Neuroticism and Agreeableness: Conflict, Cooperation, and Emotional Reactivity
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism and agreeableness are two distinct dimensions of the Big Five personality model. Neuroticism describes stable individual differences in negative emotionality, threat sensitivity, distress proneness, and emotional reactivity. Agreeableness describes stable individual differences in compassion, trust, respectfulness, cooperation, and the motivation to maintain workable social relations. A person can be high, low, or intermediate on either trait independently of the other.
The distinction becomes especially useful during interpersonal conflict. Neuroticism is more closely tied to how strongly negative events are experienced and how readily worry, tension, irritation, or distress are activated. Agreeableness is more closely tied to how a person approaches other people: whether cooperation, compromise, trust, consideration, and restraint are favored over antagonistic or dominating tactics. These are tendencies, not scripts. Neither trait determines what a person will do in a particular disagreement.
For the broad personality-science definition of neuroticism, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. This article owns the narrower comparison intent: how neuroticism and agreeableness differ, how they can combine, and what research says about conflict, cooperation, anger, and emotional reactivity. It does not turn the two traits into personality “types,” and it does not treat either trait as a psychiatric diagnosis.
Neuroticism and Agreeableness: The Short Answer
Neuroticism and agreeableness answer different personality questions. Neuroticism asks, in broad terms, how readily and intensely a person tends to experience negative emotion. Agreeableness asks how a person tends to orient toward the interests, intentions, and welfare of other people. High neuroticism does not imply low agreeableness, and low agreeableness does not imply high neuroticism.
In conflict, this often means that neuroticism is relevant to emotional activation while agreeableness is relevant to interpersonal strategy. Someone may feel deeply threatened by conflict yet still behave cooperatively. Someone else may remain emotionally calm while arguing competitively or bluntly. A third person may be both highly reactive and highly confrontational. The Big Five permits all of these combinations because the traits are separate dimensions.
A 2026 systematic review of emotional reactivity across the Big Five found the clearest pattern for neuroticism: greater negative-affect reactivity, stress sensitivity, and slower recovery were among its most consistent correlates. Agreeableness showed a more prosocial pattern with context-dependent negative emotional responses (Nguyen et al., 2026). That difference captures the central theme of this comparison: emotional sensitivity and social cooperation overlap in real life, but they are not the same psychological dimension.
Two Big Five Dimensions, Not Opposite Ends of One Scale
The Big Five model represents personality as several broad dimensions rather than a single good-to-bad continuum. Neuroticism and agreeableness occupy different axes. Their scores can correlate somewhat in particular samples or instruments, but a correlation does not make one trait the reverse of the other. The practical implication is simple: a neuroticism score cannot be used to infer an agreeableness score, and an agreeableness score cannot substitute for a neuroticism measure.
This matters because everyday descriptions often fuse emotion and behavior. Words such as sensitive, difficult, kind, anxious, irritable, conflict-avoidant, compassionate, or argumentative can mix several traits, states, habits, and situational reactions. Personality science separates those ingredients. Neuroticism is not a synonym for hostility. Agreeableness is not a synonym for emotional stability. Emotional stability is conventionally the low-neuroticism pole of the neuroticism dimension, whereas agreeableness is a different Big Five domain.
The same separation is important when anxiety enters the discussion. Neuroticism overlaps with anxious tendencies, but anxiety can refer to a state, a trait, symptoms, or a disorder. The dedicated comparison is Neuroticism vs Anxiety: Personality Trait vs Emotional State and Disorder. Agreeableness is not a clinical anxiety measure, and adding agreeableness to a neuroticism score does not create a diagnostic profile.
Measurement Changes the Language
Any claim about a “high” or “low” profile has to name the instrument or model. Different Big Five measures use different labels, facet structures, item content, scoring methods, and norms. A raw score has no universal meaning outside the scale that produced it, and a percentile is meaningful only relative to the normative or comparison sample used to calculate it.
The Big Five Inventory-2, or BFI-2, labels the neuroticism-like domain Negative Emotionality rather than Neuroticism. It measures three Negative Emotionality facets—Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility—and three Agreeableness facets—Compassion, Respectfulness, and Trust. The instrument was designed as a hierarchical five-domain, 15-facet measure (Soto & John, 2017). Its domain labels and facets should not be silently mapped onto a NEO score, an IPIP score, an Eysenck neuroticism scale, or another questionnaire.
