System 82 (2019) 26e38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Stressors, personality and wellbeing among language

teachers
Peter D. MacIntyre a, *, Jessica Ross a, 1, Kyle Talbot b, Sarah Mercer b,
Tammy Gregersen c, Claire Ann Banga d
a
Department of Psychology, Cape Breton University, Sydney, Nova Scotia, B1P 6L2, Canada
b
University of Graz, Liebiggasse 9/HP, A8010, Graz, Austria
c
American University of Sharjah, PO Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
d
University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Doorway 6, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 October 2018
Received in revised form 12 February 2019
Accepted 21 February 2019
Available online 27 February 2019

1. Introduction

Teaching is widely recognized as one of the most stressful professions (Johnson et al., 2005; McIntyre, McIntyre, & Francis,
2017) with high burnout rates across the globe (Byrne, 1999; Farber, 1991; Unterbrink et al., 2007). It is reported that up to 40%
of teachers leave the profession within their first five years (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Language teaching is no exception to
these disturbing professional trends. Piechurska-Kuciel (2011), for instance, argues that the risk of burnout may be even more
severe for language teachers as they suffer from additional unique stressors such as language anxiety (Horwitz, 1996),
frequently unstable job contracts, and insecure working conditions (Mercer, Oberdorfer, & Saleem, 2016; Wieczorek, 2016;
Wieczorek, 2016, 2016). Additionally, while many teachers may face emotional challenges and threats to their senses of
identity or sense of selves, language teachers, and EFL teachers in particular, may be at risk if they are living and working in a
foreign country (Cowie, 2011). As such, language teaching has been described as “a profession in crisis” (Hiver & Do €rnyei,
2017).
There is very little research available that investigates language teachers' psychological health (for exceptions, see Mercer
& Kostoulas, 2018; Talbot & Mercer, 2018; Hiver, 2017), which is surprising given how central teachers' wellbeing is to their
ability to teach to their full potential. There is a growing body of empirical work that is aiding our understanding of language
teachers’ psychological conditions and what can be done to support teachers. The present study seeks to examine the re-
lationships among personality, stress, and wellbeing in a group of language teachers as part of a larger project examining both
stressors and positive uplifts experienced by language teachers. Data were collected using a survey that contained established
measures of basic personality traits (specifically the Big Five, Goldberg, 1992), a multidimensional measure of wellbeing (the
PERMA Profiler, Butler & Kern, 2016), and a multi-item stress checklist that covered both chronic stressors and specific

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: peter_macintyre@cbu.ca (P.D. MacIntyre), jrross@uwaterloo.ca (J. Ross), kylereadtalbot@gmail.com (K. Talbot), sarah.mercer@uni-graz.
at (S. Mercer), tgregersen@aus.edu (T. Gregersen), C.Banga@sms.ed.ac.uk (C.A. Banga).
1
Present Address: Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.013
0346-251X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38 27

stressful life events (Jones & Bright, 2001). The measures were included as part of a longitudinal study using the experience
sampling method (ESM) in which teachers participated via a specially designed smartphone app. The data reported here
represent the first phase of data analysis to establish how personality traits, welling and life stressors relate to each other in a
sample of language teachers. By doing so, we hope to gain insight into general patterns of both potential risk and protective
factors for language teachers.

2. Literature review

2.1. Stress in teaching

Teaching is a stressful occupation. Evidence suggests that teachers in general experience significant amounts of stress that
affect their physical and psychological health (Brown, 2012; Travers & Cooper, 1996; Zurlo, Pes, & Siegrist, 2010). Stress has
been categorized into discrete and continuous categories (Wheaton, 1996). Discrete stressors have primarily been concep-
tualized using the life events approach which contends that significant life changes require adjustment and adaptation
(Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Alternatively, continuous stressors, or daily hassles, have been defined as the, “irritating, frustrating,
distressing demands that to some degree characterise everyday transactions with the environment” (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer,
& Lazarus, 1981, p. 3). Continuous stressors can also be conceptualized as chronic permeations of a particular lifestyle (Jones &
Bright, 2001). It has been suggested that the daily hassles approach is the most predictive of wellbeing (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984), but different types of stress interact in various ways. For instance, Jones and Bright (2001) suggest that the prevalence
of life event stressors can increase the number of daily hassles experienced. In another study, Serido, Almeida, and
Wethington (2004) found that chronic stressors and daily hassles are distinct and that chronic stressors act to mediate
daily hassles and psychological distress. We, therefore, opted to measure life event stressors, chronic stressors, and daily
hassles under the assumption that the interaction between the three levels of stressors would provide a more holistic view of
the diverse types of stressors experienced by the language teachers in our study.
Some studies have suggested that teaching is in fact one of the more stressful professions. In a study comparing the
experience of work-related stress across a variety of professions, Johnson et al. (2005) found that teachers experienced lower
than average levels of psychological health, physical health, and job satisfaction. As a social profession, teaching requires
constant interaction with other people including pupils, parents, other teachers, support staff, school administration, and
others. With such diversity of interests, the potential for interpersonal conflicts is ever-present (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).
Other teacher stressors include time pressure, heavy workload, role conflict and ambiguity, and administrative duties (Travers
& Cooper, 1996). Teachers also have the responsibility of making important evaluations and decisions that carry a variety of
potential consequences for both themselves and their pupils (Kyriacou, 2001).
The prevalence of stressors for teachers may increase their susceptibility for burnout. Mearns and Cain (2003) describe
burnout as, “the syndrome of cynicism and emotional exhaustion that is a response to chronic stress, particularly in jobs
where individuals work with people” (p. 72). For teachers, burnout has been linked to negative outcomes including career
dissatisfaction and impaired occupational functioning (Burke, Greenglass, & Schwarzer, 1996).
Language teaching in particular has its share of additional stressors such as teaching internationally, cultural differences
between teacher and pupils, high emotional labor costs (King, 2016), negativity arising from perceiving the state of the
profession as precarious (Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018), uncertain work conditions and/or feelings of job insecurity (Mercer et al.,
2016), and teaching a language that the teacher might themselves still be learning and feel anxious about using (Horwitz,
1996). Hence, language teaching can lead to a range of challenges that may be especially acute compared to the teaching
of other subjects.
The wellbeing of teachers has repercussions for their quality of instruction and learner success (Day & Gu, 2009;
Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2008) as well as their own life satisfaction (Kieschke & Schaarschmidt,
2008; Woolfolk Hoy, 2008), it is critically important to understand the nature of language teacher wellbeing, how they
cope with the stresses and strains of being a language educator, and what factors may mediate these relationships. Only when
we better understand these processes can the profession as a whole take informed action to more proactively support lan-
guage educators and their wellbeing, not only for their own sake, but also for the benefit of the learners whom they teach.

