
occur within an evaluative mode of thinking, or from downward comparisons that occur
within a reflective mode of thinking, whereas positive emotion can either be elicited by
upward comparisons that occur within a reflective mode of thinking, or downward com-
parisons that occur within an evaluative mode of thinking. Evaluation occurs when infor-
mation about a comparison standard is used as a reference point against which to evaluate
one’s present standing—thereby yielding contrastive effects on self-evaluations, whereas
reflection occurs when one imagines that comparison standard information is true of, or
part of, the self—thereby yielding assimilative effects on self-evaluations.
If benign envy is related to the desire to level the differences between oneself and the
superior other by raising one’s own standing, then benign envy would be the result of an
upward reflective comparison in which one imagines being at the level of the superior other
(e.g., “To think…I could be just like her…”). Such a comparison would have an assimila-
tive effect on self-evaluations and thereby elicit positive emotions (e.g., excitement). On
the other hand, if malicious envy is related to the desire to level the differences between
oneself and the superior other by lowering the other’s standing (Van de Ven et al. 2009),
then malicious envy would be the result of an upward evaluative comparison in which one
uses the superior other as a comparison standard against which to evaluate one’s present
standing (e.g., “If only it were me playing out there instead of him…”). This comparison
would instead have a contrastive effect on self-evaluations and thereby elicit negative emo-
tions (e.g., anger). Finally, based on the hypothesized relationships between social com-
parison emotions (i.e., benign and malicious envy) and their corresponding emotional ori-
entations as guided by the REM (Markman and McMullen 2003), we presume that benign
envy be related to positive and negative emotions (e.g., frustration, enthusiasm), and that
malicious envy be related to negative feelings (e.g., frustration, anger, sadness).
Consistent with such conceptions, research has revealed that dispositional benign envy,
corresponding to the stable tendency to experience benign envy and thus to desire to level
up one’s standing in order to approach the envied person’s standard, was positively associ-
ated with positive and negative feelings (e.g., life satisfaction, frustration, positive and neg-
ative affect; see Lange and Crusius 2015a; Lange et al. 2016a, b; Van de Ven et al. 2009).
In addition, results of studies have shown that dispositional malicious envy, represent-
ing the stable tendency to experience malicious envy and thus to desire to level down the
envied person’s standard, was positively associated with maladaptive personality-related
patterns and negative emotions, such as vulnerable narcissism, neuroticism, greed, hostil-
ity, irritability, depression, anxiety, fear of failure, and insecurity (e.g., Gold 1996; Krekels
and Pandelaere 2015; Krizan and Johar 2012; Lange and Crusius; 2015a; Rentzsch and
Gross 2015; Rentzsch et  al. 2015; Xiang et  al. 2016). Dispositional malicious envy also
appeared to be negatively associated with positive affect, happiness, and life satisfaction
(e.g., Ahuvia and Wong 2002; Milfont and Valdiney 2009; Smith et al. 1999).

3 Dispositional Envy and Subjective Wellbeing: The Mediating Role

of Trait Self‑Control

Crusius and Lange (2014) found that benign envy yielded a focus on means to improve
one’s own performance, whereas malicious envy yielded a focus on the envied per-
son’s attributes. Notably, Van de Ven et  al. (2011b) found that reported levels of benign
envy were more strongly predictive of both intentions to improve and subsequent task

13
 W. Briki
526

performance than were reported levels of malicious envy. Based on these results, we sug-
gest that dispositional benign (or malicious) envy would correspond to a stable tendency
to orientate people’s attention toward helpful (or unhelpful) means—thereby fostering (or
hindering) goal progress and positive feelings. Therefore, we presume that trait self-control
could account for the relationships between dispositional envy and subjective wellbeing.
Trait self-control refers to the stable capability of the self to operate necessary adjust-
ments between the individuals and their surrounding world (Tangney et  al. 2004). It is
thought to be the stable capability of the self to stimulate goal-directed means and override
goal-disruptive impulses (e.g., De Ridder and Gillebaart 2016; Hagger 2013, 2014; Tang-
ney et al. 2004), and has been conceived as a key determinant of subjective wellbeing (e.g.,
Briki 2018; Cheung et al. 2014; De Ridder and Gillebaart 2016). In a recent study, Cheung
et  al. (2014) showed that promotion focus (i.e., motivational orientation concerned with
growth, advancement, and accomplishment) and prevention focus (i.e., motivational orien-
tation concerned with vigilance, responsibility, and ought) mediated partially the effect of
trait self-control on happiness: The higher trait self-control, the higher (or lower) promo-
tion (or prevention) focus, the higher happiness. Furthermore, Hofmann et al. (2014) found
that the higher trait self-control, the less frequent the conflicting desires. Taken together,
these studies support the view that trait self-control could stimulate the search for helpful
means and inhibit goal-disruptive temptations (e.g., De Ridder and Gillebaart 2016).
Research has suggested that self-control could be a variable of importance for advanc-
ing our understanding of envy (e.g., Crusius and Mussweiler 2012; Joseph et  al. 2008;
Xiang et al. 2016), and has revealed that dispositional malicious envy could lead to behave
impulsively (O’Guinn and Faber 1989; Shoham et  al. 2015). Therefore, we assume that
dispositional malicious envy could decrease subjective wellbeing by decreasing trait self-
control. Moreover, benign envy and trait self-control are thought to stimulate helpful means
to attain desired end-states (e.g., Cheung et al. 2014; Crusius and Lange 2014), suggesting
that dispositional benign envy could foster trait self-control (and vice versa). Notwithstand-
ing, benign envy and trait self-control seem to influence differently positive and negative
feelings. Specifically, while benign envy seems to elicit positive and negative feelings (e.g.,
Lange et al. 2016a, b), trait self-control appears to be positively (or negatively) associated
with positive (or negative) feelings (e.g., Cheung et al. 2014). Therefore, the relationship
between dispositional benign envy and subjective wellbeing is still unclear and requires
empirical investigations.

