PSYC-322 DISCUSSION 9 - POLITICAL ATTITUDE
Dee5
Personality101-Chapter4-6.pdf
167
Personality and Social Implications
The 2011 U.K. riots resulted in millions of pounds worth of material and industrial damage. Three people were killed. Every year, thousands of people are injured or murdered, directly or indi-
rectly, because of confl icting religious and other social con- victions. Such convictions are becoming increasingly salient in today’s society. Social attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are often attributed to social factors, such as parenting, school- ing, culture, and the media. Rarely do we think of such atti- tudes and behavior with respect to inborn dispositional traits. Yet, an increasing amount of research suggests that political and religious attitudes and behavior may be closely related to individual differences in personality. In this chapter, we review the literature that shows how personality infl uences what is traditionally seen as social and cultural phenomena,
4
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 167 8/24/2012 6:36:06 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
168
CHAPTER 4
such as political attitudes and religious beliefs, and prosocial and antisocial behavior. We start our discussion with political attitudes.
PERSONALITY AND POLITICAL ATTITUDES
In order to explain the antecedents, or causes, of political atti- tudes, we must fi rst defi ne the concept of political attitudes. A common distinction in the literature is that of right- versus left- wing attitudes. Researchers have found that right- and left-wing attitudes comprise several components. For instance, right-wing attitudes are thought to encompass right-wing authoritarian- ism, conservatism, and social dominance. Authoritarianism has been explained in terms of a set of behaviors, including showing excessive conformity, intolerance of others, and rigid and stereotyped thought patterns. Conservatism is thought to represent tendencies to resist change and to play it safe. Finally, social dominance is believed to involve individual discrimina- tion, institutional discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. These concepts are related yet separate constructs, and con- ceptual distinctions can be made between them. For instance, right-wing authoritarianism involves rigidity and lack of cogni- tive complexity; however, these individuals are often passive. In contrast, those who are high in social dominance orientation are more socially aggressive and hostile. Conservatism, on the other hand, involves tender, versus tough, mindedness and may therefore overlap with both these dimensions.
Right-wing attitudes have been explained in various ways. For instance, psychodynamic theory sees authoritarianism as an interaction of various conscious and unconscious mental or emotional processes involving submissive tendencies toward authority, which are caused by a strict upbringing (Adorno et al., 1950). Social psychologists view conservative attitudes as predominantly resulting from social forces; for instance,
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 168 8/24/2012 6:36:06 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
169
conservative people are argued to be heavily infl uenced by tra- ditional institutions and their parents’ values. Discrimination and social dominance are also explained from a social perspec- tive, involving in-group and out-group principles (or forces). That is, individuals who are similar (physically or psychologi- cally) to the members of the group tend to be “placed” within an in-group, whereas individuals who are different to these members are placed within an out-group.
Despite this traditional explanation of social attitudes, researchers within the fi eld of differential psychology have pointed out that personality may operate as a strong infl uenc- ing factor of such attitudes. Accordingly, it has been argued that certain personality characteristics may “predispose” people to hold more or less of right- or left-wing attitudes. Research investigating the relationship between personality and social attitudes has confi rmed this hypothesis. Specifi cally, studies examining the role of the Big Five personality traits in political convictions have found signifi cant and consistent links between several personality traits and right-wing attitudes.
According to this research, the strongest personality cor- relate of political attitudes is Openness to experience. As one would expect, this trait is negatively associated with conserva- tism and authoritarianism (a construct put forward by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). For instance, Riemann, Grubich, Hempel, Mergl, and Richter (1993) and Van Hiel and Mervielde (1996) reported correlations in the order of –.57 and –.42, respectively, between Openness and conservatism in European samples. Similar results have been reported for larger U.S. samples. For example, McCrae (1996) reported a correlation of –.35 between Openness and authori- tarianism, while Trapnell (1994) reported more variable cor- relations of Openness with conservatism (from –.18 to –.64) on one hand, and authoritarianism (–.29 to –.63) on the other. Some predicted a quadratic relationship between Openness and political ideology, such that extreme attitudes (both left and right) are associated with lower Openness scores (Greenberg
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 169 8/24/2012 6:36:07 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 4
170
& Jonas, 2003; Wilson, 1973). Thus, higher Openness would be associated with moderate political views and more critical attitudes toward authority: “questioning authority is a natural extension of an open individual’s curiosity” (McCrae & Costa, 1997, p. 837). However, Stone and Smith (1993, p. 154) argue that political psychologists tend to “base their case on intuitive evidence . . . concerning apparent similarities between regimes of the far left and far right, rather than on a system review of the empirical data on any personality and ideology.” There is also evidence for the negative relationship between Openness and prejudice, including racial discrimination. Thus, having an open mind would dispose people to be more tolerant toward other groups and perceive them as equal (Flynn, 2005). As you will recall from Chapter 1, Openness is characterized by intel- lectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, vivid imagination, behav- ioral fl exibility, and unconventional attitudes. According to the literature, therefore, people who hold right-wing attitudes tend to be less perceptive, sophisticated, knowledgeable, cultured, artistic, curious, and analytical.
CONCLUSION
Political attitudes are often seen as malleable, shaped by past experiences or the environment that a person has encountered. Yet, research shows that personality is a signifi cant and consis- tent predictor of such attitudes. This suggests that personality will shape the way a person reacts to past experiences and envi- ronments, by infl uencing the type of attitudes that are absorbed and rejected, and the extent to (or intensity by) which these attitudes are absorbed or rejected. Such fi ndings are interesting because social attitudes and prejudice have almost universally been explained in terms of social or cultural processes, such as in-group versus out-group membership. However, as the research above shows, central to differences between people,
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 170 8/24/2012 6:36:07 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
171
in terms of the political attitudes they hold, are dispositional personality traits, such as Openness to experience.
PERSONALITY AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES
Pretty much every known culture to mankind has some form of religious conviction. Religion is a universal aspect of society and, it seems, human nature. It is also arguably the most dominant social factor to have infl uenced modern history. Today, religion is, as ever, at the forefront of newspapers, radio, and television. Religion may have different meanings as well as consequences. From an individual difference perspective, it has been studied in terms of differences in religiosity. Since the 60s, psychologists have attempted to capture the concept of religiosity, as well as investigate individual differences in this construct.
Two main aspects of religiosity have emerged through research; these are religious orientation and religious coping. Religious orientation can be separated into intrinsic and extrin- sic orientation toward religion. Intrinsic orientation comprises strong feelings, strong personal beliefs, and strong commitment toward religion. It is the more common view we have of religi- osity, as something internal and emotional, which infl uences a person’s way of being and thinking. An extrinsic orientation, on the other hand, refl ects a person’s use of religion for purposes of protection and consolidation, as well as participation and social status. It is a more practical and perhaps indirect way of using religion, where religiosity is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
As with political attitudes, religious attitudes are socially learned. People have no genes for Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. Religious attitudes clearly need to have been taught to the person by his or her family, friends, or society. Nevertheless, there are often substantial differences between people in how religious they are, even within the same families and
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 171 8/24/2012 6:36:07 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 4
172
(homogenous) social environments. So, it is not impossible to conceive that these individual differences in religiosity are the result, not of differences in the social environment that people are exposed to, but rather of dispositional traits.
Several theorists argued that this may indeed be the case. For instance, according to Hans Eysenck (1916–1997), reli- giosity refl ects tender-mindedness, such that tender-minded individuals are more likely to have stronger religious orienta- tions. Given that low Psychoticism comprises attributes such as empathy, responsibility, and, in particular, conformity, Eysenck hypothesized this personality dimension to be inversely related to religiosity.
The link between religiosity and Psychoticism has been investigated in a large number of studies. This research has largely confi rmed Eysenck’s hypothesis in that Psychoticism has been found to consistently and strongly predict religiosity, with the fi ndings generalizing across cultures and denominations (Saroglou, 2002). Furthermore, Psychoticism has been found to be inversely related to both religious orientation and religious coping. This personality dimension, in addition, predicts the frequency of religious activity, for instance, how often a person attends church or engages in personal prayer. Empirically, the (negative) relationship between low Psychoticism and religious orientation is well established; but it is also rather interesting. It suggests that people who are more religious are less aggressive, less impulsive, less unfriendly, less insensitive, and less antiso- cial. Perhaps this explains why the majority of people with a religious orientation often feel misrepresented by the minority of those that capture the attention and coverage of the media as a result of violent and aggressive extremist acts.
Less research has looked at the Big Five personality factors in relation to religious orientations. However, this trend has been shifting. Initially, studies suggested that high Agreeableness and high Conscientiousness were related to religiosity, con- fi rming the religiosity–low Psychoticism relationship found in the literature (given that the Five Factor Model [FFM] explains
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 172 8/24/2012 6:36:07 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
173
Psychoticism as low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness). Recently, a meta-analysis conducted by Saroglou (2002) showed that there were associations also between other Big Five factors and religiosity. Saroglou classifi ed religiosity into four types roughly corresponding to: (1) intrinsic religiosity, (2) extrinsic religiosity, (3) spirituality, and (4) religious fundamentalism (the intrinsic and extrinsic distinction corresponding to the traditional view of religiosity). While previous research with Eysenck’s PEN model had revealed mixed results in regard to Eysenck’s Neuroticism and Extraversion dimensions, Saroglou found all Big Five traits to be related to religiosity. The results of the meta-analysis showed that Extraversion was related to intrinsic religiosity and spirituality, Neuroticism was negatively related to intrinsic religiosity and positively related to extrinsic religiosity, and Openness to experience was positively related to spirituality and negatively related to fundamentalism.
Saroglou postulates that the link between Extraversion and religiosity may be explained by differences in the present- day expressions of religiosity, whereby religiosity today argu- ably takes a more expressive and social form than in the past. However, he is also quick to point out that the Extraversion facets of gregariousness, warmth, and positive emotionality are all conceptually related to religiosity, suggesting that there may also be a more direct link between these constructs.
The negative link between Neuroticism and spirituality poses an interesting question in regard to the causality of this relationship. That is, does spirituality lead to emotional stabil- ity or are emotionally stable people more likely to fi nd spiritual- ity? This is an intriguing research question given that the former scenario may be an important one, both in terms of explain- ing religiosity and also in terms of psychological interventions. Longitudinal studies may help to explicate this enquiry. It is also interesting to note the positive link between Neuroticism and extrinsic religiosity, which corresponds to Freud’s notion of religiosity as an obsessive act. In particular, Freud explained religious practices as analogous to obsessive actions, serving
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 173 8/24/2012 6:36:07 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 4
174
as defensive, self-protective measures to repress unconscious desires and impulses. Finally, the negative link between Openness and religious fundamentalism is in line with studies on Openness and political attitudes, which indicate that open individuals have moderate political views and are more critical toward authority.
CONCLUSION
The literature presented above indicates that personality plays an important role in forming religious attitudes. This is found both in relation to Eysenck’s PEN model and the Five Factors of personality. Furthermore, Saroglou’s meta-analysis indicates that similar patterns of the religion–FFM associations may be found across countries and denominations (e.g., United States, Canada, Poland, and Belgium). This is an important point for consideration. Currently, explanations for religious convictions and their links to various behaviors (e.g., a U.S. or U.K. citizen seeking military training from terrorist bodies abroad) are regu- larly based on societal or contextual factors, and sometimes on the content of the religious teachings themselves. In contrast, research into the psychology of religious personality seems to confi rm the hypothesis that religiosity corresponds to indi- vidual differences in dispositional traits. This research suggests that personality often acts as a fi lter or an amplifi er with respect to religious convictions (i.e., thoughts and feelings), as well as infl uencing the way religiosity may be manifested in behavior. It is also of interest to note the traits that religiosity is associated with. Religious persons and, in particular, those who possess intrinsic religiosity and spirituality tend to be more agreeable, more emotionally stable, less aggressive, impulsive, and antiso- cial. These are characteristics not always associated with religi- osity, perhaps because religious connotations are overshadowed by atrocities that a very few unrepresentative groups commit
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 174 8/24/2012 6:36:08 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
175
in the name of religion. Regardless of these associations, the evidence clearly points to the fact that models of religious and political convictions need to include individual difference vari- ables such as personality, in order to explain social behavior and attitudes.
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Social attitudes, be it political, religious, or otherwise, may not always infl uence social behavior; and even when there is a relationship between attitudes and behavior, one could ask the question as to how much of this relationship results from com- mon underlying factors. Psychologists have studied the causes of social behavior for decades. Although social behavior is an all-encompassing concept, the focus in this section is between prosocial and antisocial behavior.