Other hierarchical models divide the broad domains differently. The Big Five Aspect Scales, for example, were developed around two intermediate aspects within each Big Five domain (DeYoung et al., 2007). At this level of analysis, conflict-relevant patterns can depend on which lower-order components are elevated. Broad domain scores are useful summaries, but they can conceal meaningful differences between people who obtain similar totals.
For a full explanation of scale-specific interpretation, norms, percentiles, and why scores are not diagnoses, see Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results.
Why These Traits Matter in Conflict
Interpersonal conflict contains at least two psychologically different problems. One is affective: how much distress, anger, worry, shame, tension, or threat a disagreement evokes. The other is relational and strategic: how a person interprets the other party, which goals matter, and which tactics are considered acceptable. Neuroticism and agreeableness are relevant to both, but their strongest links tend to fall on different sides of that divide.
Classic multimethod work on agreeableness found that people differing in agreeableness evaluated conflict tactics differently. In one study, lower-agreeable participants rated power assertion as a better option than higher-agreeable participants did; an observational conflict task also linked agreeableness to patterns of interpersonal conflict (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). Subsequent diary and multimethod research likewise identified agreeableness as especially relevant to conflict processes and outcomes (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001).
A 2020 meta-analysis of 20 studies with 5,337 participants found a more complicated pattern than the simple claim that agreeable people “avoid conflict.” Agreeableness was positively related to avoiding, compromising, obliging, and integrating styles and negatively related to dominating. Neuroticism was also positively related to avoiding and negatively related to integrating (Dabiriyan Tehrani & Yamini, 2020). The same trait can therefore relate to more than one conflict style, and situation, measurement, and available options matter.
Neuroticism and Emotional Reactivity
Neuroticism is especially relevant to the intensity and persistence of negative emotional responses. This does not mean that every highly neurotic person reacts strongly to every stressor, nor that people lower in neuroticism lack negative emotion. It means that, on average, higher scores are associated with a greater propensity toward negative affective responses across situations.
Daily-life research has long separated two mechanisms: exposure to stressors and reactivity once a stressor occurs. In a six-week diary study of 339 people, both mechanisms contributed to the distress associated with neuroticism, but greater reactivity accounted for more of the difference than greater exposure (Bolger & Schilling, 1991).
More recent ambulatory evidence sharpens the picture. A 2026 meta-analytic path analysis combining five daily-life datasets found that neuroticism was associated with more frequent or intense reported negative events, stronger negative-affect reactivity, and slower recovery. Subjective appraisals of negative events were much more strongly related to neuroticism and affective well-being than objective event occurrence (Wenzel et al., 2026). This supports a model in which what happens, how it is appraised, how strongly emotion rises, and how quickly it subsides are distinct processes.
For the broader evidence on stress exposure, appraisal, reactivity, and recovery, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery.
Agreeableness and Cooperation
Agreeableness is most directly relevant to interpersonal orientation. It encompasses tendencies toward compassion, trust, respect, cooperation, and concern for social harmony, although the exact content depends on the instrument. Higher agreeableness generally shifts the probability of behavior toward cooperative and prosocial options; it does not guarantee compliance, self-sacrifice, passivity, or the absence of firm boundaries.
The broad evidence base is substantial. A quantitative review synthesizing 142 meta-analyses, more than 3,900 studies, and over 1.9 million participants linked agreeableness to themes including relational investment, teamworking, social integration, and self-transcendence (Wilmot & Ones, 2022). A separate meta-analysis of 770 studies showed that links between personality and prosocial behavior depend on the affordances of the situation rather than following one universal effect across all social decisions (Thielmann, Spadaro, & Balliet, 2020).
That situational qualification is essential. Agreeableness changes probabilities and preferences; it does not erase incentives, social roles, power differences, moral convictions, or the behavior of the other person. A highly agreeable person can refuse, criticize, negotiate hard, or end a relationship. A lower-agreeable person can cooperate effectively when goals, norms, or incentives favor cooperation.
