W11: Personality and Consequential Outcome Flashcards

1
Q

Can we use measures of personality to make valid inferences or predictions about theoretically relevant or practically useful outcomes?

Different type of effects (3)

A

Direct effects- from the general to the specific…
e.g., does conscientiousness predict specific instances of conscientious behaviour?

Indirect effects – ‘mediation’
e.g., via trait expressions or situation selection

Interactive/conditional effects – person x environment interactions
e.g., via differential reactivity to events/situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

History of prediction:

Lexical Hypothesis

A

Important characteristics will, over human history, be coded in language

Impt in the sense of making predictions:
eg: who will help/hurt me.
who fun/attractive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

History of prediction:
Formal assessment of personality and abilities

Educational contexts

A

Educational contexts
Binet and Simon (1905, 1908, 1911): identification of children requiring alternate education

Development of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) during the 1920

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

History of prediction:
Formal assessment of personality and abilities

Occupational contexts
Robert Yerkes (1915)
A
Robert Yerkes (1915)
Military selection and placement

1950s-1970s: Diversification and mobility of work

Growth of Human Resources Management

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Prediction of Achievement
Job Performance

Schmidt & Hunter (1998)

A

meta-analysis of 85 years of research

Job performance typically measured in terms of supervisory ratings (but other indicators too – e.g., sales records)

Results:
B5 -> C r = .31
integrity test(C/A) r = .41

Personality a weaker predictor than measures of cognitive ability (or ‘intelligence’), but adds to the prediction of cognitive tests
Cognitive alone; r = .48
cognitive ability with C; r = .6o
Combining cognitive ability with an C/A; r = .65

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Prediction of Achievement
Job Performance

Barrick & Mount (1991, 1998):

A

Meta-analyses focussed just on the big five:
Conscientiousness predicts across all occupations: r = .20-.23
will-do criteria r = .42

Extraversion predicted performance well in two specific job arenas:
Management (.18) Sales (.15)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Prediction of Achievement:
Job Performance

Hurtz & Donovan (2000):

A

Updated meta-analysis to check reliability of first studies…

Key findings:

1) Conscientiousness again predicts broadly in the region of r = .20
2) Agreeableness, Openness/Intellect, and (low) Neuroticism predicts performance in customer service roles
3) Extraversion and (low) Neuroticism predicts in management and sales roles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Prediction of Achievement:

“Occupational success”
what defines:
Predictive validity for:

A
what defines: 
Various indices (e.g., Duncan Socioeconomic Index)

Typically reflect wages, education required, popular views of its desirability, worthiness, or ‘prestige’
top scorers: Doctor, Dentist, Lawyer

Predictive validity for

1) Openness/intellect: r = .18 (Sutin et al., 2009)
2) Extraversion: r = .16 (Roberts et al., 2003)
3) Conscientiousness: r = .15 (Roberts et al., 2003)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Prediction of Achievement:

“Occupational success”

Roberts et al., 2007

A

After accounting for childhood SES, parental income, and IQ, personality predicts various indicators of occupational success (income, promotion etc.) up to 47 years later…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Prediction of Achievement:
Creative achievement

Kaufman et al., 2015

A

Openness engagement with perceptual information
Openness -> achievement* in the arts (e.g., visual arts, music, dance, architectural design)

Intellect reflects engagement with semantic information
Intellect -> achievement* in the sciences (e.g., scientific discovery, inventions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Prediction of Achievement::
Educational achievement

Poropat (2009):

A
Predicting school GPA from…
Cognitive ability: r = .25
Conscientiousness: r = .22
Openness/intellect: r = .12
Agreeableness: r = .07

Of personality measures, only conscientiousness adds to prediction above cognitive ability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Prediction of Achievement:

Choice of college major and B5

A

Extraversion
Economics, Law, Political Science, and Medicine

Neuroticism
Arts, Humanities, and Psychology

Agreeableness
Medicine, Psychology, Sciences, Arts, and Humanities

Conscientiousness
Science, Law, Economics, Engineering, Medicine, and
Psychology

Openness/Intellect
Humanities, Arts, Psychology, and Political Science

er.. so many psychology…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Why does personality predict achievement

direct & indirect & interactive effect

A

Direct effects?
conscientiousness -> responsible
Conscientiousness predicts most strongly for effort-related criteria

