Personality & Consequential Outcomes Lecture 5 PDF

Personality and Social Psychology Lecture 5: Personality and Consequential Outcomes Overview of my lectures The next two weeks… Personality and consequential outcomes (now) The predictive power of personality Achievement, health, quality of life, social indicators...

Personality and Social Psychology Lecture 5: Personality and Consequential Outcomes Overview of my lectures The next two weeks… Personality and consequential outcomes (now) The predictive power of personality Achievement, health, quality of life, social indicators Persons and situations (week 6) The ‘person-situation debate’ Stability and contextual dependence of personality Overview Today: Using personality to predict life outcomes related to… Achievement Job performance, educational attainment… Health Life expectancy, health promoting behaviour… Relationships Divorce, relationship dynamics Predictive validity/utility Recall week 2 (validity)… 1. Can we use measures of personality to make valid inferences or predictions about theoretically relevant or practically useful outcomes? 2. Why might personality predict life outcomes? a) Direct effects — from the general to the particular… e.g., does (broad) conscientiousness predict (specific) conscientious behaviours? b) Indirect effects — statistical mediation e.g., does a trait predict an outcome via situation selection c) Interactive/conditional effects — person x environment interactions e.g., via differential reactivity to events/situation History of prediction The ‘Lexical Hypothesis’… Important personality characteristics will, over human history, be coded in language [week 2] ‘Important’ in what sense? Making predictions. Who will help me? Who might hurt me? Who can I depend on – who is reliable? Who can solve a problem – who is clever/creative? Who would make a good mate? History of prediction Formal assessment of personality and abilities… Educational contexts Binet and Simon (1905, 1908, 1911): identification of children who may benefit from alternate education… 1926  The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Occupational contexts Military selection and placement under Robert Yerkes (1915) 1950s-1970s: Diversification and mobility of work Growth of Human Resources Management sector The Prediction of Achievement Job Performance Schmidt & Hunter (1998) conducted a meta- analysis of 85 years of research Predictors included abilities, personality traits, work experience, references, etc. Criterion was job performance—typically measured in terms of supervisory ratings (+ job- specific indicators, e.g., sales records) But first… …how to gauge strength of prediction? Effect size guidelines [week 3] Cohen, 1998: Correlations of 0.10 / 0.30 / 0.50 = small / medium / large Arbitrary… Gignac & Szodorai, 2016: Correlations of 0.10 / 0.20 / 0.30 = small / medium / large Based on typical effect sizes in personality psychology Achievement at Work Job performance predicted by…. Years of education, r =.10 Job experience (years), r =.18 Reference checks, r =.26 Employment interviews, r =.38 -.51 Job performance Personality predictors: B5 Conscientiousness: r = 0.31 ‘Integrity tests’ (blend of C & A): r = 0.41 Conscientiousness Schmidt & Hunter, 1998  Achievement at Work Strongest individual differences predictor was cognitive ability (or ‘intelligence/IQ’) … Personality adds to predictive power of cognitive ability… Cognitive ability alone; r =.51 Combining cognitive ability with conscientiousness; R =.6o Combining cognitive ability with an integrity test; R =.65 Job performance R =.65 Cognitive ability + integrity Schmidt & Hunter, 1998  Achievement at Work Barrick & Mount (1991, 1998): Meta-analysis of the Big Five  job performance: Conscientiousness predicts across all occupations: r ~.20-.25 For effort-related (as opposed to skill-related) criteria: r =.42 Extraversion predicts in two specific job areas: Management: r ~.20 Sales: r ~.15 Achievement at Work Hurtz & Donovan (2000): Updated meta-analysis, to check replicability … Key findings: Conscientiousness again predicts broadly (r ~.20) Agreeableness, Openness/Intellect, and (low) Neuroticism predicts performance in customer service roles Extraversion and (low) Neuroticism predicts performance in management and sales roles Achievement at Work Wilmot & Ones (2019): A recent meta-synthesis focussed on conscientiousness and job performance… Combined 2,500 individual studies Total of >1.1 million participants Examined a broad range of performance-related criteria Overall relation between C and performance: r ~.20 Stronger in jobs