A Crucial Finding: Agreeable People Can Still Be Highly Distressed by Conflict
One of the most useful corrections to popular personality stereotypes is that cooperative behavior and emotional comfort are not the same thing. A person can care deeply about maintaining harmony and therefore find interpersonal conflict especially aversive. High agreeableness does not make conflict emotionally painless.
A naturalistic eight-day diary study directly examined agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactions to conflict. Participants higher in agreeableness showed greater subjective distress when they encountered more interpersonal conflicts, whereas neuroticism was associated with a smaller but consistent reactivity to both conflict and nonconflict problems (Suls, Martin, & David, 1998). The result is a useful warning against equating agreeableness with calmness. Caring about social harmony may increase the emotional significance of its disruption.
This also explains why a person can be high in both neuroticism and agreeableness without contradiction. One trait can increase sensitivity to negative emotion while the other increases motivation to preserve relationships. The person may experience substantial internal distress and still choose conciliatory, respectful, or cooperative behavior.
Anger and Aggression: Where the Two Traits Can Interact
Anger is especially informative because it has both an emotional component and an interpersonal-behavioral component. Neuroticism can contribute to negative emotional activation, while agreeableness can be related to how anger is regulated or expressed toward other people. Even here, the evidence does not justify a universal personality formula.
In three relatively small samples totaling 176 participants, Ode, Robinson, and Wilkowski found that neuroticism and agreeableness interacted in predicting trait anger and several aggression outcomes. Neuroticism was more strongly related to anger at lower levels of agreeableness, and the highest anger and aggression scores appeared in the high-neuroticism, low-agreeableness combination (Ode, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2008). The study is useful mechanistic evidence, but its sample size and outcome measures make it a basis for a cautious interaction hypothesis rather than a universal behavioral rule.
Lower-order traits matter here. A broad neuroticism score can contain different mixtures of anxiety, sadness, irritability, self-consciousness, vulnerability, or volatility depending on the instrument. For a model-specific discussion of lower-order neuroticism content, see Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability.
Do Neuroticism and Agreeableness Interact in Every Kind of Conflict?
No. Direct interaction evidence is mixed, and effects can change with age, setting, relationship, outcome, and level of analysis. Some studies find interactions for specific outcomes such as anger. Others find that the two traits contribute largely independently.
A preregistered 2024 study of conflict frequency in adolescent relationships used self-reports and reports from parents and peers. Neuroticism predicted conflict frequency more consistently than agreeableness across the studied relationships, while the researchers found no evidence that neuroticism and agreeableness interacted in predicting conflict frequency (Bleckmann, Wieczorek, & Wagner, 2024). That result does not contradict the anger findings: conflict frequency, anger intensity, conflict tactics, and relationship quality are different outcomes.
Team-level research adds another complication. A team is not an individual, and the average or distribution of traits across members can create patterns that are not reducible to one person's profile. Findings about team composition therefore should not be converted into advice about an individual merely because the same trait names appear in both analyses.
Four Neuroticism–Agreeableness Combinations
It can be useful to think through the four high/low combinations, but these combinations are descriptive heuristics, not validated personality types. “High” and “low” must be defined by a particular instrument and comparison sample, and most people are not located at extreme ends of either distribution. The combinations below describe plausible tendencies supported to different degrees by separate and interaction evidence; they are not predictions of a specific person's behavior.
Higher Neuroticism and Higher Agreeableness
This combination can pair stronger negative emotional reactivity with a stronger orientation toward cooperation and relationship maintenance. During conflict, a person may feel worried, hurt, tense, or preoccupied while still preferring negotiation, accommodation, perspective-taking, or restraint over domination. The Suls diary study is particularly relevant because higher agreeableness did not protect people from conflict-related distress; under some conditions it was associated with more distress when conflict occurred.
A common error is to assume that cooperative behavior reveals low emotional activation. It does not. Someone can regulate outward behavior carefully while experiencing intense inward distress. Conversely, a person who reports strong distress is not thereby demonstrating low agreeableness.
