Personality Assessment

Ozer, D.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.45.1.357

Cited by 55 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Hough (1992) added locus of control, and masculinity to the list of constructs needed to predict occupational performance. Ozer and Reise (1994) pointed out that the FFM does not include a dimension relating to self-control, despite its importance in work environments.…”

Section: Use Of Ffm In Personnel Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critique of the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Boyle

2008

The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 1 — Personality Theories and Models

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Use Of Ffm In Personnel Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critique of the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Boyle

2008

The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 1 — Personality Theories and Models

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is an important question because the degree of independence of proactive personality from the Big Five personality traits also determines the extent to which the proactive personality construct can theoretically be understood by locating it within the Big Five framework. This is a common practice for personality constructs which have been introduced more recently to the research domain, such as self-monitoring (Funder, 2001) yet the previous reviews of proactive personality have not performed this analysis, despite the fact that Ozer and Reise (1994) posited in an Annual Review of Psychology chapter that the Big Five are the "latitude and longitude" (p. 361) along which any new personality construct should be routinely mapped. Therefore, what is needed is an investigation of the cumulative overlap of the Big Five personality traits with proactive personality to determine the extent to which the proactive personality does not only have a different label than the Big Five, but also measures different dispositional terrain than the Big Five.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This indicates that there may be more to a personality construct than what the Big Five can explain. According to Ozer and Reise (1994), this could be attributed to the fact that the Big Five is not a theory and thus cannot "offer insight into the psychological principles and processes that create a personality" (Ozer & Reise, 1994, p.361).On the other hand, proactive personality has a strong theoretical underpinning which outlines its nature, antecedents and consequences (Bateman & Crant, 1993;Crant 1995;Crant, 2000;Crant & Bateman, 2000;Parker, 1998;Thompson, 2005). Furthermore, unlike proactive personality, which is contextualized as a self-starting approach to work, the Big Five is grounded in a non-contextual and non-contingent framework (Ozer & Reise, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Uniqueness and Usefulness of Proactive Personality in Organizational Research: A Meta-Analytic Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using meta-analysis (283 effect sizes from 122 studies), we extend prior qualitative and quantitative reviews of research on proactive personality in a number of meaningful ways. First, we examine the discriminant and incremental validity of proactive personality using meta-analytic regression analyses. Our results reveal that more than 50% of variance in proactive personality is unrelated to the Big Five personality traits collectively. Also, proactive personality accounts for unique variance in overall job performance, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors, even after controlling for the Big Five personality traits and general mental ability (for overall job performance and task performance). Moreover, we find no subgroup differences in proactive personality, highlighting its potential use in selection contexts. In conclusion, we discuss implications of our findings for research and practice. Using meta-analysis (283 effect sizes from 122 studies), we extend prior qualitative and quantitative reviews of research on proactive personality in a number of meaningful ways. First, we examine the discriminant and incremental validity of proactive personality using meta-analytic regression analyses. Our results reveal that more than 50% of variance in proactive personality is unrelated to the Big Five personality traits collectively. Also, proactive personality accounts for unique variance in overall job performance, task performance, and OCBs, even after controlling for the Big Five personality traits and general mental ability (for overall job performance and task performance). Moreover, we find no sub-group differences in proactive personality, highlighting its potential use in selection contexts. In conclusion, we discuss implications of our findings for research and practice. D R A F TThe Uniqueness and Usefulness of Proactive Personality 3Investigating the Uniqueness and Usefulness of Proactive Personality in Organizational Research: A Meta-Analytic Review Proactive work behaviors are associated with a number of meaningful individual and organizational outcomes. For example, Hall and Moss (1998) and Thompson (2005) argued that initiative taking and a self-starting approach to work have become increasingly important for individual job performance and career success. Parker (1998) and Parker, Williams, and Turner (2006) further suggested that a self-starting approach to work will ultimately result in innovation on the organizational level. Given the widespread use of decentralized organizational structures, performance of proactive work behaviors has become the source of competitive advantage for organizations (Crant, 1995;Organ, 1988). These developments led Bandura (2002) to conclude that transnational interdependencies and market forces have created a global demand for a self-starting approach to work.The increasing importance of a self-starting approach to work has been reflected in scholarly work on proactive work behaviors. Over the past twenty years, research has examined the n...

show abstract

“…In the professional enterprise of personality psychology, however, making sense of persons is or should be the very raison d'etre ofthe discipline. From the time of Allport (1937) and Murray (1938), through the anxious days of the "situationist" critique (Bowers, 1973;Mischel, 1968), and up to the present, upbeat period wherein we celebrate traits (John, 1990; Wiggins, in press) while we offer a sparkling array of new methods and models for personality inquiry (see, for example, McAdams, 1994a;Ozer & Reise, 1994;Revelle, 1995), making sense of persons was and is fundamentally what personality psychologists are supposed to do, in the lab, in the office, even on the drive home. But how should we do it?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know When We Know a Person?

McAdams¹

1995

Journal of Personality

887

752

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in personality may be described at three different levels. Level I consists of those broad, decontextualized, and relatively nonconditional constructs called "traits," which provide a dispositional signature for personality description. No description of a person is adequate without trait attributions, but trait attributions themselves yield little beyond a "psychology ofthe stranger." At Level II (called "personal concems"), personality descriptions invoke personal strivings, life tasks, defense mechanisms, coping strategies, domain-specific skills and values, and a wide assortment of other motivational, developmental, or strategic constructs that are contextualized in time, place, or role. While dispositional traits and personal concerns appear to have near-universal applicability. Level III presents frameworks and constructs that may be uniquely relevant to adulthood only, and perhaps only within modern societies that put a premium on the individuation of the self. Thus, in contemporary Western societies, a full description of personality commonly requires a consideration of the extent to which a human life expresses unity and purpose, which are the hallmarks of identity. Identity in adulthood is an inner story of the self that integrates the reconstmcted past, perceived present, and anticipated future to provide a life with unity, purpose, and meaning. At Level III, psychologists may explore the person's identity as an internalized and evolving life story. Each of the three levels has its own geography and requires its own indigenous nomenclatures, taxonomies, theories, frameworks, and laws.One of the great social rituals in the lives of middle-class American famihes is "the drive home." The ritual comes in many different forms.

show abstract

Personality Assessment

Cited by 55 publications

References 0 publications

Critique of the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Critique of the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Investigating the Uniqueness and Usefulness of Proactive Personality in Organizational Research: A Meta-Analytic Review

What Do We Know When We Know a Person?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About