Fluent Essays

Read the article and answer 2 questions. Need answers in 2.5hrs.. Total words for 2 questions should be minimum of 300 words. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 1991,44 THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS MURRAY R. BARRICK, MICHAEL K. MOUNT Department of Management and Organizations University of Iowa This study investigated the relation of the "Big Five" personality di- mensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Consci- entiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of person- ality. Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job per- formance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining per- sonality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid pre- dictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion (across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types, but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small (p < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5- factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of person- nel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal. Introduction Over the past 25 years, a number of researchers have investigated the validity of personality measures for personnel selection purposes. The overall conclusion from these studies is that the validity of personality as a predictor of job performance is quite low (e.g., Ghiselli, 1973; Guion & Gottier, 1965; Locke & Hulin, 1962; Reilly & Chao, 1982; Schmitt, Both authors contributed equally to this study. We would like to thank Frank Schmidt, Ralph Alexander, Paul Costa, Mike Judiesch, Wendy Dunn, and Jacob Sines for thoughtful comments about the article and some of the data analyses. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Mike Judiesch, Wendy Dunn, Eric Neumann, Val Arnold, and Duane Thompson in categorizing the personality scales. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Murray R. Barrick, Department of Management and Organizations, College of Business Administration, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. COPYRIGHT © 1991 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. INC 1 2 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). However, at the time these studies were conducted, no well-accepted taxonomy existed for classifying personality traits. Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether there were consistent, meaningful relationships between particular personality constructs and performance criteria in different occupations. In the past 10 years, the views of many personalify psychologists have converged regarding the structure and concepts of personalify. Gener- ally, researchers agree that there are five robust factors of personalify (described below) which can serve as a meaningful taxonomy for classi- fying personalify attributes (Digman, 1990). Our purpose in the present study is to examine the relationship of these five personalify constructs to job performance measures for different occupations, rather than to focus on the overall validify of personalify as previous researchers have done. Emergence of the 5-Factor Model Systematic efforts to organize the taxonomy of personalify began shortly after McDougall (1932) wrote that, "Personalify may to advan- tage be broadly analyzed into five distinguishable but separate factors, namely intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper..." (p. 15). About 10 years later, Cattell (1943, 1946, 1947, 1948) devel- oped a relatively complex taxonomy of individual differences that con- sisted of 16 primary factors and 8 second-order factors. However, re- peated attempts by researchers to replicate his work were unsuccessful (Fiske, 1949; Tupes, 1957; Tupes & Christal, 1961) and, in each case, researchers found that the 5-factor model accounted for the data quite well. For example, Tupes and Christal (1961) reanalyzed the correlations reported by Cattell and Fiske and found that there was good support for five factors: Surgency, Emotional Stabilify, Agreeableness, Dependabil- ify, and Culture. As it would turn out later, these factors (and those of McDougall 35 years before) were remarkably similar to those generally accepted by researchers today. However, as Digman (1990) points out, the work of Tupes and Christal had only a minor impact because their study was published in an obscure Air Force technical report. The 5- factor model obtained by Fiske (1949) and Tupes and Christal (1961) was corroborated in four subsequent studies (Borgatta, 1964; Hakel, 1974; Norman, 1963; Smith 1967). Borgatta's findings are noteworthy because he obtained five stable factors across five methods of data gath- ering. Norman's work is especially significant because his labels (Ex- traversion. Emotional Stabilify, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Culture) are used commonly in the literature and have been referred to, subsequently, as "Norman's Big Five" or simply as the "Big Five." BARRICK AND MOUNT 3 During the past decade, an impressive body of literature has accu- mulated which provides compelling evidence for the robustness of the 5- factor model: across different theoretical frameworks (Goldberg, 1981); using different instruments (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Lorr & Youniss, 1973; McCrae, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989); in different cultures (e.g.. Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987); using ratings obtained from different sources (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Fiske, 1949; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963; Norman & Goldberg, 1966; Watson, 1989); and with a variety of samples (see Dig- man, 1990, for a more detailed discussion). An important consideration for the field of personnel psychology is that these dimensions are also rel- atively independent of measures of cognitive ability (McCrae & Costa, 1987). It should be pointed out that some researchers have reservations about the 5-factor model, particularly the imprecise specification of these dimensions (Briggs, 1989; John, 1989; Livneh & Livneh, 1989; Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987). Some researchers suggest that more than five dimensions are needed to encompass the domain of personality. For example, Hogan (1986) advocates six dimensions (Sociability, Ambition, Adjustment, Likability, Prudence, and Intellectance). The principle dif- ference seems to be the splitting of the Extraversion dimension into So- ciability and Ambition. Interpretations of the "Big Five" While there is general agreement among researchers concerning the number of factors, there is some disagreement about their precise mean- ing, particularly Norman's Conscientiousness and Culture factors. Of course, some variation from study to study is to be expected with factors as broad and inclusive as the 5-factor model. As shown below, however, there is a great deal of commonality in the traits that define each factor, even though the name attached to the factor differs. It is widely agreed that the first dimension is Eysenck's Extraver- sion/Intraversion. Most frequently this dimension has been called Ex- traversion or Surgency (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Digman & Takemoto- Chock, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; Howarth, 1976; John, 1989; Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Nor- man, 1963; Smith, 1967). Traits frequently associated with it include be- ing sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active. As mentioned above, Hogan (1986) interprets this dimension as consisting of two com- ponents. Ambition (initiative, surgency, ambition, and impetuous) and Sociability (sociable, exhibitionist, and expressive). 4 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY There is also general agreement about the second dimension. This factor has been most frequently called Emotional Stability, Stability, Emotionality, or Neuroticism (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). Common traits associated with this factor include being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emo- tional, worried, and insecure. These two dimensions (Extraversion and Emotional Stability) represent the "Big Two" described by Eysenck over 40 years ago. The third dimension has generally been interpreted as Agreeable- ness or Likability (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Goldberg, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Others have labeled it Friendliness (Guilford & Zimmerman, 1949), Social Confor- mity (Fiske, 1949), Compliance versus Hostile Non-Compliance (Dig- man & Thkemoto-Chock, 1981), or Love (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). Traits associated with this dimension include being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and toler- ant. The fourth dimension has most frequently been called Conscien- tiousness or Conscience (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963;), although it has also been called Conformity or Dependability (Fiske, 1949; Hogan, 1983). Because of its relationship to a variety of educational achieve- ment measures and its association with volition, it has also been called Will to Achieve or Will (Digman, 1989; Smith, 1967; Wiggins, Black- burn, & Hackman, 1969), and Work (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). As the disparity in labels suggests, there is some disagreement regarding the essence of this dimension. Some writers (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Fiske, 1949; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Noller et al., 1987) have suggested that Conscientiousness reflects dependability; that is, being careful, thor- ough, responsible, organized, and planful. Others have suggested that in addition to these traits, it incorporates volitional variables, such as hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering. Based on the evi- dence cited by Digman (1990), the preponderance of evidence supports the definition of conscientiousness as including these volitional aspects (Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto- Chock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug & Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989; Norman, 1963; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989; Smith, 1967). The last dimension has been the most difficult to identify. It has been interpreted most frequently as Intellect or Intellectence (Borgatta, 1964; BARRICK AND MOUNT 5 Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Peabody and Goldberg, 1989). It has also been called Openness to Experience (McCrae & Costa, 1985) or Culture (Hakel, 1974; Norman, 1963). Dig- man (1990) points out that it is most likely all of these. Itaits commonly associated with this dimension include being imaginative, cultured, curi- ous, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive. The emergence of the 5-factor model has important implications for the field of personnel psychology. It illustrates that personality consists of five relatively independent dimensions which provide a meaningful taxonomy for studying individual differences. In any field of science, the availability of such an orderly classification scheme is essential for the communication and accumulation of empirical findings. For purposes of this study, we adopted names and definitions similar to those used by Digman (1990): Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Expected