2.2. Wellbeing and positive psychology

One potentially useful perspective from which to study teacher well-being is through the lens of positive psychology
(MacIntyre, Gregersen, & Mercer, 2019). Positive psychology is providing a long list of novel topics (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014)
and theoretical frameworks (Oxford, 2016) for second language studies. Positive psychology is a relatively new subfield of
psychology devoted to the scientific study of how people thrive (Peterson, 2006). Its primary aim is to help people live
happier, more fulfilling lives by focusing on what goes well in life. A core concept within positive psychology is subjective
wellbeing (SWB), which is traditionally measured by three core components: life satisfaction, a lack of negative emotions, and
the presence of positive emotions (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003). Although this definition has been widely used in research, it
covers only one perspective on what wellbeing encompasses. A leading proponent of positive psychology, Martin Seligman
(2011), explains the evolution of his own thinking about positive psychology:
28 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38

I used to think that the topic of positive psychology was happiness, that the gold standard for measuring happiness was
life satisfaction, and that the goal of positive psychology was to increase life satisfaction. I now think that the topic of
positive psychology is well-being, that the gold standard for measuring well-being is flourishing, and that the goal of
positive psychology is to increase flourishing. (p. 13)
The resulting framework to describe the meaning of flourishing is captured by the acronym PERMA which stands for
Positive Emotion, Engagement, Positive Relationships, Meaning and Accomplishment (Seligman, 2011). The first element,
positive emotion, includes pleasure, warmth, and comfort. As these are pleasant experiences, they can be part of flourishing,
but positive emotion is not sufficient to account for a life well lived. Engagement, the second element, for Seligman, is about
frequently being in a state of flow (see Csikzentmihalyi, 1990) e a state of complete absorption in whatever one is doing. The
third element, positive relationships, was added to the model to capture Seligman's assertion that “… today it is accepted
without dissent that connections to other people and relationships are what give meaning and purpose to life” (2011, p. 17).
Meaning is Seligman's fourth concept and involves having a purpose in life that extends beyond one's self. Finally, accom-
plishment (achievement) is the fifth element of PERMA. Seligman argues that the pursuit of accomplishment often is its own
reward, often extending beyond accumulating wealth or possessions to more generally mean being (very) good at one's
chosen activities.
Researchers are beginning to examine the PERMA framework and develop measures of its dimensions. Butler and Kern
(2016) have developed and tested a 23-item tool to measure wellbeing called the ‘PERMA Profiler’ which captures the
multidimensional nature of wellbeing and its complexity. A main goal of the PERMA Profiler is to provide a brief measure that
may be helpful in planning interventions to enhance wellbeing (Kern, Waters, Adler, & White, 2014).
According to Adler and Seligman (2016, p. 1), “the science of wellbeing is empirically mature” and they recommend the use
of PERMA measures by policy makers. With respect to education, a small body of research takes a PERMA perspective in
looking at wellbeing in schools (see, e.g., Kern et al., 2014; Lovett & Lovett, 2016). In Kern et al.‘s (2014) study with 153
teachers at a private school in Australia, the results show a link between wellbeing and physical health, job and general life
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Our purpose is to add to this body of research by taking a more complex,
multidimensional perspective on wellbeing based on the PERMA model in the specific and under-researched context of
language education.

2.3. Teacher personality traits

In the literature on personality and employment broadly defined, there is considerable evidence linking certain person-
ality traits with success in the workplace. For example, studies have linked personality traits to specific aspects of job per-
formance including organizational citizenship (Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011), absenteeism (Ones, Viswesvaran, &
Schmidt, 2003), performance motivation (Judge & Ilies, 2002), work engagement (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008), and
counter-productive work behavior (Grijalva & Newman, 2015), all of which are relevant to teaching contexts. The sum of the
available evidence suggests that personality is related in meaningful ways to key positive and negative behaviours in the
workplace.
The Big Five model is the most widely accepted taxonomy of basic personality traits (Goldberg, 1992), an empirically
derived set of descriptors of the major factors or dimensions of personality. Derivation of the five factors started with the
lexical hypothesis which states that major personality traits that differentiate one person form another will be encoded in
words across languages (Allport & Odbert, 1936). Factor analysis of multiple data sets converges on a similar set of five basic
personality dimensions (Goldberg, 1992). Though there has been some debate concerning the details of the Big Five (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Mount & Barrick, 1998), criticism of its development (Block, 2010), and research to expand the number of factors
(Ashton, Lee & de Vries, 2014), the level of acceptance from personality psychologists and others has led to the Big Five
becoming the default description of major personality traits long sought by researchers in the field (John, Angleitner, &
Ostendorf, 1988). The Big Five personality traits include the following:

1. Introversion: extraversion: sometimes called surgency, combines sociability and activity.

2. Agreeableness: reflects likability or friendliness.
3. Conscientiousness: incorporates a combination of dependability and volition.
4. Neuroticism/emotional stability: reflects the tendency to react emotionally versus the tendency to remain calm in the face
of stress.
5. Intellect/Openness to experience: the most controversial of the big five, with some authors referring to the factor as Culture,
Intellect or Sophistication.