4 Trait Self‑Control and Subjective Wellbeing: Do Dispositional Benign

and Malicious Envy Mediate that Relationship?

Though we have so far delineated the process whereby dispositional envy would influence
subjective wellbeing via trait self-control, we have not said anything yet about whether
dispositional envy could mediate the influence of trait self-control on subjective wellbeing.
Van de Ven et al. (2011a) identified the perception of control over the situation as a key
appraisal that determined whether benign or malicious envy was elicited. Specifically, the
authors assumed that the combination between upward comparisons to individuals initially
perceived as similar and high (or low) levels of perceived ability would give rise to the
experience of benign (or malicious) envy. In addition, because trait self-control is supposed
to elicit approach regulations (e.g., promotion focus, see Cheung et al. 2014), we presume
that trait self-control would promote greater sense of perceived control and self-efficacy,

13
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 527

Fig. 1  Conceptual diagram of the first (a) and second (b) models

which would influence positively (or negatively) dispositional benign (or malicious) envy.
In line with the above-mentioned rationale regarding the links between dispositional envy,
trait self-control and subjective wellbeing, we assume that trait self-control would increase
subjective wellbeing through experiencing lower levels of dispositional malicious envy.
This hypothesis is consistent with the view that subjective wellbeing can result from expe-
riencing diminished levels of negative emotions over time (Diener et al. 2017). However,
given the unclear relationship between dispositional benign envy and subjective wellbeing,
we cannot formulate any prediction regarding the mediating role of dispositional benign
envy.

5 Study Overview

The purpose of the present study was to explore: (a) whether dispositional envy, trait self-
control, demographics (i.e., age and sex) and subjective wellbeing might be related to each
other; (b) whether trait self-control might account for the relationships between disposi-
tional envy and subjective wellbeing; (c) whether dispositional envy might explain the
relationship between trait self-control and subjective wellbeing; and (d) whether disposi-
tional envy, trait self-control and demographics might display moderating effects. In the
first model, we tested the mediating role of trait self-control (see Fig. 1a), whereas we used
dispositional benign and malicious envy as mediators in the second model (see Fig. 1b).
We also explored the moderating effects of dispositional envy, trait self-control, sex and
age. We formulated six categories of expectations:

1. Relationships between dispositional envy and subjective wellbeing: Dispositional benign

envy appeared to be positively associated with positive and negative feelings, while
dispositional malicious envy was positively (or negatively) associated with negative (or
positive) feelings (e.g., Lange et al. 2016a, b). Thus, we expect dispositional malicious
envy to be negatively related to subjective wellbeing. However, we cannot formulate any

13
 W. Briki
528

prediction regarding the correlation between dispositional benign envy and subjective
wellbeing.
2. Relationships between dispositional envy and trait self-control: Van de Ven et al.’s
(2011a) study showed that benign (or malicious) envy could result from high (or low)
perceived control, while Briki’s (2018) study suggested that trait self-control could
trigger approach-based regulations and cognitions (e.g., self-efficacy). As a result, we
expect a positive (or negative) relationship between dispositional benign (or malicious)
envy and trait self-control. Although no studies have been investigated yet the relation-
ship of dispositional benign envy with (state or trait) self-control, studies showed that
dispositional malicious envy decreased (state) self-control (O’Guinn and Faber 1989;
Shoham et al. 2015).
3. Relationships between trait self-control and subjective wellbeing: Trait self-control
appeared to predict positively subjective wellbeing (e.g., Briki 2017, 2018). Thus, we
expect to observe the same result pattern.
4. Mediation in the first model: We expect dispositional malicious envy to decrease sub-
jective wellbeing via decreased sense of trait self-control because dispositional mali-
cious envy appeared to elicit impulsivity and decrease positive feelings (e.g., Milfont
and Valdiney 2009; Shoham et al. 2015). Notwithstanding, no empirical or theoretical
works allow us to presume that trait self-control can mediate the relationship between
dispositional benign envy and subjective wellbeing.
5. Mediation in the second model: We expect trait self-control to increase subjective well-
being via decreased sense of dispositional malicious envy. Indeed, if the emergence of
benign (or malicious) envy depends upon the high (or low) levels of perceived control
(Van de Ven et al. 2011a), and if trait self-control promotes approach-based regulations
and cognitions (e.g., perceived control) (Briki 2018), then trait self-control can increase
subjective wellbeing by diminishing dispositional malicious envy. Furthermore, given
the unclear relationship between dispositional benign envy and subjective wellbeing,
we cannot expect dispositional benign envy to mediate the relationship between trait
self-control and subjective wellbeing.
6. Moderations: No frameworks enable us to make any predictions regarding the potential
moderating roles of dispositional envy, trait self-control, sex and age. As a result, the
study remains exploratory on that subject.

6 Method

6.1 Participants

Four hundred six individuals from the United States (234 females, 57.6%, and 172 males,
42.4%; Mage = 32.07, SDage = 10.98, from 18 to 71 years old) took part voluntarily in the
study, and were recruited from an online platform (ClickWorker2). The sample of partici-
pants was heterogeneous on ethnicity (African American, n = 74, 18.2%; Asian American,
n = 32, 7.9%; Caucasian American, n = 241, 59.4%; Hispanic American, n = 37, 9.1%;
other, n = 22, 5.4%).

2
  www.clic​kwor​ker.com.

