Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 69–84 | Cite as

Relationships Between Conscientiousness Sub-Factors and Constructive and Destructive Behavioral Intentions

  • Eileen Reisert
  • Jeffrey M. Conte


This study examined the relationship between Conscientiousness, its sub-factors of Achievement and Dependability, and constructive and destructive behavioral intentions. In a sample of 270 undergraduate students, scores on personality measures were correlated with constructive and destructive behavioral tendencies as measured by responses to scenario situations. Results indicated that both Achievement and Dependability were negatively related to destructive behavioral intentions. As hypothesized, the relationship between Achievement and constructive behavioral intentions was significantly higher than the relationship between Dependability and constructive behavioral intentions. Contributions, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

conscientiousness achievement dependability constructive behavioral intentions destructive behavioral intentions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,1–26.Google Scholar
  2. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2000). Personal Characteristics Inventory. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Antecedents of involuntary turnover due to a reduction in force. Personnel Psychology, 47, 515–535.Google Scholar
  4. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The psychology of counterproductive job performance. In S. B. Bachrach (Ed.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-Violent Dys-functional Behavior. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A construct validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295–312.Google Scholar
  9. Conte, J. M., & Jacobs, R. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking polychronicity and Big 5 personality dimensions to absence, lateness, and supervisory ratings of performance. Human Performance, 16, 107–129.Google Scholar
  10. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1266–1282.Google Scholar
  11. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  12. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R): Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  13. Fallon, J. D., Avis, J. M., Kudisch, J. D., Gornet, T. P., & Frost, A. (2000). Conscientiousness as a predictor of productive and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 339–349.Google Scholar
  14. Gough, H. G. (1987). The California Psychological Inventory Administrator's Guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  15. Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2001). Some questions about the relationship between conscientiousness and performance. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Hattrup, K., O'Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11, 305–319.Google Scholar
  17. Hogan, R. (1982). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Personality-current theory and research (pp. 55–89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hogan, R. (1986). Manual for the Hogan Personality Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.Google Scholar
  19. Hogan, J., & Ones, D. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables—construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.Google Scholar
  21. Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.Google Scholar
  23. Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-Factor Model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755.Google Scholar
  24. 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, 563–593.Google Scholar
  25. McCullough, M. E., Sandage, S. J., Brown, S. W., Rachal, K. C., Worthington, E. L., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.Google Scholar
  26. Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of Conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533–540.Google Scholar
  27. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.Google Scholar
  28. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153–200.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, K. R., & Lee, S. L. (1994). Personality variables related to integrity test scores: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 413–424.Google Scholar
  30. Norman, W. T. (1963). Personality measurement, faking, and detection: An assessment method for use in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 225–241.Google Scholar
  31. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). Integrity testing in organizations. In R. W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1520–1532.Google Scholar
  33. Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787–829.Google Scholar
  34. Sarchione, C. D., Cuttler, M. J., Muchinsky, P. M., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1998). Prediction of dysfunctional job behaviors among law enforcement officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 904–912.Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar
  36. Sommers, J. A., Schell, T. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2002). Developing a measure of individual differences in organizational revenge. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17, 207–222.Google Scholar
  37. Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959–968.Google Scholar
  38. Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25–42.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2001). Enrollment and teachers. Digest of Education Statistics, 2001. Retrieved March 22, 2003, from pubs2002/digest2001/ch1.aspGoogle Scholar
  40. Vinchur, V. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597.Google Scholar
  41. Wonderlic Inc. (2002). Personal Characteristics Inventory—Overview of Psychometric Characteristics. Libertyville, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eileen Reisert
    • 1
  • Jeffrey M. Conte
    • 2
  1. 1.San Diego State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations