**3. Results**

## *3.1. Demographic Characteristics*

The distribution of all sociodemographic variables at T1 is shown in Table 1. On average, participants were 19 years of age, and approximately 67.95% were females. Almost 93.42% of the participants reported that their family monthly income was less than 10,000 RMB (approximately \$1426). With respect to parents' education levels, 83.29% of the fathers and 72.33% of the mothers had at least a junior high school degree. In addition, 1.92% of the fathers and 0.55% of the mothers were either masters or doctorates.


**Table 1.** Sample characteristics for sociodemographic variables at Time 1 (*N* = 365).

Note. *M*: means; *SD*: standard deviations; BMI: body-mass index; SES: socioeconomic status.

#### *3.2. Descriptive and Bivariate Analyses*

Descriptive statistics for the main variables at T1 and T2 are presented in Table 2. Next, a partial correlation analysis was performed with gender, age, BMI, and SES as control variables. As expected, conscientiousness, positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, and physical symptoms at T1 were significantly correlated with those at T2 (*r* = 0.65, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.50, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.46, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.55, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.51, *p* < 0.001), indicating a certain degree of temporal stability separated by 1 year.

**Table 2.** Means and standard deviations for the key variables (*N* = 365).


Note. *M*: means; *SD*: standard deviations.

T1 conscientiousness was significantly correlated with positive affect (*r* = 0.37, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.33, *p* < 0.001), negative affect (*r* = −0.21, *p* < 0.001; *r* = −0.21, *p* < 0.001), life satisfaction (*r* = 0.34, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.28, *p* < 0.001), and physical symptoms (*r* = −0.23, *p* < 0.001; *r* = −0.22, *p* < 0.001) at T1 and T2. Additionally, T2 conscientiousness was significantly correlated with positive affect (*r* = 0.26, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.27, *p* < 0.001), negative affect (*r* = −0.14, *p* = 0.008; *r* = −0.27, *p* < 0.001), life satisfaction (*r* = 0.28, *p* < 0.001; *r* = 0.29, *p* < 0.001), and physical symptoms (*r* = −0.16, *p* = 0.002; *r* = −0.19, *p* < 0.001) at T1 and T2. These findings suggested that both simultaneous and sequential correlations between conscientiousness and well-being were significant, which satisfied the prior assumption of the cross-lagged panel correlation paradigm.

Further results from a set of paired *t* tests showed that: T2 positive affect was significantly lower than T1 positive affect, *<sup>t</sup>*(364) = 2.76, *p* = 0.006, Cohen's *d* = 0.14 (small effect size); T2 life satisfaction was significantly lower than T1 life satisfaction, *<sup>t</sup>*(364) = 5.81, *p* < 0.001, Cohen's *d* = 0.30 (small effect size); conscientiousness, negative affect and physical symptoms did not differ significantly in the two waves (*<sup>t</sup>*(364) = 1.79, *p* = 0.075, Cohen's *d* = 0.09; *<sup>t</sup>*(364) = −0.643, *p* = 0.521, Cohen's *d* = 0.03; *<sup>t</sup>*(364) = 0.621, *p* = 0.535, Cohen's *d* = 0.03).

#### *3.3. Cross-Lagged Regression Analyses*

A set of multivariate hierarchical regressions for cross-lagged panel analyses were conducted to examine the mutual predictive relationship between conscientiousness and each aspect of well-being across time. Specifically, variables were entered at 2 steps: (1) gender, age, BMI, SES, and the T1 measure of the outcome variable were entered simultaneously as control variables, and (2) T1 conscientiousness was entered as the predictor variable, along with T2 well-being as the outcome variable (Additional analysis: T1 well-being was entered as the predictor variable, along with T2 conscientiousness as the outcome variable). All continuous variables were standardized before entering the equation. Each regression included a collinearity diagnosis test, indicating no overlap among control variables and predictors (tolerance values were 0.83–0.99). The regression analysis results for T1 conscientiousness predicting subjective and physical well-being at T2 are shown in Table 3.