13
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 529

6.2 Study Design and Procedure

We conducted the present study in line with the Institutional Review Board’s recom-
mendations of the author’s university.3 Consistently with the Declaration of Helsinki, all
the participants provided their written informed consent. Regarding the procedure,4 the
participants read basic information about the study. More specifically, they read that the
survey aimed at exploring the relationships between envy and feelings, and they read the
definition of envy. Then, they read that they would answer some questionnaires (see the
Measures section below), that their data would be anonymous and confidential, and that
they would receive a 0.30$ compensation after completing the survey. Then, the partici-
pants could decide to take part or not in the study; when they accepted, they had to pro-
vide a written informed consent. Afterwards, we reminded them that their responses would
remain anonymous and confidential and we encouraged them to report their real thoughts
and feelings. Then, the participants started completing all the questionnaires in the fol-
lowing order: (a) demography; (b) dispositional benign and malicious envy; (c) trait self-
control; and (d) happiness and life satisfaction. Then, we thanked the participants for their
important contribution.

6.3 Measures

The Benign and Malicious Envy Scale (BeMas; Lange and Crusius 2015a) was employed
to measure the 5-item dispositional benign envy subscale (e.g., “If I notice that another
person is better than me, I try to improve myself”, α = .83) and the 5-item dispositional
malicious envy subscale (e.g., “Envious feelings cause me to dislike the other person”,
α  =  .87) on a 6-Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” (“1”) to “Strongly agree”
(“6”). The 13-item scale developed by Tangney et  al. (2004) was employed to measure
trait self-control (e.g., “I am good at resisting temptation”; α  =  .87) on a 7-Likert scale
ranging from “Not at all” (“1”) to “Very much so” (“7”). Happiness and life satisfaction
corresponded to two subjective wellbeing-related scales. The 8-item Oxford Happiness
Questionnaire was employed to measure happiness (Hills and Argyle 2002; e.g., “I am
well satisfied about everything in my life”; α = .75; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 6 = “Strongly
agree”). The 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale was employed to measure life satisfaction
(Diener et al. 1985; e.g., “The conditions of my life are excellent”; α = .90; 1 = “Strongly
disagree”, 7 = “Strongly agree”).

6.4 Analysis

In order to assess the quality of the two tested models, we carried out five sorts of analysis:
(1) correlation analyses, (2) measurement model analyses, (3) structural model analyses,
(4) mediation analyses, and (5) moderation analyses.

3
  The study design was exempt from the Institutional Review Board review of the author’s university. The
author has completed successfully the National Institutes of Health Web-based training course “Protecting
Human Research Participants”.
4
  The author reported all steps of the procedure and all assessed measures in the study, and excluded no
data.

13
 W. Briki
530

6.4.1 Correlations

We carried out non-parametric correlations (Spearman’s rho) based on the latent variables
coming from the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

6.4.2 Measurement and Structural Models

We assessed the quality of the models using the method of Partial Least Square Structural
Equation Modelling5 (PLS-SEM) (bootstrapping: 1000 resampling iterations). A measure-
ment model is composed of a set of manifest and latent variables. When a latent variable is
made of more than one manifest variable, the quality of the latent variable can be assessed
via one of the following criteria: (1) the principal component analysis must indicate that
the first eigenvalue of the correlation matrix is higher than 1.000, whereas the other eigen-
values are lower than 1.000; and (2) the Cronbach’s alpha index or the Dillon-Goldstein’s
rho index is higher than 0.700 (e.g., Vinzi et al. 2010). In our models, subjective wellbeing
was the only latent variable that was composed of several manifest variables, and the analy-
ses revealed that happiness and life satisfaction successfully composed subjective wellbe-
ing (α = .801; ρ = .909; eigenvalue = 1.668, .332).
A structural model is composed of standardized path coefficients, which are estimated
through Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions. A standardized path coefficient indi-
cates the strength of a causal relationship. Five parameters allowed us to assess the quality
of measurement and structural models (e.g., Henseler et al. 2009; Tenenhaus et al. 2005).
The outer model goodness-of-fit (GoF) index enables to assess the quality of the measure-
ment model, while the inner model GoF index allows to estimate the quality of the struc-
tural model. The absolute and relative GoF indexes inform about the quality of the meas-
urement and structural models. The values that are equal to or higher than 0.900 for the
inner model, outer model, and relative GoF indexes are considered acceptable, while the
critical values for the absolute GoF index are 0.010 (i.e., small quality), 0.250 (i.e., mod-
erate quality), and 0.360 (i.e., high quality). Additionally, R ­ 2 assesses the quality of the
structural model, and its critical values are 0.190 (i.e., small quality), 0.330 (i.e., moderate
quality), and 0.670 (i.e., high quality) (see Chin 1998).

6.4.3 Mediations and Moderations

There is a significant mediation when all of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The exogenous latent variable (i.e., the independent variable) predicts significantly the
endogenous latent variable (i.e., the dependent variable) (excluding the mediator).
2. The exogenous latent variable predicts significantly the mediator.

5
  The author computed the analyses using PLS-SEM (XLSTAT-PLS) because PLS-SEM corresponds to
a distribution-free test. Social scientists are used to employing co-variance-based SEM (CB-SEM; e.g.,
AMOS) for examining structural equation models (and their assessment indices, such as the root mean
square error of approximation [RMSEA]). However, statisticians consistently recommend using PLS-SEM
over CB-SEM in social sciences “because of its ability to handle small sample sizes, complex models with
numerous endogenous and exogenous constructs and indicator variables, or non-normal data distributions”
(Astrachan et al. 2014, p. 126). In line with such recommendations, normality (Shapiro–Wilk) tests com-
puted on all the manifest variables (i.e., dispositional benign envy, dispositional malicious envy, trait self-
control, happiness, and life satisfaction) indicated that all the distributions were non-normal (ps ≤ .047).

