616 vI. SELF‑ AND S OCIAL P ROCESSES
compasses impulsivity, are simultaneously 
low in self-  control and impulse regulation, 
and high in avoidance. As such, their fail -
ures at self-  regulation may stem from either 
under- or overcontrol and involve deficits in 
the regulation of both emotion (e.g., fearful -
ness) and behavior. Conscientiousness, with 
its roots in temperamental effortful control, 
is associated with good control of impulses 
and behavior, with little relevance for the 
regulation of emotion. Individuals high in 
conscientiousness are prone to planning, 
persistence, and perseverance, all tenden -
cies that generally support effective self- 
regulation (though the tendency to persevere 
may forestall goal disengagement when it is 
warranted; Wrosch et al., 2007). Consid -
ered together, emotional stability/neuroti -
cism and conscientiousness define distinct 
styles of self-  control (Costa & Piedmont, 
2003). The combination of high emotional 
stability and high conscientiousness is opti -
mal, supporting a style that favors successful 
self- regulation. Conversely, low emotional 
stability and low conscientiousness mark an 
undercontrolled style of managing emotions 
and behavior that works against the regula -
tion of impulses and control of behavior (Fa -
vini, Gerbino, Eisenberg, Lunetti, & Thar -
tori, 2018). Finally, people low in emotional 
stability and high in conscientiousness are 
prone to overcontrol in the form of perfec -
tionism and compulsive behavior.
Before summarizing connections between 
self- regulation and other models of person -
ality, we briefly move up, then down, the 
personality hierarchy to highlight additional 
connections with basic models of personal -
ity structure. Moving up the hierarchy, we 
return to a model described at the beginning 
of this section, in which two independent 
metatraits account for the variance in the 
basic five domains (De  Young, 2006). Con -
scientiousness, agreeableness, and emotion -
al stability reflect the metatrait of stability, 
which is a general tendency toward resist -
ing temptations that would disrupt progress 
toward currently active goals. Extraversion 
and openness reflect plasticity, which is a 
general tendency toward the pursuit of new 
goals and a willingness to entertain new 
perspectives on currently active goals and 
strategies for pursuing (De  Young, 2010). 
Now moving down the hierarchy, we note the outcome of a project linking specific 
everyday behaviors to conscientiousness 
(Jackson et al., 2010). Students generated 
lists of behaviors associated with conscien -
tiousness, resulting in a pool of 185 behav -
iors constituting the Behavioral Indicators of 
Conscientiousness. Many of these behaviors 
are indicative of (in)effective self-  regulation 
(e.g., “Spend more money than I have”; 
“Oversleep for class or work”; “Get to ap -
pointments on time”), providing concrete 
evidence of the connections between consci -
entiousness and self-  regulation as manifest 
in behavior.
As a whole, the literature linking self- 
regulation and personality as outlined in 
comprehensive, domain-  level models reveals 
many connections between general cogni -
tive, affective, and behavioral tendencies as 
reflected in personality and self-  regulatory 
processes and outcomes. In the next sec -
tion, we summarize models that integrate 
the Big Five personality dimensions and self- 
regulatory processes.
Cybernetics and the Big Five
Two features characterize most process- 
oriented models of self-  regulation: (1) activ -
ity aimed at reducing the discrepancy be -
tween the current state and some preferred 
state prescribed by a goal or standard, and 
(2) an iterative process whereby attempts at 
discrepancy reduction are assessed and re -
peated until the current state is sufficiently 
close to the preferred state to signify ac -
ceptable progress in goal pursuit or adher -
ence to a behavioral standard (e.g., Carver 
& Scheier, 1981; Duval & Wicklund, 1972). 
Such models characterize self-  regulation as 
a cybernetic system, not unlike the dynamic 
systems that regulate physiological activity 
in the human body (e.g., blood pressure, 
body temperature; Weiner, 1948).
An initial attempt to characterize the Big 
Five in cybernetic terms and, in so doing, 
connect them with self-  regulation, inte -
grates basic features of temperamental sys -
tems (e.g., approach–  avoidance) with basic 
features of agentic and autonomous goal 
pursuit (Van Egeren, 2009). A core assump -
tion is that people control their behavior 
with reference to goals, which lead to fore -
thought (with particular reference to situ -