Relations Between PersonaUty Dimensions and Job Performance In the present study, we investigate the validity of the five dimen- sions of personality for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled) and for three types of job per- formance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) using meta-analytic methods. We also investigate the validity of the five personality dimensions for objective versus subjective criteria. We hypothesize that two of the dimensions of personality. Consci- entiousness and Emotional Stability, will be valid predictors of all job performance criteria for all jobs. Conscientiousness is expected to be related to job performance because it assesses personal characteristics such as persistent, planful, careful, responsible, and hardworking, which are important attributes for accomplishing work tasks in all jobs. There is some evidence that in educational settings there are consistent cor- relations between scores on this dimension and educational achieve- ment (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Smith, 1967). Thus, we ex- pect that the validity of this dimension will generalize across all occupa- tional groups and criterion categories. We also expect that the validity of Emotional Stability will generalize across occupations and criterion types. Viewing this dimension from its negative pole, we expect that em- ployees exhibiting neurotic characteristics, such as worry, nervousness, temperamentalness, high-strungness, and self-pity, will tend to be less successful than more emotionally stable individuals in all occupations studied because these traits tend to inhibit rather than facilitate the ac- complishment of work tasks. 6 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY We expect that other personality dimensions may be related to job performance, but only for some occupations or some criteria. For ex- ample, in those occupations that involve frequent interaction or cooper- ation with others, we expect that two personality dimensions, Extraver- sion and Agreeableness, will be valid predictors. These two dimensions should be predictive of performance criteria for occupations such as management and sales, but would not be expected to be valid predic- tors for occupations such as production worker or engineer. In a similar vein, we expect that Openness to Experience will be a valid predictor of one of the performance criteria, training proficiency. This dimension is expected to be related to training proficiency because it assesses personal characteristics such as curious, broadminded, cultured, and intelligent, which are attributes associated with positive attitudes toward learning experiences. We believe that such individuals are more likely to be motivated to learn upon entry into the training program and, consequently, are more likely to benefit from the training. Finally, we investigated a research question of general interest to per- sonnel psychologists for which we are not testing a specific hypothesis. The question is whether the validity coefficients for the five personality dimensions diflfer for two types of criteria, objective and subjective. A recent meta-analysis by Nathan and Alexander (1988) indicates that, in general, there is no difference between the magnitude of the validities for cognitive ability tests obtained for objective and subjective criteria for clerical jobs. In another study, Schmitt et al. (1984) investigated the va- lidity of personality measures (across dimensions and occupations) for different types of criteria, but no definitive conclusions were apparent from the data. The average validity for the subjective criterion (perfor- mance ratings) was .206. Validities for three of four objective criteria were lower (.121 for turnover, .152 for achievement/grades, and .126 for status change), whereas the validity was higher for wages (.268). Thus, conclusions regarding whether the validities for personality measures are higher for objective, compared to subjective, criteria depend to a large extent on which objective measures are used. Because our study exam- ines personality using a 5-factor model, we are able to assess whether dimensions have differential relationships to various objective and sub- jective criteria. In summary, the following hypotheses will be tested in this study. Of the five dimensions of personality. Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are expected to be valid predictors of job performance for all jobs and all criteria because Conscientiousness measures those personal characteristics that are important for accomplishing work tasks in all jobs, while Emotional Stability (when viewed from the negative pole) measures those characteristics that may hinder successful performance. BARRICK AND MOUNT 7 In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, be- cause interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants of success in those occupations. Finally, Openness to Experience is ex- pected to correlate with one of the criterion types, training proficiency, because Openness to Experience appears to assess individuals' readiness to participate in learning experiences. In addition, we investigated the validity of various objective and subjective criteria for the five personality dimensions. Method Literature Review A literature search was conducted to identify published and unpub- lished criterion-related validity studies of personality for selection pur- poses between 1952 and 1988. Three strategies were used to search the relevant literature. First, a computer search was done of PsycINFO (1967-1988) and Dissertation Abstracts (1952-1988) in order to find all references to personality in occupational selection. Second, a