614 vI. SELF‑ AND S OCIAL P ROCESSES
extraversion,  and intellect/openness to ex -
perience . Although additional domains have 
been proposed (e.g., Thielmann, Hilbig, 
Zettler, & Moshagen, 2017), the consensus 
among personality researchers is that the Big 
Five domains are sufficiently comprehensive 
and cross-  culturally replicable to guide anal -
yses focused on the full personality domain 
space, as is our purpose here.
In order to fully capture the connections 
between self-  regulation and personality as 
reflected in the Big Five, we note that some 
connections are most clearly evident when 
moving up or down the conceptual hierar -
chy of personality structure. First, moving 
up the hierarchy, one higher-  order model 
proposes two independent metatraits that 
account for the covariation between the 
Big Five domains (De  Young, 2006, 2010). 
Specifically, the covariation between (low) 
neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscien -
tiousness is attributed to a higher-  order 
factor labeled stability,  and the covariation 
between extraversion and openness is attrib -
uted to a second higher-  order factor labeled 
plasticity . Moving down the personality hi -
erarchy, the domain-  level factors encompass 
multiple facets (Costa & McCrae, 1992; 
Soto & John, 2017). Although facets across 
domains are implicated in self-  regulation, 
those of principal interest for our review 
are the facets of conscientiousness: organi -
zation, productiveness,  and responsibility  
(Soto & John, 2017). Though not relevant 
for our review, in the interest of thorough -
ness, we note that analyses also have pointed 
to potentially useful levels of abstraction be -
tween domains and facets, referred to as as -
pects  (De Young, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007) 
and at the bottom of the conceptual hierar -
chy, personality nuance, as reflected in in -
dividual personality descriptors (Mõttus et 
al., 2016).
The focus of classic domain-  level models 
of personality on structure rather than pro -
cess makes them less valuable for analyz -
ing connections with self-  regulation, which 
typically is cast in process terms. The five- 
factor model has been used as the starting 
point for process-  oriented theorizing about 
the role of personality in cognition, motiva -
tion, affect, and behavior. Five-  factor theo -
ry embeds the five personality domains in a 
model that specifies both the origins of vari -ability in the domains and the consequences 
of that variability for motivation, emotions, 
behavior, and, ultimately, identity (McCrae 
& Costa, 1996, 2008). Self-  regulation and 
associated processes are positioned in the 
model as characteristic adaptations,  which 
are stable individual differences that reflect 
the ways in which people navigate their so -
cial world given their personality, life ex -
periences, and cultural influences. Accord -
ing to the theory, self-  regulation emerges 
and operates as a function of two influ -
ences. One is the person’s standing on the 
five basic personality dimensions, which is 
causal and sets the dispositional boundaries 
within which self-  regulation operates. The 
second, more proximal influence, is a set 
of processes that follows from the person’s 
standing on the personality dimensions, as 
well as cultural norms and important life 
events. These processes may enable or con -
strain goal pursuit.
In a similar effort, Denissen and Penke 
(2008) proposed a conceptualization of the 
personality domains not as decontextual -
ized general tendencies but as individual 
differences in motivation and self-  regulated 
behavior in different domains. For example, 
extraversion reflects individual differences 
in the functioning of reward systems in so -
cial situations, and conscientiousness reflects 
individual differences in goal pursuit skills 
and motivation. In effect, this approach or -
ganizes individual differences in motivation 
and self-  regulation according to the five 
personality domains, so each individual dif -
ference in this model is an individual differ -
ence in either self-  regulatory behavior (e.g., 
tenacity of goal pursuit) or motivation (e.g., 
motivation to cooperate).
Although five-  factor theory offers a 
plausible set of mechanisms by which per -
sonality influences self-  regulation, current 
assessment strategies do not capture those 
mechanisms. For that reason, our review 
of relevant empirical research is limited to 
associations involving scores on structure- 
focused measures, principally the NEO Per -
sonality Inventory—  Revised (NEO-PI-R; 
Costa & McCrae, 1992). Many of these as -
sociations involve facet-level scores, which, 
given their specificity compared to domain- 
level scores, provide a stronger basis for 
theorizing about the role of personality in 