Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
Upload
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any modules yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Do traits predict future behaviour? - Essay

High 2:1 Essay - Do traits predict future behaviour?
Module

Personality and Abnormal Psychology (PSY1008)

61 Documents
Students shared 61 documents in this course
Academic year: 2017/2018
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Newcastle University

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

Do traits predict future behaviour? Stemming from the likes of Allport and Cattell, trait theory has dominated the field of personality psychology for the most part of the past century. The approach proposes that personality is made up of varying levels of different traits, structured hierarchically, with behavioural tendencies stemming from core traits (Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner & Hood, 2016). Initial research focused on the identification of different traits, however, more recently, attention has shifted towards studying the predictive power of traits with regards to future behaviour. It has, for example, been proposed that undesirable workplace behaviour can be predicted by certain traits. After analysing multiple studies, it appears as though both agreeableness and conscientiousness negatively correlate with deviant and counterproductive workplace behaviour, suggesting traits may be able to predict future behaviour; this will be explored in further depth. A Malaysian study of 212 civil servants examined the relationship between agreeableness and conscientiousness on workplace deviant behaviour (WDB) using questionnaires to assess both personality traits and levels of WDB in individuals (Farhadi, Fatimah, Nasir, & Shahrazad, 2012). Supporting their hypothesis, a significant link was found between both conscientiousness and agreeableness with WDB. Lower levels of both traits predicted more occurrences of deviant behaviour than higher trait levels. These findings have been supported in both Eastern and Western cultures (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Farhadi, 2012) demonstrating both high cultural and concurrent validity, strengthening the support for the predictive value of traits. Similar results can also be found when looking at Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB). In a 23-year longitudinal study, personality traits were assessed

in participants under the age of 18 and compared to CWB’s visible in the same participants, age 26. Results showed that low agreeableness positively predicted counterproductive work behaviours later in life (Roberts, Harms, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2007). Supporting this, a study of 1662 employees in Thailand showed that both conscientiousness and agreeableness negatively predicted CWB, with conscientiousness yielding the strongest predictive results (Chang & Smithikrai, 2010). Despite this apparent support for the predictive value of traits, the same study also looked into potential moderating factors between personality and CWB. Perceived distributive justice and interactional justice within the workplace were found to be significant moderators of the relationship between personality and CWB, indicating that traits, alone, can not sufficiently predict future behaviours (Chang & Smithikrai, 2010). This has important implications for the trait approach as it highlights the overemphasis that has been placed on the predictive power of traits alone, at the expense of a more integrative approach. Upon analysis of multiple studies, it is apparent that conscientiousness and agreeableness undoubtedly predict similar behavioural outcomes in the workplace; agreeableness has been shown to negatively correlate with counterproductive work behaviour (Kozako, Safin & Rahim, 2013) and people low in conscientiousness often show more deviant workplace behaviour (Javed, Amjad, Fageer-Ul-Ummi & Bukhari, 2014). One thing these studies fail to analyse, however, is the interaction between the traits themselves. It has been highlighted that behaviour may not successfully be predicted by a singular trait, even if correlations between that trait and behaviour have been proven as strong. For example, in a study by Smithikrai (2008), it was noted that conscientiousness was indeed negatively correlated with

may be links between traits and behaviours, traits alone cannot predict future actions, since the extent of trait-specific behaviour is partly down to situational factors. It must also be acknowledged that, with traits being dimensional and human nature complex, trait levels within individuals inevitably fluctuate over time. For example, the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social Development has shown both agreeableness and conscientiousness to increase in a sample of both men and women from age 33 to 42 (Rantanen, Metsäpelto, Feldt, Pulkkinen, & Kokko, 2007). It would thus be problematic to argue that traits do predict future behaviour, when the future of trait levels themselves is uncertain. Clearly, there is a notable relationship between conscientiousness and agreeableness and undesirable workplace behaviour, and whilst correlation cannot prove causation, the sheer number of observations of this relationship indicates that these traits do hold some predictive power. Quite plausibly, it may be argued that traits lay the foundations for future behaviour and external factors then build on these foundations, the interaction of the two creating the resulting behaviour (Smithikrai, 2008; Tett & Guterman, 2000). On the other hand, an alternative way of answering the question has been proposed by Fleeson (2001), who, suitably, suggested that traits can better predict average behaviour, overlooking the occasional situations where external factors have a particularly high influence on behavioural outcomes. In this way, it can be said that traits can, more accurately, predict behaviour when behaviour is viewed as a density distribution over time compared to a reaction in a specific situation (Fleeson, 2001). Regardless, the impact of external stimuli will always factor in to the resulting behaviour, and never will behaviour be the sheer result of traits alone.

References

Was this document helpful?

Do traits predict future behaviour? - Essay

Module: Personality and Abnormal Psychology (PSY1008)

61 Documents
Students shared 61 documents in this course

University: Newcastle University

Was this document helpful?
Do traits predict future behaviour?
Stemming from the likes of Allport and Cattell, trait theory has dominated the field
of personality psychology for the most part of the past century. The approach
proposes that personality is made up of varying levels of different traits, structured
hierarchically, with behavioural tendencies stemming from core traits (Schacter,
Gilbert, Wegner & Hood, 2016). Initial research focused on the identification of
different traits, however, more recently, attention has shifted towards studying the
predictive power of traits with regards to future behaviour. It has, for example, been
proposed that undesirable workplace behaviour can be predicted by certain traits.
After analysing multiple studies, it appears as though both agreeableness and
conscientiousness negatively correlate with deviant and counterproductive
workplace behaviour, suggesting traits may be able to predict future behaviour; this
will be explored in further depth.
A Malaysian study of 212 civil servants examined the relationship between
agreeableness and conscientiousness on workplace deviant behaviour (WDB) using
questionnaires to assess both personality traits and levels of WDB in individuals
(Farhadi, Fatimah, Nasir, & Shahrazad, 2012). Supporting their hypothesis, a
significant link was found between both conscientiousness and agreeableness with
WDB. Lower levels of both traits predicted more occurrences of deviant behaviour
than higher trait levels. These findings have been supported in both Eastern and
Western cultures (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Farhadi, 2012) demonstrating both
high cultural and concurrent validity, strengthening the support for the predictive
value of traits.
Similar results can also be found when looking at Counterproductive Work
Behaviour (CWB). In a 23-year longitudinal study, personality traits were assessed

Students also viewed

Related documents