manual search was conducted that consisted of checking the sources cited in the reference section of literature reviews, articles, and books on this topic, as well as personality inventory manuals, Buros Tests in Print (volumes 4- 9,1953-1985), and journals that may have included such articles (includ- ing the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses/Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Journal of Man- agement, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Personality, and Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology). Finally, personality test publishers and over 60 practition- ers known to utilize personalify inventories in selection contexts were contacted by letter, requesting their assistance in sending or locating ad- ditional published or unpublished validation studies. Overall, these searches yielded 231 criterion-related validify studies, 117 of which were acceptable for inclusion in this analysis. The remain- ing 114 studies were excluded for several reasons: 44 reported results for interest and value inventories only and were excluded because they did not focus on the validity of personality measures; 24 used composite scores or, conversely, extracted specific items from difî erent scales and instruments; 19 reported only significant validity coefficients; 15 used military or laboratory "subjects"; and 12 either were not selection stud- ies or provided insufficient information. 8 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY A total of 162 samples were obtained from the 117 studies. Sample sizes ranged from 13 to 1,401 (M = 148.11; SD = 185.79), yielding a total sample of 23,994. Thirty-nine samples were reported in the 1950s, 52 in the 1960s, 33 in the 1970s, and 38 in the 1980s. Fifty samples (31%) were collected from unpublished sources, most of which were unpublished dissertations. The studies were categorized into five major occupational groupings and three criterion types. The occupational groups were professionals (5% of the samples), which consisted of engineers, architects, attorneys, accountants, teachers, doctors, and ministers; police (13% of the sam- ples); managers (41% of the samples), which ranged from foremen to top executives; sales (17% of the samples); and skilledlsemi-skilled (24% of the samples), which consisted of jobs such as clerical, nurses aides, farmers, flight attendants, medical assistants, orderlies, airline baggage handlers, assemblers, telephone operators, grocery clerks, truck drivers, and production workers. The three criterion types were fob proficiency (included in 68% of the samples), training proficiency (12% of the samples), and personnel data (33% of the samples). It should be noted that in 21 samples, data were available from two of the three criterion categories, which explains why the total percent of sample for the three criterion types exceeds 100%. Similarly, the total sample size on which these analyses are based will be larger than those for analyses by occupation. Job proficiency measures primarily included performance ratings (approximately 85% of the mea- sures) as well as productivity data; training proficiency measures con- sisted mostly of training performance ratings (approximately 90% of the measures) in addition to productivity data, such as work sample data and time to complete training results; and personnel data included data from employee files, such as salary level, turnover, status change, and tenure. Key variables of interest in this study were the validity coefficients, sample sizes, range restriction data for those samples, reliability esti- mates for the predictors and criteria, the personality scales (and the in- ventories used), and the types of occupations. A subsample of approx- imately 25% of the studies was selected to assess interrater agreement on the coding of the key variables of interest. Agreement was 95% for these variables and disagreement between coders was resolved by refer- ring back to the original study. Scales from all the inventories were classified into the five dimensions defined earlier (i.e., Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) or a sixth Miscella- neous dimension. The personality scales were categorized into these di- mensions by six trained raters. Five of these raters had received Ph.D.s in BARRICK AND MOUNT 9 psychology (three were practicing consulting psychologists with respon- sibilities for individual assessment; the other two were professors of psy- chology and human resources management, respectively, and both had taught personnel selection courses) and the other taught similar courses while completing his Ph.D. in human resources management and was very familiar with the literature on personality. A short training session was provided to the raters to familiarize them with the rating task and examples were provided. The description of the five factors provided to the raters corresponded to those presented by Digman (1990) and as de- scribed above. Raters were provided a list of the personality scales and their definitions for each inventory and were instructed to assign each to the dimension to which it best fit. A sixth category. Miscellaneous, was used in those cases where the scale could not be assigned clearly into one of the five categories. If at least five of the six raters agreed on a dimension, the scale was coded in that dimension. If four of the six raters agreed and the two authors' ratings (completed independently of the raters) agreed with the raters, the scale was coded into that di- mension. If three or fewer raters agreed, the scale was coded into the Miscellaneous dimension. At least five of six raters agreed in 68% of the cases, four of six raters agreed in 23% of the cases, and