↓ Skip to main content

Who Does Well in Life? Conscientious Adults Excel in Both Objective and Subjective Success

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
28 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Who Does Well in Life? Conscientious Adults Excel in Both Objective and Subjective Success
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00356
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela L. Duckworth, David Weir, Eli Tsukayama, David Kwok

Abstract

This article investigates how personality and cognitive ability relate to measures of objective success (income and wealth) and subjective success (life satisfaction, positive affect, and lack of negative affect) in a representative sample of 9,646 American adults. In cross-sectional analyses controlling for demographic covariates, cognitive ability, and other Big Five traits, conscientiousness demonstrated beneficial associations of small-to-medium magnitude with all success outcomes. In contrast, other traits demonstrated stronger, but less consistently beneficial, relations with outcomes in the same models. For instance, emotional stability demonstrated medium-to-large associations with life satisfaction and affect but a weak association with income and no association with wealth. Likewise, extraversion demonstrated medium-to-large associations with positive affect and life satisfaction but small-to-medium associations with wealth and (lack of) negative affect and no association with income. Cognitive ability showed small-to-medium associations with income and wealth but no association with any aspect of subjective success. More agreeable adults were worse off in terms of objective success and life satisfaction, demonstrating small-to-medium inverse associations with those outcomes, but they did not differ from less agreeable adults in positive or negative affect. Likewise, openness to experience demonstrated small-to-medium inverse associations with every success outcome except positive affect, in which more open adults were slightly higher. Notably, in each of the five models predicting objective and subjective success outcomes, individual differences other than conscientiousness explained more variance than did conscientiousness. Thus, the benefits of conscientiousness may be remarkable more for their ubiquity than for their magnitude.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 156 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 19%
Student > Master 30 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 29 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 69 42%
Social Sciences 22 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 33 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2024.
All research outputs
#370,512
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#769
of 34,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,859
of 251,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#13
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.