scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis

01 Mar 1991-Personnel Psychology (PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY)-Vol. 44, Iss: 1, pp 1-26

Abstract: This study investigated the relation of the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of personality, Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job performance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining personality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion (across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types, but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small (ρ < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5-factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of personnel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.
Citations
More filters

Oliver P. John1, Sanjay SrivastavaInstitutions (1)
01 Jan 1999-
Abstract: 2 Taxonomy is always a contentious issue because the world does not come to us in neat little packages (S. Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at various levels of Each of these levels has made unique contributions to our understanding of individual differences in behavior and experience. However, the number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). Researchers, as well as practitioners in the field of personality assessment, were faced with a bewildering array of personality scales from which to choose, with little guidance and no overall rationale at hand. What made matters worse was that scales with the same name often measure concepts that are not the same, and scales with different names often measure concepts that are quite similar. Although diversity and scientific pluralism are useful, the systematic accumulation of findings and the communication among researchers became difficult amidst the Babel of concepts and scales. Many personality researchers had hoped that they might devise the structure that would transform the Babel into a community speaking a common language. However, such an integration was not to be achieved by any one researcher or by any one theoretical perspective. As Allport once put it, " each assessor has his own pet units and uses a pet battery of diagnostic devices " (1958, p. 258). What personality psychology needed was a descriptive model, or taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, a taxonomy would permit researchers to study specified domains of personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique. Moreover, a generally accepted taxonomy would greatly facilitate the accumulation and communication of empirical findings by offering a standard vocabulary, or nomenclature. After decades of research, the field is approaching consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the " Big Five " personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality …

7,256 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...For example, in studies of job performance (for reviews see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998), the Big Five have been found to relate to important outc mes in the workplace....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
Robert R. McCrae1, Oliver P. John2Institutions (2)
TL;DR: It is argued that the five-factor model of personality should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.
Abstract: The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. This article summarizes the history of the model and its supporting evidence; discusses conceptions of the nature of the factors; and outlines an agenda for theorizing about the origins and operation of the factors. We argue that the model should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.

5,256 citations


Cites background from "The big five personality dimensions..."

  • ...…five factors have been shown to predict external criteria from divergent thinking abilities (McCrae, 1987) to marital adjustment and divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987), to coronary disease endpoints (Dembroski, MacDougall, Costa, & Grandits, 1989), to job performance criteria (Barrick & Mount, 1991)....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
Lewis R. Goldberg1Institutions (1)
Abstract: To satisfy the need in personality research for factorially univocal measures of each of the 5 domains that subsume most English-language terms for personality-traits, new sets of Big-Five factor markers were investigated. In studies of adjective-anchored bipolar rating scales, a transparent format was found to produce factor markers that were more univocal than the same scales administered in the traditional format. Nonetheless, even the transparent bipolar scales proved less robust as factor markers than did parallel sets of adjectives administered in unipolar format. A set of 100 unipolar terms proved to be highly robust across quite diverse samples of self and peer descriptions. These new markers were compared with previously developed ones based on far larger sets of trait adjectives, as well as with the scales from the NEO and Hogan personality inventories.

4,349 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Lewis R. Goldberg1Institutions (1)
TL;DR: This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences.
Abstract: This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences. The roots of this taxonomy lie in the lexical hypothesis and the insights of Sir Francis Galton, the prescience of L. L. Thurstone, the legacy of Raymond B. Cattell, and the seminal analyses of Tupes and Christal. Paradoxically, the present popularity of this model owes much to its many critics, each of whom tried to replace it, but failed. In reaction, there have been a number of attempts to assimilate other models into the five-factor structure. Lately, some practical implications of the emerging consensus can be seen in such contexts as personnel selection and classification.

3,800 citations


Cites background from "The big five personality dimensions..."

  • ...Recently, both qualitative (e.g., Hogan, 1991; Schmidt & Ones, 1992) and quantitative (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991) reviews of the literature have concluded that personality measures, when classified within the Big-Five domains, are systematically related to a…...

    [...]

  • ...In the words of Barrick and Mount (1991), In order for any field of science to advance, it is necessary to have an accepted classification scheme for accumulating and categorizing empirical findings....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A qualitative and quantitative review of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is provided and an agenda for future research on the satisfaction-performance relationship is provided.
Abstract: A qualitative and quantitative review of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is provided. The qualitative review is organized around 7 models that characterize past research on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Although some models have received more support than have others, research has not provided conclusive confirmation or disconfirmation of any model, partly because of a lack of assimilation and integration in the literature. Research devoted to testing these models waned following 2 meta-analyses of the job satisfaction-job performance relationship. Because of limitations in these prior analyses and the misinterpretation of their findings, a new meta-analysis was conducted on 312 samples with a combined N of 54,417. The mean true correlation between overall job satisfaction and job performance was estimated to be .30. In light of these results and the qualitative review, an agenda for future research on the satisfaction-performance relationship is provided.

3,798 citations


Cites background from "The big five personality dimensions..."

  • ...23 ; Barrick & Mount , 1991 ) , biodata inventories ( p = ....

    [...]

  • ..., Barrick & Mount , 1991 ) , only a handful of studies in our database ( k = 4 ) reported correlations among raters , making it impossible to form an accurate estimate of the reliability of performance ratings based on information contained in the articles ....

    [...]


References
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: L'auteur discute un modele a cinq facteurs de la personnalite qu'il confronte a d'autres systemes de la personnalite et dont les correlats des dimensions sont analyses ainsi que les problemes methodologiques

5,862 citations


"The big five personality dimensions..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...Generally, researchers agree that there are five robust factors of personalify (described below) which can serve as a meaningful taxonomy for classifying personalify attributes ( Digman, 1990 )....

    [...]

