Personality, Preferences and Socioeconomic Behavior

doi:10.1017/9781108264822.044

35 - Personality, Preferences and Socioeconomic Behavior

from Part VII - Applications of Personality Psychology: Personality Traits and Processes in Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020

Eamonn Ferguson ,

Kun Zhao and

Luke D. Smillie

Edited by

Philip J. Corr and

Gerald Matthews

Show author details

Philip J. Corr: Affiliation:
City, University London
Gerald Matthews: Affiliation:
University of Central Florida

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Three fundamental questions have tasked philosophers and scientists across time: Where do we come from?”, “Why are we here?” and “Why do people do what they do?” Academics working within behavioral economics (i.e., the application of economic and psychological approaches to understand how individuals make economic decisions) and personality psychology (i.e., the study of relatively stable patterns of behavior and experience) have addressed the third question. Behavioral economists examine how certain incentive structures, frames or choice architectures nudge people’s choices (preferences). Similarly, personality psychologists explore how different traits interact with context to predict behavior. Both traditions have developed their own theoretical frameworks, analytic strategies and methods. Accordingly, personality psychologists and economists have much they can learn from each other with the aim of answering the third fundamental question and by doing so offer better and more nuanced answers about determinants of behavior (Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman & ter Weel, 2008; Cunha & Heckman, 2008; Ferguson, 2015; Ozer & Bennet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts, Kuneel, Shiner, Caspi & Goldberg, 2007). The aim of this chapter is to offer some suggestions that may guide this integration.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology , pp. 477 - 494

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108264822.044 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. D. (2011). Personality psychology and economics. In Hanushek, E., Machin, S. & Woessman, L. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 4, pp. 1–181). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Split-sample instrumental variables estimates of the return to schooling. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13, 225–235.Google Scholar

Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification. From supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 69–85.CrossRef Google Scholar

Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996) Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–455.CrossRef Google Scholar

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.Google Scholar

Arah, O. A. (2008). The role of causal reasoning in understanding Simpson’s paradox, Lord’s paradox, and the suppression effect: Covariate selection in the analysis of observational studies. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 5, 5.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139–152.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Barford, K. A., Zhao, K., & Smillie, L. D. (2015). Mapping the interpersonal domain: Translating between the Big Five, HEXACO, and Interpersonal Circumplex. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 232–237.Google Scholar

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.Google Scholar

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.CrossRef Google Scholar

Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Becker, A., Deckers, T., Dohmen, T., Falk, A., & Kosse, F. (2012). The relationship between economic preferences and psychological personality measures. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 453–478.Google Scholar

Benenson, J. F., Pascoe, J., & Radmore, N. (2007). Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 168–175.Google Scholar

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.Google Scholar

Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.Google Scholar

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sacket, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Böckler, A., Tusche, A., & Singer, T. (2018). The structure of human prosociality revisited: Corrigendum and addendum to Böckler, Tusche and Singer (2016). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 754–759.Google Scholar

Böckler, A., Tusche, A., & Singer, T. (2016). The structure of human prosociality: Differentiating altruistically motivated, norm motivated, strategically motivated and self-reported prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 530–541.Google Scholar

Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behaviour dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 537–541.Google Scholar

Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, XLIII, 972–1059.Google Scholar

Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. A. (2010). The dark side of conscientiousness: Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following unemployment. Journal Research in Personality, 44, 535–539.Google Scholar

Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., Daly, M., & Sedikides, C. (2015). Personality change following unemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 991–1011.Google Scholar

Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222–230.Google Scholar

Brocklebank, S., Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. (2011). Personality accounts for stable preferences and expectations across a range of simple games. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 881–886. DOI.10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.007Google Scholar

Camerer, C. F., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209–219.Google Scholar

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.Google Scholar

Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221.Google Scholar

Chi, N. W., Chang, H. T., & Huang, H. L. (2015). Can personality traits and daily positive mood buffer the harmful effects of daily negative mood on task performance and service sabotage? A self-control perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 1–15.Google Scholar

Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). Another perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Conti, G., & Heckman, J. J. (2014). Understanding conscientiousness across the life course: An economic perspective. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1451–1459.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 874–888.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2008). Formulating, identifying and estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Journal of Human Resources, XLIII, 738–782.Google Scholar

Denissen, J. J. A., Luhmann, M., Chung, J. M., & Bleidorn, W. (2019). Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 612–633.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.Google Scholar

Didelez, V., & Sheehan, N. (2007). Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Statistical Methods and Medical Research, 16, 309–330.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16, 181–191.Google Scholar

Egan, M., Daly, M., Delaney, L., Boyce, C. J., & Wood, A. M. (2017). Adolescent conscientiousness predicts lower lifetime unemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 700–709.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Elwert, F., & Winship, C. (2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 31–53.Google Scholar

Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583–610.Google Scholar

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004a). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004b). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 185–190.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90, 980–994.Google Scholar

Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E. (2013). Personality is of central concern to understand health: Towards a theoretical model for health psychology. Health Psychology Review, 7, S32–S70.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E. (2015) Mechanisms of altruism approach to blood donor recruitment and retention: A review and future directions. Transfusion Medicine, 25, 211–226.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E., & Flynn, N. (2016). Moral relativism as a disconnect between behavioural and experienced warm glow. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 163–175.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E., & Lievens, F. (2017). Future directions in personality, occupational and medical selection: Myths, misunderstandings, measurement, and suggestions. Advances in Health Science Education, 22, 387–399.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E., Heckman, J. J., & Corr, P. (2011). Personality and economics: Overview and proposed framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 201–209.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E., James, D., O’Hehir, F., & Sanders, A. (2003). A pilot study of the roles of personality, references and personal statements in relation to performance over the 5 years of a medical degree. British Medical Journal, 326, 429–431.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E., Semper, H., Yates, J., Fitzgerald, J. E., Skatova, A., & James, D. (2014). The ‘Dark Side’ and ‘Bright Side’ of personality: When too much conscientiousness and too little anxiety are detrimental to the acquisition of medical knowledge and skill. PLoS One, 9, e8860.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ferguson, E., Zhao, K., O’Carroll, R. E., & Smillie, L. D. (2019). Costless and costly pro-sociality: Correspondence among personality traits, economic preferences, and real world pro-sociality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 461–471.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83–87.Google Scholar

Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097–1114.Google Scholar

Flood, M. (1958). Some experimental games. Management Science, 5, 5–26.Google Scholar

Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.Google Scholar

Foster, E. M. (2010). Causal inference and developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1454–1480.Google Scholar

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199–216.CrossRef Google Scholar

Greenland, S. (2000). An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29, 722–729.Google Scholar

Gu, R., Jiang, Y., Kiser, S., Black, C. L., Broster, L. S., Luo, Y-J., & Kely, T. H. (2017). Impulsive personality dimensions are associated with altered behavioral performance and neural responses in the monetary incentive delay task. Neuropsychologia, 103, 59–68.Google Scholar

Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Stratkotter, R., Nimmo, M., Grygoryev, K., Dosmna, D., Gillespie, M., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boadu, K. (2003). Pearl’s D-separation: One more step into causal thinking. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 289–311.Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J. (2007). The economics, technology, and neuroscience of human capability formation. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, 104, 13250–13255.Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on sift skills Labour Economics, 19, 451–464.Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411–482.Google Scholar

Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383–403.Google Scholar

Hilbig, B. E., Zettler, I., Leist, F., & Heydasch, T. (2013). It takes two: Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 598–603.Google Scholar

Howard, D. (2000). The impact of waiting time on liver transplant outcomes. Health Services Research, 35, 1117–1134.Google Scholar

Hubard, J., Harbaugh, W. T., Srivastava, S., Degras, D., & Mayr, U. (2016). A general benevolenve domension tha ytlinks neural, psychological and economic, and life span data on alruitsic tendencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1351–1358.Google Scholar

Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 490–507.Google Scholar

Hunter, R. J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.Google Scholar

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.Google Scholar

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W. & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & Petrini, L. (2011). A new trait on the market: Honesty-humility as a unique predictor of job performance ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 857–862.Google Scholar

Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997) Five-Factor Model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755.Google Scholar

Karten, P., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behvaior, 74, 264–282.Google Scholar

Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W., & Uller, T. (2011). Cause and effect in biology revisited: Is Mayr’s proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful. Science, 334, 1512–1516.Google Scholar

Lawlor, D. A., Harbord, R. M., Sterne, J. A. C., Timpson, N., & Davey-Smith, G. (2008). Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 1133–1163.Google Scholar

Lee, J. J. (2012). Correlation and causation in the study of personality. European Journal of Personality, 26, 372–390.Google Scholar

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.Google Scholar

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582.Google Scholar

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C. (2014). The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2–5.Google Scholar

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179–197.Google Scholar

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. H. (2005). Personality correlates of workplace anti‐social behavior. Applied Psychology, 54, 81–98.Google Scholar

Leliveld, M. C., van Dijk, E., & van Beest, I. (2012). Punishing and compensating others at your own expense: The role of empathic concern on reactions to distributive injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 135–140.Google Scholar

Ludtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, C. (2011). A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change in the transition to university life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 620–637.Google Scholar

Ma, L. K., Tunney, R. J., & Ferguson, E. (2017). Does gratitude enhance prosociality? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 601–635.Google Scholar

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000) Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.Google Scholar

Marcus, B., Lee, A., & Ashton, M. C. (2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big five, or one in addition. Personnel Psychology, 60, 1–34.Google Scholar

Martin, C. C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2015). Investigating the Goldilocks Hypothesis: The non-linear impact of trait change on well-being. Plos One 10, e0131316.Google Scholar

McAbee, S. T., & Connelly, B. S. (2016). A multi-rater framework for studying personality: The trait-reputation-identity model. Psychological Review, 123, 569–591.Google Scholar

Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591–622.CrossRef Google Scholar

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspective on Psychological Science, 12, 183–204.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631.Google Scholar

Newhouse, J. P., & McClellan, M. (1998). Econometrics in outcomes research. The use of instrumental variables. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 17–34.Google Scholar

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579.Google Scholar

Odling-Smee, J., Erwin, D. H., Palkovacs, E. P., Feldman, M. W., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Niche construction theory: A practical guide for ecologists. Quarterly Review of Biology, 88, 3–28.Google Scholar

Oh, I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762–773.Google Scholar

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679.Google Scholar

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.Google Scholar

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.Google Scholar

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–56Google Scholar

Pearl, J. (2009a). Causality: Models, reasons and inferences (2nd ed.). New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pearl, J. (2009b). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistics Surveys, 3, 96–146.Google Scholar

Pearl, J. (2014). Interpretation and identification of causal mediation. Psychological Methods, 19, 459–481.Google Scholar

Peysakhovich, A., Nowak, M. A., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications, 5, 1–8. Doi: 10.1038/ncomms5939Google Scholar

Rentfrow, J. P., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013). Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 996–1012.Google Scholar

Rentfrow, P. J., Jokela, M., & Lamb, M. E. (2015) Regional personality differences in great Britain. PLoS ONE, 10, e0122245.Google Scholar

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 31–35.Google Scholar

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Work experience and personality development in young adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 582–593.Google Scholar

Roberts, B. W., Kuneel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. E. (2007). The power of personality. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 117–141.Google Scholar

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.Google Scholar

Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2008). Sociogenomic personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 76, 1523–1544.Google Scholar

Robins, R. W., Noftle, E. E., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Do people know how their personality has changed? Correlates of perceived and actual personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 73, 489–521.Google Scholar