These traits are best interpreted on a bipolar continuum rather than as mutually exclusive categories. For example, most
individuals would not be purely introverted or extraverted, but possess some blend of the two. The more extraverted a
language teacher is, relative to others, the more their behavior reflects sociability, surgency, and the other traits on the ex-
traverted end of the continuum.
Yet, despite the strong evidence from general occupational psychology on the role of personality factors in understanding
performance and wellbeing at work, there remains very little research adopting this perspective in education more generally
 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38 29

and in language education specifically. However, the notion that teacher personality is related to their effectiveness as ed-
ucators has been in the literature for many years (see, for example, Barr, 1952). Klassen and Tze (2014) note that
(r)esearch centering on the role of personality traits in business settings shows promise … however, in education, the
evidence for links between personality traits and teaching has been modest, with research hampered by weak con-
ceptual frameworks linking personality traits and teaching effectiveness. (p. 60)
In language education, researchers have examined other specific personality-related traits, such as teachers’ trait
emotional intelligence (Dewaele, Gkonou, & Mercer, 2018; Dewaele & Mercer, 2018), resilience (Kostoulas & La €mmerer, 2018),
signature strengths (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2018), and teacher immunity (Hiver & Do € rnyei, 2017). Yet, empirical studies
employing the well-established Big Five perspective are notable by their absence.
Our interest in teachers' personalities is further connected to the body of work suggesting that personality and SWB are
connected (e.g., Gonza lez Gutie
rrez, Jimenez, Herna ndez, & Puente, 2005; Steel, Schmidt & Schulz, 2008). For teachers,
personality is related to both their reaction to stress and to their sense of wellbeing. For example, in a sample of Croatian pre-
school and primary teachers, Tatalovi c Vorkapic and Peloza (2017) found a number of significant correlations between the Big
Five and measures of teacher happiness, optimism, and life satisfaction. Everyday interactions in the language classroom
require teachers to deal with a broad range of interpersonal issues and a continually changing set of dynamic circumstances
and issues (Ehrman & Do €rnyei, 1998), creating the potential for high levels of stress given the personal investment teachers
tend to make in their work and their learners. In the area of psychopathology, the diathesis-stress model (Zuckerman, 1999)
emphasizes interactions between situational factors at risk for causing stress with personality traits that predispose a person
to being more or less susceptible to such stressors. Differing personality-based sensitivities can lead to individual differences
in what is perceived to be stressful and the ways in which coping efforts operate. Using Hiver and Dornyei's (2017) immunity
metaphor, some teachers are immune to the effects of certain stressors because of their personality, while others with a
weakened or compromised immune system experience increased risk concerning negative consequences from stress.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

A total of 47 teachers, recruited by email from an international online EFL/ESL teacher listserv, participated in the present
study (40 female, 7 male). The majority of participants were between the ages of 25e34 (n ¼ 20). There was a wide range of
teaching experience from less than three years to 32 or more. The most common teaching context was university/tertiary,
with several individuals currently teaching in more than one of these contexts (n ¼ 14), and often in more than one location
(n ¼ 21). Participants reported a wide range of weekly hours spent working (8e60 h), with almost all (n ¼ 43) reporting that
they have additional professional responsibilities beyond teaching. Demographic information is presented in Table 1.
The diverse sample of EFL teachers reported speaking 20 different L1s (with n ¼ 17 listing English as their L1), from 17
different nationalities (including n ¼ 10 originally from the USA), currently living in 22 different countries (with Austria and
Serbia being the most frequently reported, with 6 participants each). In terms of self-reported language proficiency, 14 people
were teaching their L1, 19 participants reported ‘near native like’ proficiency, 10 teachers indicated ‘advanced’ level profi-
ciency, and the remaining four participants selected ‘upper intermediate.’

3.2. Materials

The study was conducted using a specially designed smartphone app eMoodie (www.eMoodie.com). The app presented
established survey measures to assess both the Big Five and PERMA, as well as questions to assess perceived teacher stressors
and demographic information.

1 Big-Five Factor Markers: To measure individual personality traits, participants completed an established 50-item Inter-
national Personality Item Pool (IPIP) inventory, based on Goldberg's (1992) personality markers. The scale measures five
traits, with 10 items each, except for emotional stability which had one item removed during the analysis (see below). For
each item, the participants were asked to rate how often they agree with the statement on a 5-point Likert response scale;

Table 1
Demographic Information on the Sample.

Age Group Teaching context Contract status Years Experience

18-24 (n ¼ 2) University/tertiary (n ¼ 24) 1-3 (n ¼ 10) tenure/tenure track (n ¼ 21)
25-34 (n ¼ 20) High school/secondary (n ¼ 17) 4-6 (n ¼ 10) full-time permanent or yearly contract (n ¼ 11)
35-44 (n ¼ 11) elementary/primary (n ¼ 11) 7-18 (n ¼ 10) temporary (n ¼ 8)
45-54 (n ¼ 11) middle school (n ¼ 4) 19-31 (n ¼ 9) freelance (n ¼ 3)
55-64 (n ¼ 3). community college (n ¼ 2) Other levels (n ¼ 8) 32þ (n ¼ 8) part-time (n ¼ 1)
More than one context (n ¼ 14) other (n ¼ 3)
30 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38

with 1 indicating “almost never” and 5 indicating “almost always”. Cronbach alpha coefficients are presented in the results
section.
2 PERMA Profiler (Butler & Kern, 2016): This scale is a 23-item survey with 15 main items and 8 other items that the authors
note may be used whether as filler items or be analyzed on their own. The present study uses all items allowing for a 3-
item measure of each of the PERMA dimensions: positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and
accomplishment. In addition, there are three-item measures of two additional variables, negative emotion and health,
along with single-item indicators of overall happiness and loneliness. Cronbach alpha coefficients for these variables are
presented in the results section.
3 Stressors: This study took account of two partially distinct types of stressors: 1) chronic stressors (e.g., insufficient income,
heavy workload), and 2) stressful life events (e.g., change in employment, conflict at work). Life event stressors were
influenced by Jones and Bright (2001, pp. 21e24) and Holmes and Rahe’s (1967, p. 213) social readjustment rating scale.
The multi-item checklist for chronic stressors was also adapted from Jones and Bright (2001, pp. 26e27).

3.3. Procedure

Participants were contacted via various online networks and asked to participate in an ESM study about the factors that
cause them stress and positivity in their daily lives as language educators. The participants were informed that in addition to
daily ESM surveys, they would be asked to fill out additional questionnaires including one soliciting demographic infor-
mation, the Big 5, and the PERMA Profiler.
Recruitment for the study included a link to a video that explained the study in detail (https://bit.ly/2SscO6d), told par-
ticipants what they would be asked to do (e.g., fill out questionnaires and daily surveys), the criteria needed for participation
(e.g., working as a language teacher, smartphone, cellular service), and how to end their participation if they so desired.
Participants completing 80% of the daily surveys and all questionnaires were entered into a raffle for one of three $20
Amazon gift cards. As further reciprocity, the research team agreed to send individualized feedback to each participant based
on their responses to the Big 5 and PERMA Profiler questionnaires on request. Interested individuals were asked to send an
email expressing their interest to an address created specifically for this study. After the emails were received, participants
were sent a unique ID number and password and given further information. Only one member of the research team
responded to correspondence sent to the study's email account. As such, all other members of the research team knew the
participants only by their unique ID numbers. The email addresses and names of the participants were never inputted into the
app itself. The participants were encouraged to ask questions about the study throughout and to contact the research team
should they face any technical issues. The participants were also informed that the app was built to collect additional
quantitative usage data (i.e., phone memory, location data, accelerometer, etc.), but that they did not need to enable these
permissions to participate, nor would that information be looked at by the research team at any time if the permissions were
granted.