  • ...Based on the evidence cited by Digman (1990) , the preponderance of evidence supports the definition of conscientious ness as including these volitional aspects (Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug & Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, ......

    [...]

  • ...Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987); using ratings obtained from different sources (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock , 1981; Fiske, 1949; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963; Norman & Goldberg, 1966; Watson, 1989); and with a variety of samples (see Digman, 1990, for a more detailed discussion)....

    [...]

  • ...For purposes of this study, we adopted names and definitions similar to those used by Digman (1990) : Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience....

    [...]

  • ...The description of the five factors provided to the raters corresponded to those presented by Digman (1990) and as described above....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
Robert R. McCrae, Paul T. Costa1Institutions (1)
TL;DR: Two data sources--self-reports and peer ratings--and two instruments--adjective factors and questionnaire scales--were used to assess the five-factor model of personality, showing substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors.
Abstract: Two data sources--self-reports and peer ratings--and two instruments--adjective factors and questionnaire scales--were used to assess the five-factor model of personality. As in a previous study of self-reports (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), adjective factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness-antagonism, and conscientiousness-undirectedness were identified in an analysis of 738 peer ratings of 275 adult subjects. Intraclass correlations among raters, ranging from .30 to .65, and correlations between mean peer ratings and self-reports, from .25 to .62, showed substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors. Similar results were seen in analyses of scales from the NEO Personality Inventory. Items from the adjective factors were used as guides in a discussion of the nature of the five factors. These data reinforce recent appeals for the adoption of the five-factor model in personality research and assessment.

5,032 citations


"The big five personality dimensions..." refers background in this paper

  • ...recognized that this dimension has the highest correlation (uncorrected, r = .20 to .30) of any of the personality dimensions with measures of cognitive ability ( McCrae & Costa, 1987 )....

    [...]

  • ...Some define it in terms of responsibilit y or dependability (e.g., Hogan, 1986), whereas others view it as also including volitional aspects, such as hardworking, persistent, and achievementoriented (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989 )....

    [...]

  • ...Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987); using ratings obtained from different sources (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock , 1981; Fiske, 1949; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963; Norman & Goldberg, 1966; Watson, 1989); and with a variety of samples (see Digman, 1990, for a more detailed discussion)....

    [...]

  • ...An important consideration for the field of personnel psychology is that these dimensions are also relatively independent of measures of cognitive ability ( McCrae & Costa, 1987 )....

    [...]

  • ...Based on the evidence cited by Digman (1990), the preponderance of evidence supports the definition of conscientious ness as including these volitional aspects (Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug & Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, ......

    [...]


Book
John E. Hunter1, Frank L. SchmidtInstitutions (1)
01 Jan 1990-
Abstract: PART ONE: INTRODUCTION TO META-ANALYSIS Integrating Research Findings Across Studies Study Artifacts and Their Impact on Study Outcomes PART TWO: META-ANALYSIS OF CORRELATIONS Meta-Analysis of Correlations Corrected Individually for Artifacts Meta-Analysis of Correlations Using Artifact Distributions Technical Questions in Meta-Analysis of Correlations PART THREE: META-ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL EFFECTS AND OTHER DICHOTOMOUS COMPARISONS Treatment Effects Experimental Artifacts and Their Impact Meta-Analysis Methods for d Values Technical Questions in Meta-Analysis of d Values PART FOUR: GENERAL ISSUES IN META-ANALYSIS Second Order Sampling Error and Related Issues Cumulation of Findings within Studies Methods of Integrating Findings Across Studies Locating, Selecting, and Evaluating Studies General Criticisms of Meta-Analysis Summary of Psychometric Meta-Analysis

4,568 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Warren T. Norman1Institutions (1)

2,325 citations


"The big five personality dimensions..." refers background or result in this paper

  • ..., Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987); using ratings obtained from different sources (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Fiske, 1949; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963; Norman & Goldberg, 1966; Watson, 1989); and with a variety of samples (see Digman, 1990, for a more detailed discussion)....

    [...]

  • ...The 5factor model obtained by Fiske (1949) and Tupes and Christal (1961) was corroborated in four subsequent studies (Borgatta, 1964; Hakel, 1974; Norman, 1963; Smith 1967)....

    [...]

  • ...Most frequently this dimension has been called Extraversion or Surgency (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Digman & TakemotoChock, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; Howarth, 1976; John, 1989; Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967)....

    [...]

  • ...This factor has been most frequently called Emotional Stability, Stability, Emotionality, or Neuroticism (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967)....

    [...]

  • ...It has also been called Openness to Experience (McCrae & Costa, 1985) or Culture (Hakel, 1974; Norman, 1963)....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Intercorrelations among ratings on 35 personality traits, selected as representative of the personality domain, were obtained for eight samples, which differed in length of acquaintanceship from 3 days to more than a year.
Abstract: Intercorrelations among ratings on 35 personality traits, selected as representative of the personality domain, were obtained for eight samples. These samples differed in length of acquaintanceship from 3 days to more than a year; in kind of acquaintanceship from assessment programs in a military training course to a fraternity house situation; in type of subject from airmen with only a high-school education to male and female undergraduate students to first-year graduate students; and in type of rater from very naive persons to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists with years of experience in the evaluation of personality. Centroid or multiple-group factors were extracted and rotated orthogonally to simple structure. For one study, an independent solution was obtained in which analytic rotations were accomplished on an IBM 650 computer using Kaiser's normal varimax criterion. Five fairly strong and recurrent factors emerged from each analysis, labeled as (a) Surgency, (b) Agreeableness, (c) Dependability, (d) Emotional Stability, and (e) Culture.

1,375 citations


Performance
Metrics
No. of citations received by the Paper in previous years
YearCitations
20224
2021372
2020414
2019435
2018404
2017482