Rohrer, J. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practice in Psychological Science, 1, 27–42.Google Scholar

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125.Google Scholar

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar

Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D. G., & Jones, A. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 872–888.Google Scholar

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductively: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 446–460.Google Scholar

Stolarski, M., Zajenkowski, M., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). National intelligence and personality: Their relationships and impact on national economic success. Intelligence, 41, 94–101.Google Scholar

Stormer, S., & Fahr, R. (2013). Individual determinants of work attendance: Evidence on the role of personality. Applied Economics, 45, 2863–2875.Google Scholar

Tang, T. Z., DeRuberis, R. J., Hollon, S. D., Amsterdam, J., Shelton, R., & Schalet, B. (2009). Personality change during depression treatment: A placebo-controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 132–1330.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Textor, J., van der Zander, B., Gilthorpe, M. S., Liskiewicz, M., & Ellison, G. T. H. (2016). Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: The R package ‘dagitty’. International Journal of Epidemiology, 45, 1887–1894.Google Scholar

Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, E. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 61–65.CrossRef Google Scholar

Urzua, S. (2008). Racial labor market gaps: The role of abilities and schooling choices. Journal of Human Resources, XLIII, 919–971.Google Scholar

Uysal, S. D., & Pohlmeier, W. (2011). Unemployment duration and personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 80–992.Google Scholar

Valeri, L., & VanderWele, T. J. (2013). Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: Theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychological Methods, 18, 137–150.Google Scholar

Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300.Google Scholar

Viinikainen, J., & Kokko, K. (2012). Personality traits and unemployment: Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 1204–1222.Google Scholar

Volk, S., Thöni, C., & Ruigrok, W. (2011). Personality, personal values and cooperation preferences in public goods games: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 810–815.Google Scholar

Volk, S., Thoni, C., & Ruigrok, W. (2012). Temporal stability and psychological foundations of cooperation preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81, 664–676.Google Scholar

Weiss, A., Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2009). Emotionally stable, intelligent men live longer: The Vietnam Experience Study Cohort. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71, 385–394.Google Scholar

Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Hessenthaler, H. C., Stodola, D. E., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). The role of compassion in altruistic helping and punishment behavior. PloS One, 10, e0143794.Google Scholar

Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five-Factor model of personality disorder: A proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 197–220.Google Scholar

Wilhelm, O., Kaltwasser, L., & Hilderbrandt, A. (2018). Will the real factors for prosociality please stand up? A comment on Böckler, Tusche & Singer. (2016). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 493–499.Google Scholar

Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., & Lee, A. (2014). Honesty-humility and perceptions of organizational politics in predicting workplace outcomes. Journal of Business Psychology, 29, 235–251.Google Scholar

Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Li, Y., Shinda, M., Hashimoto, H., Horita, Y., Miura, A., … Simunovic, D. (2013). Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 260–271.Google Scholar

Yang, B., & Lester, D. (2016). Personality traits and economic activity. Applied Economics, 48, 653–657.Google Scholar

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.Google Scholar

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 381–404.Google Scholar

Zhao, K., Ferguson, E., & Smillie, L. (2017a) Politeness and compassion differentially predict adherence to fairness norms and interventions to norm violation. Scientific Reports, 7, 3415.Google Scholar

Zhao, K., Ferguson, E., & Smillie, L. D. (2017b). When fair is not equal: Compassion and politeness diverge when predicting allocations of wealth under norms of equity and need. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 847–857.Google Scholar

Zhao, K., Ferguson, E., & Smillie, L. (2017c). Individual differences in good manners rather than compassion predict fair allocations in wealth in the dictator game. Journal of Personality, 85, 244–256.Google Scholar

Zhao, K., Ferguson, E., & Smillie, L. (2016). Prosocial personality traits differentially predict egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity in economic games. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1137.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Zhao, K., & Smillie, L. D. (2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 277–302.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.