Psychologists have generally made a distinction between these two concepts. Prosocial behaviors include altruism, volunteerism, community involvement, and social services, whereas antisocial behaviors include crime, substance abuse, and truancy. Accordingly, prosocial and antisocial behaviors are not viewed as two opposite extremes of the same dimen- sion, but rather as two different factors (even if negative correla- tions would be expected). For instance, a person may not act prosocially, but that does not mean that he or she engages in antisocial behaviors.
Predictably, there has been wider interest in antisocial than in prosocial behavior, though recent years have seen an upsurge in studies examining the link between personality and prosocial behavior (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). Prosocial activities have obvious positive, and important, implications for society. Nevertheless, it is easy to see substantial differences between people in terms of their willingness to get involved in helping others. So, what makes some people more prosocial
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 175 8/24/2012 6:36:08 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 4
176
than others? Why do some people volunteer or engage in char- ity work, while others do not?
According to research, the most important personality cor- relates of prosocial behavior are Extraversion and Agreeableness (Carlo, Okun, Knight, & de Guzman, 2005). Studies suggest that extraverted and agreeable individuals have a general tendency to help others and are more motivated to engage in altruistic behaviors, such as volunteering and charity work.
These fi ndings are not diffi cult to explain. For instance, one of the lower level facets of Extraversion is sociability. Thus, individuals high on Extraversion have a higher interest in peo- ple and are, as a result, more likely to help them. Similarly, Agreeableness comprises facets such as altruism, modesty, and helpfulness; these are all conceptually related to proso- cial behavior. In support of these fi ndings, Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, and Freifeld (1995) suggested that prosocial behavior is the result of two salient components: (a) empathy—a dimen- sion strongly related with Agreeableness and (b) helpfulness—a dimension correlated with Extraversion (Penner, 2002).
Although prosocial behavior has important social out- comes, the benefi ts of such behaviors are no doubt overshad- owed by the costs of antisocial behavior. This may explain why the literature is dominated by research focusing on the causes of antisocial behavior. Destructive behavior in the workplace, rioting, assaults, shoplifting, and other antisocial behaviors are costing millions of dollars for organizations and communities every year; violent and aggressive behaviors destroy individu- als’ and families’ lives.
Needless to say, preventing antisocial behavior is of imperative public interest. For a problem to be prevented and solved, however, its causes must be identifi ed and understood. Explanations for antisocial behavior vary. Learned, sociological, and demographic infl uences have evidently been implicated to have a strong impact on such behavior. Statistically, antisocial behavior is predictable with clear demographics: males who are young, poor, uneducated, and belong to the minority are more
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 176 8/24/2012 6:36:08 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
177
likely to offend than others (Egan, 2011). Accordingly, one per- spective is bluntly sociological (and, to some extent, political). In poor communities, the struggle for survival is harder; in such conditions, survival motives may overshadow communal and egalitarian ones, resulting in higher rates of antisocial behavior. Poor communities are the result of hierarchical societies with the top having undue infl uence on the bottom. Therefore, anti- social behavior can be considered a societal phenomenon.
Although “engineered demographics” is one way of explain- ing antisocial behavior, major individual differences in offend- ing exist within these groups. That is, not all young men who are uneducated and a minority engage in antisocial behavior. In fact, such acts are committed only by a very small percentage of people within that society. The statistics show that even in criminal cohorts, an estimated 6% of the people are responsible for most of the offenses (Farringdon, Barnes, & Lambert, 1996).
There are two ways of explaining individual differences between those who offend and those who do not (within a homogenous society). One is through environmental, or learned, processes. These may include intergenerational depriva- tion, parenting, and other communal contagion. For instance, a child may be raised in a poor family, where struggle for survival often takes an aggressive form. To gain suffi cient resources, par- ents, siblings, and relatives may engage in violent or criminal acts. In addition to social and communal infl uences, therefore, family members may act as antisocial or criminal role models, teaching and reinforcing antisocial behavior. Accordingly, in this model, learning and reinforcement are the source of anti- social behavior.
The other account of antisocial behavior posits disposi- tional factors and heredity. From an evolutionary perspective, heritability of antisocial behaviors may sound counterintui- tive because evolution only promotes genes that are benefi cial for survival of the group. On the other hand, it is theoretically possible that violent acts may have been evolutionarily adap- tive. For instance, in hunter–gatherer societies, violence was
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 177 8/24/2012 6:36:08 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 4
178
found both between tribes and within them. Such violent acts included not only aggressive fi ghts for resources between tribes, but also violent warnings to in-group members who threatened group cohesion. Furthermore, in unpredictable and dangerous times, aggressive, opportunistic, and promiscuous behavior may have been more effective for surviving than agreeable and refl ective behavior, as quicker “fi ght” or “copulation” responses may have been necessary to gain resources and mates. Such ten- dencies will, consequently, have been passed on from genera- tion to generation because they promote survival.
Based on these arguments, there is good reason to expect antisocial behavior to be heritable. Research supports this hypothesis. Behavioral genetics research indicates that genes account for about 41% of variation in antisocial behavior (with nonshared environment accounting for 43%) and that this heri- tability becomes stronger with age (Bergen, Gardner, & Kendler, 2007; Jacobson, Prescott, & Kendler, 2002). This does not mean that there are specifi c genes for stealing or assaulting people, of course. As discussed in Chapter 2, single-gene effects are rare in research. Rather, genes have their effects indirectly by directing the development of biological mechanisms. Thus, more com- monly, biological mechanisms have been implicated in antiso- cial behavior. These include sex hormones (i.e., testosterone), neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., attention defi cit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], child conduct disorder, oppositional-defi ant disorder), specifi c information-processing impairments (e.g., failing to learn associations between negative stimulus and negative consequences), and genetic vulnerability to addiction, indirectly associated with antisocial behavior (Egan, 2011).
The above accounts link antisocial behavior directly and distinctly either to environmental or biological processes. As mentioned before, however, the nature–nurture interaction is rarely an either-or phenomenon. Rather, it is always nature and nurture, and the infl uence of either can depend on the other and differ across time. Indeed, longitudinal studies examining the interaction between genetic and environmental factors have
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 178 8/24/2012 6:36:08 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
179
found biopsychosocial processes to strongly predict the onset of antisocial activity. For instance, persons with combined obstetric and poverty-related concerns are twice as likely to commit vio- lent acts or theft as groups who have either poverty or obstetric concerns alone (Raine, Brennan, Mednick, & Mednick, 1996). Similarly, although maltreatment increases the risk of conduct problems, this risk increases by 24% if the child is also at high genetic risk compared to a mere 2% increase if the child is at low genetic risk (Jaffee et al., 2005). Caspi et al. (2002) found that maltreated children with high levels of the gene for metab- olizing monoamine oxidase A (which metabolizes neurotrans- mitters such as dopamine, noradrenalin, and serotonin) were nine times less likely to commit a violent crime than peers who had a low level of this gene. Lastly, a dysfunctional family envi- ronment can help to explain variability in antisocial behavior; however, the effect of a dysfunctional family environment is substantially stronger for children with a genetic susceptibility for such behavior.
While these fi ndings demonstrate the environmental infl u- ences involved in antisocial behavior, they arguably present a stronger argument for a genetic basis of such tendencies. It is clear that genes and environment are intricately interlinked in infl uencing the onset of antisocial behavior, and models attempting to account for such behavior can exclude neither of these factors nor their interplay.
Given the genetic basis for antisocial tendencies, it is only natural to ask how they relate to broader dispositional tendencies, such as the basic three or fi ve dimensions of personality. Research on the personality correlates of antisocial behavior stretches back several decades. Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) hypothesized that the Psychoticism dimension of the PEN model, which includes facets such as tough-mindedness, hostility, aggression, coldness, egocentricity, impulsivity, and low empathy, is a good proxy for the development of antisocial tendencies. This premise has been supported by research. For instance, in a recent meta-analysis, Cale (2006) found that a disposition for Psychoticism strongly
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 179 8/24/2012 6:36:09 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 4
180
predicted antisocial behavior, with a mean effect size of .39. Cale also found a relationship between Neuroticism, Extraversion, and antisocial tendencies, but these relationships were substantially smaller, with Extraversion being the weakest predictor (mean effect sizes: Neuroticism = .19, Extraversion = .09).
The relationship between Psychoticism and antisocial behavior is unsurprising. People high in Psychoticism are highly argumentative and may be inappropriately assertive. They are verbally more aggressive and more prone to resort to vio- lence to resolve confl icts. Consequently, they are more likely to provoke confl icts, which, in turn, augment the probability of antisocial conduct. Despite the theoretical (and empirical) rela- tionships between Psychoticism and antisocial behavior, the use of the Psychoticism construct to predict such behavior remains controversial because of its weaker psychometric properties, in comparison to other personality dimensions. Thus, more con- temporary research has increasingly focused on the relationship between the Big Five dimensions and antisocial behavior.
As would be expected from the literature on Psychoticism and antisocial tendencies, research conducted with the Big Five has identifi ed low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness as the strongest predictors of such behavior. Another important correlate of antisocial tendencies is Neuroticism. Interestingly, Extraversion seems less important for predicting such behavior, which emphasizes the idea that prosocial and antisocial behav- iors are not two opposite extremes of the same dimension but, rather, two different factors (Krueger, Hicks, & McGue, 2001).
The negative link between Conscientiousness and antiso- cial behavior highlights the fact that conscientious individuals have a higher sense of morality and self-control, which is the tendency to suppress impulsive, risk-taking, and physical behav- iors (O’Gorman & Baxter, 2002). Indeed, low Conscientiousness predicts adolescent confl icts (Conger & Ge, 1999), substance abuse (Walton & Roberts, 2004), vandalism and theft (Heaven, 1996), criminal acts (Wiebe, 2004), and even suicide attempts (Verona, Patrick, & Joiner, 2001).
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 180 8/24/2012 6:36:09 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
181
Agreeableness is, perhaps, the strongest personality pre- dictor of antisocial behavior. For instance, Miller, Lynam, and Leukefeld (2003) found that facets of Agreeableness were con- sistently related to a variety of outcomes, including stability, variety, and onset of conduct problems, aggression, and anti- social personality disorder symptoms. Buss and Perry (1992) also found Agreeableness to be the single best predictor of gen- eral aggression (a factor comprising verbal aggression, anger, physical aggression, and hostility) and to have a relationship with physical aggression that no other dimension of personal- ity had.
Longitudinal studies have also shown that personality can predict not only past but also future antisocial behav- ior. For instance, Samuels et al. (2004) found that the big fi ve traits could predict criminal behavior and offenses (e.g., vio- lent arrests), across a time frame of 12 and even 18 years. The researchers found that people who had been arrested more frequently were higher on angry hostility, depression, and impulsiveness (all facets of Neuroticism), and lower on trust, straightforwardness, compliance, and modesty (all facets of Agreeableness). Those who had committed violent arrests, in addition, were lower on gregariousness (facet of Extraversion) and Openness to feelings, respectively (facet of Openness). Offenders were also higher on the excitement-seeking facet of Extraversion and lower on the Conscientiousness facets of com- petence, dutifulness, and deliberation. Samuels et al. (2004) found that the overall effect size of personality for predicting offending was .5, even after controlling for demographic and biographic factors, such as age, sex, race, substance misuse, or a diagnosis of personality disorder.
Overall, the literature on antisocial behavior seems to demonstrate a consistent pattern. While demographic and biographic variables have infl uence on antisocial behavior, persons with high Neuroticism, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness seem particularly prone to these tendencies. It is clear that there is an intricate link between sociological and
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 181 8/24/2012 6:36:09 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 4
182
dispositional infl uences on the onset of antisocial behavior. For that reason, models attempting to account for such behav- ior can exclude neither of these factors nor their interplay. For instance, while alcohol is often seen as a trigger to hostility, alcohol-related violence is very much moderated by the per- sonality traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Egan & Hamilton, 2008).
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-04_24-08-12_157-182.indd 182 8/24/2012 6:36:09 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
183
Personality and Personal Implications
How important is personality for our personal lives? This is perhaps a question to which the answer would, for many, intuitively be “quite a lot.” As we mentioned at the outset, this is one of
the fundamental reasons why people are interested in personal- ity psychology: We want to know what, and how big an, effect our character has on our personal lives. For instance, we know from experience that people frequently contemplate their own and their partner’s personality when they are thinking about their love life. We think about our (and their) preferences, the aspects of our character that are desirable, and the aspects that may be undesirable in relationships. This may be the case also with family and friends. Importantly, we believe that our per- sonality does have an effect on outcomes of such personal mat- ters. But how far does this effect stretch? We may believe that personality characteristics impact relationships—but can we
5
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 183 8/24/2012 6:35:54 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
184
also then assume that they impact our happiness? What about our health? In this chapter, we review the literature that shows how, and the extent to which, personality impacts our personal lives. We start our review by discussing an intuitive but most intriguing topic of romantic relationships, before moving on to some less intuitive but no less important personal issues, namely, health and happiness.
