Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 87, No. 4, 797– 807 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.797

RESEARCH REPORTS

Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation:

A Meta-Analytic Review

Timothy A. Judge and Remus Ilies

University of Florida

This article provides a meta-analysis of the relationship between the five-factor model of personality
and 3 central theories of performance motivation (goal-setting, expectancy, and self-efficacy motivation).
The quantitative review includes 150 correlations from 65 studies. Traits were organized according to the
five-factor model of personality. Results indicated that Neuroticism (average validity ⫽ ⫺.31) and
Conscientiousness (average validity ⫽ .24) were the strongest and most consistent correlates of perfor-
mance motivation across the 3 theoretical perspectives. Results further indicated that the validity of 3 of
the Big Five traits—Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness— generalized across studies. As
a set, the Big Five traits had an average multiple correlation of .49 with the motivational criteria,
suggesting that the Big Five traits are an important source of performance motivation.

Personality has had an uneven history in work motivation re- A more likely explanation for the lack of progress in the
search. Most researchers would implicitly agree that there are personality–motivation literature lies on the trait side of the equa-
individual differences in motivation, and these differences can be tion. This explanation is multifaceted. One limitation in research
traced to dispositional tendencies. However, research on the pos- on the dispositional basis of motivation, as in many areas of
sible dispositional basis of motivation has been conducted in a industrial– organizational (I-O) psychology, is that a plethora of
sporadic and piecemeal fashion. In response to the question of traits have been studied, making assimilation difficult. As Hogan
what is known about individual differences in motivation, Austin and Roberts (2001) recently commented, “There are thousands of
and Klein (1996) commented, “Despite studies addressing individ- personality measures in the published literature” (p. 6). These
ual differences within each of the perspectives, a considerable authors commented further that past personality research was
amount of research is needed before precise statements can be “sprawling in conceptual disarray, with no overarching theoretical
made about their role” (p. 239). Gellatly (1996) noted that “at- paradigm and the subject matter was operationalized in terms of a
tempts to empirically link personality characteristics with motiva- large number of poorly validated scales with different names”
tional variables have produced inconsistent results” (p. 474). Fi- (Hogan & Roberts, 2001, p. 7). With so many traits related to
nally, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) concluded, “Until recently, the different aspects of motivation, it is no surprise that reviewers of
status of traits in most work motivation theories has been like that the literature have come away unimpressed by the empirical find-
of a distant and not well-liked relative attending a family reunion” ings (Kanfer, 1990).
(p. 13). A related limitation mentioned in the above quotation is the
What explains this relative disarray in the literature? One pos- absence of a theoretical framework to organize the myriad traits
sible explanation is a lack of theoretical progress and conceptual that have been studied in the work motivation area. The following
clarity in the motivational area itself. After all, nothing—traits conclusions of several reviewers in this area have attested to this
included— can predict the path of a moving target. However, limitation:
motivation research has made substantial theoretical progress, and
with respect to the theory for which arguably the most progress has A fundamental problem in the investigation of dispositional influ-
ences on work behavior stems from the current lack of a unified
been made— goal-setting theory—the situation is no more clear.
theoretical perspective for understanding how and which personality
As Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981) noted in their seminal
constructs influence the motivational system. (Kanfer, 1990, p. 155)
review, “The only consistent thing about studies of individual
differences in goal setting is their inconsistency” (p. 142). The examination of single traits may be of little value, however, since
personality theorists generally agree that it is systems of traits that
influence behavior dynamics. (Austin & Klein, 1996, p. 232)

Timothy A. Judge and Remus Ilies, Department of Management, Uni- One problem has been the propensity of researchers to study the
versity of Florida. effects of a narrow range of individual traits (e.g., need achievement,
We thank Jason Colquitt for his assistance with the study. locus of control, and self-esteem) in the absence of a fundamental
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy theoretical framework. (Gellatly, 1996, p. 474)
A. Judge, Department of Management, Warrington College of Business,
University of Florida, 211 D Stuzin Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7165. The purpose of this article is to advance understanding of the
E-mail: [email protected] possible dispositional basis of work motivation by providing a