4. Results and discussion

The results of the data analysis are laid out in the next seven sections. The first analysis examines the reliability and
normality of the various scales of the Big Five and PERMA profiler to assess whether to use parametric or non-parametric
statistical analyses. Next, we provide the correlations of the Big Five and PERMA profiler measures separately. After that,
the correlations between personality, stress, and PERMA dimensions are presented and followed by the frequency of indi-
vidual stressors and their correlations with personality and wellbeing. For continuity, results are discussed as they are pre-
sented, followed immediately with discussion.

4.1. Assessing reliability and normality of the measures

There are a number of methods available to assess scale reliability; most common among them is Cronbach's coefficient
alpha. The assumptions underlying Cronbach's alpha are restrictive and might lead to underestimating the reliability of
measurement (McNeish, 2018), but the use of coefficient alpha remains defensible (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2019). Cron-
bach's alpha is used in the present study to allow straightforward comparison with reliability estimates from previous
studies with much larger samples. Table 2 presents the Cronbach alpha reliabilities obtained for the items on the various
scales and for comparison purposes, Cronbach alpha reliabilities from previous studies are also provided. One of the items on
the emotional stability scale produced a low item-total correlation (r < 0.15) and was eliminated from further analysis.
Overall, the reliabilities are acceptable, with the exception of the Accomplishment measure from the PERMA profiler as
noted below.
In general, reliabilities are consistent between the comparison studies and the present sample, despite the much larger
sample sizes of the comparison studies. The exception is the Accomplishment subscale which included one item that showed
small, non-significant, negative correlations with the other two items (r ¼ 0.08 and 0.03). Eliminating this item produces a
more acceptable Cronbach's alpha of .68 for the remaining two items. However, the two-item and three-item measures of
 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38 31

Table 2
Reliabilities.

# items Cronbach's Alpha (present sample, comparison)

Extraversion 10 .85; .87a
Agreeableness 10 .74; .82 a
Conscientiousness 10 .68; .79 a
Emotional Stability 9 .85; .86 a
Intellect 10 .78; .84 a
Positive Emotions 3 .76; .88b
Engagement 3 .64; .72 b
Relationships 3 .90; .82 b
Meaning 3 .81; .90 b
Accomplishment 3 .43; .79 b
Negative Emotions 3 .68; .71 b
Health 3 .93; .92 b
Overall Wellbeing 16 .90; .94 b

Comparison reliabilities from.

a
IPIP (2018) and.
b
Butler and Kern (2016) are in italics.

accomplishment correlate at r ¼ 0.95; because there are so few items and for consistency across samples, the item will be
retained in subsequent analyses.
Tests for normality of the distribution of scores were conducted to determine whether to use parametric correlations
(Pearson's r) or non-parametric correlations (Spearman rank order r). Five of the variables (relationships, meaning, health,
agreeableness, and overall wellbeing) produced a significant negative skew with z-values (skewness/SE skewness) lower than
1.96. No variables were positively skewed. The Shapiro-Wilk test for normality indicated that all of the skewed variables
(except overall wellbeing) showed a significant deviation from normal distribution, as did the scores for loneliness and both
stress scores. Given the deviations from normality, non-parametric tests are preferred. Therefore, Spearman rank-order
correlations will be presented in the analyses below. Finally, we are performing a large number of non-independent tests
of the significance of the correlations. Therefore, in the tables below, we present information on significance testing showing
both p < .05 and the more conservative p < .01 and suggest that readers use caution when interpreting correlations significant
at the former p-value.

4.2. Correlations within the big five measures

The Big Five are designed to be orthogonal factors; that is, relatively independent of each other. The correlations among the
Big Five in the present study support the notion that they are independent. Only emotional stability shows significant cor-
relations with agreeableness and conscientiousness (see Table 3).

4.3. Correlations within the PERMA profiler

As with the Big Five, the dimensions of the PERMA framework were conceived as independent contributions to
wellbeing. However, the correlations obtained in the present study do not support the purported independence of
the PERMA dimensions as assessed by the PERMA profiler (see Table 4). For comparison, the correlations reported
by the authors of the PERMA profiler are reported in the italicized, triangular upper portion of the table. Direct com-
parison of the results from significance testing is potentially problematic because of the substantial differences in sample
sizes between the present study (n ¼ 47) and the standardization sample (based on minimum n ¼ 6791), as well as the
use of Spearman correlations in the present study as opposed to average Pearson correlations in the standardization
study.
There are 10 correlations among the five PERMA constructs and nine of those 10 correlations are significant in the present
sample; all of them are significant and substantial in the comparison sample. Neither the present data nor the standardization
sample support the independence of the concepts defining the PERMA framework. For this reason, discussion of the re-
lationships among wellbeing, personality and stressors will treat PERMA as a total score rather than discussing each of its
elements separately. Nevertheless, these results raise questions for further research in this area about how the

Table 3
Spearman Correlations within The Big Five.

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientious Intellect

Agreeableness .14
Conscientious -.19 .13
Intellect .16 .12 .19
Emotional Stability .08 .34* .34* -.02

NOTE: *p < .05.