PERSONALITY AND ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIPS
We all want to be in a satisfying and healthy romantic relation- ship. The obsession with fi nding the “right one” is a testament to this desire. Everyone wants to be happy and we know that relationships are highly important for achieving this. Indeed, research indicates that healthy romantic relationships play a key role in fostering emotional well-being and physical health (Berscheid, 1999). As Freud famously said, mental health con- sists of the capacity to “love and work” (Arbeit und Liebe), so at least half of our happiness may depend on having a fulfi lling relationship.
A 12-year-old neighbor of one of the authors once asked: Do you fi nd destiny or does destiny fi nd you? Often people wonder whether fate will introduce to them the “right one.” They also differ in how actively they seek destiny. Should, or can, one do anything about fi nding that person—“the right one”? And, if one believes in fi nding destiny, then what do men and women want? What is it about some persons that make them more suc- cessful in relationships, both in terms of initiating them and in terms of maintaining them? Why are some couples happier than others?
The study of personality and romantic relationships attempts to address these questions by looking at the infl uence of people’s character on a relationship’s success. We should note
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 184 8/24/2012 6:35:55 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
185
that this area of research is relatively small within individual differences. Traditionally, psychologists have focused on sexual attractiveness, often only examining physical attributes (Swami, Stieger, Haubner, Voracek, & Furnham, 2009). Nevertheless, in the past 10 or 15 years, an increasing number of studies have investigated the effect of personality traits on our love life, and this research is growing steadily.
Reviewers have noted that “attraction of a suitable partner, propensity to establish a relationship intended to be perma- nent, and maintenance of that relationship may have related etiologies [causes] and that these etiologies may have their roots in personality” (Johnson, McGue, Krueger, & Bouchard, 2004, p. 285). At this most basic level, an individual-differences approach to romantic relationships seeks to establish whether there are certain traits that make relationship initiation, satisfac- tion, and maintenance more likely. Key questions in this research are: (1) Why are people attracted to some but not others, that is, what traits are involved in the initial attraction of a suitable partner, (2) Why are some couples happier in their relationship than others, that is, what traits are involved in achieving a happy relationship, and fi nally (3) Why do some relationships break while others last, that is, what traits are involved in enduring relationships. Below, we will review research dealing with each of these questions.
Love at First Sight? Personality and Initial
Attraction
Typically, psychologists have viewed nonphysical factors in interpersonal attraction as trivial in understanding initial attraction (Swami & Furnham, 2008). Nevertheless, several authors have suggested that interpersonal attraction is multi- faceted and should be expanded to include variables such as conversational skills, sense of humor, expressive movements, facial expressions, body language, and so on (e.g., Rucas et al., 2006). Furthermore, individual difference factors involved in
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 185 8/24/2012 6:35:55 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
186
the process of early attraction may reside both with the observer and the observed. Thus, the question is: Are there certain psycho- logical traits on the part of the observer and the observed that infl uence interpersonal attraction? While the latter seems more obvious than the former, both are plausible scenarios.
The Observer
It seems likely that the observer’s personality should infl uence interpersonal attraction (Swami, 2007); however, very few stud- ies have empirically tested this possibility. Nevertheless, some exceptions exist. For instance, Wood and Brumbaugh (2009) conducted a study with 4,308 participants and reported that each of the Big Five personality traits was associated with pref- erences for target photographs of women and men. In another study, including almost 1,000 participants, Openness to experi- ence was found to correlate with the perception of a wider range of body sizes as being physically attractive (Swami, Buchanan, Furnham, & Tovée, 2008). The authors suggested that this association might be expected given that Openness refl ects an acceptance of unconventional societal norms. This trait may, consequently, serve to widen the pool of potential partners. Research has also reported signifi cant associations between two of the other Big Five traits, Agreeableness and Extraversion, and body size perceptions in a potential partner (Swami, Buchanan, Furnham, & Tovée, 2008). In addition, an interesting study found Neuroticism to be signifi cantly associated with a prefer- ence to be in a relationship where the male is taller than the woman (Swami, Furnham, et al., 2008). The authors proposed that this fi nding may refl ect more neurotic individuals’ desire to avoid negative emotions associated with breaking conventions or social norms related to height.
It should be noted, however, that despite such fi ndings, there are studies that have found no signifi cant effect of the observer’s personality on initial attraction (e.g., Ahmetoglu & Swami, 2012; Swami et al., 2010), and the reported signifi cant
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 186 8/24/2012 6:35:55 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
187
associations in studies of this kind have generally been weak (reported rs between .10 and .28). Nevertheless, there is a good reason to believe that an observer’s personality should have a signifi cant effect on initial attraction, and some empiri- cal research supports this. To get a complete picture of initial attraction, thus, we need to examine physical and psychologi- cal features, including those of the observer. There is therefore a strong need for further research in this area.
The Observed (The Target)
More research has been done on the personality characteris- tics people desire in others. The literature suggests that per- sonality information provided, or obtained, about a person may have a causal infl uence on how attractive that person is perceived to be. A common research method for examining this effect is to present personality information concurrently with physical information (e.g., pictures) about potential partners. For instance, Gross and Crofton (1977) had par- ticipants rate the physical attractiveness of potential partners based on a profi le containing personality and physical infor- mation. They showed that both the attractiveness of the tar- get, as well as the favorability of the personality profi le, had an infl uence on ratings of physical attractiveness. In another study, Lewandowski, Aron, and Gee (2007) showed that posi- tive personality information can change participants’ ratings of opposite-sex facial attractiveness seen in photographs. The researchers showed that when positive personality informa- tion was provided in conjunction with facial photographs, targets were perceived as more desirable as friends and dat- ing partners, compared to when no (or undesirable) infor- mation was provided. Personality information has also been shown to moderate the effect of body size on attractiveness. That is, positive personality information may compensate for less attractive physical traits such as (larger) body size (Swami, 2010).
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 187 8/24/2012 6:35:55 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
188
Other studies employing different methodologies have also shown that personality infl uences attractiveness. For instance, Friedman and colleagues (Friedman, Riggio, & Casella, 1988; Riggio, Friedman, & DiMatteo, 1981) found that Extraversion and exhibition are positively correlated with ratings of attrac- tiveness in initial encounters. Interestingly, studies report that people may infer personality characteristics from physical attri- butes and that this information may in itself infl uence percep- tions of attractiveness. For instance, Little, Burt, and Perrett (2006) found that faces that are perceived to possess desired personality traits (e.g., Extraversion) are rated as more attractive than faces that did not possess that trait. Similarly, Ahmetoglu and Swami (2012) showed that men who use more expressive body language are rated as more dominant, and consequently, as more sexually attractive. Traits such as dominance, hyper- masculinity, and sensation-seeking have all been found to relate to initial attraction and courtship success (Renniger, Wade, & Grammer, 2004), providing clear evidence that traits of the observed individual affect relationship initiation (Bogaert & Fisher, 1995).
Overall, this literature suggests that personality differences, both in the observers and the observed, infl uence initial attrac- tions between individuals, suggesting that the notion of “love at fi rst sight” may be even more complicated than commonly believed. But what happens after initial attractions—or love at fi rst sight? Does personality infl uence whether the love story has a happy ending or not? Below, we review research examin- ing the infl uence of personality on a relationship’s success.
The Secret of a Successful Relationship
What is the secret of a successful and happy relationship? Is it enough to have love? What makes love last?
Discussions on love and relationships are common among friends, relatives, and colleagues and have long been a favorite topic of poets and songwriters. Often, people will converge on
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 188 8/24/2012 6:35:55 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
189
the notion that a relationship’s success is all about fi nding the perfect match. While that may be the case, one could ask one- self if some people actually tend to match more readily with others in general, while others fi nd it hard to fi nd anyone match- ing. In other words, could it be that some people are inherently more prone to be happier and last longer in relationships (while others are destined to fail in most)?
Understanding the factors involved in a relationship’s success is increasingly falling within the purview of the psycho- logical sciences (Griffi ths, 2007). Developmental psychologists have long highlighted the importance of upbringing, in particu- lar, implicit observation and imitation of parental relationships (Booth & Amato, 2001), as a constituent of romantic relation- ships. For instance, Conger, Cui, Bryant, and Elder (2000) reported that supportive upbringing during childhood pre- dicted less hostile relationships in adulthood. Indeed, a recent study (Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, & Conger, 2005) has shown that parenting styles can predict romantic relationships, even when the personality (of the child) is taken into account. Researchers have also pointed to sociological, economic, or chance factors as important in infl uencing a relationship’s success.
In recent years, however, an increasing number of psycho- logists have argued that individual differences in personality may play a pivotal role in whether a relationship is successful or not. This literature covers the associations between personal- ity and various relationship outcomes, including the relation- ship’s length (i.e., how long the relationship has lasted) and its quality. So, can personality traits predict relationship satisfac- tion and stability?
Although the research only stretches back a couple of decades, there is strong evidence to suggest that personality fac- tors do infl uence a relationship’s quality and length (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988). In particular, a number of studies have reported a negative association between Neuroticism and relationship or marital quality (e.g., Barelds, 2005; Heaven, Smith, Prabhakar, Abraham, & Mete, 2006; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000), as
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 189 8/24/2012 6:35:56 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
190
well as a positive link between Neuroticism and marital disso- lution (Kelly & Conley, 1987). Whereas this link has sometimes been interpreted as a mere artifact of neurotics’ negative self- bias (neurotics are more pessimistic and thus generally more likely to report negative ratings of anything), there is wide con- sensus that Neuroticism is, in fact, detrimental for relationships (Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999). Furthermore, a recent study defi ned competence in romantic relationships as “the set of behaviors that enable an indivi dual to form an enduring romantic union that is mutually satisfying to both partners” (Donnellan et al., 2005, p. 563) and considered Neuroticism as the most important threat to these behaviors. The authors concluded that neurotics’ predisposition to easily experience anger, distress, and anxiety is “relatively destructive for rela- tionships” (p. 572).
Agreeableness is another relevant trait in understanding the dynamics of relationships and has been negatively associated with both marital dissatisfaction (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997) and negative partner interactions (Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004), and positively linked to confl ict resolution in romantic relationships (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). This association is intuitive given that agreeable indi- viduals are more likely to positively perceive others, are more responsive in social interactions (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000), and are more likely to control their negative emotions and use constructive (rather than coercive) tactics in confl ict situations (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001).
Our own research (Ahmetoglu, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Swami, 2009) shows that personality also infl uences your rela- tionship style, that is, the degree to which you tend to be inti- mate, passionate, or committed in relationships (see Chapter 5 for a bit more detail on types of relationship styles you may adopt). In addition, it demonstrates that the style you adopt in a relationship will have consequences on the outcome of that relationship, such as how long the relationship lasts. In a study we conducted in 2009, we examined over 16,000 people in
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 190 8/24/2012 6:35:56 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
191
regard to their relationship style and their personality profi le. We found that extraverted persons tend to be more passionate in their relationships, whereas conscientious people tend to favor intimacy and commitment. Agreeable individuals, on the other hand, tend to adopt what Sternberg (1986) calls a “con- summate love” style; in other words, they tend to be intimate, committed, and passionate.
Importantly, we found that two out of three relationship styles were signifi cantly related to how long a relationship has lasted. As one would expect, our results showed that a tendency to be committed to the partnership was predictive of longer lasting relationships. Interestingly, however, a passionate rela- tionship style was negatively related to the relationship’s length. That is, if you tend to be more passionate, your relationship is likely to end quicker—and this is a function of how extraverted you are in the fi rst place. Such fi ndings suggest that your per- sonality and the love style you adopt may have an independent effect on your relationship in terms of how long it lasts, regard- less of whether you have found a suitable partner or not.
Compelling evidence on the infl uence of personality on a relationship’s success derives also from longitudinal studies. Personality traits have been found to predict not only concur- rent relationship outcomes, but also future ones. For example, Newman, Caspi, Moffi tt, and Silva (1997) found that tempera- ment measures at the age of 3 predict a relationship’s quality at the age of 21. Likewise, Robins, Caspi, and Moffi tt (2002) showed that positive emotionality measured at age 18 predicted the quality of a relationship at age 26. Finally, personality traits assessed by the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Tellegen, 1982) measured in late adolescence have been found to predict aspects of romantic relationships in early adulthood (Donnellan et al., 2005).
