Personality and density distributions of behavior, emotions, and situations

Jones, Ashley Bell; Brown, Nicolas A.; Serfass, David G.; Sherman, Ryne A.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.006

Cited by 86 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research shows that people not only differ in their baseline, but also in the consistency of their trait‐relevant behaviours (Dalal et al , ). Moreover, individual differences in variability in trait‐relevant behaviour appear to be stable over time and can therefore be used to characterize individuals (Jones, Brown, Serfass, & Sherman, ), whereas personality variability has generally been found to be independent from the baseline, neuroticism is an exception to this rule as it is intrinsically linked with behavioural, cognitive and affective consistency by definition. That is, people who are generally low on neuroticism tend to show less variability in their affect, self‐esteem and neuroticism‐related behaviours (Eid & Diener, ; Fleeson & Gallagher, ; Kuppens, Oravecz & Tuerlinckx, ).…”

Section: The Elements Of the Personality Dynamics Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the neuroticism – performance link: A dynamic approach to individual differences

Sosnowska

Hofmans

Fruyt

2019

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present paper, the relationship between neuroticism and supervisory ratings of performance is examined using a dynamic approach to personality. This approach integrates both within-and between-person differences by looking at individual differences in baseline neuroticism, neuroticism variability and neuroticism attractor strength. Our findings showed that baseline neuroticism related to lower supervisory ratings of performance, and that a high level of baseline neuroticism is particularly detrimental for people who fail to return to their baseline swiftly. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that adopting a more integrative, dynamic approach to personality has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the personality-performance relationship. Practitioner pointsHow employees' performance is perceived by their supervisors not only depends on between-person differences in employees' average level of neuroticism, but also on the extent to which their state neuroticism levels vary Assessing personality dynamics has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the candidate's personality Managers should take into account that the impact of baseline personality on performance depends on how deviations from the baseline are regulated.Traditionally, research on the personality-performance relation has focused on predicting between-person differences in job performance from between-person differences in personality traits. Despite the fact that meta-analytical research demonstrates that personality traits do indeed predict job performance, only looking at how people behave, feel and think on average is quite restrictive.In response to this, personality scholars are increasingly adopting an integrative approach to personality. According to this approach, personality should not be equated with a set of scores on several trait dimensions, but attention should also be given to momentary expressions of those traits (Dalal et al.

show abstract

Section: The Elements Of the Personality Dynamics Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the neuroticism – performance link: A dynamic approach to individual differences

Sosnowska

Hofmans

Fruyt

2019

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…). Of course, it is possible to estimate any other person-specific parameter, such as weighted means, median, person-standard deviations (Jones, Brown, Serfass, & Sherman, 2017), or a number of other parameters (Dejonckheere et al, 2019;Zimmermann et al, 2019), each of which technically needs to be validated in their own right, and based on theoretical assumptions. The focus on average state scores in the current study reflects its popularity as an estimate of a person characteristic (see Table 1).…”

Section: Current Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that the criterion must not necessarily be obtained at the same time as the average state score. The average state score is usually interpreted as a time-invariant characteristic of the person and therefore as stable (Fleeson, 2001;Jones et al, 2017). The average state score should therefore be related to other person characteristics, regardless of the time of their assessment.…”

Section: Average State Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Personality States: What to Consider when Constructing Personality State Measures

Horstmann¹,

Ziegler²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeated assessments of personality states in daily diary or experience sampling studies have become a more and more common tool in the psychologist's toolbox. However, and contrary to the widely available literature on personality traits, no best practices for the development of personality state measures exist, and personality state measures have been developed in many different ways. To address this, we first define what a personality state is and discuss important components. Based on this, we define what a personality state measure is and suggest a general guideline for the development of such measures. Following the ABC of test construction can then guide the strategy for obtaining validity and reliability evidence: (A) What is the construct being measured? (B) What is the intended purpose of the measure? And (C)What is the targeted population of persons and situations? We then conclude with an example by developing an initial item pool for the assessment of conscientiousness personality states.

show abstract

“…Another venue is internal to traits. Personality researchers have also attempted to look at situations embedded in the traits (e.g., Church, Katigbak, & del Prado, 2010;Jones, Brown, Serfass, & Sherman, 2017;Murtha, Kanfer, & Ackerman, 1996;Ten Berge & De Raad, 2001, 2002Tett & Guterman, 2000;Yang et al, 2014). Either way, the connection between situations and traits can and should be examined in a more systematic manner.…”

Section: Inferring Traits From Situations Behaviors and Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Culturally Situated Process of Personality Judgment

2017

The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personality psychology has made tremendous progress in demonstrating important outcomes of personality traits. Yet the process by which people make personality judgment needs to be better understood. In this chapter, it is argued that to provide personality judgment, people must rely on a reference group of the target, a lay theory of the trait, or both. Importantly, the specific reference group and lay theory that people naturally choose are situated in their immediate cultural milieu, affecting trait judgment in systematic ways. Moreover, the relative impact of reference groups and lay theories on personality judgment can change under different circumstances. Postulates concerning the nature of these circumstances, consideration of how traits are inferred, and possible routes to better compare cultural groups on traits can also stimulate new understanding of the personality process.

show abstract

Personality and density distributions of behavior, emotions, and situations

Cited by 86 publications

References 51 publications

Revisiting the neuroticism – performance link: A dynamic approach to individual differences

Revisiting the neuroticism – performance link: A dynamic approach to individual differences

Assessing Personality States: What to Consider when Constructing Personality State Measures

The Culturally Situated Process of Personality Judgment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About