Supp.apa.org



Supplementary Table 1. Deviations from measurement invariance by state, sample, and personality trait.?Sample and personality trait?S1S2S4StateENACOENACOENACOAlabama???????????????Arizona???????????????Arkansas???????????????California???????????????Colorado???????????????Connecticut???????????????DC???????????????Delaware???????????MSS?Florida???????????????Georgia???????????????Idaho???????????M?S?Illinois???????????????Indiana???????????????Iowa???????????????Kansas???????????????Kentucky??????????S????Louisiana???????????????Maine???????????????Maryland???????????????Massachusetts???????????????Michigan??????????????MMinnesota???????????????Mississippi???????????????Missouri???????????????Montana??????????????MNebraska???????????????Nevada?????????????S?New Hampshire?????????????S?New Jersey???????????????New Mexico?????????????S?New York????????????M??North Carolina???????????????North Dakota?????????????S?Ohio???????????????Oklahoma???????????????Oregon???????????????Pennsylvania???M????M??????Rhode Island????????????S??South Carolina???????????????South Dakota????????????S??Tennessee???M???????????Texas????????????M??Utah???????????????Vermont???????????M???Virginia???????????????Washington???????????????West Virginia??????????M??S?Wusconsin???????????????Wyoming?????????????S?Note: Deviation from measurement invariance is determined as comparative fit index (CFI) difference > 0.01 between constrained and unconstrained model. E=Extraversion, N=Neuroticism, A=Agreeableness, C=Conscientiousness, O=Openness to Experience, M=deviation from metric invariance (equal factor loadings), S=deviation from scalar invariance (equal factor loadings and intercepts). Results are based on 735 models of metric invariance (3 samples, 5 traits, 49 states) and 735 models of scalar invariance (3 samples, 5 traits, 49 states). Only states with at least one deviation are shown in the table.Supplementary Table 2. Spatial autocorrelations and group-mean reliability estimates for personality traits.?S1S2S3S4S5TotalSpatial autocorrelation, adjacency??????Extraversion0.250.360.290.250.070.35Neuroticism0.660.220.490.460.240.54Agreeableness0.210.250.200.600.100.21Conscientiousness0.410.230.260.610.100.43Openness to experience0.230.380.020.470.240.33Spatial autocorrelation, inverse distanceExtraversion0.040.100.060.090.000.10Neuroticism0.260.080.180.200.030.22Agreeableness0.110.090.050.32-0.010.15Conscientiousness0.180.070.100.21-0.010.20Openness to experience0.110.110.020.130.070.12Group-mean reliability (ICC2)Extraversion0.910.940.830.890.250.97Neuroticism0.960.940.860.940.630.95Agreeableness0.940.960.720.96?0.87Conscientiousness0.940.960.860.930.460.97Openness to experience0.980.980.800.950.670.99Note: Spatial autocorrelation calculated using Moran's I based on binary queen adjacency and inverse distance spatial weight matrices. All spatial autocorrelations based on adjacency weights with absolute values > 0.09 are statistically significant, and all spatial autocorrelations based on inverse distance weights with absolute values > 0.03 are statistically significant. ? Inestimable.Supplementary Table 3. Correlations between state-level mean personality scores across the five samples.?ExtraversionNeuroticismAgreeablenessConscientiousnessOpenness to experienceSample pair?????S1 – S20.550.710.770.650.76S1 – S30.460.750.510.360.63S1 – S40.200.700.380.470.70S1 – S50.010.360.140.240.32S2 – S30.520.640.500.340.63S2 – S40.370.640.180.290.79S2 – S5-0.040.280.170.230.55S3 – S40.170.570.420.010.70S3 – S5-0.120.340.230.180.29S4 – S50.380.520.100.240.51Note: Mean-level personality scores for each sample were estimated using the best linear unbiased predictions (BLUP) of random-intercept multilevel regression models. Supplementary Figure 1. Geographical distribution of the raw cluster profile correlations for “Conventional” (top), “Resourceful” (middle), and “Temperamental” (bottom) clusters. Darker color indicates higher positive correlations, darker gray-scale indicates higher negative correlations.Supplementary Figure 2. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and median age of the state’s population. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 3. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and proportion of men in the state (%). Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 4. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and proportion of White in the state (%). Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 5. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and state’s well-being index. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 6. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and state’s innovation index. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 7. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and residential mobility. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 8. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and state’s health behavior index. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 9. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and state’s human capital index. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 10. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and social capital index. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 11. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and social tolerance index. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 12. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and state’s economic wealth. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 13. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and state’s violent crime index. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model.Supplementary Figure 14. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of associations between state-level mean personality traits and proportion of votes for Republicans in 2004 and 2008 US presidential elections. Estimates are regression coefficients between standardized personality scores (SD=1) and outcome assessed at state-level. Within each sample, all personality traits were mutually adjusted, that is, included in the same regression model. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download