Abstract
We propose a compensatory interactive influence of conscientiousness and GMA in task performance such that conscientiousness is most beneficial to performance for low-GMA individuals. Drawing on trait by trait interaction theory and empirical evidence for a compensatory mechanism of conscientiousness for low GMA, we contrast our hypothesis with prior research on a conscientiousness-GMA interaction and argue that prior research considered a different interaction type. We argue that observing a compensatory interaction likely requires (a) considering the appropriate interaction form, including a possible curvilinear conscientiousness-performance relationship; (b) measuring the full conscientiousness domain (as opposed to motivation proxies); (c) narrowing the criterion domain to reflect task performance; and (d) appropriate psychometric scoring of variables to increase power and avoid type 1 error. In four employee samples (N1 = 300; N2 = 261; N3 = 1,413; N4 = 948), we test a conscientiousness-GMA interaction in two employee samples. In three of four samples, results support a nuanced compensatory mechanism such that conscientiousness compensates for low to moderate GMA, and high conscientiousness may be detrimental to or unimportant for task performance in high-GMA individuals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The term compensatory is sometimes used to refer to an additive model in which effects are still independent (e.g., GMA and motivation are independently beneficial to performance; see Van Iddekinge et al., 2017). We use compensatory here to refer to an interaction in which conscientiousness is most or generally beneficial to performance among those with low-GMA but less so among those with high-GMA. That is, the conscientiousness-performance relationship is dependent on GMA level.
Recent research has shown that ideal point models generally fit personality responding using Likert-type (agreement) scales better than do dominance models (LaPalme et al., 2018; Stark et al., 2006) and are important for detecting curvilinear relationships (Carter et al., 2014; Carter et al., 2016). Consequently, we use ideal point IRT models and note fit relative to dominance-based IRT models where appropriate. We recommend Roberts et al. (1999) for a thorough review of the theoretical distinction between ideal point and dominance models.
Theta values can be interpreted much like z-scores (e.g., a standardized theta of 1 is close to 1 standard deviation).
Additionally, using the sample 2 estimate corrected for range restriction (see Appendix 1, Table 3) for the meta-analysis shows similar results with an average weighted coefficient of − 0.04, 95% CI [− 0.06; − 0.02], p = .001, with non-significant heterogeneity.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for prompting us to consider this literature.
The percentage of “ties” between the two models can be calculated by summing the two numbers and subtracting from 100%.
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22(2), 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.94
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18(4), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1804_3
Beaujean, A., Firmin, M. W., Attai, S., Johnson, C. B., Firmin, R. L., & Mena, K. E. (2011). Using personality and cognitive ability to predict academic achievement in a young adult sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 709–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.023
Bergold, S., & Steinmayr, R. (2018). Personality and intelligence interact in the prediction of academic achievement. Journal of Intelligence, 6(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020027
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations; Jossey-Bass.
Carretta, T. R., & Ree, M. J. (2018). The relations between cognitive ability and personality: Convergent results across measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26(2–4), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12224
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M.-C., & Delgado, K. M. (2014). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 564–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034688
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Guan, L., LoPilato, A. C., & Withrow, S. A. (2017). Item response theory scoring and detection of curvilinear relationships. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000101
Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Miller, J. D. (2016). The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological well-being: The role of obsessive compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, 84(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12177
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for understanding the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604773952458
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2008). Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1596–1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.003
Chapman, B. P., Hampson, S., & Clarkin, J. (2014). Personality-informed interventions for healthy aging: Conclusions from a National Institute on Aging Work Group. Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1426–1441. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034135
Cho, H. C., & Abe, S. (2013). Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1261–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.023
Cortina, J. M. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications for multiple regression. Journal of Management, 19(4), 915–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(93)90035-L
de Haro, J.-M., Castejón, J.-L., & Gilar, R. (2013). General mental ability as moderator of personality traits as predictors of early career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(2), 171–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.04.001
DeYoung, C. G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 711–737). Cambridge University Press.