What about the perfect match hypothesis? A prevailing the- ory of the perfect match hypothesis, known as the similarity- attraction theory, suggests that two individuals are more likely to form (and successfully maintain) romantic affi liations if
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 191 8/24/2012 6:35:56 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
192
they share similar characteristics, such as political and religious attitudes, socioeconomic background, level of education and intelligence, and personality. Indeed, most dating sites use this theory in their advertising. While this is a common presump- tion also among lay people, studies that have examined the similarity-attraction hypothesis in relation to personality and romantic attraction and maintenance have returned equivocal results, with consensus now suggesting that the effects of per- sonality similarity are weak at best (Caspi & Herbener, 1990; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004).
Conclusion
Overall, the research reviewed above shows that your partner’s and your own natural dispositions have an important role in whether the relationship is satisfying and enduring, and this is independent of whether you match or not. It should be noted, however, that despite these impressive fi ndings, the literature is relatively small and few longitudinal designs have examined the role of all Big Five personality dimensions, with most studies comparing between positive and negative emotionality. Clearly, the available research only begins to scratch the surface of what may be termed the “personality of love,” and much future work remains to be done in uncovering the associations between per- sonality, love dimensions, and particularly relationship initia- tion, maintenance, and dissolution.
Nevertheless, the insights obtained from the available research may have important implications both in personal and in professional terms. For instance, Neuroticism and low Agreeableness consistently emerge as predictors of negative rela- tionship outcomes, and this is the case also across relationships with different partners (Robins et al., 2002). Knowing that your (current or potential) partner’s and indeed your own personal- ity, as opposed to social or contextual factors, may have a stable infl uence on your relationship could result in different coping strategies and more cognizant approaches to confl ict resolution.
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 192 8/24/2012 6:35:56 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
193
Furthermore, insights generated by research may prove useful also for the formulation of relationship advice or interventions that promote more stable relationships through changes in per- sonality dimensions (e.g., teaching individuals how to adopt more conciliatory tactics in confl ict situations). Regardless of the application, research into individual differences in relation- ship initiation and success teaches us a valuable lesson about internal infl uences on success in romantic relationships.
PERSONALITY AND HEALTH
So far in the chapter, we have discussed the effects of person- ality on the captivating issue of romantic relationships. One could argue that the impact of character on love and relation- ships is intuitive. In choosing a partner, we inevitably base our decisions on more than just looks—indeed, the character of the person we choose is often more important in this decision. By the same token, our character may either facilitate or inhibit the success of a relationship. It is normal to think that the character of both partners will play a role in the initiation and mainte- nance of a relationship.
In this section, however, we will discuss the possibility of our personality affecting an arguably less obvious outcome, namely, our health. We say less obvious because when con- templating about our health, more often than not, we think of physiological rather than psychological factors. For instance, we know that some people are more prone to illness, while oth- ers seem immune to it. Some people are quick to recover, while others remain ill for prolonged periods. Indeed, some live lon- ger, while others die young. While this is a fact of life, we would rarely attribute such health issues to psychological causes. More commonly, we would talk about a person’s genetic makeup (e.g., her parents lived long too), or their upbringing and life- style (e.g., she had a great diet and did a lot of sports), as factor
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 193 8/24/2012 6:35:56 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
194
infl uencing his or her health. It is less common to hear people talk about how conscientious, or emotionally stable, someone is when his or her health is at issue.
One reason for this, of course, is that health-related factors are more often than not treated in medical rather than mental health hospitals, and by medical doctors rather than psychologists. The most common health treatment is simple medication (e.g., aspi- rin). Given that the treatment is physiological, we naturally infer the causes to be physiological. If a person has high blood pressure, we would hardly assume this to be associated to that person’s per- sonality or character, but is it possible that physiological factors such as blood pressure are indeed associated with personality?
Although this may seem unusual at fi rst, such a hypothesis was proposed as far back as at the times of the ancient Greeks. Hippocrates, for instance, argued that personality characteris- tics such as anxiousness, anger, or depression related to fl uc- tuations in the blood and were associated with different types of diseases. The relationship of personality and physical factors is also clearly implicated in modern research on temperament (Shontz, 1975; reviewed in Chapter 3). While these approaches discuss the association of personality and physiology in terms of the effect of the latter on the former, more recently, research- ers have started to examine it in the opposite direction also, in terms of the infl uence of personality on physiology (Alexander, 1939). For instance, hypertension, which is the diagnostic label for elevated blood pressure of unknown origins, has been understood as a direct cause of individual differences, such as particular reactions to confl icts, frustration, and repression (Shontz, 1975). For instance, Jorgensen, Blair, Kolodziej, and Schreer (1996) note that “persons with [hypertension] have been described as passive, unassertive, submissive, and prone to suppress anger and hostility” (p. 294). Studies on subjec- tive evaluations also suggest that low self-effi cacy can induce physiologic activation and psychological distress (Bandura, 1986). Thus, it has become clearer that the study of modern conceptions of health requires the examination of not only the
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 194 8/24/2012 6:35:57 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
195
physical but also psychological as well as social factors—a so- called biopsychosocial model of health.
What are the ways that these different processes operate within this model? That is, in what way might personality infl u- ence health? According to Contrada, Cather, and O’Leary (1999) there are three ways by which this process can occur. The fi rst is through the intrinsic characteristics of personality traits, which may be associated with psychological processes. For example, low Agreeableness, and, in particular, its lower order dimen- sions of anger and mistrust, may lead to higher activation of the sympathetic nervous system and, in turn, enhance the chances of coronary artery disease (Smith & Spiro, 2002). The second is through risky behavioral choices, such as smoking, unhealthy diet, and substance abuse, which may threaten individuals’ health. For instance, research shows that unhealthy behaviors are more typical in individuals with low Conscientiousness scores. The fi nal way personality may infl uence health is through preven- tative behaviors and reactions to health problems. For example, conscientious individuals will be more likely to visit the doc- tor if they sense health problems, and take a more proactive approach to treatment of illness (e.g., take all prescribed medi- cation, adopt benefi cial behaviors).
Studies examining these hypotheses have accumulated in the past few decades. Research has shown that personality traits consistently predict broad indicators of physical health, such as absence of illness and longevity (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). For instance, in an early meta-analysis, Friedman and Booth-Kewley (1987) found personality traits, such as hostil- ity, anxiety, depression, and aggressiveness, to predict various disease outcomes.
A major data source for research examining the relation between personality and health has been the longitudinal research project of the Terman Life Cycle Study, which began in 1922 (Terman, Sears, Cronbach, & Sears, 2002). Terman and his colleagues started this project at Stanford by assessing the personality characteristics of over 1,500 children. Data for these
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 195 8/24/2012 6:35:57 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
196
children were subsequently collected in consistent periods of 5 to 10 years. Incredibly, researchers were able to follow-up most of these children even after 70 years. These data provided infor- mation about health and mortality rates of participants, and crucially, about how these rates related to scores on personality inventories that were assessed when participants were children.
In an early examination of these data, Friedman et al. (1993) found that children high on Conscientiousness (as rated by their parents) were at a lower risk of mortality. Interestingly, this fi nd- ing generalized even when the researchers looked at each indi- vidual decade on its own. Subsequent studies replicated this fi nding, and a meta-analysis of 20 such studies reported signifi - cant and negative correlations between Conscientiousness and mortality. Astonishingly, the data revealed that the more consci- entious participants lived about 2 to 4 years longer than their less conscientious counterparts. This remarkable relationship has been explained in terms of the differences between more versus less conscientious individuals tendencies to engage in risky behaviors, follow treatment recommendations, and use coping strategies successfully, as well as of career and social rela- tionships, and engagement in broader prosocietal activities.
Although other personality traits have also been related to health outcomes, such links have been more complex and inconsistent. In particular, facets-level traits have been found to relate to health differentially. For instance, evidence has shown that the Extraversion facet of dominance is predictive of heart disease in males but not in females (Ferraro & Nuriddin, 2006; Rasul, Stansfeld, Hart, & Smith, 2005). Similarly, this facet has been found to relate negatively to health in environments where dominance cannot be established (Manuck, Kaplan, Adams, & Clarkson, 1988), and when it is manifested in more aggressive forms (harming healthy relationships; Smith et al., 2008). However, Kern and Friedman (2011) argue that the effect of dominance on health may depend on the context, such that dominance may be adaptive in stable environments, and if combined with Agreeableness.
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 196 8/24/2012 6:35:57 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
197
Another facet of Extraversion—sociability—has also dif- ferentially been linked with health. For instance, in Terman’s study, sociability was found to predict physical health, but only in women. Given that sociability promotes social ties and thereby social support, it is generally taken as a facet benefi cial for health. Nevertheless, there may be exceptions to this rule. For instance, highly social individuals may be drawn to social situations involving alcohol, drugs, promiscuous behavior, and less sleep, which may have negative effects on health, such as morbidity and mortality (Ploubidis & Grundy, 2009).
One facet that has yielded consistent positive effects on health outcomes, however, is activity. This link seems intuitive in that people who score highly on activity are more likely to take on physical pursuits and be more engaged in life, which results in greater positive arousal, energy, and mental state (Martin et al., 2009).
Studies examining the relationship between Agreeableness and health provide evidence for the effect of this trait on subjective reports, but the effects on objective criteria such as physical health and longevity are mixed (Friedman, Kern, & Reynolds, 2010). Agreeableness may also interact with Conscientiousness in rela- tion to health. Specifi cally, a combination of high Agreeableness and high Conscientiousness promotes health; however, it may increase the risk for individuals low on either of these traits. Kern and Friedman (2011) suggest that a moderate degree of Agreeableness is most likely to be optimal for good health.
One subfacet of Agreeableness that has received ample attention in research is hostility. Hostility has consistently been linked to negative health outcomes. Numerous studies have found this subdimension to relate to health issues such as heart disease, illness, and mortality risk (Suls & Bundy, 2005). Meta-analyses have shown that high hostility is associated with higher body mass index (BMI), more alcohol consumption, smoking, and markers of heart disease, suggesting that the link between this dimension and health may partly be a function of dysfunctional behaviors. Another explanation is that hostility
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 197 8/24/2012 6:35:57 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
198
leads to poor social ties, which, in turn, leaves hostile individu- als with little social support when care and encouragement may be needed.
Several meta-analyses have also shown Neuroticism to be negatively related to health outcomes. These include higher incidents of illness and coronary heart disease (Rugulies, 2002) and increased risk of mortality (Roberts et al., 2007). Such fi ndings can be partially explained with respect to com- mon biological pathways underlying both Neuroticism and various illnesses. This relation can also be environmental, however. For instance, research shows that neurotic individ- uals are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors and more likely to engage in smoking, alcohol use, and other risky health behaviors, which are more proximal causes of illness and dis- ease. Furthermore, anxious individuals have a tendency to interpret events as more negative and stressful and cope worse than less anxious individuals (Vollrath, 2001). Such response styles may, in addition, lead to the long-term changes in the physiological system, further increasing stress responses and elevating natural anxiety levels. Thus, the result can be a nega- tive spiral of occurrences.
Interestingly, some studies have also found effects of Neuroticism on health in the opposite direction (that is high Neuroticism leading to better health). For instance, studies show that high Neuroticism may lead to more protective behav- iors (because neurotic individuals may be more attuned to health symptoms), which, in turn, may result in higher objec- tive health outcomes (regardless of subjective ratings). Indeed, in the Terman sample, Neuroticism was negatively related to risk of mortality for men (though the relationship was positive for women). Research shows that one factor that can moderate the effects of Neuroticism is Conscientiousness. Specifi cally, high Neuroticism combined with high Conscientiousness may lead to protective behaviors; whereas when combined with low Conscientiousness, it can lead to greater risk (Kern, Martin, & Friedman, 2010).
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 198 8/24/2012 6:35:57 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
199
Conclusion
It is unusual to think of personality traits when we contemplate our health. Commonly, we would discuss genetic disposition, environmental infl uences, activities, and lifestyles of people as the most relevant factors. Yet, there are several ways in which personality traits can infl uence our health—and even how long we live. Although a pure biological model looking at the com- mon biological pathways underlying personality and illness pro- vide us with valuable information, it is clear that personality and health have a more complex relationship. Personality infl uences the environments we choose, the types of protective versus risky activities we engage in (as well as the extent to which we do so), and the social bonds we make. While we can attribute differences in health to differences in people’s lifestyles (e.g., the job they have, the amount of sports they do, etc.), personality exerts itself through infl uencing the type of lifestyle a person has in the fi rst place. Such a biopsychosocial model of health provides a valu- able account for explaining our physical and mental health.
