Abstract
Conscientiousness is typically seen as a positive or desired personality trait in the workplace, with the overall assumption being “the more, the better”. Drawing on the behavioral concordance model, we challenge this assumption, expecting that the highest level of positive affect and the lowest level of negative affect will correspond at the point where state and trait conscientiousness converge. Using an experience sampling study and an event reconstruction study, we show that deviations from one’s level of trait conscientiousness relate to variations in positive and negative affect, but not in a straightforward way. While wellbeing was lower when people behaved less conscientiously than they normally do, increases beyond one’s typical conscientiousness level were largely unrelated to wellbeing. Moreover, people high in trait conscientiousness suffered more from negative deviations from their trait level than people low in trait conscientiousness. As a whole, our findings suggest that the interplay of personality states and personality traits is complicated, with both the state level and deviations from the trait level being relevant to wellbeing—calling for an integrative approach to personality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Research on state-trait homomorphy, or the degree to which traits and aggregated states measure the same construct, shows that extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness show higher and openness and neuroticism show lower levels of trait-state homomorphy (Rauthmann et al. 2018).
Polynomial regression has been shown to be well suited for testing congruence hypotheses (see Humberg et al. 2018). Our approach differs from the traditional use of polynomial regression analysis in two important ways. First, in a typical polynomial regression analysis, one models measures from two separate dimensions (e.g., perceived promises and perceived obligations) and/or from two different sources (e.g., a self-view measure and a reputation measure). We instead collected repeated measures on one dimension (i.e., Conscientiousness) from a single source, after which we modeled the between- and the within-person variability in those scores. This approach makes sense from a conceptual point of view because the person’s average state Conscientiousness score has been shown to be a good indicator of trait Conscientiousness (Fleeson 2001; Rauthmann et al. 2018), while the person-centered state Conscientiousness scores capture momentary deviations from one’s level of trait Conscientiousness (thus representing counterdispositional behavior). By using this approach, we circumvented the issue of high multicollinearity that would have shown up when testing congruence effects using the raw trait and state scores. A second important consequence of our atypical use of polynomial regression is that, unlike in traditional polynomial regression, the congruence effect directly corresponds to one of the parameters in the model, being the quadratic effect for the person-centered Conscientiousness scores.
We used the Greenhouse–Geisser correction to account for non-sphericity in the data.
References
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology,5, 323–369. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323.
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality,74, 1773–1802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103257361.
Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary assessment in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,6, 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103257361.
Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. (2010). The dark side of conscientiousness: Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following unemployment. Journal of Research in Personality,44(4), 535–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.001.
Brawley, A. M., & Pury, C. L. (2016). Work experiences on MTurk: Job satisfaction, turnover, and information sharing. Computers in Human Behavior,54, 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.031.
Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J., Williamson, R., & Miller, J. (2015). The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological wellbeing: The role of obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.0311111/jopy.12177.
Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: The main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology,95, 618–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.03110.1037/a0019130.
Dahm, A. S., Schmierer, P., Veer, I. M., Streit, F., Görgen, A., Kruschwitz, J., et al. (2017). The burden of conscientiousness? Examining brain activation and cortisol response during social evaluative stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology,78, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.01.019.
Debusscher, J., Hofmans, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2016). Do personality states predict momentary task performance? The moderating role of personality variability. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,52, 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12126.
Debusscher, J., Hofmans, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2017). The multiple face(t)s of state conscientiousness: Predicting task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,69, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.009.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin,124(2), 197–229.
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.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1985). Personality correlates of subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,11(1), 89–97.
Fayard, J. V., Roberts, B. W., Robins, R. W., & Watson, D. (2012). Uncovering the affective core of conscientiousness: The role of self-conscious emotions. Journal of Personality,80, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00720.x.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80, 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011.
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate the challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science,13, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963.7214.2004.00280.x.
Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of Big Five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within) person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality,78, 1353–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00653.x.