797
798 RESEARCH REPORTS

quantitative review of the literature. We conducted this quantita- Locke, Motowidlo, & Bobko, 1986). Given the compatibility of
tive review using meta-analysis techniques to cumulate results these approaches and their frequency of study in I-O psychology,
across studies. Before describing the procedures and results of the we focus our quantitative review on the relationship of personality
meta-analysis, we describe the relation of traits to motivation. We to motivation as operationalized according to goal-setting, expec-
organize our discussion of motivational traits according to the tancy, and self-efficacy theories.
five-factor model, because of its impact and utility. First, we Because the purpose of this meta-analysis is to explore the
describe the five-factor model. Then, we discuss expected relations relationship between the five-factor model of personality and the
of the Big Five traits, as well as the four additional traits noted three theories of performance motivation, hypotheses are not pro-
above, to work and task motivation. vided. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that relationships
exist with respect to several Big Five traits. Barrick, Mount, and
The Five-Factor Model of Personality Strauss (1993) and Gellatly (1996) linked Conscientiousness to
goal-setting motivation. Evidence indicates that neurotic individ-
If a consensual structure of traits is ever to emerge, the five- uals are less likely to be goal-oriented (Malouff, Schutte, Bauer, &
factor model is probably it. Tupes and Christal (1961) and Norman Mantelli, 1990) though this area has been studied less than con-
(1963) are commonly credited with discovering the Big Five. Only scientiousness and goal-setting motivation. With respect to neu-
in the past 2 decades, however, has research on the Big Five traits roticism and self-regulation, Kanfer and Heggestad’s (1997) model
become a serious area of investigation. Specifically, a robust set of predicts that anxiety leads to poor self-regulation because anxious
five factors has been recovered from almost every major person- individuals are not able to control the emotions necessary to
ality inventory and from analyses of the more than 15,000 trait protect on-task attention, and trait anxiety is closely related to
adjectives in English and those in many other languages (Gold- Neuroticism (Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996).
berg, 1990). Furthermore, the structure has generalized across The relationship of the other three Big Five traits to performance
cultures, sources of ratings, and measures (John & Srivastava, motivation is less clear. Barrick et al. (1993) found that Extraver-
1999). Evidence has also indicated substantial heritability of the sion was not correlated with goal commitment, but it was corre-
traits (e.g., Loehlin, 1992). Although acceptance of the classifica- lated with goal level (r ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .05). (This result was not
tion is far from universal (see Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992), the discussed.) Although discussion of the possible link between Ex-
Big Five has provided the most widely accepted structure of traversion and motivation is lacking in the literature, positive
personality in our time. affect— one of the indicators of Extraversion (Watson & Clark,
Neuroticism, often labeled by the positive pole of the trait 1997)—is related to distal and proximal measures of motivation
Emotional Stability, is the tendency to show poor emotional ad- (George & Brief, 1996). The relationships between motivation and
justment in the form of stress, anxiety, and depression. Extraver- the remaining Big Five traits—Agreeableness and Openness to
sion represents the tendency to be sociable, dominant, and positive Experience—are virtually unstudied. We could not locate any
(Watson & Clark, 1997). Individuals who score high on Openness studies in the literature that included an explicit discussion of the
to Experience are creative, flexible, curious, and unconventional effects of these traits on motivation. On the one hand, this is
(McCrae, 1996). Agreeableness consists of tendencies to be kind, logical as the nature of the traits would appear to be less relevant
gentle, trusting and trustworthy, and warm. Finally, conscientious to performance motivation. On the other hand, we are surprised
individuals are achievement-oriented and dependable (Barrick & that the motivation literature contains no discussion of these traits
Mount, 1991), as well as orderly and deliberate (Costa & McCrae, whatsoever.
1992).
Method
Relationship of the Five-Factor Model
to Performance Motivation Literature Search
To identify all possible studies that estimate relationships between
Before discussing the relationship of the Big Five traits to
personality traits and measures of motivation, we performed an indepen-
motivation, one must first stipulate what one means by motivation. dent search for each theory of motivation (goal-setting, expectancy, and
Motivation can be defined in many different ways, and there are self-efficacy theories). We searched the PsycINFO database for studies
advantages in general definitions and theories of motivation. In (articles, book chapters, dissertations) published between 1887 and 2000
Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen’s (1980) theory, for example, the that referenced personality and key words relevant to the three theories of
target of motivated behavior is the maximization of anticipated motivation (e.g., goal setting, goals, expectancy, self-efficacy). Sixty-four
affect. Most motivation researchers in I-O psychology, however, terms relevant to personality traits (e.g., locus of control, dominance)
have been concerned with a more specific direction of behavior, and 45 terms associated with personality measures (e.g., NEO-PI, Ham-
namely the motivation to perform (Locke, 1997). Indeed, three of burg Personality Inventory) were used in each search. These efforts re-
the most commonly investigated motivation theories in I-O sulted in the identification of a total of 2,118 abstracts.
psychology— goal-setting theory, expectancy theory, and self-
efficacy theory—all have as their ultimate criterion the prediction Rules for Inclusion in the Meta-Analysis
of job performance, as meta-analyses of each of these theories has
In reviewing the selected abstracts, we eliminated studies that did not
demonstrated (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998; Van Earde & Thierry, appear to include any discernible measure of personality and those that
1996; Wright, 1990). Another unifying factor in these three theo- assessed a trait that was not classifiable in terms of the five-factor model.
ries is their cognitive orientation. In fact, the cognitive nature of Studies that did not appear to have measured motivation and studies that
the concepts in these theories has led to numerous efforts to unify clearly did not include primary data (e.g., most book chapters) were also
and assimilate the three theories (Hollenbeck, 1987; Locke, 1997; excluded.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 799