Indirect effects?
choosing educational and career pathways that ‘fit’ ones personality
C-> structure/order
openness/intellect -> flexibility/creativity

Interactive effects?
responding to the demands of work
E respond well to interpersonal challenges of management roles

NB: Many of these pathways may operate simultaneously

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Why does personality predict achievement
Interactive effects Example
Extraversion:

Stewart, 1996

A

Extraverts respond more to rewards (Smillie & Wacker, 2015)

Extraversion should only predict performance in salespeople when performance is linked with rewards:

If new sales are rewarded, Extraversion will predict new sales (but not customer retention)‏
If customer retention is rewarded, Extraversion will predict customer retention (but not new sales)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Summary 1:

Personality traits predict range of outcomes in achievement contexts

A

Conscientiousness: Broad predictor of educational and occupational achievement
Indirect effects via state expressions (e.g., study strategies)

Extraversion: achievement and choice for some work areas (management, sales, customer service)
Interactive/conditional effects of incentive structures

Also Openness (educational attainment/engagement, occupational success, creative achievement),

Agreeableness (customer service) and

(low) Neuroticism (performance)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Impact of personality on longevity

conscientious
Martin et al., 2007

A

Variables examined:
Age of death and cause
Various health/risk behaviours (e.g., smoking)

Conscientiousness assessed over 7 decades (child, 20/30s 30/40s)

prob of death 💀
High C - ~.35
unstable C - between
low C - ~.5

17
Q
Impact of personality on longevity
Replication using peer/informant reports…
\+
female/male dif
Jackson et, al. 2015
A

Replication using peer/informant

Males rated as more conscientious in their 20s lived longer

females: lower neuroticism and higher agreeableness

18
Q

Impact of personality on longevity
Protective effect of conscientiousness

Bogg and Roberts, 2004

A

conscientiousness predicts better health and living longer

Substantial evidence suggests engagement in health-promoting behaviours

Conscientiousness predicts…
Less alcohol use, r = -.25
Less drug use, r = -.28 
Less unhealthy eating, r = -.13
Less risky driving, r = -.25
Less risky sexual behaviour, r = -.13
19
Q

Impact of personality on longevity
Conscientiousness & Health promoting behaviours:

Armon & Toker (2013)

A

Participation in periodic health checks:
DV: Odds of returning for a 2nd health check within 7 years

Conscientiousness: +ve predictor
Extraversion, openness: -ve predictors
Neuroticism: curvilinear predictor…!

20
Q

Impact of personality on longevity:

Do changes in conscientiousness predict changes in health?

Takahashi, Edmonds, Jackson, & Roberts, 2012

A

Conscientiousness was associated with preventative health behaviours and overall health at both time points

Changes in conscientiousness were associated with changes in preventative health behaviours and overall health

Changes in preventative health behaviors mediated the association between changes in conscientiousness and changes in overall health

21
Q

Predictive of Psychological wellbeing

Measures of wellbeing (incl. positive emotions, optimism, etc) also predict longevity…

A

These in turn are highly predicted by extraversion and (low) neuroticism

These links are still poorly understood…
Healthy behaviour (e.g., exercise)?
Social relationships and support?
Immune function? Cardiovascular function?
Recovery from illness?
22
Q

Impact of personality on longevity:
Disease risk:
“Type A personality”
Agreeableness

A

Type A personality”
Risk of heart disease (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974)
Hostility appears to be the ‘active ingredient’ – captured by low agreeableness…

Agreeableness
May protect against biological risk factors for cardiovascular disease,

Reduced sympathetic nervous system response to stress and frustration (Smith & Spiro, 2002)

23
Q

Personality predicts Relationships

what is actor/partner effect

Actor: self -> high predict self satisfaction
Partner: -> high predict self satisfaction

A

Personality traits predict various relationship outcomes

Dyrenforth et al. 2010:
A and C -> higher marital satisfaction in (~20,000 participants from Australia, Germany, and the UK)
Both actor and partner effects

