 21. Emotion and Personality  471
Feldstein & Sloan, 1984; Funder & Sneed, 
1993; Smillie et al., 2015)—that establish 
rapport, elicit liking, and evoke attributions 
of confidence and status from observers 
(Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Barrick et al., 
2012; Harker & Keltner, 2001). Evidence 
suggests that the consequences of these mo -
mentary social interactions are profound, 
leading to higher rank within hierarchies in 
the short term, and better professional and 
personal life outcomes in the long term (e.g., 
Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012; 
Harker & Keltner, 2001).
Connecting this series of dots suggests 
that proximal mechanisms of appraisals 
(anticipated social reward, self-  confidence) 
and action tendencies emerging from the 
emotional experience of social enjoyment, 
mirth, and authentic pride may form the 
path by which trait extraversion leads to 
higher rank. Consistent with this proposal, 
experimental studies indicate that extravert -
ed men are most likely to emerge as leaders 
in an unstructured group discussion when 
they believe they are being evaluated by an 
attractive woman, highlighting the impor -
tance of reward pursuit as the mechanism 
linking extraversion to high status (Camp -
bell, Simpson, Steward, & Manning, 2003). 
Emotions are proximal processes by which 
broader traits lead to important life out -
comes.
Emotions Mediate Relational  Dynamics
A second approach considers the roles of emo -
tions in mediating the effects of personality 
on the experience of close relationships—  an 
area that only now is receiving systematic at -
tention within personality psychology (Har -
ris & Vazire, 2016). Close relationships, 
ranging from friendships to familial and in -
timate bonds, to work relations, are vital to 
individual differences in well-being, health, 
and career success (Holt-  Lunstad, Smith, 
& Layton, 2010; Myers & Diener, 2018). 
This thesis, that the emotional core of the 
individual shapes relationships of different 
kinds, has been an enduring theme in the at -
tachment literature (Mikulincer & Shaver, 
2006). The emotional tones of the family of 
origin and one’s initial romantic encounter 
give rise to attachment styles, and these in -
dividual differences in how we relate to oth -ers have consequences for relationship sat -
isfaction, health, and well-being across the 
lifespan (Fairbairn et al., 2018; Fraley, 2019; 
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2006). Emotion- 
related appraisals such as self-  confidence, 
the perceived value of relationships with 
others, and likelihood of abandonment are 
recognized as the cognitive heart of individ -
ual differences in attachment style (Collins 
& Read, 1990; Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Mi -
kulincer, 1995). Action tendencies reflecting 
emotional responses and regulation styles— 
initiating versus withholding affectionate 
contact before a brief separation, open com -
munication about sexuality, intensity of ori -
enting toward social and material rewards, 
displaying constructive versus destructive 
behaviors during relationship conflict—  are 
clearly linked to long-term relational out -
comes (e.g., Feeney, Kelley, Gallois, Peter -
son, & Terry, 1999; Fraley & Shaver, 1998; 
Gross, 1998, 2002; Simpson, Collins, Tran, 
& Haydon, 2007; Tran & Simpson, 2009; 
Yee & Shiota, 2015). However, this ap -
proach has yet to be leveraged extensively in 
other areas of personality psychology.
In Figure 21.2, we apply our framework 
to the consistent observation that highly 
neurotic individuals tend to fare worse in 
intimate relationships (Bolger & Schilling, 
1991; T. Fisher & McNulty, 2008; Harris 
& Vazire, 2016). Individuals high in neu -
roticism are likely to appraise events within 
relationships in terms of threat, uncertain -
ty, and rejection—  tendencies that diminish 
trust, comfort, and goodwill in intimate 
relationships and friendships (Downey & 
Feldman, 1996). Highly neurotic individu -
als are also likely to express themselves in 
ways—  through tension, criticism, plaintive -
ness, facial and vocal expressions of fear and 
distress—  that are likely to undermine rela -
tionship health (e.g., Keltner, 1996a). These 
outward expressions of emotion are likely 
to trigger patterns of response in the part -
ner that diminish relational well-being— 
evoking reactions of fear and distress; di -
minished joy and gratitude; and broader 
inferences about the security, trust, and 
certainty that defines the relationship. This 
framework has been applied to good effect, 
for example, in studying why people with an 
avoidance motivation, who construe social 
relationships in terms of threat and conflict, 