13
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 531

Fig. 2  Structural equation model of the first (a) and second (b) models. All the coefficients are standard-
ized and the solid lines indicate statistical significance. The significance thresholds for a two-tailed test
are: ***p < .001 and **p < .01. DBE = dispositional benign envy; DME = dispositional malicious envy;
TSC = trait self-control; HAP = happiness; SAT = satisfaction with life

3. The mediator predicts significantly the endogenous latent variable.

4. The indirect and total effects are significant.

The strength of the mediation is determined by the direct effect (including the media-
tor): A partial mediation can be reported when that effect is significant, whereas a full
mediation is reported when the effect is non-significant (e.g., Baron and Kenny 1986).
Regarding the moderation analyses within PLS paths models, authors mainly propose
two strategies—i.e., group comparisons (or median split) and product term—, but rec-
ommend always the use of the product term approach because it is “usually equal or
superior to those of the group comparison approach” (Henseler and Fassott 2010, p.
721). As a result, we employed the latter approach to compute our moderating analyses.

7 Results

7.1 Preliminary Analyses

The first model revealed acceptable values for the GoF indexes (absolute GoF = .445;
relative GoF = .949; outer model GoF = .994; inner model GoF = .954) and reported
­ 2 (being equal to 23.936%, p < 0.001). Regard-
a significant and acceptable value of R
ing the second model, the analyses revealed acceptable values for the different GoF
indexes (absolute GoF  =  .321; relative GoF  =  .979; outer model GoF  =  .994; inner
model GoF = .985). However, and despite its significance (p < 0.001), the value of R ­2
(being equal to 12.436%) was below the critical values. In sum, the preliminary analyses
indicated that both models were significant, but suggested that the first model was more
effective than the second one to account for the relationships between all the latent vari-
ables (see Fig. 2).

13
 W. Briki
532

Table 1  Spearman’s rho correlations for all the latent variables

Latent variable 1 2 3 4

1. Dispositional benign envy –

2. Dispositional malicious envy 0.086 –
3. Trait self-control − 0.050 − 0.323*** – –
4. Subjective wellbeing 0.126* − 0.181*** 0.435*** –
5. Age − 0.112* − 0.256*** 0.243*** 0.103*
6. Sex − 0.067 − 0.084 0.188*** 0.030

The data of all the latent variables come from the CFA. For the variable “Sex”, the CFA transformed the
variable “female” into the score “0.857” and the variable “male” into the score “−1.167”. The significance
thresholds for two tailed tests are: *** means p < .001, ** means p < .01, and * means p < .05

7.2 Main Analyses

7.2.1 Correlations

The Spearman’s rho correlation analyses showed that dispositional benign envy was positively
related to subjective wellbeing (ρ = .126, p < .05) and negatively related to age (ρ = −.112,
p  <  .05) (see Table  1). However, dispositional benign envy was unrelated to dispositional
malicious envy, trait self-control, and sex (see Table  1). Dispositional malicious envy was
negatively related to trait self-control (ρ = −.323, p < .001), subjective wellbeing (ρ = -.181,
p < .001), and age (ρ = −.256, p < .001), but unrelated to sex (see Table 1). Trait self-control
was positively related to subjective wellbeing (ρ = .435, p < .001), age (ρ = .243, p < .001),
and sex (ρ = .188, p < .001) (see Table 1). Subjective wellbeing appeared to positively related
to age (ρ = .103, p < .05), but unrelated to sex (see Table 1).

7.2.2 Mediations

In the first model, the analyses revealed a significant mediation: Trait self-control fully medi-
ated the influence of dispositional malicious envy on subjective wellbeing (see Tables 2 and
3, and Fig. 2). Trait self-control did not mediate the relationship between dispositional benign
envy and subjective wellbeing (see Tables 2 and 3, and Fig. 2). In the second model, neither
dispositional benign envy nor dispositional malicious envy mediated the influence of trait self-
control on subjective wellbeing (see Tables 2 and 3, and Fig. 2).

7.2.3 Moderations

No moderating effects of trait self-control (in the first model), dispositional benign and mali-
cious envy (in the second model), and age and sex (in both models) were observed (see
Table 4).

8 Discussion

The objective of the present study was to examine: (a) the relationships between disposi-
tional envy, trait self-control, age, sex and subjective wellbeing; (b) the mediating effects of

13
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 533

Table 2  Path estimates of the PLS models

Model Effect Path β SE t-values p values

First Direct (without mediator) Dispositional benign envy 0.122 0.049 2.504 0.013
→ Subjective wellbeing
Dispositional malicious envy − 0.234 0.049 − 4.799 0.000
→ Subjective wellbeing
Direct (with mediator) Dispositional benign envy 0.127 0.044 2.893 0.004
→ Subjective wellbeing
Dispositional malicious envy − 0.062 0.047 − 1.322 0.187
→ Subjective wellbeing
Trait self-control 0.456 0.047 9.768 0.000
→ Subjective wellbeing
Dispositional benign envy − 0.009 0.047 − 0.188 0.851
→ Trait self-control
Dispositional malicious envy − 0.360 0.047 − 7.681 0.000
→ Trait self-control
Second Direct (without mediator) Trait self-control 0.468 0.044 10.637 0.000
→ Subjective wellbeing
Direct (with mediator) Trait self-control 0.456 0.047 9.768 0.000
→ Subjective wellbeing
Trait self-control − 0.057 0.050 − 1.150 0.251
→ Dispositional benign envy
Trait self-control − .361 0.046 − 7.786 0.000
→ Dispositional malicious envy
Dispositional benign envy 0.127 0.044 2.893 0.004
→ Subjective wellbeing
Dispositional malicious envy − 0.062 0.047 − 1.322 0.187
→ Subjective wellbeing

trait self-control in the relationships between dispositional envy and subjective wellbeing
(see Fig.  1a); (c) the mediating effects of dispositional envy in the relationship between
trait self-control and subjective wellbeing (see Fig. 1b); and (d) the moderating effects of
trait self-control (in the first model), dispositional benign and malicious envy (in the sec-
ond model), and age and sex.

