1 / 24

The Relationship Between Conscientiousness and Affect

This study explores the relationship between conscientiousness and affect, using a within- and between-person approach. The findings suggest that higher levels of conscientiousness are related to increased positive affect, while lower levels of conscientiousness are related to increased negative affect.

ritajackson
Télécharger la présentation

The Relationship Between Conscientiousness and Affect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. More isn’t always better: The relationship between conscientiousness and affect Jennifer Pickett Jonas Debusscher Joeri Hofmans Research Group of Work and Organizational Psychology

  2. Introduction • Overview: • Synopsis of study • Within & between person personality approach • Conscientiousness • Behavioral Concordance Model • Counterdispositional Behavior • Methods • Results • Discussion • Theoretical & practical implications • Future research

  3. Conscientiousness • Conscientiousness is defined as the inclination to follow social norms for impulse control that promote task- and goal-directed behaviors such as: • prioritizing jobs, chores and tasks • planning and organizing • abiding by the rules • thinking before acting • delaying gratification (DeYoung, 2015; John & Srivastava, 1999; Jackson et al., 2009) • Conscientiousness used to predict employees’ job performance

  4. Conscientiousness • Linked to positive outcomes at between- & within- approach such as: • Academic success (Barrick & Mount, 1991) • Academic achievement (MacCann, Duckworth & Roberts, 2009) • Occupational achievement and well-being (Smith et al., 2013) • Organized and goal-orientated (Roberts, et al., 2009) • Positive interpersonal and achievement-related experience (McCrea & Costa, 1991) • Conceptualized as positive personality trait • Overall assumption is more is better for everyone • Between-person states more is better for everyone • Within-person states more is better for everyone • When the two approaches are combined, the outcomes are more complex

  5. Between- and within- person approach • Previous research shows: • Between-person (Trait C) = increase in positive outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Smith, Ryan & Röcke, 2013) • Within-person (State C) = increase positive outcomes (Debusscher, Hofmans, & De Fruyt, 2016) • What these studies do not show is whether increases in the level of conscientiousnesswithinan individual also relates to increases in positive outcomes; between-person correlations do not readily transfer to the within-person level (Hamaker, 2012) • We integrated the two approaches to ascertain whether within-person fluctuations in conscientiousness leads to better outcomes for everyone • Trait C + State C = positive outcomes?

  6. Behavioral Concordance Model • Trait concordant behaviors lead to pleasant affect (Moskowitz & Côté, 1995) • Individuals experience further pleasant affect and less unpleasant affect when they behaviors are congruent with their personality (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984) • Any discrepancy between trait level and momentary state level should lead to decreased well-being (Moskowitz & Côté, 1995) • The greater the deviation between trait and state level, the greater is the affect on well-being (Moskowitz & Côté, 1995) Counterdispositional Behavior

  7. Counterdispositional behavior • a phenomenon that occurs when one deviates from an individual’s trait and are demanding or effortful (Gallagher, Fleeson, & Hoyle, 2011) • Monitoring and modifying behavior requires self-control and effort Consumes or exhausts limited self-regulatory resources (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005) • Causes stress and mental fatigue (Zelenski, Santoro, & Whelan, 2012) • Triggers ego depletion, requires additional efforts and is depleting, strenuous and fatiguing (Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006) • Emotionally is negatively related to well-being (Gallagher, Fleeson, & Hoyle, 2011)

  8. More is better for everyone - positive affect

  9. More is better for everyone- negative affect

  10. More is better- positive & negative Affect

  11. Behavioral Concordance Model – positive affect

  12. Behavioral Concordance Model – negative affect

  13. Behavioral Concordance Model – positive & negative affect

  14. Methods • 82 Belgian professionals • 44% male • average age 27.3 years; • average job tenure 3.9 years • 17.2% in education • Experience sampling study (N = 734) • 10 consecutive working days • Reported daily levels of consceintiousness, positive and negative affect • 84.4% response rate • Analyses: • Mulitlevel polynomial regression analysis using the lme4 package in R (Bates, 2010)

  15. Measures • Conscientiousness • Positive Affect • Negative Affect

  16. Results: Correlations Notes: C = conscientiousness; PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect ** p< .01 Between person correlations are above diagonal Within person correlations are below diagonal

  17. Results: Conscientiousness & positive affect

  18. Results: Conscientiousness & negative affect

  19. Conscientiousness – positive and negative affect

  20. Our +A results vs more is better

  21. Our +A results vs BCM

  22. Main findings • Conscientiousness is related to both positive and negative affect • High on C; an increase in conscientiousness leads to an increase in posiitve affect • Low on C; an increase in conscientiousness leads to an increase in negative • Behaving contradictory to one’s trait personality does have consequences, i.e., negative affect

  23. Theoretical & practical implications • Our empirical findings are of HIGH TRAIT and HIGH STATE leads to an increase in PA is in line with the BCM • Our results suggests that it is important to consider both the between-person and within-person approach in order to fully understand personality • Fostering trait congruency in the workplace cultivates employee wellbeing • Engaging in behaviors not congruent with personality preferences increases NA • Even if those behaviors are considered “good”, such as behaving more conscientious

  24. Questions? • Mulțumesc • Thank you • Email:jennifer.pickett@vub.ac.be

More Related