PERSONALITY AND HAPPINESS
Why do people want to earn lots of money, climb Mount Everest, or fi nd the perfect partner (i.e., “the one”)? Surely, having money, being at the top of a mountain, or living with a compatible person are not ends in themselves. Rather, these are means to a more fundamental end; and that end is happiness. It is diffi cult to think of a human goal that is more desirable and more sought after than that of being happy (although one may argue staying alive is one—many people would prefer not living at all to living an unhappy life). All our actions (be it looking for a better job, moving, buying clothes and gadgets, or traveling) can ultimately be linked to this goal; in essence, they are simply means to an end.
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 199 8/24/2012 6:35:58 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
200
Two basic questions ensue anytime we talk about happi- ness. First, what is happiness? Second, how does one achieve it? The answer to neither of these questions is simple. Indeed, while interest in happiness stretches back to the beginning of time, our understanding of has been slow to develop, and research into happiness only really took off in the last couple of decades. Nevertheless, in more recent years, research led by Ed Diener, in particular, has taken some big steps in terms of furthering our understanding of happiness. Accordingly, to deal with the two questions above, we will review this research below. The fi rst question we need to address, of course, is what is happiness?
Defi ning Happiness
Although it is easy to know when one is happy, it is slightly more diffi cult to describe in words what happiness actually is. Most people would nevertheless agree that happiness is a subjective thing, usually associated with inner emotions and thoughts. Psychologists have also conceptualized happiness in this way, with the experience of positive effect and life satisfaction as its central focus.
The preferred term in psychology to refer to happiness is subjective well-being (SWB; Diener, 1984, 2000). Although not universally embraced, there is reasonable consensus among researchers that SWB has three components; these are positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), and life satisfaction. PA and NA refl ects a person’s ongoing emotions and mood states, whereas life satisfaction is a more holistic and cogni- tive evaluation of a person’s quality of life (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991). Although one may presume that the two affective components lie at either end of a continuum, research shows that these are independent. Indeed, the three- factor structure seems to better represent the construct of SWB, than either a two- or a one-factor structure (Arthaud- day et al., 2005).
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 200 8/24/2012 6:35:58 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
201
Overall, therefore, one may say that happiness is what emo- tions, more positive or negative, we feel subjectively and the appraisal we have of the quality of our life.
How to Achieve Happiness
Defi ning happiness is important, particularly from a research perspective; however, it is not nearly as important as to fi guring out what determines it. Clearly, there are individual differences in happiness. Some people are happier than others. So the ques- tion is what are the causes of these differences? If you have a moment, consider this quick exercise: Think about three or four (or more) things that have infl uenced how happy/unhappy you are currently. In other words, what do you think determines, or has determined, how happy you are or aren’t at this moment (i.e., today or this week)?
If we were to take a guess, we would say that most of the reasons you thought of involved situational factors or life cir- cumstances. It may involve your current and specifi c situation, such as having to read this book as homework (which we hope is not near the negative end), or a more general reason, to do with your job, partner, or friends and family. It may also involve a loaded or tragic event such as a move, loss of employment, or a loved one. This view, whereby happiness is primarily deter- mined by life circumstances, is in line with bottom-up theo- ries of happiness. Bottom-up theories suggest that a person’s ratings of their own SWB refl ect the sum of evaluations made about a number of life domains (e.g., housing, employment, income, relationships, marriage, etc.) and to ongoing life expe- riences. That is, people simply evaluate how happy they are with each life domain and then aggregate these evaluations to reach an overall SWB judgment (even if subconsciously). Given this, changes in one domain (e.g., job satisfaction) will mean changes in the overall SWB score.
On the other hand, it is unlikely (in our guess) that a vari- able that popped up in your head as an important determinant
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 201 8/24/2012 6:35:58 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
202
of your current level of happiness was your personality. After all, most people do not attribute how happy or unhappy they are to personality traits such as Extraversion or Conscientiousness. However, a salient view in the SWB literature suggests that per- sonality is indeed a strong predictor of happiness. This top-down view suggests that personality traits set an “affective tone” or “fi lter,” by which all subsequent evaluations about one’s emo- tions and life experiences are infl uenced. That is, although life events and circumstances will infl uence SWB, any such effects will be relatively weak and transient in nature, compared to a stronger and more stable infl uence of personality.
The model suggests that this process happens in three ways:
Directly through the baseline levels of affect that personal-1. ity traits are associated with. As we discussed in previous chapters, it is well known that Extraversion is associated with PA and Neuroticism with NA. Directly through differences in information processing. 2. Again, there is a large amount of literature suggesting that personality traits infl uence the way people interpret events, in particular, whether they regard events as nega- tive or positive (i.e., positive or negative biases occur based on these traits). Indirectly through the infl uence of personality on life events. 3. As discussed in Chapter 3, though the environment may have an infl uence on personality, “niche picking” means that personality traits will affect which environments peo- ple chose in the fi rst place.
There has been considerable debate regarding the relative validity of the bottom-up versus the top-down models. However, evidence tends to favor the latter more than the former. To be sure, there is evidence to show that environmental forces such as marital status, income level, and government under which a person lives do have a signifi cant infl uence on SWB (Diener,
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 202 8/24/2012 6:35:58 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS
203
Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Yet, the magnitude of the correla- tions between these variables is generally modest. In addition, such effects seem to be rather short-lived.
In comparison, personality factors seem to exert a stron- ger and more stable infl uence on SWB. In particular, two personality traits—Extraversion and Neuroticism—seem to be particularly predictive of happiness (although signifi cant correlations have also been found with other personality traits). Furthermore, happiness is generally associated with higher lev- els of self-esteem, which is also a function of high Extraversion and low Neuroticism. A recent meta-analysis conducted by Steel, Schmidt, and Schultz (2008) indicated that personality traits can account for a substantial amount of the variability in SWB (estimates reaching as high as 63% disattenuated).
Further support for the pervasive infl uence of personality on happiness comes from studies examining the stability and heritability of SWB. Unlike common conceptions of happi- ness, studies indicate that SWB is surprisingly stable over time. For instance, in a study spanning 3 years, Lucas, Diener, and Suh (1996) found that test–retest correlations of SWB ranged from .56 to .61. These fi ndings have been replicated in several other studies (e.g., Fujita & Diener, 2005; Magnus et al., 1993). Behavioral genetics research also shows a substantial genetic component to happiness. As Pavot and Diener (2011) conclude: “The evidence from studies focused on establishing the heri- tability of SWB indicates that approximately 40–50 percent of the variance of SWB can be attributed to genetic infl uences” (p. 709).
Given this line of evidence, one may question the reason why environmental forces have such modest impact on our lev- els of happiness. One theory, known as the “hedonic treadmill” (Brickman & Campbell, 1971), states that people habituate, or adapt, to environments and life events fairly quickly, so that any new environmental change (e.g., winning the lottery) will only have a transient effect on levels of SWB, before these levels fall back to a hedonically neutral point. A refi ned version of this
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 203 8/24/2012 6:35:58 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 5
204
theory, known as the “set point theory” (Heady & Wearing, 1989) suggests that people return, not to a hedonically neutral point, but rather to a “set point,” which is largely a function of the traits of Extraversion and Neuroticism. In either case, the long-term effect of any life change (including any interven- tions) on long-term SWB will be nil.
While evidence does support the role of adaptation, it is now generally accepted that this process is not as universal and inexorable as fi rst thought. Research has shown that at least some life events, such as loss of a loved one or loss of a job (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2004), do have a long-term effect on levels of happiness. Furthermore, it is now also clear that there are individual differences in adaptation. That is, some people will adapt to changes in the environment more readily than others. Ironically, this will also depend on person’s per- sonality attributes, such as Neuroticism and optimism.
Conclusion
It seems that factors such as health, income, educational back- ground, and marital status account for only a small amount of the variance in well-being measures. Research instead shows that subjective well-being “is fairly stable over time, that it rebounds after major life events, and that it is often strongly correlated with stable personality traits” (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003, p. 406). People will suffer many losses (e.g., death of relatives, friends, and partners) and experience a number of other adverse life events (e.g., unemployment, divorce, stress, health problems). At the same time, they will experience important positive events, such as graduation, engagement, marriage, promotion, and children. These events may represent objective causes of happiness or upset. Yet, the subjective component of happiness is equally important and, over longer periods of time, personality traits are pervasive indicators of happiness.
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-05_24-08-12_183-204.indd 204 8/24/2012 6:35:59 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
205
Personality and Career Implications
In the previous chapter, we noted that Freud saw mental health as a function of happy relationships and career success. This notion is also in line with Hogan’s (1983) socioanalytic theory, which suggests that people need
to get along and get ahead. In evolutionary terms, around 50% of our happiness will result from getting along. The other 50% will be a function of getting ahead, that is, career success. In the previous chapter, we discussed the infl uence of personality on one of these aspects, that of getting along. In this chapter, we will discuss the effects of personality with respect to the other, that of getting ahead. The literature examining the impact of personality on career-related outcomes is vast and stretches back to the beginnings of psychology. Consequently, we have a comprehensive understanding of this relationship and a solid ground on which to make inferences. Below, we will review the most important research and paradigms within this literature,
6
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 205 8/24/2012 6:35:39 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
206
concerning the areas of (a) academic achievement, (b) work performance, (c) leadership, and (d) entrepreneurship.
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Good education and skills are crucial for improving economic and social prospects. According to the latest edition of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD; 2011a), people who do not complete high school face far higher unemployment rates than those who do. In addition, the data show that during the global economic crisis, university graduates have suffered far fewer job losses than those who left school without qualifi cations; the better educated are less likely to need unemployment benefi ts or welfare assistance, and tend to pay more taxes when they enter the job market. In fact, the gross earnings premium for an individual with a tertiary degree exceeds $300,000 for men and $200,000 for women across the OECD.
Clearly, academic achievement has important implica- tions on an individual level. However, the data suggest that the a cademic performance (AP) of students is also highly important for economies and societies. In 2008, OECD countries spent 6.1% of their gross domestic product on education. Furthermore, over the past three decades, the number of international stu- dents has risen dramatically, from 800,000 worldwide in 1975 to 3.7 million in 2009 (OECD, 2011b). Accordingly, any addi- tion to our understanding of academic achievement will have substantial implications in every sense. Governments and edu- cators have long been interested in knowing who will perform well, and who will perform poorly, in academic programs, both in terms of selecting the best and also in identifying and devel- oping those who are behind.
There is established evidence for the predictive validity of IQ in educational settings (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 206 8/24/2012 6:35:40 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
207
2005a, 2006). Indeed, IQ tests are still the best and most widely used individual difference predictor of AP (Deary, Whiteman, Starr, Whalley, & Fox, 2004; Gottfredson, 2002). On the other hand, psychologists have long hypothesized that performance in both work and academic settings is determined by factors other than cognitive ability, including will and personality. For instance, as early as 1915, Webb conceptualized persistence of motives as an important personality trait for the prediction of academic outcomes. A similar concept was later put forward by Alexander (1935) under the label factor X. Spearman (1927) also concurred that this “will” factor is independent of g as a con- tributor to academic achievement.
One reason for such convictions among psychologists was that while cognitive ability refl ects what an individual can do, personality traits refl ect what an individual will typically do (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004). Thus, to the extent that performance in academic settings is infl uenced by, and evaluated through, behavioral tendencies such as perseverance, precision, interpersonal skills, assertiveness, and so on, we would expect long-term AP to be predicted by measures of typi- cal performance, such as personality scales (Goff & Ackerman, 1992).
Interestingly, early research in this fi eld found inconsistent fi ndings between personality and academic success. Indeed, several reviews of the literature in the 20th century examin- ing this link presented equivocal fi ndings and highlighted the scattered nature of the research. Another salient problem in research was that studies (even in more recent research) fre- quently failed to account for the effects of cognitive ability. This is a problem because cognitive abilities and personality traits have been consistently (albeit modestly) associated (e.g., Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007; Poropat, 2009). Given that cognitive ability is a strong predictor of AP, any signifi cant association between personality and academic achievement that did not take into account this factor may have been confounded. Hence, early
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 207 8/24/2012 6:35:40 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
208
reviewers concluded that the data showed no clear trends (e.g., De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Harris, 1940; Margrain, 1978; Stein, 1963).