characterised by lower occupational complexity… Achievement at Work Wilmot & Ones (2019): Achievement at Work “Occupational success” Indices typically reflect popular views of job desirability or ‘prestige’, related to wages, years of education required, etc. e.g., ‘Duncan’s Socioeconomic Index’ (Duncan, 1961) Typical top scorers include Doctor, Dentist, Lawyer, etc. Predictive validity for Openness/intellect: r ~.20 (Sutin et al., 2009) Extraversion: r ~.15 (Roberts et al., 2003) Conscientiousness: r ~.15 (Roberts et al., 2003)  Achievement at Work — meta- analysis Occupational success After accounting for childhood SES, parental income, and cognitive ability (IQ), personality predicts various indicators of occupational success (income, promotion etc.) up to 47 years later… Roberts et al., 2007 Educational Achievement Educational performance (Grade Point Average; GPA) Cognitive ability + conscientiousness predicts achievement across programs (Kuncel et al., 2001) Meta-analysis by Poropat (2009): Predicting school/university GPA from… Cognitive ability: r =.25 Conscientiousness: r =.22 Openness/intellect: r =.12 Agreeableness: r =.07 Of the Big Five, only conscientiousness adds  Educational Achievement Educational attainment e.g., highest level completed / years spent in full time education Strongest B5 predictor is openness — r ~.35 Educational engagement Openness also predicts… intrinsic motivation (interest and enjoyment of study topics) in university students; r ~.35 breadth/depth of reading; r ~.25 dberg, 1998; Hazrati-Viari et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2013 Educational Achievement Choice of college major… Extraversion Economics, Law, Political Science, and Medicine Neuroticism Arts, Humanities, and Psychology Agreeableness Medicine, Psychology, Sciences, Arts, and Humanities Conscientiousness Science, Law, Economics, Engineering, Medicine, and Psychology Openness/Intellect Humanities, Arts, Psychology, and Political Science Why does personality predict achievement? 1. Direct effects? (from the general to the particular) e.g., expressions of conscientiousness… Conscientiousness predicts most strongly for effort-related criteria (or where skills are less crucial) 2. Indirect effects? (mediation) e.g., Selecting into a program of study that increases later likelihood of particular kinds of outcomes… e.g., conscientiousness and extraversion predict ‘occupational success’ (higher wages etc.) via choice of major (e.g., law) 3. Interactive effects? (moderation) e.g., responding to the demands of work e.g., extraverts may respond well to the interpersonal challenges of leadership and management roles Roberts et al., 2007 Example: Conscientiousness Indirect effects on educational achievement via study strategies… Corker et al. 2012: Conscientiousness assessed in 347 US college students at the beginning of semester Various study strategies assessed the week before exams, e.g., Deep processing (e.g., “I try to think through topics…”) Persistence (e.g., “…I work my hardest to learn it”) ‘Achievement’ based on exams and coursework Use of effortful study strategies explained the relation between conscientiousness and educational achievement  Example: Extraversion Interactive effects: The role of rewards… Extraverts respond more strongly to rewards (Depue & Collins, 1999) Sales sector makes use of rewards (i.e., commissions & bonuses) Management roles bring a range of rewards (e.g., pay, status)  Is this why extraverts perform well in sales and management roles? Example: Extraversion Stewart, 1996: If new sales were rewarded… Extraversion predicted new sales but did not predict customer retention If customer retention was rewarded… Extraversion predicted customer retention but did not predict new sales Conclusion: Rewards for good performance may explain why (and when) extraversion predicts job performance Summary #1 Personality traits predict achievement : Conscientiousness: Broad predictor of educational and occupational achievement Indirect effects via state expressions (e.g., study strategies) Extraversion: achievement and choice for some work areas (management, sales, customer service) Interactive/conditional effects of incentive structures Also Openness (educational attainment/engagement, occupational success), Agreeableness (customer service) and (low) Neuroticism (performance) Prediction of Heath Outcomes Martin et al., 2007: 1,254 persons followed up over 7 decades (1930-2000) Conscientiousness assessed at 3 time points In childhood (1920s); estimated from parent and teacher reports In adulthood (1940 and 1950) Outcomes: Age of death and