The Relationship Between Conscientiousness and Affect

1. More isn’t always better: The relationship between conscientiousness and affect Jennifer Pickett Jonas Debusscher Joeri Hofmans Research Group of Work and Organizational Psychology

2. Introduction • Overview: • Synopsis of study • Within & between person personality approach • Conscientiousness • Behavioral Concordance Model • Counterdispositional Behavior • Methods • Results • Discussion • Theoretical & practical implications • Future research

3. Conscientiousness • Conscientiousness is defined as the inclination to follow social norms for impulse control that promote task- and goal-directed behaviors such as: • prioritizing jobs, chores and tasks • planning and organizing • abiding by the rules • thinking before acting • delaying gratification (DeYoung, 2015; John & Srivastava, 1999; Jackson et al., 2009) • Conscientiousness used to predict employees’ job performance

4. Conscientiousness • Linked to positive outcomes at between- & within- approach such as: • Academic success (Barrick & Mount, 1991) • Academic achievement (MacCann, Duckworth & Roberts, 2009) • Occupational achievement and well-being (Smith et al., 2013) • Organized and goal-orientated (Roberts, et al., 2009) • Positive interpersonal and achievement-related experience (McCrea & Costa, 1991) • Conceptualized as positive personality trait • Overall assumption is more is better for everyone • Between-person states more is better for everyone • Within-person states more is better for everyone • When the two approaches are combined, the outcomes are more complex

5. Between- and within- person approach • Previous research shows: • Between-person (Trait C) = increase in positive outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Smith, Ryan & Röcke, 2013) • Within-person (State C) = increase positive outcomes (Debusscher, Hofmans, & De Fruyt, 2016) • What these studies do not show is whether increases in the level of conscientiousnesswithinan individual also relates to increases in positive outcomes; between-person correlations do not readily transfer to the within-person level (Hamaker, 2012) • We integrated the two approaches to ascertain whether within-person fluctuations in conscientiousness leads to better outcomes for everyone • Trait C + State C = positive outcomes?

6. Behavioral Concordance Model • Trait concordant behaviors lead to pleasant affect (Moskowitz & Côté, 1995) • Individuals experience further pleasant affect and less unpleasant affect when they behaviors are congruent with their personality (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984) • Any discrepancy between trait level and momentary state level should lead to decreased well-being (Moskowitz & Côté, 1995) • The greater the deviation between trait and state level, the greater is the affect on well-being (Moskowitz & Côté, 1995) Counterdispositional Behavior

7. Counterdispositional behavior • a phenomenon that occurs when one deviates from an individual’s trait and are demanding or effortful (Gallagher, Fleeson, & Hoyle, 2011) • Monitoring and modifying behavior requires self-control and effort Consumes or exhausts limited self-regulatory resources (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005) • Causes stress and mental fatigue (Zelenski, Santoro, & Whelan, 2012) • Triggers ego depletion, requires additional efforts and is depleting, strenuous and fatiguing (Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006) • Emotionally is negatively related to well-being (Gallagher, Fleeson, & Hoyle, 2011)

8. More is better for everyone - positive affect

9. More is better for everyone- negative affect

10. More is better- positive & negative Affect

11. Behavioral Concordance Model – positive affect

12. Behavioral Concordance Model – negative affect

13. Behavioral Concordance Model – positive & negative affect

14. Methods • 82 Belgian professionals • 44% male • average age 27.3 years; • average job tenure 3.9 years • 17.2% in education • Experience sampling study (N = 734) • 10 consecutive working days • Reported daily levels of consceintiousness, positive and negative affect • 84.4% response rate • Analyses: • Mulitlevel polynomial regression analysis using the lme4 package in R (Bates, 2010)

15. Measures • Conscientiousness • Positive Affect • Negative Affect

16. Results: Correlations Notes: C = conscientiousness; PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect ** p< .01 Between person correlations are above diagonal Within person correlations are below diagonal

17. Results: Conscientiousness & positive affect

18. Results: Conscientiousness & negative affect

19. Conscientiousness – positive and negative affect

20. Our +A results vs more is better

21. Our +A results vs BCM

22. Main findings • Conscientiousness is related to both positive and negative affect • High on C; an increase in conscientiousness leads to an increase in posiitve affect • Low on C; an increase in conscientiousness leads to an increase in negative • Behaving contradictory to one’s trait personality does have consequences, i.e., negative affect

23. Theoretical & practical implications • Our empirical findings are of HIGH TRAIT and HIGH STATE leads to an increase in PA is in line with the BCM • Our results suggests that it is important to consider both the between-person and within-person approach in order to fully understand personality • Fostering trait congruency in the workplace cultivates employee wellbeing • Engaging in behaviors not congruent with personality preferences increases NA • Even if those behaviors are considered “good”, such as behaving more conscientious

24. Questions? • Mulțumesc • Thank you • Email:jennifer.pickett@vub.ac.be