Despite this, the past 10 to 15 years has seen an upsurge in the number of studies and reviews on the personality correlates of AP (see reviews by Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). With methodological advances, meta-analytical techniques, and the growing acceptance of broad factorial models of personality (i.e., the Five Factor Model), modern reviews have, by and large, refuted early con- clusions. In particular, three recent meta-analyses (O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Trapman, Hell, Hirn, & Schuler, 2007) of the relationship between personality and AP have shown that individual differences in AP can be accurately explained by personality traits.
Big Five Predictors of AP
Without doubt, the strongest and most reliable personality cor- relate of AP has been shown to be the Big Five dimension of Conscientiousness. Numerous empirical studies have identi- fi ed positive relations between this trait and diverse indicators of AP. Conceptually this fi nding is logical since conscientious individuals are more organized, motivated, responsible, and proactive than less conscientious individuals. In addition, Conscientiousness is associated with sustained effort and goal- setting (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993), compliance with and concentration on homework (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, & Niggli, 2006), and learning-related time management and effort regulation (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007). These attributes have all been shown to predict AP. Thus several behaviors that may lead to improved AP, such as attending class, doing homework, and revising for exams, may be a natural consequence of higher Conscientiousness. Likewise, less conscientious individuals may be more likely to miss out on, or be late for, class, forget to complete assignments, and be more careless about revision
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 208 8/24/2012 6:35:41 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
209
and preparation for exams (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b, 2005a).
A particularly noteworthy fi nding from the most recent meta-analysis, conducted by Poropat (2009), is that the correla- tion between Conscientiousness and AP appears to be largely independent of intelligence. Indeed, the results of the meta- analysis showed that Conscientiousness is as strong a predictor of AP as intelligence, and this is true both in the secondary and in the tertiary levels of education. Poropat revealed that stu- dents low on Conscientiousness would be nearly twice as likely to fail as those high on Conscientiousness. Such fi ndings have led researchers to call this personality dimension the “g-factor of personality.”
A second factor that has been identifi ed as relevant to educational outcomes is Openness to experience. It has been suggested that open-minded individuals use a wider set of strategies and learning techniques, including critical evalua- tion, in-depth analysis, and fl exibility (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011). Such strategies may all contribute to academic achieve- ment. Furthermore meta-analytic studies (notably Ackerman & Heggestad, 1992) have shown that Openness to experience is moderately correlated with IQ, which, as mentioned, is a strong predictor of AP. Accordingly, it would seem reasonable to pre- sume a link between Openness and AP. Despite this, however, results from studies examining this link have generally been mixed. For instance, in their review of the literature, Chamorro- Premuzic and Furnham (2005a) noted that several studies had reported no association between Openness and exam grades. Correspondingly, O’Connor and Paunonen (2007) in their meta-analysis found the average correlation between Openness to experience and achievement to be a mere r = .06. In addition, many studies have failed to control for the effect of cognitive ability, which casts doubts even over signifi cant associations that do exist. On the other hand, O’Connor and Paunonen (2007) found that there is substantial variation across research studies in the magnitude of the effect sizes (with correlations ranging
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 209 8/24/2012 6:35:41 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
210
from r = .10 to r = .22). The authors suggest that this relationship may therefore be more complex and depend on other factors (or moderator variables).
In a more recent meta-analysis, however, Poropat (2009) found larger overall effect sizes in the relationship between Openness and academic achievement (even if these still were of modest magnitude—i.e., r = .12). Unlike previous research, Poropat (2009) was also able to control for the effect of intel- ligence. Interestingly, the results showed that the correlation between Openness and academic achievement was signifi cant even when controlling for intelligence, with only a minor medi- ation (effect size reduced from .12 to .09). Thus, Poropat’s anal- ysis only partially supports the hypothesis that the relationship between Openness and AP can be explained in terms of links between this personality trait and cognitive ability.
A fi nal point on Openness relates to the recent discussions about the two related, but distinct, aspects of this trait. That is, Openness is thought to comprise two components: one refl ect- ing intellectual engagement and ideas, and the other refl ect- ing artistic qualities related to esthetics and fantasy (DeYoung et al., 2009). The former aspect of Openness is thought to be more closely related to intelligence—and AP—than the latter. Thus, von Stumm, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Ackerman (2011) argue that “the lack of evidence for an effect of Openness on intellectual accomplishments at the phenotypic level is likely to be due to studying such associations on the higher order factor, rather than at facet level” (p. 226).
Neuroticism is another trait hypothesized to impact AP. In particular, it is thought that this trait is detrimental for success in these settings. This notion is based on the fact that many forms of assessment (e.g., exams, deadlines, presenta- tions) in educational settings may be anxiety-inducing. Given that the tendency to worry is an inherent characteristic of high Neuroticism, pupils higher on this trait are more likely to react more anxiously and worriedly during such assessments. Thus, they would be disadvantaged because such internal states would
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 210 8/24/2012 6:35:41 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
211
interfere with attention to relevant tasks, reducing their abil- ity to cope effectively in these situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Matthews, Davies, Westerman, & Stammers, 2000). For example, it has been documented that Neuroticism is a strong predictor of test anxiety (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu, & Furnham, 2008). Test anxiety during exams can divert an individual’s attention from the actual task at hand (the test), which may lead to diffi culties in, for instance, understanding test instructions or concentration, which, in turn, would ham- per exam performance (Halamandaris & Power, 1999).
These hypotheses, however, have not been confi rmed by research. Despite some specifi c studies indicating that Neuroticism is detrimental for AP, particularly when assessed via exams (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a), research on the relationship between Neuroticism and AP has generally yielded trivial results. Indeed, O’Connor and Paunonen (2007) and Poropat (2009) meta-analyses found effect sizes of .03 and .12 respectively, which can be considered relatively inconse- quential. Nevertheless, while Neuroticism may not be a strong determinant of overall scholastic achievement, in some specifi c assessment settings, such as school or university exams, anx- ious tendencies and worries are likely to have signifi cant effects on performance.
Evidence for the link between AP and Extraversion has been variable. It has been suggested that the relationship may be moderated by the type of assessment (Furnham & Chamorro- Premuzic, 2005). For example, tasks that highlight social inter- action, such as oral or viva-voce exams, as well as participation in class, may be easier for extraverts. On the other hand, tasks requiring long-term intellectual investment, such as revising for long hours, may be advantageous to introverts. In addition, extraverts may perform better academically because they have naturally higher energy levels and positive outlooks on life, which may lead to a desire to learn and understand. However, it is also possible that such dispositions may lead students to pursue activities that are more stimulating than reading and
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 211 8/24/2012 6:35:42 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
212
listening to lectures, which, in turn, may lead to lower levels of performance.
Given such arguments, it is unsurprising to fi nd that the literature on Extraversion and academic achievement has yielded mixed results. For instance, while some studies have found Extraversion to be negatively correlated with various aca- demic outcomes such as grade point average (GPA; Furnham et al., 2005), grades in introductory psychology exams (Hair & Hampson, 2006) and grades in statistics exams (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004), numerous other studies have failed to fi nd any association between this personality trait and educational outcomes, and some research has even identifi ed a positive association (see O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). The two recent meta-analyses (O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009) examining the association between Extraversion and AP have reported small effect sizes (i.e., r = –.05 and –.02, respec- tively). Thus, currently there is little evidence of an overall rela- tion between Extraversion and AP in the literature, although it is likely that this relationship is infl uenced by contextual vari- ables (mentioned previously).
Finally, although Agreeableness has traditionally not been seen as an obvious predictive factor in academic settings, sev- eral authors (e.g., De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996) have argued that this trait may positively impact AP by facilitating coop- eration with learning processes. For instance, more agreeable individuals may comply with teacher instructions and make an effort to stay focused on learning tasks (Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 2001). Indeed, Poropat’s (2009) meta-analysis showed that Agreeableness is a small but signifi cant predictor of AP, confi rming such propositions.
Conclusion
Success and achievement in educational settings have impor- tant social and economic implications, both for individuals and for the society as a whole. It is no surprise therefore that
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 212 8/24/2012 6:35:42 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
213
interest in the predictors of AP has been evident in psychologi- cal research for over a century. AP is a function of many things, including teaching style and quality, educator resources, and home factors. The literature, however, converges on the central infl uence of scholastic individual differences. While cognitive ability has traditionally been seen as the biggest contributor to academic outcomes, it is clear that dimensions of personality can contribute signifi cantly to these outcomes.
Conscientiousness has been shown to be a highly power- ful personality predictor of AP. Thus, there is clear empirical support for the notion that persistence, self-discipline, and an orientation toward achievement really do pay off (Chamorro- Premuzic & Furnham, 2004). Although other personality traits (e.g., Openness to experience, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness) may have a smaller impact, evidence suggests that they also may contribute signifi cantly to students’ academic success, par- ticularly when contextual variables are considered.
Although some have argued that relationships between per- sonality and AP may be due to their mutual relationships with intelligence, studies clearly show that controlling for intelligence has only minor effects on the validity of the Five Factor Model (FFM) dimensions. Indeed, the strongest personality correlate of AP, Conscientiousness, has been inversely related to intel- ligence. Thus, personality may be considered a complementary, rather than an indirect, predictor of scholastic achievement.
It is worth noting that unlike intelligence measures, person- ality tests were not designed to predict AP. So, it is particularly striking that Conscientiousness predicts AP as well as intelli- gence. Furthermore, there is evidence to show that the valid- ity of intelligence to predict educational outcomes decreases the higher up one goes on the educational ladder (because of increased homogeneity among students in their cognitive abilities). However, the validity of Conscientiousness does not show any such declines. Finally, unlike intelligence, personality factors may not have adverse impact on certain social groups. Combined, these facts highlight the importance of including
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 213 8/24/2012 6:35:42 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
214
personality, in addition to ability factors, when predicting AP. Researchers and practitioners must consider not only what stu- dents are able to do, but also what they will typically do. Such considerations will no doubt lead to more accurate predictions of individual differences in AP and may have important impli- cations for educational institutions.
PERSONALITY AND WORK OUTCOMES
Work performance is perhaps one of the most important out- comes in today’s society, economically, for businesses and for individuals. In line with Freud, individuals’ well-being depends on their capacity to love and work. People with fulfi lling careers are happy and achieve important goals for themselves and the organization; people who are dissatisfi ed at work suffer and desperately look for career and even life changes. Given that stable individual differences exist in work performance (i.e., some employees consistently perform better than others), it is important to businesses to understand the causes of these dif- ferences. One major source of performance differences is stable psychological characteristics such as intelligence, motivation, values and interests, and, notably, personality. This is why we rarely see random selection of job applicants—with employers commonly using curriculum vitae (CVs) and interviews to bet- ter understand an applicant’s personal makeup, and thus pre- dict how he or she will act within the job role.
While the predictive power of CVs and interviews is rela- tively low (because of unreliability in measurement in both), there are some psychometric tests that have a track record in predicting performance, namely, IQ tests. There is a large body of literature spanning World War II showing that IQ tests are the best predictors of performance across jobs and other work- related outcomes. Yet, common sense tells us that IQ, or general
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 214 8/24/2012 6:35:43 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
215
cognitive ability, is probably not the only psychological trait one requires, in order to be successful at one’s job. We probably all know of a friend or colleague that has a high intellectual capacity but simply does not know how to effectively interact with others, or “fi t in.”
Indeed, few of us would deny that a person’s personality, whether they are sociable, anxious, organized, and so on, will have an impact on how well they perform in their job. Thus, most of us believe that personality is an important factor in pre- dicting job performance, just as IQ. The one difference between personality and IQ, however, is measurement. Unlike IQ tests, which are objective in nature, personality tests primarily come in a self-report form. As mentioned before, this is mainly because alternatives usually are unreliable (or invalid). While this may not be a problem in general research settings (e.g., assessing romantic compatibility or AP), in selection an important issue is raised. This issue, which we have already touched upon in previous chapters, is that of faking.
Unlike other psychological research, the validity of person- ality questionnaires in selection is assessed with participants who have something (often important) to lose (e.g., a job oppor- tunity, promotion, salary increase, etc.). In these so-called high- stakes settings, there is a substantial incentive to self-enhance (fake) responses. Thus, the most common argument against the use of self-report personality measures in selection is that if one can fake a test, and one’s career depends on it, one will.
The controversies surrounding the issue of faking will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7; however, suffi ce it to say here that high-stakes settings provide the ultimate test for self-report inventories. The issue, in essence, is that even if we believe that personality predicts job performance, it is possible that per- sonality tests do not. This is because scores on personality tests may not be true representations of applicants’ “real” personali- ties. In essence, honest and capable applicants may be selected out, while dishonest but incompetent applicants are hired.
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 215 8/24/2012 6:35:43 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
216
As a consequence, one would not expect test scores to predict performance very well.