Higher Neuroticism and Lower Agreeableness
This combination can place stronger negative emotional activation alongside a weaker average preference for harmony, trust, or interpersonal accommodation. Some studies of anger and aggression suggest that lower agreeableness can amplify the expression of neuroticism-linked anger, but the evidence is probabilistic and outcome-specific. It does not license labels such as dangerous, toxic, abusive, antisocial, or disordered from two personality scores.
Context remains decisive. Learned conflict skills, moral commitments, relationship goals, culture, incentives, power, fatigue, acute stress, and the other person's behavior can all alter what happens. Personality contributes to a distribution of possible responses; it is not a behavioral verdict.
Lower Neuroticism and Higher Agreeableness
This profile can combine lower average negative emotional reactivity with a stronger cooperative interpersonal orientation. In many ordinary disagreements, that combination may support calm negotiation or repair. Yet low neuroticism does not guarantee empathy, wisdom, or conflict competence, and high agreeableness can carry costs when cooperation becomes excessive accommodation or when necessary disagreement is repeatedly avoided.
The conflict-style meta-analysis is useful here because agreeableness was associated not only with integrative and compromising styles but also with avoidance and obliging. “Cooperative” therefore should not be reduced to a single tactic. Different agreeable people can seek harmony through discussion, compromise, accommodation, disengagement, or other strategies.
Lower Neuroticism and Lower Agreeableness
This combination can pair lower average distress reactivity with a more skeptical, competitive, blunt, or less accommodating interpersonal orientation. Such a person may remain relatively calm while disagreeing forcefully. Emotional calm should not be confused with agreeableness, just as disagreeableness should not be confused with emotional instability.
This combination also illustrates why broad moral interpretations of Big Five scores are weak. Lower agreeableness can sometimes be useful where critical scrutiny, competitive negotiation, or willingness to challenge consensus is required. Outcomes depend on degree, context, goals, and behavior, not on a single trait label.
Why the Four Profiles Are Not Personality Types
The Big Five is dimensional. Turning continuous scores into four boxes discards information, creates artificial thresholds, and encourages overinterpretation. A person at the 49th percentile and a person at the 51st percentile are not meaningfully different “types” merely because a chart places one below and one above a cutoff.
The problem becomes larger when scores come from different instruments. A BFI-2 Negative Emotionality score, a NEO Neuroticism score, an IPIP estimate, and an Eysenck Neuroticism score are related measures built within different systems. The same caution applies to agreeableness. Joint profiles are interpretable only when both dimensions are measured with a known instrument, scoring method, and reference population.
A profile also should not be read as a hidden diagnosis. Personality traits describe normal-range dimensions that extend across the population. Clinical assessment asks different questions about symptoms, duration, impairment, developmental course, differential diagnosis, and context. A different comparison is often discussed under the label “healthy neuroticism”: that hypothesis concerns neuroticism combined with conscientiousness, not agreeableness. See High Neuroticism and High Conscientiousness: Is “Healthy Neuroticism” Real?.
Trait, State, and Situation Should Be Kept Separate
A personality trait is a relatively enduring tendency inferred across many situations. A personality state is how a person is thinking, feeling, or behaving at a particular moment. Conflict can shift states even when broad trait rankings remain relatively stable.
Recent experimental and experience-sampling work illustrates this distinction. In an experiment, induced stress caused participants to report lower state agreeableness and higher state neuroticism, among other momentary personality shifts; daily-life stress showed similar within-person associations for several states (Grayson, Harari, & Matz, 2026). Those findings concern state expression under stress. They do not mean that a stressful argument instantly changes a person's underlying trait score.
This is one reason retrospective self-labeling after a bad conflict can mislead. Feeling unusually anxious, irritable, distrustful, or uncooperative during a stressful hour does not by itself establish high trait neuroticism or low trait agreeableness.
What Neuroticism and Agreeableness Can Tell Us About Relationships
Both traits can matter for relationships, but this article does not own the broad relationship intent. The most defensible use of the pair is to separate emotional processes from interpersonal processes: neuroticism can shape threat appraisal, distress, reactivity, and recovery, while agreeableness can shape trust, cooperation, conflict tactics, and willingness to preserve social harmony.
Relationship outcomes are dyadic. A person's behavior interacts with a partner's personality, behavior, history, and the specific relationship context. For the broader evidence on actor and partner effects, interpretation, stress, relationship satisfaction, and reciprocal processes, see Neuroticism and Relationships: What Research Shows.