**Table 3.** Separate regression models for T1 conscientiousness predicting subjective and physical well-being at T2.



Note. T1: time 1; T2: time 2; C: conscientiousness; PA: positive affect; NA: negative affect; LS: life satisfaction; PS: physical symptoms; BMI: body-mass index; SES: socioeconomic status. T1 measure corresponds to PA, NA, LS and PS at T1 in each equation, respectively. \* *p* < 0.05, \*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

With T2 positive affect as the outcome variable, all predictors in the model accounted for 29.00% of the variance. In addition to the contribution of control variables (26.70%), the inclusion of T1 conscientiousness explained an additional 2.30% of the variance, Δ*F* (1,

358) = 11.53, *p* = 0.001. In the other models, likewise, the inclusion of T1 conscientiousness explained 1.40% of the variance in T2 negative affect (Δ*F* (1, 358) = 6.61, *p* = 0.011), 1.00% of the variance in T2 life satisfaction (Δ*F* (1, 358) = 5.49, *p* = 0.020), and 1.00% of the variance in T2 physical symptoms (Δ*F* (1, 358) = 5.01, *p* = 0.026), respectively. These findings suggested that after controlling for the effects of gender, age, BMI, SES and baseline values, T1 conscientiousness significantly predicted T2 positive affect, T2 negative affect, T2 life satisfaction, and T2 physical symptoms, respectively.

Additionally, the regression analysis results for T1 well-being predicting T2 conscientiousness are shown in Table 4. These findings suggested that the predictive effects of subjective and physical well-being at T1 on T2 conscientiousness were not statistically significant. In addition to the contribution of control variables, the contributions of subjective and physical well-being at T1 to the variance of T2 conscientiousness were not statistically significant, respectively (positive affect: Δ*R*<sup>2</sup> = 0.001, Δ*F* (1, 358) = 0.48, *p* > 0.05; negative affect: Δ*R*<sup>2</sup> = 0.000, Δ*F* (1, 358) = 0.02, *p* > 0.05; life satisfaction: Δ*R*<sup>2</sup> = 0.004, Δ*F* (1, 358) = 2.28, *p* > 0.05; physical symptoms: Δ*R*<sup>2</sup> = 0.000, Δ*F* (1, 358) = 0.03, *p* > 0.05).

**Table 4.** Separate regression models for subjective and physical well-being at T1 predicting T2 conscientiousness.


Note. T1: time 1; T2: time 2; C: conscientiousness; PA: positive affect; NA: negative affect; LS: life satisfaction; PS: physical symptoms; BMI: body-mass index; SES: socioeconomic status. T1 measure corresponds to PA, NA, LS and PS at T1 in each equation, respectively. \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

As depicted in Figure 1, conscientiousness prospectively predicted subjective and physical well-being, but subjective and physical well-being did not prospectively predict conscientiousness. Based on the recommendations of Orth et al. [54], 0.03 (small effect), 0.07 (medium effect), and 0.12 (large effect) can be used as benchmark values to interpret the size of cross-lagged effects. Thus, the cross-lagged effects (C-T1→PA-T2, C-T1→NA-T2, C-T1→LS-T2, C-T1→PS-T2) found in this study were statistically significant and above the medium effect size level. Consequently, it can be inferred that there may not be a

reciprocal relationship between conscientiousness and subjective and physical well-being in the current sample.

**Figure 1.** Multivariable cross-lagged panel models of (**a**) conscientiousness and positive affect, (**b**) conscientiousness and negative affect, (**c**) conscientiousness and life satisfaction, and (**d**) conscientiousness and physical symptoms. Note: The coefficients beside double arrows are partial correlations and the coefficients beside single arrows are standardized beta coefficients. Solid arrows represent significant paths and dotted arrows represent insignificant paths. The effects of demographic variables (gender, age, body-mass index [BMI], and socioeconomic status [SES]) on predicted variables were not shown for ease of presentation. T1: time 1, T2: time 2 (1 year later), \* *p* < 0.05, \*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.