Validity of Personality (Self-Report) Inventories
There has been a great debate around the issue of the validity of personality questionnaires in selection settings. To some extent, this debate remains even today (a useful exchange is that between Morgesen et al., 2007, and Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007). Early reviews of the relationship between personality and job performance seemed to suggest that personality was a trivial or insignifi cant predictor of job performance. One of the fi rst quantitative reviews of differ- ent inventories across different jobs reported uncorrected cor- relations ranging from .14 to .36 (Ghiselli & Barthol, 1953). Subsequent reviews during the 1950s and 1960s found that, in most studies (80%–90%), personality traits did not signifi - cantly predict work-related criteria.
The lack of support for the usefulness of self-report inven- tories was to a large extent due to methodological problems in research. Until the 1990s, there had been little consensus as to the structure of personality, which meant that almost every other researcher had his or her own “language” for describ- ing major dispositions. Furthermore, most reviews in the fi eld were descriptive rather than quantitative. However, there were also issues of interpretation. Criticisms directed at personality inventories in selection were often based on the modest associa- tions found between personality traits and the predicted criteria (Morgeson et al., 2007). For example, when the fi rst quantita- tive reviews on the subject appeared in the 1960s, researchers recommended against the use of personality inventories for work selection (Guion & Gottier, 1965). Yet, while validities in early reviews were low, they were nevertheless signifi cant. The irony is that, in more recent reviews, opposite conclusions are often drawn from exactly the same data. Furthermore, follow- ing Ghiselli and Barthol’s (1953) review, several more recent
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 216 8/24/2012 6:35:43 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
217
meta-analyses have pointed to substantially higher validities in the personality–job performance link. A simple reason for this is that recent reviews have had the benefi t of using more advanced statistical techniques such as meta-analysis and also the advantage of a classifi cation system such as the FFM.
Accordingly, the fi rst meta-analytic review of the validity of the “Big Five” in predicting performance provided by Hough and colleagues (Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990) showed that personality scales were consistently related to individual differences in performance, including physical fi t- ness and military bearing, effort and leadership, and personal discipline. Although these correlations did not exceed .3 (nota- bly because the authors did not estimate the “true validities” at the construct level), this meta-analysis provided initial support for the idea that personality traits are valid predictors of job performance.
Hough et al.’s (1990) review was soon followed by several similar meta-analyses, each of which supported the validity of personality in the prediction of job performance and other work- related outcomes. The most signifi cant of these was Barrick and Mount’s (1991) seminal paper, in which results from 117 inves- tigations (including 23,994 participants) were meta-analyzed (although, in the same year, Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991, conducted a similar meta-analysis with comparable results). The authors who organized personality according to the Big Five provided compelling evidence for the predictive power of Conscientiousness scales across different settings (predicting job and training performance) and the validity of other traits in specifi c contexts (for instance, Extraversion was a predictor of managerial and sales jobs, and Openness was a good predictor of training success). The review was also the fi rst to show that personality signifi cantly predicted performance across many occupations, from professionals, the police force, managers, and semiskilled job roles.
A few years later, Salgado (1997) conducted a meta- analysis focusing on the European community to investigate
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 217 8/24/2012 6:35:43 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
218
the generalizability of previous reviews that were based on U.S. data. The researcher was able to replicate U.S. fi ndings, showing that not only Conscientiousness, but also emotional stability (low Neuroticism), had generalizable validities predicting job outcomes (Salgado, 1997).
Despite such reviews, there have been criticisms about the magnitude of the effects of personality on job performance. Critics have pointed out that the validity of personality traits (adjusting and correcting for all possible drawbacks and com- bining all relevant traits) would hardly account for 15% of the variance in job performance (Murphy, in Morgeson et al., 2007), recommending against their use. The counter-argument to this criticism is that even small increases in prediction can be useful in practice. For instance, utility analyses suggest that the correlations between personality and job performance found in the literature are of acceptable magnitude for inclusion in selec- tion settings (Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, & Muldrow, 1979). In addition, meta-analyses, particularly in the 1990s (after the consolidation of the Big Five taxonomy), reported validities in the region of .40, though mainly for higher order or “compound” traits (Hogan, 2005; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005). Quantitative reviews have thus clearly supported the validity of personality tests in the prediction of job performance and their use in selection settings.
In terms of the specifi c personality correlates, it appears that, unlike intelligence, the validity of personality traits is moderated by the job in question (Salgado, 2003). That is, some personality traits are more important in some jobs and others in other jobs. For instance, Extraversion seems to be related more to sales and management jobs, while Openness seems to be related to training performance but not job per- formance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Agreeableness is essential for jobs where interpersonal interaction is high, for example, customer service-based roles (Hogan, Rybicki, Motowildo, & Borman, 1998), whereby the customer is always right. This is likely to be due to the individual’s ability to connect with their
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 218 8/24/2012 6:35:44 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
219
customer and make them feel appreciated. Neuroticism, on the other hand, is only benefi cial when the individual is low scor- ing and the job demands a “level-head.” This is supported by research, which found that soldiers who are low in Neuroticism are more effective in combat, likely due to low levels of anxiety and depression (Hough et al., 1990).
One personality factor, however, seems to consis- tently predict performance in all types of jobs; and that factor is Conscientiousness. Across each meta-analysis, Conscientiousness has been found to be the most consistent and strongest personality correlate of performance, parallel- ing the fi ndings in academic settings. The logic for this is not diffi cult to understand; performance in pretty much every job would be enhanced if a person is organized, achievement-ori- ented, disciplined, persistent, and hardworking—all facets of Conscientiousness. The magnitudes of the correlations have generally been in the range of .2 to .3 (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Thus, clearly this factor, as with intelligence, is an important one to assess in job applicants, as it will, despite the high-stakes setting of test administration, predict performance across jobs and occupations.
Although researchers in the fi eld have tended to organize personality into fi ve major factors, a sometimes even more powerful prediction is obtained by so-called compound traits. Compound traits are simply combinations of multiple dimen- sions of personality. One such example is integrity tests, which have found strong support in the literature with regard to their prediction of job performance. Integrity tests are usually found to assess Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and emotional sta- bility. However, research shows that integrity tests can add incre- mental validity over these Big Five traits (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993). Furthermore, Schmidt and Hunter’s meta- analysis (1998) revealed that integrity had a validity magni- tude of .4, placing it in between general mental ability and Conscientiousness. Levels of integrity have unsurprisingly also been found to correlate with levels of deviant work practices
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 219 8/24/2012 6:35:44 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
220
(e.g., theft within the workplace) and counterproductive behav- iors (e.g., gossip and rumor-spreading; Ones et al., 1993). Other compound scales such as Core Self-Evaluations (Bono & Judge, 2003), which assesses a combination of emotional stability, generalized self-effi cacy, locus of control, and self-confi dence, have also been shown to predict job performance beyond the Big Five (Ones, Visveswaran, Hough, & Dilchert, 2005). Finally, emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to identify and man- age one’s own or others’ emotions, has recently re-emerged as a valuable predictor of job performance. EI has been found to interact with existing personality constructs, in particular, Extraversion and emotional stability. Although critics have long argued that EI does not have any incremental validity once IQ and personality are taken into account (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010), more recent evidence has indicated that these conclu- sions may have been premature. In particular, a meta-analysis conducted by O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, and Story (2010) has shown that EI predicts unique (incremental) vari- ance in job performance, beyond both IQ and the Big Five. The authors conclude that a model of job performance needs to take an integrative view including all three sets of constructs in order to reach maximum prediction.
Overall, the evidence with regard to the causes of differ- ences in job performance show that while predictors such as cognitive ability are important, personality, and specifi cally Conscientiousness, have a pivotal role in predicting success, despite the self-report nature of the tests. Such results should carry a lot of weight for individuals, organizations, econo- mies, and even societies. Having a healthy grasp of why cer- tain individuals perform better than others, and why they are more satisfi ed, productive, and loyal, requires informa- tion regarding the ability of a person, his or her general ten- dencies, as well as the person’s fi t with the specifi c job and organization. Although there have been (and still are) doubts about whether self-report inventories can do the job in facili- tating this understanding, the wealth of literature, which
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 220 8/24/2012 6:35:44 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
221
includes thousands of studies, clearly shows that personality test scores do predict all important work-related outcomes, including performance.
PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
Most of us will probably have, at one time or another, won- dered whether we “have what it takes” to become a good leader. Leadership is a central aspect of society and has been so since the beginnings of group formation. Indeed, a key reason that we are interested in leadership is that it is universal; it exists across all human cultures and across species. Whenever there is a social activity, a social structure forms, and the key feature of this structure is the leader. Furthermore, there is a common struggle among members of a group for gaining the leadership position, often referred to as the “alpha” status. The alpha status gives easier access to resources and is thus highly consequential for anyone who achieves it.
Crucially, who occupies this position will have conse- quences not only for the individual in that position but also for the group as a whole. Leaders are in charge of what people do and where people go. By defi nition, followers follow lead- ers. This is particularly the case for human societies. Leadership (good or bad), therefore, has consequences for the group’s sur- vival. This is as much the case today as it was in hunter–gatherer societies. In the 20th century, 167,000,000 people were killed for political reasons. Of that number, invading armies killed 30,000,000 people, and 137,000,000 people were killed by their own government (Rummel, 1994).
Thus, in addition to the struggle for the leadership status, people (who do not occupy that status) want to ensure that the person at the top really does have “what it takes.” Here is where individual differences come in. As with job performance or AP, there are individual differences in leadership effectiveness.
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 221 8/24/2012 6:35:45 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
222
Some people are better leaders than others. Given this fact, two basic questions ensue:
Why do some people gain the leadership (or alpha) status?1. What makes a good (effective) leader?2.
We will assume that you have some (perhaps strong) views about this. Indeed, research shows that people have clear implicit theories about leadership, but what the literature also shows is that the answers to these questions are not always straightforward and implicit theories are not always right. There are some complex issues. The fi rst is the defi nition of leadership. Leadership can be defi ned as a status or a process (or behavior). The majority of stud- ies on leadership defi ne the term in relation to the persons who are in charge (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Yet, Hogan, Hogan, and Kaiser (2010) note that about two thirds of people in charge are regarded as incompetent. This indicates that factors that lead to the achievement of a leadership position are not the same as those that lead to effectiveness in that role. The second issue concerns specifi city of leadership. Are good leaders good in all situations? Or, do we need different “types” of leaders in different situations? This also relates to the fundamental question of whether leaders are born or made. Thus, the third issue concerns whether one sim- ply “has it, or doesn’t,” or whether people can become good lead- ers (e.g., through experience or formal training).
The “Great Man” Theory
Initial theorizing in the leadership literature placed great empha- sis on what leaders “had.” Psychological theories focusing on leaders’ personality or traits were infl uenced by Carlyle’s (1907) “Great Man” theory of leadership, which posited that “the his- tory of the world [was] the biography of great men” (Carlyle, 1907, p. 18). Carlyle’s view implied that a limited number of core individual attributes could be used to distinguish between lead- ers and followers. For example, physical features, such as height
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 222 8/24/2012 6:35:45 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
223
and energy; demographic background variables, such as educa- tion and socioeconomic status; and personality characteristics, such as assertiveness, self-confi dence, and the capacity to tolerate stress, were crucial to discern between leaders and followers.
The search for the “leadership personality” began in the early 20th century and a colossal amount of traits were inves- tigated as predictors of leadership. In 1948, Stogdill reviewed three decades of research and concluded that, while some traits did seem to set leaders apart from followers, none were univer- sal predictors of leadership; their validity was always moderated by situational factors. Consequently, the following two decades were characterized by pessimistic remarks by psychologists in the fi eld, expressing a great deal of skepticism in regard to the trait approach to leadership. For example, Ghiselli and Brown (1955, p. 47) noted that “[U]nder one set of circumstances an individual will be a good leader and under others he will be a poor one” and Baron and Byrne (1987, p. 405) observed that “[T]he conclusion . . . that leaders do not differ from followers in clear and easily recognized ways remains valid.”
These statements were very much in parallel with the behaviorist and situationist movements of the 50s to 70s, where leadership (and indeed personality) were seen as determined by situational rather than internal forces such as traits. With the widely endorsed view that situational factors undermine the importance of interindividual differences in leadership, interest in person-centered research on leadership decreased substantially.