8.1 Associations Between the Latent Variables

The correlation analyses revealed that dispositional benign envy was positively related
to subjective wellbeing (see Table  1), supporting previous studies that have shown posi-
tive relationships between dispositional benign envy and positive emotions and cognitions
(Lange and Crusius 2015a, b; Lange et al. 2016a, 2016b; Van de Ven et al. 2009, 2011a).
Consistent with our expectations, dispositional malicious envy appeared to be negatively
associated with subjective wellbeing (see Table  1). This result supports previous studies
that have revealed positive (or negative) associations between dispositional malicious envy
and indicators of ill-being (or wellbeing) (e.g., Krekels and Pandelaere 2015; Krizan and
Johar 2012; Lange and Crusius 2015a, b; Lange et al. 2016a, 2016b; Milfont and Valdiney
2009; Xiang et  al. 2016). Based on the REM’s predictions (Markman and McMullen
2003), a possible explanation of our results is that dispositional benign (or malicious)

13
 534

13
Table 3  Mediation analysis for the initial and alternative models
Model Effect Path Mediator Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect

First Without mediator Dispositional benign envy N/A 0.122* N/A N/A
→ Subjective wellbeing
Dispositional malicious envy N/A − 0.234*** N/A N/A
→ Subjective wellbeing
With mediator Dispositional benign envy Trait self-control 0.127** − 0.004 0.123*
→ Subjective wellbeing
Dispositional malicious envy Trait self-control − 0.062 − 0.164*** − 0.226***
→ Subjective wellbeing
Second Without mediator Trait self-control N/A 0.468*** N/A N/A
→ Subjective wellbeing
With mediator Trait self-control Dispositional benign envy 0.470*** − 0.007 0.463***
→ Subjective wellbeing
Trait self-control Dispositional malicious envy 0.456*** − 0.019 0.475***
→ Subjective wellbeing

The significance thresholds for a two-tailed test are: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
W. Briki
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 535

Table 4  Moderation analyses
Interaction β SE t-values p values f2

Dispositional benign envy × Trait self-control − 0.361 0.218 − 1.654 0.099 0.007

Dispositional benign envy × Sex − 0.158 0.190 − 0.831 0.406 0.002
Dispositional benign envy × Age − 0.295 0.276 − 1.071 0.285 0.003
Dispositional malicious envy × Trait self-control 0.016 0.055 0.286 0.775 0.000
Dispositional malicious envy × Sex 0.066 0.182 0.366 0.715 0.000
Dispositional malicious envy × Age 0.034 0.151 0.226 0.821 0.000

envy would precipitate upward and reflective (or upward and evaluative) social compari-
sons thereby eliciting positive (or negative) emotions. Another possible explanation is that
individuals showing repeatedly benign (or malicious) envy-related behaviors would elicit
others’ esteem and consideration (or others’ disesteem and rejection) (Lange et al. 2016a),
which in turn may induce beneficial (or detrimental) impacts on their own self-image and
self-worth.
The results also revealed a neutral relationship between dispositional benign envy and
trait self-control (running counter our prediction), but a negative relationship between dis-
positional malicious envy and trait self-control (supporting our prediction) (see Table 1).
This echoes the results of studies that evidenced that dispositional malicious envy triggered
impulsive behaviors (O’Guinn and Faber 1989; Shoham et al. 2015). Furthermore, and in
line with our prediction, the correlation analyses showed a positive relationship between
trait self-control and subjective wellbeing (see Table 1). Interestingly, studies demonstrated
that trait self-control could promote subjective wellbeing by (a) promoting (or inhibiting)
helpful (or unhelpful) strategies (Cheung et al. 2014) and (b) promoting the development
of positive emotions (Hofmann et al. 2014). In sum, these results support the general view
that trait self-control represents a key to continued success and positive feelings (e.g., Briki
2018; De Ridder and Gillebaart 2016; Hagger 2013, 2014).
The analyses also showed that both forms of dispositional envy were negatively related
to age (see Table  1). These results support studies that reported that dispositional envy,
benign envy, and malicious envy were negatively associated with age (Rentzsch and Gross
2015), suggesting that the older the individuals, the less their tendency to consider oth-
ers as a meaningful standard to evaluate their own standing and value. Our results also
revealed that dispositional benign and malicious envy were unrelated to sex (see Table 1).
The literature indicates that the relationships between envy and sex is inconsistent: While
studies reported no links between the two variables (e.g., Pila et  al. 2014; Rentzsch and
Gross 2015, Studies 1 and 2), others showed that women reported higher levels of envy
than did men (e.g., Rentzsch and Gross 2015, Study 3). Our result suggests, thus, that sex
difference—based on either biology or socialization—would not affect the development of
dispositional benign and malicious envy.
Furthermore, the analyses exhibited that trait self-control and subjective wellbeing were
positively related to age (see Table 1). This suggests that older individuals would be more
likely to activate adaptive self-regulatory processes (e.g., inhibition of goal-disruptive
temptations) and to experience happiness than would younger individuals. This supports
studies showing that both conscientiousness (a broader construct than trait self-control)
and state self-control increased with age (e.g., Olsen et  al. 2015; Soto et  al. 2011). One
can explain such a change using the social investment principle that assumes that people’s