32 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38

Table 4
Correlations within PERMA profiler.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Pos Emotion e .59 .61 .69 .61 -.49 .36 .83 -.40
2. Engagement .46** e .52 .68 .65 -.34 .31 .80 -.29
3. Relation .57** .22 e .65 .56 -.42 .34 .81 -.55
4. Meaning .58** .39** .59** e .74 -.45 .37 .90 -.42
5.Accomplish .51** .36* .36* .49** e -.43 .41 .84 -.36
6.Neg Emotion -.64** -.23 -.46** -.51** -.28 e -.28 -.52 .41
7.Health .58** .33* .42** .29* .41* -.25 e .43 -.23
8. Wellbeing .84** .57** .75** .76** .67** -.54** .68** e -.49
9. Loneliness -.33* .04 -.39** -.36** -.20 .67** .001 -.29* e

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01. Correlations below the diagonal are Spearman rank-order correlations from the present sample; for comparison, italicized cor-
relations above the diagonal are the average Pearson correlations reported by Butler and Kern (2016) for the PERMA profiler.

multidimensionality of wellbeing is measured. In the sections to follow, we present the correlations of both a total score for
PERMA and its elements for completeness, but readers are cautioned to keep the overlap among PERMA concepts in mind
when interpreting the correlations.

4.4. Correlations among teacher wellbeing and personality

The total PERMA wellbeing score for the language teachers correlates significantly with four of the five personality
dimensions of the Big Five; only extraversion fails to correlate with teacher wellbeing (see Table 5). The strongest
correlations with total PERMA wellbeing scores (r > 0.40) are observed for agreeableness and emotional stability, the
two most explicitly emotion-focused traits. Teaching is an occupation that requires constant interpersonal contact
with learners who may be struggling, frustrated, and anxious. Personality traits that predispose a teacher to be kind
and emotionally composed appear to be associated more specifically with both positive emotion and finding meaning in
life. Both meaning and self-rated health correlate significantly with four of the Big Five personality traits. It is not sur-
prising that personality and wellbeing are inter-correlated along multiple dimensions expectations given the bi-
directionality and mutually defining nature of relational quality (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Lucas, Dyrenforth, &
Diener, 2008).
Two other traits, conscientiousness and intellect/openness to experience, correlate significantly with overall wellbeing
(r > 0.30). Both of these traits also correlate significantly with the measure of accomplishment, suggesting more conscientious
and open teachers perhaps have a greater sense of successfully pursuing their goals and managing their responsibilities.
Further, conscientiousness correlates with both engagement and meaning. In a teaching context, it makes sense that
conscientiousness might be associated with a sense of engagement in which teachers may get absorbed in their teaching,
working with pupils and losing track of time during class, and also when engaged in preparation of lessons. Similarly, Tardy
and Snyder (2004) explained how EFL teachers described experiencing flow when they felt that learning was occurring in
their classrooms. Further, conscientiousness is associated with the sense of finding meaning and purpose, having a direction
that one wishes to follow. Conscientiousness has consistently been reported as a predictor of employment success and
positive job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Lin, Ma, Wang, & Wang, 2014; Stewart,
1999), and the correlations reported here suggest that conscientiousness also might also facilitate a sense of wellbeing,
engagement, and meaning among language teachers.

4.5. What are teachers’ stressors and stressful events?

The participants checked a list of stressors that they reported experiencing at the time of the study. All participants re-
ported experiencing at least one stressor, 11 participants reported two stressors, 10 participants reported three stressors, 8
participants reported four and five stressors, and the remaining five participants reported six or more stressors. The nature of

Table 5
Spearman Correlations e Big Five and PERMA Profiler.

Extraver. Agreeable Conscientious Intellect Emot_Stab

PERMA total .19 .40** .33* .30* .53**
Positive Emo .11 .39** .23 .06 .59**
Engagement .06 .28 .36* .29* .35*
Relationships -.01 .37** .19 .06 .28
Meaning .21 .40** .30* .30* .45**
Accomplishment .23 .15 .37* .38** .27
Negative Emo -.04 -.19 -.19 .12 -.56**
Health .29* .34* .28 .34* .31**
Loneliness .06 -.10 -.06 -.05 -.35*

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.

 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38 33

Table 6
Chronic Stressors.

Frequency Percent
(/47)
Heavy Workload 28 59.6
Financial Stress 26 55.3
Long/Irregular Hours 23 48.9
Lack of Control at Work 16 34.0
Physical Problem 14 29.8
Role Conflict 13 27.7
Family Problems 10 21.3
Loneliness 9 19.1
Responsibility as a Caregiver 8 17.0
Mental Illness 5 10.6
Relationship Problems 5 10.6
Other long-term stressor (e.g., long commute to work, work/study 5 10.6
balance, volunteer position w. teachers' union, etc.)

Table 7
Life Event Stressors (within the past year).

Frequency Percent
(/47)
Financial difficulties 21 44.7
Change in living situation 15 31.9
Change in employment 13 27.7
Death of friend or family 9 19.1
End of a relationship 9 19.1
Serious personal illness/injury 6 12.8
Family dispute 6 12.8
Sexual problems 3 6.4
Trouble with authorities 3 6.4
Other notable experience (e.g., elderly parents, children leaving home, 15 31.9
getting married, non-specific stress at work, etc.)

the stressors is reported in Table 6. The most frequently reported stressors were heavy workload, financial difficulties, and
long or irregular hours of work.
Life event stressors are a second way of conceptualizing stress. These stressors are characterized by a change in an
individual's life that they must adapt to (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Jones & Bright, 2001). No participant reported zero
stressful events. Almost half the sample (22 participants) reported only one stressful event, 7 participants reported two
events, 11 participants reported three events, 6 reported experiencing four stressful events, and the two remaining
participants reported five stressful events in the past year. The most frequent type of stressful event involved financial
difficulties, followed by changes in living situations, and changes in employment. Table 7 presents the list of stressful
events.

4.6. Correlations of personality with stressors and stressful events

The correlations between the Big Five and total number of stressors in each category are presented in Table 8. Of the ten
correlations, only two are significant. Considering first the number of chronic stressors, the only trait showing significant
correlation is Agreeableness. The negative correlation might reflect the tendency for friendly, cooperative teachers to build
interpersonal relationships that buffer chronic stress (Laursen, Pulkkinen, & Adams, 2002), or possibly that chronic stress
reduces a teacher's level of agreeableness. The number of stressful events showed only one significant correlate among the
Big Five, emotional stability. This correlation might reflect a tendency for emotionally volatile persons to react more strongly
to negative events and to perceive more of them as stressful. However, overall, given the small number of correlations, there is
not especially strong evidence here for a consistent connection between personality and stress among language teachers in
the present study.

Table 8
Spearman Correlations between Big Five and Stress.

Extra Agreeable Conscientious Intellect Emot_Stab

Number of Chronic Stressors -.07 -.29* -.15 .007 -.26
Number of Stressful Events -.07 -.08 -.23 -.005 -.39**

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.