Schmitt, 2004:
A and C -> lower rates of infidelity

Kelly & Conley, 1987:
high or low??? N -> decreased marital stability (e.g., divorce)
Both actor and partner effects

24
Q

Personality predicts Relationships

Divorce

A

Meta-analysis:

Neuroticism, (lower) conscientiousness, and (lower) agreeableness predicts divorce up to 45 years later…

25
Divorce. Why? indirect effects, via relationship dynamics Solomon & Jackson, 2014 Details and results
2 potential pathways: enduring dynamics VS Emergent Distress Clearer support for enduring dynamics: Personality impacts on relationship dynamics in ways that may ultimately lead to its dissolution Example: Low A and C via negative communication patterns High N via negative emotionality (experiencing negative moods, perceiving situations more negatively)
26
Assortive mating birds of a feather flock together McCrae and colleagues, 2008
Correlations between partners’ personality traits generally positive: r up to .35 for Big Five domains Generally highest for openness/intellect…
27
Criminal and antisocial behaviour A recurring role for (low) conscientiousness and agreeableness
1) Antisocial behaviour and aggression (Jones et al., 2011) 2) Involvement in criminal gangs (Egan & Beadman, 2011) 3) Delinquency and vandalism in Australian youths (Heaven, 1996; Mak et al., 2003) However: conscientiousness positively predicted ‘white collar’ criminal behaviour in a German sample (Blickle et al., 2006)
28
Criminal and antisocial behaviour A recurring role for (low) conscientiousness and agreeableness Explanations…
Direct effects e.g., aggressive behaviour is simply a state expression of low agreeableness Indirect effects: Agreeableness via moral disengagement e.g., beliefs that fighting can be justified, and teasing is not harmful Conscientiousness via poor impulse control
29
Longevity predicted by Conscientiousness Extraversion, (low) neuroticism, and agreeablenes Summary
Conscientiousness: Indirect effects via state expressions (i.e., health promoting behaviours) Extraversion, (low) neuroticism, and agreeableness: Possibly via physical and psychological wellbeing Only openness/intellect does not seem to have a clear link with longevity or health
30
Personality on Political orientation Single ‘self placement’ – liberal vs. conservative… Multiple dimensional approaches
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)—endorsement of: 1) Respect for traditions and social norms (traditionalism) 2) Deference to authorities and institutions (conservatism) 3) Belief in the need for coercive social control (authoritarianism) AKA ‘Social Conservatism’ Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)—endorsement of: hierarchies and social/group inequality AKA ‘Economic Conservatism’
31
Personality on Political orientation
Self identified liberals (vs. conservatives)… Higher on openness/intellect, r ~ .20 (Somewhat) lower on conscientiousness, r ~ -.10 Sibley & Duckitt, 2008, meta-analysis: O/Intellect -> RWA, r = -.36; SDO, r = -.16 Higher C -> RWA, r = .15 Higher A -> SDO, r = -.29 ``` Explanation in terms of values Valuing change (O), order/structure (C), and harmony/cooperation (A) ```
32
Summary of implications: Personality traits and other life outcomes
Agreeableness: More positive relationship outcomes Lower involvement in crime / antisocial behaviour More tolerant, egalitarian (SDO) Conscientiousness: More positive relationship outcomes Lower involvement in crime / antisocial behaviour Somewhat socially conservative (e.g., respect for tradition; RWA) Openness/Intellect: More progressive / less socially conservative (RWA)
33
Personality and consequential outcomes – do they replicate? Soto (2019)
attempted to replicate 78 previously reported associations between personality traits and consequential outcomes Results: 87% of the previously reported findings were successfully replicated Effect sizes were approximately 75% as strong as reported in the original studies
34
Theoretical /practical implications of current findings: Theoretical implications
Testing theories of personality e.g., are extraverts sensitive to reward? Evaluating personality-based explanations e.g., how can we explain and understand crime? Predictive Validity
35
Theoretical /practical implications of current findings: Potential areas of application (3)
Behaviour change for health… Should we seek to promote higher levels of agreeableness & conscientiousness? Job/college selection… Should we we include measures of conscientiousness in selection protocols? Dating apps / services… Matching based on openness/intellect?