three or fewer raters agreed on 9% of the cases. Of the 191 scales, 39 were categorized as representing Emotional Stability; 32 as Extraversion; 31 as Openness to Experience; 29 as Agreeableness; 32 as Conscientiousness; 28 as Mis- cellaneous. (A list of the inventories, their respective scales, and dimen- sional category assigned are available from the first author.) It should be noted that an alternative method for assigning the scales would be to use empirical data, such as factor analyses of inventories or correlations among scales from different inventories. However, we were unable to locate sufficient factor analytic studies or correlational data to allow us to use these approaches because in both cases data was available for only about half of the variables. To arrive at an overall validity coefficient for each scale from an in- ventory, the following decision rules were applied in situations where more than one validity coefficient was reported from a sample: (a) If an overall criterion was provided, that coefficient was used and (b) when multiple criteria were provided, they were assigned to the appropriate criterion category (job proficiency, training proficiency, or personnel data). If there were multiple measures from a criterion category, the coefficients were averaged. However, because our analyses focused on personality dimensions rather than individual personality scales (from various inventories), the following decision rules were applied to estab- lish the validity coefficient for each personality dimension from a sample: (a) If a personality dimension had only one scale categorized into that 10 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY dimension for that sample, the overall validify coefficient from that scale (calculated as previously explained) was used and (b) if multiple scales were available for a dimension, the coefficients from each of these scales from that sample were averaged and the resulting average validify coef- ficient was used in all analyses. A number of analyses were conducted. The first was an analysis of the validities for the five personalify dimensions for each occupational group (across criterion types). The second was an analysis of personalify dimensions for the three criterion types (across occupations). The final analysis investigated the validify of the dimensions for objective versus subjective criteria (across occupations and criterion fypes). The meta-analytic procedure adopted in this study used the formu- las available in Hunter and Schmidt (1990)-' and corrected the mean and variance of validify coefficients across studies for artifactual variance due to sampling error, range restriction, and attenuation due to measure- ment error. However, because the vast majorify of studies did not report information on range restriction and measurement error, particularly predictor reliabilities, it was necessary to use artifact distributions to es- timate artifactually induced variance on the validify coefficients (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Because reliabilify coefficients for predictors were only rarely pre- sented in the validify studies, the distributions were based upon informa- tion obtained from the inventories' manuals. The mean of the predictor reliabilify distribution was .76 (SD = .08). Similarly, because informa- tion for the criterion reliabilities was available in less than one-third of the studies, we developed an artifact distribution for criterion reliabili- ties based on data provided by Hunter, Schmidt, and Judiesch (1990) for productivify data (with a mean of .92, SD = .05) and Rothstein (1990) for performance ratings (with a mean of .52, SD = .05). It should be noted, however, that 30 studies included criteria which were categorized as per- sonnel data. For these criteria (e.g., turnover, tenure, accidents, wages, etc.), reliabilify estimates were unknown because no estimates have been provided in the literature. Therefore, the artifact distributions for crite- rion reliabilities did not include reliabilify estimates for these criteria. Thus, for the objective versus subjective analysis, the productivity and performance rating artifact distributions were used in each analysis, re- spectively, for each personalify dimension. For all other analyses, the two criterion distributions were combined (with a mean value of .56, SD = .10). Finally, the artifact distribution for range restriction data was based upon those studies that reported both restricted and unrestricted ^All analyses were conducted using a microcomputer program developed by Frank Schmidt and reported in Hunter and Schmidt, 1990. BARRICK AND MOUNT 11 Standard deviation data (i.e., from accepted and rejected applicants). The effects on the mean validities due to range restriction were relatively small because the mean range restriction was .94 (SD = .05). As previously stated, the Schmidt-Hunter non-interactive validity generalization procedure (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) was applied to the data for assumed (predictors and criteria) and sample-based artifact dis- tributions (range restriction). (These distributions are available from the first author.) However, because the purpose of our study is to enhance theoretical understanding of the five personality constructs, we present fully corrected correlations that correct for unreliability in the predictor as well as the criterion. Finally, there has been some confusion regarding the use and inter- pretation of confidence and credibility values in meta-analysis (Whitener, 1990). The confidence interval is centered around the sample-size weighted mean effects sizes (r, before being corrected for measurement error or range restriction) and is used to assess …