cause Various health/risk behaviours (e.g., smoking) Health — Longevity Martin et al., 2007 Health — Longevity Replication using peer/informant reports… Partial replication: Males rated as more conscientious in their 20s lived longer For females: lower neuroticism and higher agreeableness Health — Healthy Behaviour Numerous studies now show that conscientiousness predicts better health and longer life Evidence suggests this is explained by engagement in health promoting behaviours Conscientiousness predicts… Less alcohol use, r = -.25 Less drug use, r = -.28 Less unhealthy eating, r = -.13 Less risky driving, r = -.25 Less risky sexual behaviour, r = -.13 Bogg & Roberts, Health — Healthy Behaviour Armon & Toker (2013) Participation in periodic health checks: N= 2,803 (older adults) Outcome: Odds of returning for a 2nd recommended health check Conscientiousness: +ve predictor Extraversion, openness: -ve predictors Neuroticism: curvilinear predictor…! [From week 3] Health — Healthy Behaviour Remember, mean-level personality change… [week 4] Roberts et al., 2006 Health — Healthy Behaviour Do changes in conscientiousness predict changes in health? 898 individuals assessed twice, 3 years apart Health Promoting Behaviours: e.g., physical activity; healthy eating Also assessed current health Overall health and physical functioning Takahashi, Edmonds, Jackson, & Roberts, 2012  Health — Healthy Behaviour Results: Conscientiousness associated with health promoting behaviours and overall health at both time points Changes in conscientiousness were associated with changes in health promoting behaviours and overall health Changes in health promoting behaviors mediated the association between changes in conscientiousness and changes in overall health: Δ conscientiousness Δ healthy behaviour current health Takahashi, Edmonds, Jackson, & Roberts, 2012  Health — Healthy Behaviour “Type A personality” (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974) Competitive, ambitious, restless, impatient, and hostile High risk of heart disease Valid/reliable? Poor psychometric support for the Type A cluster… …but trait hostility appears to be the ‘active ingredient’ linking descriptions of “Type A” with heart disease Hostility = a facet of (low) agreeableness… Hostility Cynical, antagonistic (vs cooperative) with others, quick to anger Predicts cardiovascular disease and mortality (Chapman et al., 2011) Health & Longevity — other traits Trait Summary of findings Evidence Numerous studies report reduced Conscientiousn risk of all-cause mortality across Strong ess diverse samples Fewer studies, but results suggest Openness reduced risk of all-cause and Modest possibly CVD mortality Results somewhat mixed, with Extraversion findings of reduced, increased, and Inconsistent no mortality risk Many studies suggesting reduced Optimism risk for all-cause, cardiovascular, Strong and in some cases cancer mortality Some studies report increased, while Neuroticism other report decreased or no risk for Inconsistent all-cause and CVD mortality Fewer studies, with no few Agreeableness Weak substantial effects Chapman et al., 2011  Longevity – meta-analysis: After accounting for childhood SES, parental income, and cognitive ability (IQ), personality predicts longevity up to 76 years later: NB: Small effect sizes, but of practical significance Roberts et al., 2007 Summary #2 Personality traits predict health and longevity… Conscientiousness: Strongest and most consistent trait predictor Indirect effects on longevity via health promoting behaviours Hostility (facet of agreeableness): Links with cardiovascular disease Optimism (facet of extraversion) Various positive effects: Explanations include adaptive  Relationship Outcomes…. Two potential effects… 1. Actor effects: Does my personality influence the relationship outcomes I experience? 2. Partner effects: Does my partner’s personality influence the relationship outcomes I experience? Schmitt, 2004: A and C  lower likelihood of infidelity (~16,000 participants from 52 nations) Actor effects Dyrenforth et al. 2010: A and C  higher marital satisfaction in (~20,000 participants from Australia, Germany, and the UK) Both actor and partner effects Relationships — Divorce Decades of research has implicated personality in relationship dissolution or divorce N, O, and E linked with higher likelihood of separation/divorce A and C linked with lower likelihood of separation/divorce (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Lundberg, 2012; Solomon & Jackson, 2014) Does divorce also change personality? Spikic et al. (2021): Longitudinal samples