34 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38

4.7. Correlations of stressors and stressful events with wellbeing

The correlations between wellbeing and stress are presented in Table 9. The number of stressors correlates well with
overall PERMA wellbeing scores, as well as with each of the elements of PERMA and health. The ratings of stressful events
tend to show lower correlations with PERMA measures compared to chronic stressors, except for negative emotions which
correlate similarly with both stress measures. This pattern of results suggests that the connection between stress and
wellbeing observed in prior research is present with our sample of language teachers. As with virtually all correlational
research, the causal direction is not straightforward e on the one hand, increased wellbeing might be a protective factor
against perceiving stressors as significant, as would be reflected in teacher immunity (see Hiver & Do €rnyei, 2017). On the
other hand, it is possible that accumulating stressors take a toll on teacher wellbeing. It seems most plausible to propose a
bidirectional relationship between wellbeing and perceived stressors, or even a threshold beyond which immunity factors
can no longer provide protection from the effects of stress build-up. There may be a role for other mediating but unassessed
factors, such as individual characteristics (e.g., training and experience), context (e.g., family circumstances and school
setting), and other supports or constraints (e.g., mentoring and teacher autonomy) that might affect the relationship between
wellbeing and stress.

4.8. General discussion and limitations

The data here suggest that, although stress is negatively correlated with language teachers’ wellbeing, certain personality
traits can help support wellbeing and, in particular, those traits connected to the emotional dimensions of personality. The
literature reviewed above supports the impression of a profession in crisis (Hiver & Do € rnyei, 2017), of teachers being over-
worked and underpaid and suffering from a range of stressors. The present data highlight the potential benefits for the
profession to be gained from a better understanding of how wellbeing can be supported and promoted. The data also reveal
the emotional element to language teaching. In fact, language teaching may comprise a special case within teaching more
generally as it is specifically characterized by high emotionality, personally meaningful content, shifting identities, and issues
surrounding motivation.
One way to help language teachers would be to develop their socio-emotional competences (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki,
Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Nelis, Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, & Hansenne, 2009). Teachers typically engage in a large amount of
emotion work in classrooms and there is a notable body of work on the emotional labour that teachers have to engage in
(Kinman, Wray, & Strange, 2011). When issues of language, identity, and interpersonal communication are involved for
language students and/or teachers themselves, the amount of emotional labour and investment is likely to be even higher
(King, 2016). As such, developing the emotional dimensions of personality implicated in the present data, such as being
courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, kind, empathic and tolerant, along with emotional stability
and a lack of anxiety, could all be effective in promoting wellbeing for teachers. Given that socio-emotional competences can
be improved through judicious use of proven interventions (Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Nelis et al., 2009), avenues for
enhancing language teachers’ workplace wellbeing certainly exist.
Specific techniques for developing socio-emotional competencies, for example cognitive reappraisal or defensive pessi-
mism (Gross, 1998; Gregersen, MacIntyre, & Macmillan, in press; Talbot & Mercer, 2018), can be used by language teachers.
Consciously learning effective emotion regulation strategies (Gross & John, 2003) could be another way to help teachers
develop the characteristics reflected in personality traits such as emotional stability and agreeableness, supporting prior work
that highlights the importance of emotional intelligence in managing professional roles (Dewaele & Mercer, 2018). Stressors
are an inevitable part of life more generally and of language teaching specifically but it is possible to boost an individual's
sense of wellbeing. Indeed, a number of positive psychology interventions have been developed and tested that might be
used, or adapted for use, in language teaching contexts as another way of creating a buffer against the negative effects of stress
(Duckworth, Steen, & Seligman, 2005; Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009).
The present data also reveal the kinds of stressors that teachers report experiencing. Approximately half the sample re-
ported long and irregular working hours, financial pressures, and a heavy workload – issues which indeed affect many other
occupations. In addition, the lack of job security for some early career teachers can be especially stressful, and we see evidence

Table 9
Spearman Correlations between Stress and Wellbeing.

Number of Chronic Stressors Number of Stressful Life Events

PERMA Total -.47** -.25
Positive Emotions -.55** -.34*
Engagement -.30* -.38**
Relationships -.44** -.22
Meaning -.31* -.24
Accomplishment -.35* .04
Negative Emotions .39** .42**
Health -.36* -.10
Loneliness .15 .23

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.

 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38 35

here that even experienced teachers often are working in more than one school. The stressors can be enhanced when teachers
have blurry boundaries between their personal and work domains, both physically (often working at home) and in terms of
time and thought dedicated to work (Day & Gu, 2010). Research on work/border theory (Clark, 2000) shows the strain that
can be caused by the spillover in various forms for work and home life. Perhaps teachers can be supported in learning how to
create suitable boundaries to reduce the stress caused by the long and irregular working hours. The heavy workload and
financial recompense are issues that institutions and professions would be wise to address given that language teaching is a
job that is stressful and carries considerable responsibility.
Two other frequent sources of stress in the present data are a perceived lack of control and role conflict. Many teachers
complain about keeping up with pedagogical innovations and administration demands imposed upon them (Saha & Dworkin,
2009). Although there is diversity in education systems, teachers often are characterized as having considerable autonomy
within their actual classrooms (Davies & Jenkins, 2013). These data raise questions about whether teachers’ perceptions of
autonomy possibly are eroded by expectations and regulations imposed by school administrators. Given the importance of a
sense of personal control and efficacy for wellbeing (Grob, 2003), this finding is especially important to investigate in more
depth in future research.
There currently exists a great “disparity between what we know about the importance of teachers and how we treat
them” (Allen & Sims, 2018, p. 4). Teachers too often are the neglected stakeholder in language education and little research
attention has been devoted to understanding their needs, motivations, and wellbeing. As such, a greater focus on their
wellbeing is necessary for teachers’ own sake e that is reason enough - but also for the sake of their learners (Frenzel,
Goetz, Lüdtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009). The quality of learning depends to a large extent on teachers and their actions
in their classes (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006; Day & Gu, 2009). A satisfied
teacher with a positive sense of professional identity is a more effective teacher (Sammons et al., 2007). Having so little
understanding of how or why language teachers flourish or flounder in their professional roles represents a notable gap in
the research landscape.
The present study has a number of limitations. The data were collected as the first part of a longer-term, international
study of personality, wellbeing, stressors and uplifts for language teachers, using the experience sampling method. We have
limited the present study to stressors that are broadly applicable, not necessarily teaching-related stressors. The intensive
nature of the study meant that there was a significant time commitment to participate which might have limited the sample
size. The international sample is diverse but non-random, and the sample size is relatively small making it difficult in the
present data to statistically compare the personality, wellbeing and stress data across demographic groups, regions, or
teaching contexts. We note that a larger sample would be desirable, especially to address questions related to the relationship
of teaching contexts to stress. Given the recruiting strategy used here it is not possible to generalize the results to all language
teachers. However, there is a consistency between estimates of reliability and correlations obtained in the present study and
those from prior studies with very large samples (see Tables 2 and 4 for comparison), lending some confidence in the stability
of the correlations obtained here.
A second limitation is the brevity of the PERMA profiler, specifically the small number of items per scale. The overall, 23-
item measure of wellbeing produced acceptable Cronbach's alpha reliability (0.90), as did most of the three-item subscales,
the measure of Achievement was noticeably affected by a single item with low, negative correlations with the other two
items. In field studies such as this one, researchers must strike a balance between the fidelity of measurement, which suggests
having more items is preferable, and demands on participants' time, which argues for brief measures. Given that this study is
one of the first in this domain to use the PERMA framework, having a brief but effective measure was deemed preferable.
Future studies might use a measure of PERMA with more items (for example, see Kern et al., 2014) to produce a more fine-
grained analysis of the dimensions of teacher wellbeing.

