Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance

Abstract

Summary The present paper provides a conceptual and empirical examination regarding the relevance of the construct curiosity for work‐related outcomes. On the basis of a review and integration of the literature regarding the construct itself, the construct is conceptually linked with performance in the work context. In line with a confirmatory research strategy, the sample of the present study (N = 320) has requirements which reflect this conceptual link. Results from a concurrent validation study confirmed the hypothesis regarding the significance of curiosity for job performance (r = .34). Furthermore, incremental validity of curiosity above 12 cognitive and non‐cognitive predictors for job performance suggests that curiosity captures variance in the criterion that is not explained by predictors traditionally used in organizational psychology. It is concluded that curiosity is an important variable for the prediction and explanation of work‐related behavior. Furthermore, given the dramatic changes in the world of work, the importance is likely to rise, rather than to decline, which has important implications for organizational theories and applied purposes, such as personnel selection. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Investigating intellect from a trait activation perspective: Identification of situational moderators for the correlation with work-related criteria

“…With regard to work-related criteria, significant correlations were found between intellect and job performance, which is in line with recent research that has posited that the intellect subdimension of openness to experience is an important personality trait for work-related behavior (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004;Mussel, 2012). Interestingly, intellect also significantly predicted organizational commitment.…”

“…Our study focused on intellect, a highly researched personality trait (von Stumm & Ackerman, 2013) which has more recently received considerable attention with regards to the prediction of work-related criteria (Mussel, 2012). Among others, we focused on this trait because, as reviewed in the introduction, considerable variance in validity coefficients suggested that situational properties might moderate this relation.…”

“…Whereas some studies have revealed high criterion-related validity, others have found that intellect was uncorrelated with job or training performance. For example, Mussel (2012) found an uncorrected correlation of .34 between curiosity and supervisory ratings of job performance and reported incremental validities over and above several cognitive and non-cognitive variables. Likewise, significant correlations with training performance , self-rated job performance (Reio & Wiswell, 2000), and career success (Mussel, Spengler, Litman, & Schuler, 2012, Study 2) have been found for curiosity.…”

Personality, learning, and the mediating role of epistemic curiosity: A case of continuing education in medical physicians

“…For example, Martocchio and Judge (1997) investigated self-efficacy and self-deception as possible mediators of the effect of conscientiousness on learning from training. By contrast, much less is known about the role of epistemic curiosity, which might function as a mediator because research has suggested that personality is a strong predictor of epistemic curiosity (Fleischhauer et al, 2010;Mussel, 2010;Tuten & Bosnjak, 2001;Woo, Harms, & Kuncel, 2007), which in turn ensures better learning (Arnone, Grabowski, & Rynd, 1994;Kang et al, 2009;Mussel, 2013b).…”

“…Berlyne (1954) differentiated perceptual curiosity from epistemic curiosity, describing the latter as bearing fruits of knowledge. From an individual difference perspective, people with higher levels of trait-related epistemic curiosity will be more likely to seek out, explore, and conquer situations that are appraised as novel, complex, and ambiguous; therefore, such people more often possess behaviors such as information seeking, learning, and thinking, all of which finally lead to higher levels of competence (Mussel, 2013b). Berlyne (1954) viewed epistemic curiosity as an exclusive personspecific drive to learn, whereas Litman and Spielberger (2003) viewed it as a personality trait.…”