 6. Temperament  157
extraversion and low neuroticism” (Ozer & 
Benet-Martínez, p. 405). Additionally, Ozer 
and Benet-Martínez (2006) reported rela -
tions between temperament-  related traits 
and certain categories of virtue, specifically, 
compassion with A, gratitude with E and A, 
forgiveness with A, inspiration with E, and 
humor with low N and A. Notably, all of 
these relations proved to be robust in Soto’s 
(2019) replication study.
Work and Achievement
At the other end of the spectrum, a number 
of work- and achievement-  related behaviors 
also have been shown to have associations 
with temperament (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 
1991; Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007; Sackett 
& Walmsley, 2014). For example, in Bar -
rick and Mount’s (1991) meta-  analysis, C 
emerged as a significant predictor of all job 
performance criteria for all occupational 
groups, whereas E/PE was a valid predictor 
for two occupations involving substantial 
social interaction. Watson and Clark (1993) 
reported that DvC scores were a stron -
ger predictor of first-year college grades 
than were standard achievement test (SAT) 
scores, even after controlling for the latter 
or for high school grades (the best overall 
predictor). To determine whether academic 
performance related differentially to the 
DvC subscales, we replicated this study in 
two large samples. The results, presented at 
the bottom of Table 6.5, indicate that college 
performance is unrelated to either N/NE or 
E/PE, but is predicted well by DvC, especial -
ly by the Carefree Orientation scale. Thus, 
again not surprisingly, poor grades early in 
college are more likely to be obtained by 
those who lack discipline and prefer to live 
day to day rather than planning carefully 
for the future. The lower relation with anti -
social behavior suggests that some students 
high on this dimension actually may succeed 
in “beating the system,” whereas others do 
not.
Putting all of these data together, we ob -
tain a picture that is consistent with theo -
retical models positing that the DvC dimen -
sion is related more to the style of affective 
regulation rather than the overall affective 
level (which clearly is more the case with N/
NE and E/PE). Disinhibited individuals ex -perience greater reinforcement from positive 
stimuli and simultaneously are capable of di -
verting attention away from negative stimu -
li. This leads them to focus more strongly on 
the rewards than the risks of behavior and 
thus to engage in a wide range of pleasurable 
behaviors. Nonetheless, they are not im -
mune to the negative consequences of these 
behaviors, and so also report a greater num -
ber of behavior-  related problems. The end 
result is a zero balance in terms of overall 
affective level (i.e., no strong correlation of 
either DvC or these various behaviors with 
N/NE or E/PE), but a broader range of affec -
tive experience.
Genetic and  Environmental Contributions 
to the Big Three Traits
We have postulated that the major traits of 
personality represent basic biobehavioral 
dimensions of temperament. We now con -
sider data supporting this assertion. That 
temperament is biologically based implies 
that observed individual differences are sub -
stantially heritable and that they are—at 
least in latent form—  present at birth (e.g., 
Buss & Plomin, 1975; Digman, 1994); that 
is, although biological parameters may be 
changed by life experiences (cf. stress reac -
tions), our basic biological makeup is innate. 
Therefore, one crucial line of evidence con -
cerns the possible hereditary basis of these 
traits.
After decades of neglect, researchers 
began systematically exploring the genetic 
basis of personality approximately 45 years 
ago, starting with the seminal contribu -
tion of Loehlin and Nichols (1976). Inter -
est in this topic accelerated in the latter 
half of the 1980s (e.g., Plomin & Daniels, 
1987; Tellegen et al., 1988) and has contin -
ued unabated ever since. Consequently, we 
now have sufficient data to permit several 
basic conclusions. First, as mentioned previ -
ously, it is quite clear that all of the major 
dimensions—  indeed, virtually every trait 
that has ever been examined—  has a sub -
stantial genetic component. In a previous 
version of this chapter, we cited a number of 
studies that helped to establish this fact, but 
now there have been so many such studies 
that we can refer to a meta-  analysis. Based 
on 45 studies, Vukasovi ć and Bratko (2015) 