Gallagher, P., Fleeson, W., & Hoyle, R. H. (2011). A self-regulatory mechanism for personality trait stability: Contra-trait effort. Social Psychological and Personality Science,2, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610390701.
Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods,19, 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138.
González-Romá, V., & Hernández, A. (2017). Multilevel modeling: Research-based lessons for substantive researchers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4, 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062407.
Grube, A., Schroer, J., Hentzschel, C., & Hertel, G. (2008). The event reconstruction method: An efficient measure of experience-based job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,81, 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X251578.
Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin,130(4), 574–600.
Hofmans, J., Debusscher, J., Dóci, E., Spanouli, A., & De Fruyt, F. (2015). The curvilinear relationship between work pressure and momentary task performance: The role of state and trait core self-evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01680.
Humberg, S., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2018). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600.
Ilies, R., Wagner, D., Wilson, K., Ceja, L., Johnson, M., DeRue, S., et al. (2017). Flow at work and basic psychological needs: Effects on well-being. Applied Psychology,66, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12075.
Jackson, J. J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Harms, P. D., & Roberts, B. W. (2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the behavioral indicators of conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality,44, 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.005.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research,2, 102–138.
Kim, J. E., Nembhard, D. A., & Kim, J. H. (2016). The effects of group size and task complexity on deadline reactivity. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,56, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2016.09.011.
LaHuis, D. M., & Ferguson, M. W. (2009). The accuracy of significance tests for slope variance components in multilevel random coefficient models. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308984.
LaHuis, D. M., Martin, N. R., & Avis, J. M. (2005). Investigating nonlinear conscientiousness-job performance relations for clerical employees. Human Performance,18, 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1803_1.
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist,55(1), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.170.
Leikas, S., & Ilmarinen, V. J. (2016). Happy now, tired later? Extraverted and conscientious behavior are related to immediate mood gains, but to later fatigue. Journal of Personality,97, 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12264.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford Press.
Minbashian, A., Wood, R. E., & Beckmann, N. (2010). Task-contingent conscientiousness as a unit of personality at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,95, 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020016.
Moskowitz, D. S., & Coté, S. (1995). Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A comparison of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69, 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.915.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology,57, 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127.
Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods,46, 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management,39, 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060.
Rauthmann, J. F., Horstmann, K. T., & Sherman, R. A. (2018). Do self-reported traits and aggregated states capture the same thing? A nomological perspective on trait-state homomorphy. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618774772.
Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009). Conscientiousness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 369–381). New York: Guilford.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review,5, 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment,63, 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods,13, 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241.
Sieracki, J. H., Leon, S. C., Miller, S. A., & Lyons, J. S. (2008). Individual and provider effects on mental health outcomes in child welfare: A three level growth curve approach. Children and Youth Services Review,30, 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.12.008.
Smith, J., Ryan, L. H., & Röcke, C. (2013). The day-to-day effects of conscientiousness on wellbeing. Research in Human Development,10(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2013.760257.
Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R. B., & De Fruyt, F. (2018). The double-edged sword of leader charisma: Understanding the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,114(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000147.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,88, 632–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632.
Watson, D. (2000). Basic problems in positive mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry,11(3), 205–209.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Woo, S. E., Keith, M., & Thornton, M. A. (2015). Amazon Mechanical Turk for industrial and organizational psychology: Advantages, challenges, and practical recommendations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,8, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.21.
Wright T. A. (2010). More than meets the eye: The role of employee well-being in organizational research. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 143–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zelenski, J. M., Santoro, M. S., & Whelan, D. C. (2012). Would introverts be better off if they acted more like extraverts? Exploring emotional and cognitive consequences of counterdispositional behavior. Emotion,12, 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/a002516.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted with support from the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO; Research Foundation- Flanders) Research Fund (FWOAL751).
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pickett, J., Hofmans, J., Debusscher, J. et al. Counterdispositional Conscientiousness and Wellbeing: How Does Acting Out of Character Relate to Positive and Negative Affect At Work?. J Happiness Stud 21, 1463–1485 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00139-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00139-1