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
Di Domenico, S. I., & Fournier, M. A. (2015). Able, ready, and willing: Examining the additive and interactive effects of intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation on undergraduate academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.016
Embretson, S. E. (1996). Item response theory models and spurious interaction effects in factorial ANOVA designs. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169602000302
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Enns, R. A., & Reddon, J. R. (1998). The factor structure of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale - revised: One or two but not three factors. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(5), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199806)54:4%3c447::aid-jclp7%3e3.0.co;2-k
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
Furnham, A., Dissou, G., Sloan, P., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and intelligence in business people: A study of two personality and two intelligence measures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9051-z
Hollenbeck, J. R., Brief, A. P., Whitener, E. M., & Pauli, K. E. (1988). An empirical note on the interaction of personality and aptitude in personnel. Journal of Management, 14(3), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638801400307
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3), 340–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(86)90013-8
Judge, T. A., & Erez, A. (2007). Interaction and intersection: The constellation of emotional stability and extraversion in predicting performance. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00084.x
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033901
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1996.0013
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148
LaPalme, M., Tay, L., & Wang, W. (2018). A within-person examination of the ideal-point response process. Psychological Assessment, 30(5), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000499
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021016
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 563–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00214.x
Liu, H., & Yuan, K. H. (2020). New measures of effect size in moderation analysis. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000371
Magidson, J. F., Roberts, B. W., Collado-Rodriguez, A., & Lejuez, C. W. (2014). Theory-driven intervention for changing personality: Expectancy value theory, behavioral activation, and conscientiousness. Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1442–1450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030583
Maier, N. R. F. (1955). Psychology in industry: A psychological approach to industrial problems: Houghton Mifflin.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., Hernández, A., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). A multidimensional ideal point item response theory model for binary data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(4), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4104_2
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1992). Discriminant validity of NEO-PIR facet scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(1), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316449205200128
Morse, B. J., Johanson, G. A., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Using the graded response model to control spurious interactions in moderated multiple regression. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(2), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612438725
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1999). The joint relationship of conscientiousness and ability with performance: Test of the the interaction hypothesis. Journal of Management, 25(5), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500505
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.010
Murray, A. L., Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.014
Nickel, L. B., Roberts, B. W., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2019). No evidence of a curvilinear relation between conscientiousness and relationship, work, and health outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000176
O'Reilly III, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1994). Working smarter and harder: A longitudinal study of managerial success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 603-627. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393773
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027.
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). Cognitive abilities. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection (pp. 179–224). Oxford University Press.
Penney, L. M., David, E., & Witt, L. (2011). A review of personality and performance: Identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 297–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.005
Perry, S. J., Hunter, E. M., Witt, L. A., & Harris, K. J. (2010). P =f(conscientiousness × ability): Examining the facets of conscientiousness. Human Performance, 23(4), 343–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.501045
Pfaffel, A., Kollmayer, M., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2016). A missing data approach to correct for direct and indirect range restrictions with a dichotomous criterion: A simulation study. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0152330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152330
Postlethwaite, B., Robbins, S., Rickerson, J., & McKinniss, T. (2009). The moderation of conscientiousness by cognitive ability when predicting workplace safety behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 711–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.008
Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., & Martin, S. (2016). The association between personality and cognitive ability: Going beyond simple effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 62, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.005
Roberts, J. S., Donoghue, J., & R.s, & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216000241001
Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x
Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellingson, J. E. (1998). Ability–personality interactions when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.545
Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. (pp. 85–100): Springer.
Shoss, M. K., & Witt, L. A. (2013). Trait interactions and other configural approaches to personality. In N. D. Christiansen & R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of Personality at Work (pp. 392–418). Routledge.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.25
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Aguinis, H., Mackey, J. D., & DeOrtentiis, P. S. (2017). A meta-analysis of the interactive, additive, and relative effects of cognitive ability and motivation on performance. Journal of Management, 44(1), 249–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702220
Vroom, V. H. (1995). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Waller, M. I. (1989). Modeling guessing behavior: A comparison of two IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168901300302
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence scale.
Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. A., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive influences of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.164
Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on performance. Journal of Management, 28(6), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00188-5
Wright, P. M., Kacmar, K. M., McMahan, G. C., & Deleeuw, K. (1995). P= f(MXA): Cognitive ability as a moderator of the relationship between personality and job performance. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90025-X
Yuan, X., Li, Y., Xu, Y., & Huang, N. (2018). Curvilinear effects of personality on safety performance: The moderating role of supervisor support. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.005
van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2010). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–68. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Zhang, J., & Ziegler, M. (2015). Interaction effects between openness and fluid intelligence predicting scholastic performance. Journal of Intelligence, 3(3), 91–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3030091
Ziegler, M., Knogler, M., & Bühner, M. (2009). Conscientiousness, achievement striving, and intelligence as performance predictors in a sample of German psychology students: Always a linear relationship? Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.02.001
Funding
The work of Alexandra M. Harris-Watson was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (DGE-1443117), and the work of Nathan T. Carter was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (SES1561070). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Additional Analyses for Sample 2
Because personality and GMA batteries in sample 2 were used to select employees and included data on all applicants, but only performance data for hired employees were available, there was evidence of direct range restriction in sample 2. Minimum values for conscientiousness and GMA in the full applicant data (conscientiousness: Min. = − 2.58, Max = 4.00, SD = .92; GMA: Min = − 2.46, Max = 1.99, SD = .87) were substantially lower than were minimum values among hired employees (conscientiousness: Min = − 1.22, Max = 3.77, SD = .84; GMA: Min = − 1.74, Max. = 1.99, SD = .82). To determine whether range restriction might have affected findings, we conducted post-hoc analyses that included multivariate imputation by chained equations using the ‘mice’ package (van Buuren, 2018; Pfaffel et al., 2016) to impute performance data for the applicants not hired.
Results of analyses using imputed data to account for range restriction still did not show evidence of a significant conscientiousness-GMA interaction. However, results did show a marginally significant quadratic interaction, b = − 0.03, p = .082, and GMA accounted for a proportion of the variability in the conscientiousness-performance relationship (45%) comparable to that of other samples. Results are shown in Table 3 below.
Additionally, to evaluate the potential impact of limited power on our findings in sample 2, we conducted three Monte Carlo simulations using parameter estimates from samples 1, 3, and 4, respectively, and sample size from sample 2 (N = 261). Across 1000 replications, simulations suggested that when sample size is reduced to that of sample 2, the true positive rate is .68 for sample 1, .22 for sample 3, and .24 for sample 4. In other words, if the findings for sample 1, 3, or 4 were true in the population, the sample size in sample 2 is under-powered.
Appendix 2
Top-Down Selection Simulation Analyses
For each dataset, 1000 samples of 100 people each were randomly chosen as pools of “applicants.” We then used the coefficients for the “standard” linear model (i.e., using GMA and conscientiousness as linear predictors of performance) to calculate predicted performance and, separately, the coefficients from the quadratic interaction model to calculate predicted performance for each sample. Using these predicted values, we selected (i.e., “hired”) both the top 10% and top 20% of applicants. We then used the actual, observed performance for each selected applicant to calculate (a) mean performance, (b) maximum performance (i.e., the performance score for the top performer), and (c) the minimum performance (i.e., the performance score for the lowest performer). Then, we determined the “winner” of the two models regarding their selection decisions. For the minimum and maximum, the winner was the model that picked the “better best performer” and the “better worst performer,” respectively. For the mean, we considered the mean scores to be different only if they showed greater than a .10 SD difference (i.e., one standard error for the population of 100 applicants). Table 4 shows the results for simulated selection scenarios. The number outside the parentheses is the percentage of times (of the 1000 simulated applicant pools) that the quadratic interaction model was the winner for the selection ratio. The number inside the parentheses is the percentage of times the standard linear model was the winnerFootnote 6
The results suggest that, in most cases, the quadratic interaction model is better at predicting top performance, especially when the selection ratio is 20%. The quadratic interaction model generally resulted in higher average performance, the selection of the better top performer, and the selection of the better worst performer. In most instances, the quadratic interaction model won more than twice as many times as the linear model, indicating its general superiority in making top-down selection decisions. Thus, the simulation results suggest that, despite small effect sizes using traditional metrics (e.g., ΔR2), the quadratic interaction has substantial practical value in its ability to more effectively predict performance. Notably, this is true even for sample 2, despite the non-significance of the interaction. These results further point to the limited power of sample 2 as a potential explanation for the non-significance of findings
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harris-Watson, A.M., Kung, MC., Tocci, M.C. et al. The Interaction Between Conscientiousness and General Mental Ability: Support for a Compensatory Interaction in Task Performance. J Bus Psychol 37, 855–871 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09780-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09780-1