The literature on personality and leadership laid buried for decades. As with the literature on academic and job per- formance, research had suffered from the lack of a universal personality framework to classify traits and quantitative meth- ods for analyzing large amount of data. However, following theoretical and statistical developments in the 80s and 90s, the trait approach to leadership began to re-emerge. Two impor- tant publications in the mid-1980s anticipated this revival. The fi rst was a highly infl uential book on the topic of presidential
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 223 8/24/2012 6:35:45 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
224
leadership by Simonton (1986), who combined psychometric and biographical analyses to identify the attributes of success- ful American presidents. The second was a meta-analysis on cognitive ability and leadership by Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986), who reported a correlation of r = .50 between these vari- ables (although more recently, Judge, Colbert, & Illies, 2004, reported a “true validity” of r = .27).
The seminal article on the link between personality and leadership was published by Locke in 1997. Like many before him, Locke identifi ed various personality traits as being nec- essary for leadership. Unlike previous reviewers, however, he suggested that these were timeless and universal. Importantly, Locke contested that the plethora of traits that had been studied in the literature could be organized into some more basic (or higher order) traits. For instance, he conceptual- ized variables such as active mind, intelligence, and vision under “cognitive ability and thinking modes”; action com- mitment, ambition, effort, and tenacity under “motivation, values, and action”; and respect for ability and commitment for justice under “attitudes toward subordinates.” Though this represented a step forward in the organization of both ability and nonability attributes associated with leadership, a big- ger “boost” for trait approaches was to come from the intro- duction of the Five Factor model of personality to leadership research.
One of the fi rst authors to specifi cally refer to the role of the Big Five personality traits at work was Adrian Furnham. Furnham (1994) speculated that leaders in modern organiza- tions are more likely to be open, conscientious, stable, agreeable, and extraverts than followers. The same year, Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994) organized Stogdill’s list of leadership-related personality characteristics on the basis of the Big Five and echoed Furnham’s (1994) speculations, pointing out that effec- tive leaders tend to show higher levels of emotional stability, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The defi nitive piece of evidence to put personality at the center
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 224 8/24/2012 6:35:45 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
225
stage in the leadership fi eld, however, came from a meta-analy- sis conducted by Judge and colleagues in 2002.
Judge et al. (2002) reviewed the extensive literature on per- sonality and leadership, performing a large-scale meta-analysis, which included 222 correlations from 73 studies. These stud- ies contained more than 25,000 managers from every level in 5,000 organizations, across every industry sector. As Furnham and Hogan had predicted, their results showed that emotional stability, Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness were all positively correlated with both leadership emergence (per- ceived leadership) and effectiveness (leadership performance). Furthermore, the multiple correlation between personal- ity and leadership was .53. Judge et al. (2002) concluded that Extraversion is the strongest predictor of both leadership and emergence and effectiveness, no doubt because of the assertive- ness, dominance, and sociability of extraverts.
Cross-cultural studies have also supported Locke’s notion of the universality of these traits. For instance, Silversthorne (2001) described that effective leaders tended to score signifi cantly higher on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and lower on Neuroticism, than noneffective leaders in United States as well as Chinese samples. However, previous studies indicated that, while Conscientiousness and emotional stabil- ity (low Neuroticism) tend to represent sociably desirable traits in almost every culture, Extraversion (with its primary facets of assertiveness and dominance) is less likely to be regarded as a virtue in eastern, than in western, cultures (Redding & Wong, 1986).
Bad Leadership
Over the past 20 years, an increasing amount of attention has also been given to the area of bad leadership. This has particu- larly been the case in the last few years, where corporate fail- ures and fi nancial scandals have been at the forefront of news and media. This area of research is concerned with the link
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 225 8/24/2012 6:35:46 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
226
between leadership and the so-called “dark-side” of personal- ity. According to Hogan and Hogan (2001), certain traits that may promote an individual to the top, such as a great sense of confi dence, charisma, and political skill, may actually be detri- mental for leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, some leaders who deliver exceptional results may do so while causing harm to their followers, to other groups, or to society at large. Such performance, which may initially appear exceptional, and later catastrophic, may be attributed to the same underlying traits.
One example of this is the notion of “charismatic” or “transformational” leadership (Bass, 2008). Bass (2008) argues that charismatic leaders can infl uence their followers to per- form beyond their expectations—to exceptional performance. However, Hogan and Ahmad (2011) point out that charisma can be a double-edged sword. Evidence suggests that charisma cor- relates signifi cantly with narcissism and that many charismatic leaders are described in the same way as the narcissistic ones (Hogan & Fico, in press). Yet, research suggests that narcissism is detrimental for leadership. For instance, Judge, LePine, and Rich (2006) found a negative link between narcissism, contex- tual and task performance, and a positive link between this trait and workplace deviance. Furthermore, research examining the personality of highly effective CEOs suggests that the two most common traits used to describe these exceptional performers are “persistent” and “humble” (or modest). Organizations led by such CEOs seem to consistently outperform the competition. On the other hand, organizations with narcissistic CEOs tend to have more volatility in their annual performance and per- form worse on average, relative to the organizations with more humble CEOs.
It is no surprise, therefore, that more recent theories of lead- ership emphasize traits such as integrity, honesty, and empathy as being fundamental to leadership effectiveness (e.g., Greenleaf & Spears, 2002). This line of research is interesting because it sug- gests that implicit theories people have about what leaders should or shouldn’t “have” may be fl awed and counterproductive. For
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 226 8/24/2012 6:35:46 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
227
instance, Ciulla (2004) argues that the glorifi cation of charis- matic leaders means that people often overlook the fact that they can be wrong and take followers in bad directions. Certainly, it is not diffi cult to think of examples of charismatic but destruc- tive leaders of large organizations (Enron) and nations (Alan Garcia, in his fi rst presidency of Peru).
Conclusion
Leadership, and who is at the top, do matter. It can be the difference between a corporate success story and a fi nancial scandal (Collins, 2001). Sometimes, it can be a matter of life and death. The literature on personality and leadership sug- gests that a leader’s personality has a substantial infl uence on how the group performs. In plain terms, personality may determine the fate of individuals, organizations, and nations. However, knowing what makes good leadership is not always a matter of intuition. Common conceptions of great leaders may sometimes be fl awed. As Hogan (2007) notes, the fundamental question in human affairs is not “who shall rule,” but rather “who should rule”?
PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
While the literature on personality and job performance and career success (and leadership) has primarily focused on activity and performance within organizations (consisting of things such as overall job performance, task performance, unit performance, dysfunctional behavior, promotions, income, etc.), a more recent trend in psychological investiga- tion has been to look at less traditional outcomes, such as that of entrepreneurship. This is unsurprising given that almost one in two adults is self-employed at some point in their life (Shane, 2008).
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 227 8/24/2012 6:35:46 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
228
Entrepreneurship has traditionally been operationalized (and defi ned) as the creation of organization(s) (Shane, 2008), though this defi nition has been criticized for narrowing and decontextualizing (McKenzie, Ugbah, & Smothers, 2007). Several authors have suggested that entrepreneurship can occur both outside organizations and within them, and does not nec- essarily have to involve business activities (e.g., Ahmetoglu, Leutner, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011; Kuratko, 2007). Here, entrepreneurship is viewed as a set of activities, comprising the recognition and exploitation of opportunities, innovation/ change, and value creation (Ahmetoglu et al., 2011; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). These two views are complementary, given that the creation of a new business is a highly effective means of innovating and exploiting recognized opportunities (though a substantial portion of new ventures are not created for such reasons; Shane, 2008).
Research on the link between personality and entrepre- neurship has a relatively short history and has generally fallen outside the realm of psychology (Baron & Henry, 2010; Hisrich, Langan-Fox, & Grant, 2007), being investigated primarily by researchers in economics, politics, and management. Even so, the most common denominator in the literature, including economics and management, is the investigation of psycho- logical factors involved in entrepreneurship (Hisrich et al., 2007). Thus, in the last three to four decades, hundreds of stud- ies have examined the relationship between personality and entrepreneurship.
Although initial qualitative reviews of the literature in the 80s and 90s found little evidence for the impact of personal- ity traits in entrepreneurship research (see Aldrich, 1999), more recent research has reached more positive conclusions. Since Aldrich’s (1999) qualitative review, several meta-analyses have been conducted in the entrepreneurship fi eld. These studies have found signifi cant effects of personality on entrepreneur- ial outcomes such as business creation and business success (e.g., Rauch & Frese, 2007; Zhao, Siebert, & Lumpkin, 2010).
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 228 8/24/2012 6:35:47 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
229
Furthermore, promising evidence has also emerged in regard to the role of personality in the wider set of entrepreneurial activity, both within and outside organizations. For instance, Ahmetoglu et al. (2011) found that the compound personality traits of Core Self-Evaluations (Judge & Bono, 2001) and Trait EI (Petrides & Furnham, 2001) both predicted entrepreneurial outcomes (i.e., innovation, exploitation of opportunities, and value creation) across a variety of settings. In addition, they found a moderate to strong effect of a specifi c measure of entre- preneurial personality (measure of entrepreneurial tendencies and abilities; Ahmetoglu & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010a, 2010b) on entrepreneurial activity in all settings examined.
These encouraging fi ndings suggest that personality is a highly useful concept for entrepreneurship research. Given that entrepreneurship is a major source of employment, economic growth, and technological progress (Reynolds, Bygrave, & Autio, 2004), such results are likely to have substantial implica- tions. As yet, however, there remain signifi cant knowledge gaps in the psychology literature dealing with individual differences in entrepreneurship (Hisrich et al., 2007). Thus, there is plenty of scope for psychologists to conduct additional research in this fi eld.
In order to understand and facilitate this process, how- ever, some important points need to be noted. First, there is a need to see entrepreneurship as more than the mere creation of organizations. Innovation, exploitation of recognized oppor- tunities, and creation of value are central to entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Shumpeter, 1911). Such activ- ity can occur both within organizations and outside them. Importantly, most business founders do not engage in much innovation or opportunity exploitation; and most fail within the fi rst 5 to 10 years (Shane, 2008). So, in order to understand the forces behind social and economic progress, there must be a clear distinction in research (and practice) between the search for the entrepreneurial personality and the personality of entre- preneurs (i.e., business founders). Entrepreneurial individuals
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 229 8/24/2012 6:35:47 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
CHAPTER 6
230
who are more innovative at work (and outside it), who perceive and exploit opportunities more often, and, as a consequence, generate a substantial amount of value are the ones who bring about change and progress in society. As such, those are the individuals that need to be identifi ed and nourished. While some important steps have already been taken in this direc- tion (see Ahmetoglu et al., 2011), future research following this trend will no doubt be highly valuable.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Personality exerts a pervasive and broadly based infl uence on many outcomes in our lives. This notion is perhaps more intui- tive in certain aspects of life (e.g., in leadership or antisocial behavior) than others. Yet, often people will attribute life cir- cumstances, or events, such as meeting the right one or how happy one is to factors beyond one’s control, such as luck, or temporary conditions, such as having an undesirable job. The truth is that the events that shape our lives (e.g., the job we end up taking, the person we end up meeting, or how successful we end up being) are not haphazard; and subjective thoughts and feelings we have are not always the result of these events. In fact, both the events that shape our lives and the corresponding thoughts and feelings are a function of who we are already— our character. We end up taking a job because our personal- ity leads us there or restricts us from getting somewhere else; we end up marrying someone because they match our charac- ter, or because our character limits our options as to whom we can marry; we have certain political and religious convictions because our personality infl uences how perceptive or defi ant we are, or how curious or traditional we are; we tend to be more or less happy because our personality infl uences how we interpret events and circumstances in our lives. Yes, our personality even
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 230 8/24/2012 6:35:47 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
PERSONALITY AND CAREER IMPLICATIONS
231
infl uences how long we will live because of choices we make, or coping strategies we employ.
Some of these proposals will sound commonsensical. Yet, often, without evidence, equally commonsensical but contra- dictory hypotheses can be developed with regard to each of these scenarios. One could argue that to get a job, who one knows is more important than what one knows; meeting the right person is simply a function of being in the right place at the right time; political and religious attitudes are passed onto us by our parents, and so on. The bottom line is that these hypotheses can only be supported or not through research. We have enough evidence to support that personality affects a wide range of life outcomes. This evidence in parallel supports the utility of personality inventories more generally. Clearly, the study of personality has come a long way through employing such inventories. Thus, we can be confi dent that personality does affect life outcomes, and that personality inventories are able to capture at least part of what we would think of as our “true” personality.
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 231 8/24/2012 6:35:47 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Ahmetoglu_PTR_Ch-06_20-07-12_205-232.indd 232 8/24/2012 6:35:48 PM
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2012). Personality 101. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from claflin on 2018-05-29 12:03:40.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
2. S
pr in
ge r P
ub lis
hi ng
C om
pa ny
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