13
 W. Briki
536

personality changes over the lifespan in response to their commitment to institutional activ-
ities (e.g., work, marriage, education), thus leading to enhance their sense of responsibility,
abnegation, self-discipline, as well as agreeableness (Roberts and Wood 2006). In turn,
such adaptive changes would induce a plethora of positive psychosocial outcomes, such
as greater sense of happiness (Briki 2017). The analyses also showed that trait self-control
was positively related to sex, suggesting that women would be associated with higher levels
of trait self-control than would men. This supports studies that showed that female students
performed better in college than did male students, and sex differences in conscientious-
ness appeared to account for this result (e.g., Keiser et al. 2016).

8.2 The Central Role of Trait Self‑Control

In the first model, the mediation analyses exhibited that trait self-control mediated fully
the influence of dispositional malicious envy on subjective wellbeing (see Table  3 and
Fig. 2a). In line with our expectation, this result indicates that dispositional malicious envy
can decrease subjective wellbeing by harming trait self-control. Our result supports the
view—as guided by Crusius and Lange’s (2014) results—that dispositional malicious envy
would lead the achiever to disinvest the activity of seeking successful strategies to develop
a focus on how to harm or discredit the envied individual, thus reflecting the alteration
of the process of self-control and goal attainment. Stated differently, our result suggests
that dispositional malicious envy would thwart the development of wellbeing by activat-
ing maladaptive cognitions (i.e., upward and evaluative social comparison) and inhibiting
adaptive ones (i.e., upward and reflective social comparison, attention toward successful
achievement means). Moreover, the analyses revealed that trait self-control did not mediate
the influence of dispositional benign envy on subjective wellbeing (see Table 3 and Fig. 2).
However, the analyses indicated that dispositional benign envy positively predicted subjec-
tive wellbeing, but did not predict trait self-control. Taken together, these results suggest
that the mechanisms of trait self-control would not intervene in the relationship between
dispositional benign envy and subjective wellbeing. Further investigations are required to
advance our understanding of the relationship between the two constructs. Regarding the
second model, the mediation analyses revealed that both types of dispositional envy did not
mediate the effect of trait self-control on subjective wellbeing (see Table 3 and Fig. 2b). In
addition, the analyses revealed that trait self-control did not predict dispositional benign
envy, but negatively predicted dispositional malicious envy, suggesting that the develop-
ment of trait self-control could be a shield against the development of dispositional mali-
cious envy. Furthermore, the moderation analyses revealed no moderating effects of age,
sex, trait self-control and dispositional envy.

9 Conclusions and Perspectives

The present study is the first to explore the interrelationships between dispositional benign
and malicious envy, trait self-control, demographics and subjective wellbeing. It has exhib-
ited that: (a) dispositional benign envy positively predicted subjective wellbeing; (b) dis-
positional malicious envy negatively predicted subjective wellbeing and that decreased
sense of trait self-control accounted for this relationship. Therefore, this study supports the
views that trait self-control represents a personality trait that can play a central role in the
development of wellbeing (e.g., Briki 2018; De Ridder and Gillebaart 2016), and that trait

13
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 537

self-control could help advance our understanding of the complex psychosocial phenom-
enon of envy (e.g., Crusius and Mussweiler 2012).
Nonetheless, this study has limitations, and probably the most important one is its corre-
lational nature. Hence, further studies should employ not only stronger causal designs, but
also longitudinal protocols. In that regard, the use of a time-based approach might be use-
ful to look at the links between dispositional envy, trait self-control and wellbeing. Interest-
ingly, studies examining the relationships between dispositional envy and self-regulatory
responses revealed that dispositional benign envy elicited a search for helpful strategies
in order to approach the envy object (Lange and Crusius 2015a, b), whereas dispositional
malicious envy elicited dysfunctional emotional control (O’Guinn and Faber 1989; Sho-
ham et al. 2015; Xiang et al. 2016). Taken together, and in line with the perspective of the
first model of this study, these results suggest that dispositional envy might influence state
self-control. Therefore, further studies should take into account state self-control in order
to examine the relationships between dispositional envy and wellbeing. Moreover, and in
line with the perspective of the second model, further studies should examine the relation-
ships between state self-control, envy and subsequent emotions. Specifically, since the pre-
sent study revealed that trait self-control did not predict dispositional benign envy, while it
negatively predicted dispositional malicious envy, we incite to examine the effect of (high
vs. low) state self-control on indicators of malicious envy and subsequent emotions and
feelings.
A second major limitation is that the present study examined only one facet of psycho-
logical wellbeing, and another facet of psychological wellbeing refers to the concept of
eudaimonic wellbeing, which should receive attention from psychologists when it comes
to investigating the relationships between dispositional envy and wellbeing. Falling under
Maslow’s (1970) conception of personality development, positing that the ultimate purpose
of life is self-achievement, eudaimonic wellbeing refers to a state of realization of one’s
true potential (Ryff 1995). As a result, this concept stands in contrast with that of subjec-
tive wellbeing, which represents a short-term form of psychological wellbeing resulting
from an emotional comparison between positive and negative emotions (e.g., Diener et al.
2017). Hence, and in accordance with Lange et al.’s (2016a) view that dispositional benign
envy could foster personal growth, one can suggest that dispositional benign (or malicious)
envy could promote (or hinder) eudaimonic wellbeing. Further investigations are required
to examine such an assumption.
From an applied perspective, the results of the present study emphasize on the impor-
tance of limiting the development of dispositional malicious envy (given its negative
effects on trait self-control and subjective wellbeing) and promoting the development of
dispositional benign envy (given its positive effect on subjective wellbeing). In that regard,
Lange et  al. (2016a) inventoried several personal and societal determinants, highlighting
the beneficial effects of: (a) perceived control and self-efficacy, (b) internal, unstable and
controllable causal attribution (e.g., effort), (c) incremental conception of competence (i.e.,
belief of the effectiveness of effort and practice for attaining success), (d) optimism (e.g.,
hope for success), etc. Hence, educators, psychology consultants, teachers, parents, manag-
ers, and sport coaches, etc., should promote such characteristics in order to promote (or,
at least, not to harm) people’s and groups’ optimal functioning. The results of this study
also urge to promote the development of trait self-control (given its negative effect on dis-
positional malicious envy and given its  positive effect on subjective wellbeing). Follow-
ing that perspective, Briki and colleagues revealed that autonomy-based regulations (i.e.,
regulations governed by self-initiation and willingness) and approach-based regulations
(i.e., regulations governed by a sensitivity to success, gain, and growth) could promote the