The same principle applies outside romantic relationships. Parent-child conflict, friendship conflict, teamwork, and negotiations differ in goals, power, dependence, norms, and costs. A trait effect observed in one setting should not be assumed to reproduce unchanged in another.
What the Pair Does Not Tell You About Mental Health
High neuroticism is associated at the population level with greater vulnerability to multiple forms of psychological distress, but it is not a psychiatric diagnosis. Agreeableness is also a personality trait, not a disorder scale. A high-neuroticism/low-agreeableness profile cannot establish anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, PTSD, ADHD, autism, a personality disorder, or any other clinical condition.
Likewise, anger, interpersonal conflict, avoidance, or low cooperation are not diagnoses. Screening scores are not diagnoses. A Big Five questionnaire cannot replace a clinical assessment when the question concerns a mental disorder.
For the evidence and boundaries around neuroticism as a transdiagnostic risk factor, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor. The relevant distinction is between statistical vulnerability and clinical diagnosis.
How to Interpret a Neuroticism–Agreeableness Profile
Start with the instrument. Confirm that both scores come from the same validated measure or from measures whose relationship is understood. Check whether the report uses raw scores, scale means, standardized scores, percentiles, or norm-referenced categories. Then check the comparison group. A percentile from a general adult sample is not automatically interchangeable with one derived from students, employees, clinical participants, another country, or another age group.
Next, examine lower-order facets if the instrument supports them. Two people with similar domain scores can differ substantially in anxiety, emotional volatility, compassion, trust, respectfulness, anger-related content, or other lower-order traits. Those differences may be more relevant to a specific conflict problem than the broad scores themselves.
Then separate description from prediction. A personality profile can summarize tendencies, but it cannot tell you what will happen in the next argument. Situational demands and learned skills often explain why the same person behaves differently with a partner, parent, friend, colleague, or stranger.
Finally, avoid moral grading. Higher agreeableness is associated with many socially desirable outcomes on average, but extreme accommodation can create its own problems. Higher neuroticism is associated with more distress on average, but threat sensitivity can also increase attention to possible problems. The useful question is not whether a profile is “good” or “bad,” but which emotional and interpersonal processes are actually creating costs or supporting adaptation in the relevant context.
Practical Implications for Conflict
Personality information is most useful when it points toward observable processes. If high emotional reactivity is the main problem, work on early detection of escalation, recovery time, appraisal, sleep, stress load, and emotion-regulation skills. If antagonistic tactics are the main problem, focus on listening, perspective-taking, respectful disagreement, repair, and alternatives to domination. If avoidance is the main problem, focus on tolerating manageable conflict and making disagreement explicit before resentment accumulates.
For someone higher in both neuroticism and agreeableness, the central challenge may be preserving cooperation without absorbing every disagreement as a threat to the relationship. For someone higher in neuroticism and lower in agreeableness, the useful target may be creating a delay between emotional activation and confrontational action. For someone lower in neuroticism and higher in agreeableness, the challenge may be ensuring that calm cooperation does not become chronic self-silencing. For someone lower on both, the challenge may be recognizing relational consequences that do not feel emotionally urgent to them.
These are process-oriented hypotheses, not prescriptions derived from a score. When conflict involves fear, coercion, violence, severe distress, or major impairment, personality interpretation is secondary to safety and appropriate professional assessment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are neuroticism and agreeableness opposites?
No. They are separate Big Five dimensions. Low neuroticism corresponds to greater emotional stability, not to greater agreeableness. A person can occupy any combination of the two dimensions.
Can someone be high in both neuroticism and agreeableness?
Yes. That combination is conceptually coherent: stronger negative emotional reactivity can coexist with compassion, trust, respectfulness, and a preference for cooperative social behavior. Research on interpersonal conflict even suggests that highly agreeable people can experience substantial distress when harmony is disrupted.
What can high neuroticism and low agreeableness look like?
At the group level, the combination can be associated with stronger emotional activation plus a lower average tendency toward interpersonal accommodation. Small-sample interaction studies have linked it to higher anger and aggression scores. It should not be treated as a fixed personality type or used to infer abusive, antisocial, or criminal behavior.