For the remaining 327 journal articles and 217 doctoral dissertations, we Inventory (Gough, 1957) as measures of Extraversion, and classified the
examined each study to determine whether it contained a measure of Autonomy scale from the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1967) as a
personality, a criterion measure, and the data necessary to compute a measure of Openness to Experience. We followed their classification
correlation between the two. Several exclusionary rules were established. closely, with the following exceptions: (a) Obviously, direct measures of
First, many studies failed to report the data necessary to obtain a correlation the Big Five traits, such as those using the NEO Personality Inventory
(e.g., studies that reported percentages or proportions, studies that reported (Costa & McCrae, 1992), were included2; (b) nine studies using measures
means with no standard deviations, and studies that reported analysis of of trait anxiety were included because research indicates that these mea-
variance results). Second, we excluded studies that included traits that did sures assess Neuroticism (Zuckerman, Joireman, Kraft, & Kuhlman, 1999);
not fall within Barrick and Mount’s (1991) classification of existing (c) one study that used the Methodical Weberian scale from Kirton
measures into the Big Five traits. Specifically, we excluded studies wherein Adaptation–Innovation Inventory (Kirton, 1976) was considered to have
the personality measure was a combination of more than one trait or could assessed Conscientiousness (as it includes items such as “I am thorough”
not be clearly identified as a personality trait subsumed within the five- and “I master all details painstakingly”) and thus was included in the
factor model. Thus, such traits as Type A, Proactive Personality, or analyses; and (d) self-esteem, locus of control, and generalized self-
typologies such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator were not included. efficacy scales were classified as measures of Neuroticism in light of
For the criteria, we excluded studies that did not include direct measures research suggesting that these traits correlate strongly with Neuroticism
of self-set goal level or difficulty, expectancy, or performance self- (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998) and, in fact, appear to represent the same
efficacy. For example, a relatively large number of studies manipulated factor (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998).
goal difficulty by assigning participants to different goal conditions (i.e.,
assigned goals), some studies assessed the efficiency of goal-setting train-
ing programs, whereas others measured the discrepancy between goals and Meta-Analysis Procedures
performance across tasks. Studies that measured expectancy or self-
efficacy motivation with regard to an immediate task were included. Using the meta-analytic methods of Hunter and Schmidt (1990), corre-
However, the task needed to be actual versus hypothetical and the moti- lations from individual samples were first corrected for measurement error
vation needed to concern task or job performance. Thus, we included in both the predictor and the criterion. We performed no correction for
studies focused on task motivation in training programs and those con- range restriction or dichotomization. Finally, we estimated a true score
cerning academic performance, but excluded studies of criteria other than (population) correlation for each of the predictors with the criteria. A
task-oriented motivation (e.g., smoking cessation) or motivation in influ- relatively large proportion of studies reported reliability estimates (internal
encing others’ performance (e.g., teacher self-efficacy beliefs with regard consistencies) for the measures of personality traits and motivation on the
to students’ performance). Sixty-five journal articles and doctoral disser- basis of original samples (predictor reliability was provided by primary
tations met these criteria; these studies are listed in the References section study authors for approximately two thirds of the correlations and criterion
and denoted with an asterisk. We also obtained 18 estimates of personality– reliability was provided for more than one third of the correlations). When
motivation correlations from unpublished raw data. Several studies re- reliabilities for personality or motivation measures were not reported, we
ported data collected from multiple independent samples. Thus, in all, 150 used the mean of the reliabilities reported for the relevant personality trait
correlations from 78 independent samples reported in 65 studies and 4 raw or motivation category.3
data sets were included in the analyses. With studies reporting correlations In addition to reporting estimates of the true score correlations, it is also
between multiple measures of a trait and motivation (e.g., Gellatly, 1996, important to describe variability in the correlations. Accordingly, we report
reported correlations between six conscientiousness subscales and goal- 80% credibility intervals and 90% confidence intervals around the esti-
setting motivation), we computed a single estimate using composite cor- mated population correlations. Although some meta-analyses reported only
relations when trait intercorrelations were reported or using simple aver- confidence intervals (e.g., Ernst Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) whereas others
ages when such intercorrelations were not reported (Hunter & Schmidt, reported only credibility intervals (e.g., Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, &
1990). Roth, 1998), it is important to report both because each provides unique
information. Confidence intervals provide an estimate of the variability
around the estimated mean correlation; a 90% confidence interval exclud-
Data Classification ing zero indicates 95% confidence that the average true correlation is
Criterion measures were classified into three categories corresponding to nonzero. Credibility intervals provide an estimate of the variability of
the three theories of motivation examined. Goal-setting studies (34% of the individual correlations across studies; an 80% credibility interval excluding
correlations) generally measured goal level (e.g., salespersons indicated the
number of units they targeted as their sales goal; typists set performance 1
goals in terms of lines per week) or goal difficulty (in terms of respondents’ The six judges in Barrick and Mount (1991) were trained raters, five of
choices of tasks varying in difficulty levels). Studies included in the whom had received their doctorates in psychology and were experienced
expectancy category (25% of the correlations) measured expectancy by with personality assessment and one who was a doctoral student familiar
asking respondents to indicate their perceptions of whether working on an with personality research. Traits were classified only if at least five of the
activity would result in attaining a specific outcome. For example, respon- six raters agreed, or if four of the six raters agreed and Barrick and Mount
dents were asked to rate the extent to which they felt they would be concurred. Barrick and Mount reported 95% agreement. In this study, we
successful on various job activities if they tried hard, or to estimate the coded the traits and criteria independently. Across the traits and criteria, we
number of items that they could answer correctly in a specific time period agreed in 96% of the cases. The few disagreements were resolved by
if they worked on only that type of item. Three studies combined expec- discussion and consensus.
2
tancy with instrumentality and valence by multiplying or summating the Barrick and Mount (1991) included few direct measures of the Big
three components. Finally, self-efficacy studies (41% of the correlations) Five traits because, at that time, few were available. The situation has
mainly asked respondents to indicate their self-efficacy to perform a task or changed appreciably since then, but even so, only a minority of the
job (e.g., salespersons estimated their ability to sell). correlations in our study utilized direct measures of the Big Five traits.
3
Personality measures were classified according to the coding procedure The mean reliabilities for measures of motivation were .85 for goal-
developed and used by Barrick and Mount (1991). Specifically, in their setting measures, .65 for expectancy measures, and .76 for self-efficacy
meta-analysis, they classified personality measures on the basis of deci- measures. The mean reliabilities for personality measures were as follows:
sions made by six expert judges.1 For example, the experts classified the Neuroticism ⫽ .83; Extraversion ⫽ .83; Openness to Experience ⫽ .80;
Dominance and Sociability subscales from the California Psychological Agreeableness ⫽ .81; Conscientiousness ⫽ .85.
800 RESEARCH REPORTS