from Germany (~15,000 households), UK (~40,000 households) and Australia (~8000 households) No consistent effects of divorce on personality across all Divorce – why? Explained in terms of indirect effects, via relationship dynamics… e.g., Solomon & Jackson, 2014: Two potential pathways…  Divorce – why? 4 year study of 8,000 Australians, married or in a committed relationship… Clearer support for enduring dynamics: Personality consistently impacts on relationship dynamics in ways that may ultimately lead to its dissolution Examples: Low agreeableness and conscientiousness via negative communication patterns High neuroticism via negative emotionality (experiencing negative moods, reacting with irritability and impatience) Solomon & Jackson, 2014  Divorce — meta-analysis Meta-analysis: Neuroticism, lower conscientiousness, and lower agreeableness predicts divorce up to 45 years later… Roberts et al., 2007 Personality and Social Dynamics How personality may impact our social environment… Eaton & Funder, 2003 Personality and Social Dynamics A (partial) test of the model… Pairs of participants (A & B) interacted for 5 minutes. Interaction was filmed and rated Personality assessments (self and other) were administered, and reputation ratings (from 2 peers) were collected. Results (focus on extraversion): [Coded from filmed interaction] [Self-Ratings of T] [Ratings of T by P] [Rating of T by by 2 peers] [Self-Ratings of P] Eaton & Funder, 2003 Summary #3 Personality traits and relationship outcomes… Better relationship outcomes (satisfaction, faithfulness, continuity) predicted by… Higher conscientiousness and agreeableness Lower neuroticism Appear to be explained in terms of indirect effects on relationship dynamics Relationship/social dynamics – complex to study! Links among traits, social impressions, reputation, and the construction of the social environment  Personality & Consequential Outcomes… How robust are these findings? The prediction of consequential outcomes may have important policy implications (Bliedorn et al., 2019) But… the ‘replication crisis’ in psychology (aka ‘credibility revolution’)... Attributed to… Questionable research practices Publication bias Low statistical power Funder et al. 2014, Fraley & Vazire, 201  The ‘Reproducibility Project’ Open Science Collaboration, 2015: Attempted to replicate 100 findings from across all of psychology Just 39% of findings … with roughly 50% the effect replicated… size: The ‘Life Outcomes of Personality Replication (LOORP)’ project: Soto (2019) attempted to replicate 78 previously reported associations between personality traits and consequential outcomes Study was ‘pre-registered’, and involved a large survey in a single large sample (N ~ 1,500) Results: 87% of the previously reported findings were successfully replicated Effect sizes were approximately 75% as strong as reported in the original studies The ‘Life Outcomes of Personality Replication (LOORP)’ project: Soto, 2019 Personality & Consequential Outcomes… How generalisable are these findings? Do findings of the LOORP project apply to different kinds of samples? (e.g., ethnic minorities, older participants, etc?) Soto, 2021: Attempted to replicate 48 findings from LOORP in more diverse (but still US) subsamples (total N = 6,126) Results: 95% of effects observed for men confirmed for women 90% of effects observed for young adults confirmed in age-representative samples, 93% of effects observed Caucasians/Whites confirmed among members of racial and ethnic minorities. Implications Findings have both theoretical and practical implications…  ‘predictive validity’ & ‘predictive power’… Predictive validity: Does a measure predict what it should, in theory? e.g., conscientiousness As a predictor of effort-related performance criteria…? e.g., extraversion And stronger motivation by rewards…? Predictive power: What are the important implications, in practice? e.g., Behaviour change for health… Should we try to increase agreeableness & conscientiousness?  Implications e.g., personality-informed behaviour change:  Overall summary Links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes… Are among the most replicable / reproducible findings in psychology (Soto, 2019) Have theoretical implications for testing predictions from personality theory (‘predictive validity’) Have practical implications in terms of predicting important outcomes, and intervening to change important outcomes (‘predictive power’) Reading for this week Roberts et al. (2007) A detailed review and meta-analysis focussed on achievement, mortality, and divorce. Just one reading this week 