What can high neuroticism and high agreeableness look like?
A plausible pattern is strong emotional sensitivity combined with strong motivation to cooperate and protect relationships. That can mean considerable internal distress without correspondingly hostile behavior. The exact expression depends on facets, skills, context, and the other person.
Which trait predicts conflict more strongly?
There is no universal answer because studies measure different outcomes. Agreeableness has a strong theoretical and empirical connection with conflict tactics and interpersonal cooperation. Neuroticism is strongly connected with negative emotional reactivity and, in some studies, conflict frequency. A 2024 adolescent study found neuroticism more consistently associated with conflict frequency than agreeableness, while classic agreeableness research has found strong links with how conflicts are handled.
Does high agreeableness mean a person stays calm?
No. Agreeableness and emotional stability are different constructs. An agreeable person may behave cooperatively while feeling distressed, anxious, angry, or hurt. The Suls et al. diary study is a direct example: higher agreeableness was associated with greater subjective distress when interpersonal conflict was more frequent.
Does low agreeableness mean aggression?
No. Lower agreeableness is associated on average with more antagonistic or dominating tendencies and lower prosocial orientation, but aggression is a separate outcome influenced by many personal and situational factors. A personality score does not establish aggressive behavior.
Are neuroticism and agreeableness strongly correlated?
Not in a way that makes them interchangeable. Their observed association varies by instrument, sample, method, and level of analysis. They are modeled as distinct dimensions, and direct research shows that people with similar neuroticism can differ substantially in agreeableness and vice versa.
Can a Big Five test diagnose a mental disorder?
No. Big Five instruments measure personality dimensions. They do not establish psychiatric diagnoses. A score may be statistically associated with symptoms or disorders at the population level without being a diagnostic test.
Is agreeableness always beneficial in conflict?
No. Higher agreeableness often supports cooperation, integration, compromise, and relational investment, but it can also be associated with avoidance or obliging strategies. Whether a response is adaptive depends on the problem, the stakes, the other person's behavior, and whether important needs or boundaries are being protected.
Does stress change neuroticism and agreeableness?
Stress can change momentary personality-state expression. Experimental research in 2026 found that acute stress increased state neuroticism and reduced state agreeableness. That is different from demonstrating lasting trait change. Trait change requires longitudinal evidence across time, not a single stressful episode.
What is the most useful way to use these two scores together?
Use them as two separate clues. Neuroticism can help identify tendencies in emotional sensitivity, threat appraisal, reactivity, and recovery. Agreeableness can help identify tendencies in compassion, trust, cooperation, and conflict strategy. Then examine the actual behavior and context rather than turning the pair into a personality label.
Related Articles
References
Bleckmann, E., Wieczorek, L. L., & Wagner, J. (2024). The role of agreeableness, neuroticism, and relationship-specific features in self- and other-perceptions of conflict frequency in adolescent relationships with parents and peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53, 1630–1645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-01951-6
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00253.x
Dabiriyan Tehrani, H., & Yamini, S. (2020). Personality traits and conflict resolution styles: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109794
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
Grayson, S. J., Harari, G. M., & Matz, S. C. (2026). The impact of stress on personality state expressions. Communications Psychology, 4, 81. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-026-00438-3
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.820
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00148
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Gleason, K. A., Adams, R., & Malcolm, K. T. (2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1059–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106007
Nguyen, D. N., Trinh, C. L. P., Phan, S. V. L., Pham, O. T. Y., & Nguyen, N. T. T. (2026). Individual differences in emotional reactivity: A multidimensional systematic review across the Big Five. PLOS ONE, 21(9), e0357470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357470
Ode, S., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2008). Can one’s temper be cooled? A role for agreeableness in moderating neuroticism’s influence on anger and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.007
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298241007
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217
Wenzel, M., Kaurin, A., Ringwald, W. R., Tüscher, O., Kubiak, T., & Wright, A. G. C. (2026). Unraveling the link between neuroticism and well-being in daily life: The role of event occurrence, event appraisals, affective reactivity, and affective recovery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000584
Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2022). Agreeableness and its consequences: A quantitative review of meta-analytic findings. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(3), 242–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211073007