5. Conclusion

This paper set out to explore the relationships between language teachers’ wellbeing, perceptions of stress, and
personality factors. Although the sample size is small, the insights and questions the study raises are invaluable in
opening up reflection and discussion about this centrally important topic, which has been almost completely neglected in
the field of SLA. This study is one small step towards a greater appreciation of language teacher working conditions,
perceptions of stress, and wellbeing. We hope to have opened the dialogue and thinking about this vital topic. There
remains much work to do and with increasing reports of burnout and mental health problems among language edu-
cators, it is high time this topic became a priority on research agendas across the field and across the globe.

Acknowledgements

This research was facilitate by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities research Council of Canada to Prof Mac-
Intyre and funding provided to Prof Sarah Mercer by the University of Graz.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.013.

36 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38

References

Adler, A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Using wellbeing for public policy: Theory, measurement, and recommendations. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(1),
1e35. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6i1.429.
Allen, R., & Sims, S. (2018). The teacher gap. New York: Routledge.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(211). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. Rev., 18, 139e152.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress,
22, 187e200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company.
Barr, A. S. (1952). The measurement of teacher characteristics and prediction of teaching efficiency. Review of Educational Research, 22(3), 169e174. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1168563.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1e26. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we
go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1&2), 9e30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160.
Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychol. Inq., 21(1), 2e25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10478401003596626.
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 78(3), 367e409. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455e.
Brown, C. G. (2012). A systematic review of the relationship between self-efficacy and burnout in teachers. Educational and Child Psychology, 29(4), 47e63.
Burke, R. J., Greenglass, E. R., & Schwarzer, R. (1996). Predicting teacher burnout over time: Effects of work stress, social support, and self-doubts on burnout
and its consequences. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 9(3), 261e275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809608249406.
Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1e48. https://
doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526.
Byrne, B. M. (1999). The nomological network of teacher burnout: A literature review and empirically validated model. In R. Vandenberghe, & A. M.
Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and Preventing Teacher Burnout (pp. 15e37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511527784.003.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic
achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473e490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140e1166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024004.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747e770. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0018726700536001.
Cowie, N. (2011). Emotions that experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers feel about their students, their colleagues and their work. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27(1), 235e242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.006.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Dacre Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (2012). Improving emotional intelligence and emotional self-efficacy through a teaching intervention for university students.
Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 306e312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.010.
Davies, E., & Jenkins, A. (2013). The work-to-retirement transition of academic staff: Attitudes and experiences. Employee Relations, 35(3), 322e338. https://
doi.org/10.1108/01425451311320503.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2009). Teacher emotions: Well being and effectiveness. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zemblyas (Eds.), Advances in Teacher Emotion Research (pp.
15e31). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2_2.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (Eds.). (2010). The new lives of teachers. London, NY: Routledge.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Mercer, S. (2018). Variation in ESL/EFL teachers' attitudes towards their students. In S. Mercer, & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Teacher psychology in
SLA (pp. 178e195). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54(1), 403e425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81e84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415.
Duckworth, A., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 629e651. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144154.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A
meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405e432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
Ehrman, M. E., & Do €rnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The visible and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Farber, B. A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher
and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 705e716. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014695.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26e42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.4.1.26.
Gonz alez Gutie rrez, J. L., Jime
nez, B. M., Hern
andez, E. G., & Puente, C. P. (2005). Personality and subjective well-being: Big five correlates and demographic
variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1561e1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.015.
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2018). Signature strengths as a gateway to mentoring: Facilitating emergent teachers' transition into language teaching. In
S. Mercer, & A. Kostaulas (Eds.), Language Teacher Psychology (pp. 264e290). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gregersen, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Macmillan, N. (2019). Dealing with the emotions of teaching abroad: Searching for silver linings in a difficult context. In C.
Gkonou, J.-M. Dewaele, & J. King (Eds.), Language Teaching: An Emotional Rollercoaster. Bristol: Multilingual Matters (in press).
Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior (cwb): Meta-analysis and consideration of collectivist culture, big five
personality, and narcissism's facet structure. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 93e126. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12025.
Grob, A. (2003). Perceived control and subjective well-being across nations and across the lifespan. In E. Diener, & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective
well-being (pp. 319e339). MIT Press.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271e299. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1089-2680.2.3.271.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348e362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.
Hiver, P. (2017). Tracing the signature dynamics of language teacher immunity: A retrodictive qualitative modeling study. The Modern Language Journal,
101(4), 669e699. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12433.
Hiver, Phil, & Do €rnyei, Zolt an (2017). Language teacher immunity: A double-edged sword. Appl. Ling., 38(3), 405e423. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/
amv034.
 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38 37