13
 W. Briki
538

development of trait self-control (Briki et al. 2015; Briki 2016, 2017, 2018). As a result,
the different actors or leaders (e.g., parents, managers) should (a) facilitate the satisfaction
of people’s basic psychological needs (e.g., competence, autonomy), and (b) orientate peo-
ple’s attention toward personal achievement, advancement, and success. To do so, Lange
et al.’s (2016a) recommendations might be considerably helpful.

References
Ahuvia, A. C., & Wong, N. Y. (2002). Personality and values based materialism: Their relationship and ori-
gins. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 389–402. http​s://doi.org/10.1207​/S153​2766​3JCP​1204​_10.
Alberoni, F. (1991). Les envieux [The envious]. Paris: Plon.
Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM
for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 116–128. http​
s://doi.org/10.1016​/j.jfbs​.2013​.12.002.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bers, S., & Rodin, J. (1984). Social comparison jealousy: A developmental and motivational study. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 766–779. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/0022​-3514​.47.4.766.
Briki, W. (2016). Motivation toward physical exercise and subjective wellbeing: The mediating role of trait
self-control. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1546. http​s://doi.org/10.3389​/fpsy​g.2016​.0154​6.
Briki, W. (2017). Passion, trait self-control, and wellbeing: Comparing two mediation models predicting
wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 841. http​s://doi.org/10.3389​/fpsy​g.2017​.0084​1.
Briki, W. (2018). Trait self-control: Why people with a higher approach (avoidance) temperament can expe-
rience higher (lower) subjective wellbeing. Personality and Individual Differences, 120(1), 112–117.
http​s://doi.org/10.1016​/j.paid​.2017​.08.039.
Briki, W., Aloui, A., Bragazzi, N. L., Chaouachi, A., Patrick, T., & Chamari, K. (2015). Trait self-control,
identified-introjected religiosity and health-related-feelings in healthy Muslims: A structural equation
model analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0126193. http​s://doi.org/10.1371​/jour​nal.pone​.0126​193.
Chen, C. (2015). Incremental validity of achievement goals in predicting subjective well-being among uni-
versity students. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 14(1), 38–62.
Cheung, T. L. T., Gillebaart, M., Kroese, F., & De Ridder, D. (2014). Why are people with high self-control
happier? The effect of trait self-control on happiness as mediated by regulatory focus. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 5, 722. http​s://doi.org/10.3389​/fpsy​g.2014​.0072​2.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Mar-
coulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–236). London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Crusius, J., & Lange, J. (2014). What catches the envious eye? Attentional biases within malicious and
benign envy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 1–11. http​s://doi.org/10.1016​/j.jesp​.2014​
.05.007.
Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2012). When people want what others have: The impulsive side of envious
desire. Emotion, 12, 142–153. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/a002​3523​.
De Ridder, D. T. D., & Gillebaart, M. (2016). Lessons learned from trait self-control in wellbeing: Making
the case for routines and initiation as important components of trait self-control. Health Psychology
Review. http​s://doi.org/10.1080​/1743​7199​.2016​.1266​275.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index.
American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/0003​-066X​.55.1.34.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., et al. (2017). Findings all psy-
chologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology, 58(2),
87–104. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/cap0​0000​63.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. S. (2015). National accounts of subjective well-being. American Psy-
chologist, 55, 34–43. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/a003​8899​.
Elster, J. (1991). Envy in social life. In R. J. Zeckhauser (Ed.), Strategy and choices (pp. 49–82). Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

13
Harmed Trait Self‑Control: Why Do People with a Higher… 539

Foster, G. M. (1972). The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology, 13,
165–202.
Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever: Why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. New York: Free Press.
Gold, B. T. (1996). Enviousness and its relationship to maladjustment and psychopathology. Personality and
Individual Differences, 21, 311–321. http​s://doi.org/10.1016​/0191​-8869​(96)0008​1-5.
Hagger, M. S. (2013). The multiple pathways by which self-control predicts behavior. Frontiers in Psychol-
ogy, 4, 848. http​s://doi.org/10.3389​/fpsy​g.2013​.0084​9.
Hagger, M. S. (2014). The multiple pathways by which trait self-control predicts health behavior. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 48, 282–283. http​s://doi.org/10.1007​/s121​60-014-9631​-x.
Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of avail-
able procedures. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least
squares: Concepts, methods and applications in marketing and related fields (pp. 713–735). Berlin:
Springer.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in international marketing
(pp. 277–320). Emerald: Bingley.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement
of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1073–1082.
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Yes, but are they
happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality,
82(4), 265–277. http​s://doi.org/10.1111​/jopy​.1205​0.
Joseph, J. E., Powell, C. A. J., Johnson, N. F., & Kedia, G. (2008). The functional neuroanatonomy of envy.
In R. H. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and research (pp. 245–263). New York: Oxford University Press.
http​s://doi.org/10.1093​/acpr​of:oso/9780​1953​2795​3.003.0014​.
Keiser, H. N., Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., & Brothen, T. (2016). Why women perform better in college
than admission scores would predict: Exploring the roles of conscientiousness and course-taking pat-
terns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 569–581. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/apl0​0000​69.
Krekels, G., & Pandelaere, M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 225–
230. http​s://doi.org/10.1016​/j.paid​.2014​.10.036.
Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 80, 1415–
1451. http​s://doi.org/10.1111​/j.1467​-6494​.2012​.0076​7.x.
Lange, J., Blatz, L., & Crusius, J. (2016). Dispositional envy: A conceptual review. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T.
K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015a). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational dynamics of
benign and malicious envy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 284–294. http​s://doi.
org/10.1177​/0146​1672​1456​4959​.
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015b). The tango of two deadly sins: The social-functional relation of envy and
pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 453–472. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/pspi​0000​
026.
Lange, J., Crusius, J., & Hagemeyer, B. (2016). The Evil Queen’s dilemma: Linking narcissistic admiration
and rivalry to benign and malicious envy. European Journal of Personality, 30, 168–188. http​s://doi.
org/10.1002​/per.2047​.
Markman, K. D., & McMullen, M. N. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 244–267.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Milfont, T. L., & Valdiney, V. G. (2009). A capital sin: Dispositional envy and its relations to wellbeing.
Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 43, 547–551.
Nes, R. B., Røysamb, E., Tambs, K., Harris, J. R., & Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. (2006). Subjective well-
being: Genetic and environmental contributions to stability and change. Psychological Medicine, 36,
1033–1042. http​s://doi.org/10.1017​/S003​3291​7060​0740​9.
O’Guinn, T. C., & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A phenomenological exploration. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16, 147–157. http​s://doi.org/10.1086​/2092​04.
Olsen, S. O., Tuu, H. H., Honkanen, P., & Verplankenen, B. (2015). Conscientiousness and (un)healthy
eating: The role of impulsive eating and age in the consumption of daily main meals. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 397–404. http​s://doi.org/10.1111​/sjop​.1222​0.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/0022​-3514​.64.6.906.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

13
 W. Briki
540

Pila, E., Stamiris, A., Castonguay, A., & Sabiston, C. (2014). Body-related envy: A social comparison
perspective in sport and exercise. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36, 93–106. http​s://doi.
org/10.1123​/jsep​.2013​-0100​.
Rentzsch, K., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Who turns green with envy? Conceptual and empirical perspectives on
dispositional envy. European Journal of Personality, 29, 530–547. http​s://doi.org/10.1002​/per.2012​.
Rentzsch, K., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2015). Envy mediates the relation between low academic
self-esteem and hostile tendencies. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 143–153. http​s://doi.
org/10.1016​/j.jrp.2015​.08.001.
Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the context of the Neo-Socioanalytic Model
of personality. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp.
11–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4,
99–104.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social comparison jealousy. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780–792. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/0022​-3514​.47.4.780.
Sayers, D. (1949). The other six deadly sins. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Shoham, A., Gavish, Y., & Segev, S. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of impulsive and compulsive buy-
ing behaviors among Israeli and US consumers: The influence of personal traits and cultural values.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 27, 187–206. http​s://doi.org/10.1080​/0896​1530​.2014​
.1000​507.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999). Dispositional envy. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1007–1020. http​s://doi.org/10.1177​/0146​1672​9925​1100​8.
Soto, C. J. (2015). Is happiness good for your personality? Concurrent and prospective relations of the Big
Five with subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 83(1), 45–55. http​s://doi.org/10.1111​/jopy​
.1208​1.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to
65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100(2), 330–348. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/a002​1717​.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less
pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–322. PMID:
15016066.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito, V. V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational
Statistics & Data Analysis, 48, 159–205.
Van de Ven, N., Hoogland, C. E., Smith, R. H., Van Dijk, W. W., Breugelmans, S. M., & Zeelenberg,
M. (2015). When envy leads to schadenfreude. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1007–1025. http​s://doi.
org/10.1080​/0269​9931​.2014​.9619​03.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign
and malicious envy. Emotion, 9, 419–429. http​s://doi.org/10.1037​/a001​5669​.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011a). Appraisal patterns of envy and related emotions.
Motivation and Emotion, 36, 195–204. http​s://doi.org/10.1007​/s110​31-011-9235​-8.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011b). Why envy outperforms admiration. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 784–795. http​s://doi.org/10.1177​/0146​1672​1140​0421​.
Van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Goslinga, S. (2009). The impact of deservingness on schadenfreude
and sympathy: Further evidence. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 290–292. http​s://doi.org/10.3200​
/SOCP​.149.3.390-392.
Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L., & Amato, S. (2010). PLS Path Modeling: From foundations to recent develop-
ments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler
& H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications in market-
ing and related fields (pp. 47–82). Berlin: Springer.
Xiang, Y., Kong, F., Wen, X., Wu, Q., & Mo, L. (2016). Neural correlates of envy: Regional homogene-
ity of resting-state brain activity predicts dispositional envy. Neuroimage, 142, 225–230. http​s://doi.
org/10.1016​/j.neur​oima​ge.2016​.08.003.

13