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213e218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
3999(67)90010-4.
Horwitz, E. K. (1996). Even teachers get the blues: Recognizing and alleviating language teachers' feelings of foreign language anxiety. Foreign Language
Annals, 29(3), 365e372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01248.x.
IPIP (International Personality Item Pool. (2018). Administering IPIP Measures, with a 50-Item Sample Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://ipip.ori.org/new_
ipip-50-item-scale.htm.
Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 20(2), 178e187. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579803.
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. Eur. J. Personal., 2(3),
171e203. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020302.
Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, theory and research. Pearson Education.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797e807.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.797.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life
events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 1e39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00844845.
Kern, M. L., Waters, L., Adler, A., & White, M. (2014). Assessing employee wellbeing in schools using a multifaceted approach: Associations with physical
health, life satisfaction, and professional thriving. Psychology, 05(06), 500e513. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.56060.
Kieschke, U., & Schaarschmidt, U. (2008). Professional commitment and health among teachers in Germany: A typological approach. Learning and In-
struction, 18(5), 429e437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.005.
King, J. (2016). “It's time, put on the smile, it's time!”: The emotional labour of second language teaching within a Japanese university. In C. Gkonou, & D.
Tatzl (Eds.), New Directions in Language Learning Psychology (pp. 97e112). Cham: Springer International Publishing. X https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-23491-5_7.
Kinman, G., Wray, S., & Strange, C. (2011). Emotional labour, burnout and job satisfaction in UK teachers: the role of workplace social support. Educational
Psychology, 31(7), 843e856. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.608650.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers' self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59e76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachers' occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of
self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 702e715. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702.
Kostoulas, A., & La €mmerer, A. (2018). Making the transition into teacher education: Resilience as a process of growth. In S. X, & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language
Teacher Psychology (pp. 247e263). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27e35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628.
Laursen, B., Pulkkinen, L., & Adams, R. (2002). The Antecedents and Correlates of Agreeableness in Adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 591e603.
http://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.4.591.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Lin, W., Ma, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2014). A double-edged sword: The moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationships between work stressors,
psychological strain, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 94e111. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1949.
Lovett, N., & Lovett, T. (2016). Wellbeing in education: Staff matter. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 6(2), 107e112. https://doi.org/10.
7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.628.
Lucas, R. E., Dyrenforth, P. S., & Diener, E. (2008). Four myths about subjective well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 2001e2015.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00140.x.
MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2019). Setting an Agenda for Positive Psychology in SLA: Theory, Practice, and Research. The Modern Language
Journal, 103, 262e274.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Mercer, S. (2014). Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 153e172.
McIntyre, T. M., McIntyre, S. E., & Francis, D. J. (Eds.). (2017). Educator stress: An occupational health perspective. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol. Methods, 23(3), 412e433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144.
Mearns, J., & Cain, J. E. (2003). Relationships between teachers' occupational stress and their burnout and distress: Roles of coping and negative mood
regulation expectancies. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 16(1), 71e82. https://doi.org/10.1080/1061580021000057040.
Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language teacher psychology. Blue Ridge Summit. PA: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, S., Oberdorfer, P., & Saleem, M. (2016). Helping language teachers to thrive: Using positive psychology to promote teachers' professional well-being.
In D. Gabrys-Barker, & D. Gałajda (Eds.), Positive Psychology Perspectives on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 213e229). Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32954-3_12.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). The five factor model of personality and performance in jobs that involve interpersonal interaction.
Human Performance, 11, 145e165.
Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional intelligence: (How) is it possible? Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 47(1), 36e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.046.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17(S1),
S19eS38. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.487.
Oxford, R. L. (2016). Toward a psychology of well-being for language learners: The “EMPATHICS” vision. In P. D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.),
Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 10e87). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011). Foreign language teacher burnout: A research proposal. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Extending the boundaries of research on second
language learning and teaching (pp. 211e223). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20141-7_17.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2019). Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educ. Psychol. Meas., 79(1), 200e210. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013164417725127.
Saha, L. J., & Dworkin, A. G. (Eds.). (2009). International handbook of research on teachers and teaching. New York, NY: Springer.
Sammons, P., Day, C., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Stobart, G., & Smees, R. (2007). Exploring variations in teachers' work, lives and their effects on pupils: Key findings
and implications from a longitudinal mixed-method study. British Educational Research Journal, 33(5), 681e701. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01411920701582264.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being (1st Free Press hardcover ed). New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Part of a
Special Issue: Well-Being in Schools, 35(3), 293e311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563.
Serido, J., Almeida, D. M., & Wethington, E. (2004). Chronic stressors and daily hassles: Unique and interactive relationships with psychological distress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(1), 17e33. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500102.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher
burnout. J. Educ. Psychol., 99, 611e625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138e161.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138.
Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(6), 959e968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.959.
38 P.D. MacIntyre et al. / System 82 (2019) 26e38

Talbot, K., & Mercer, S. (2018). Exploring University ESL/EFL Teachers' Emotional Well-Being and Emotional Regulation in the United States, Japan and
Austria. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 410e432. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2018-0031.
Tardy, C. M., & Snyder, B. (2004). “That's why I do it”: Flow and EFL teachers' practices. ELT Journal, 58(2), 118e128. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.118.
Travers, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the teaching profession. London, NY: Routledge.
Unterbrink, T., Hack, A., Pfeifer, R., Buhl-Grießhaber, V., Müller, U., Wesche, H., et al. (2007). Burnout and effortereward-imbalance in a sample of 949
German teachers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80(5), 433e441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-007-0169-0.
Vorkapic, S. T., & Peloza, I. (2017). Exploring personality traits and well-being among pre-school and primary school teachers in Croatia. Curr. Issues Pers.
Psychol., 5(1), 21e31. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2017.65830.
Wheaton, B. (1996). The domains and boundaries of stress concepts. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress: Perspectives on structure, theory, life-course, and
methods (pp. 29e70). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Wieczorek, A. L. (2016). High inhibitions and low self-esteem as factors contributing to foreign language teacher stress. In D. Gabrys-Barker, & D. Gałajda
(Eds.), Positive Psychology Perspectives on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 231e247). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
32954-3_12.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 492e498. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.007.
Zuckerman, M. (1999). Diathesis-stress models. In M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial model (pp. 3e23). Washington:
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10316-001.
Zurlo, M. C., Pes, D., & Siegrist, J. (2010). Validity and reliability of the effort-reward imbalance questionnaire in a sample of 673 Italian teachers. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 83(6), 665e674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-010-0512-8.