zero indicates that at least 90% of the individual correlations in the between correlations estimated in moderating categories is due to
meta-analysis were greater than zero (for positive correlations, less than second-order sampling error.
10% are zero or less, and a maximum of 10% lie at or beyond the upper
bound of the interval). Thus, confidence intervals estimate variability in the
mean correlation whereas credibility intervals estimate variability in the Multivariate Results
individual correlations across the studies. Finally, as we discuss shortly, we
examined several moderators (study setting, study design, publication As Kanfer (1990) and Austin and Klein (1996) have noted, it is
status) of personality–job performance relations. important to investigate the dispositional correlates of motivation
in an integrated framework. Accordingly, we sought to determine
the multivariate relationship between the set of Big Five traits and
Results
motivation. Using Hunter’s (1992) regression program, we re-
Table 1 provides results linking the traits to goal-setting moti- gressed motivation on the Big Five traits. To form the correlation
vation. Neuroticism was the strongest correlate of goal-setting matrix that served as input into the program, we used the meta-
motivation, followed by Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. analytic estimates of the relationship between the Big Five traits
Both the confidence intervals and credibility intervals excluded and performance motivation in Tables 1–3, and Ones, Viswesva-
zero for all Big Five traits, indicating that we could be confident ran, and Reiss’s (1996) meta-analytic estimates of the intercorre-
that all of the traits displayed nonzero relations with goal-setting lations among the Big Five traits. The sample size used for each
motivation.4 Table 2 provides results linking the Big Five traits to regression was equal to the average sample size of all studies in the
expectancy motivation. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were analysis (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), ranging from N ⫽ 125 for
again the strongest correlates of expectancy motivation. These expectancy motivation to N ⫽ 229 for self-efficacy motivation.
correlations—as well as that of Extraversion—were consistent The regression results are provided in Table 5. As is shown in
with the goal-setting motivation analysis. However, both Openness the table, two Big Five traits—Neuroticism and Conscientious-
to Experience and Agreeableness exhibited weaker correlations ness—were significant predictors of performance motivation
with expectancy motivation relative to goal-setting motivation, and across the criteria, independent of the effect of the other traits
the signs of both correlations were reversed. Finally, meta-analysis included in the regression. Extraversion and Openness to Experi-
results linking the Big Five traits to self-efficacy motivation are
provided in Table 3. The results for Neuroticism and Conscien-
4
tiousness were consistent with the other results.5 However, Extra- The three most commonly studied traits in the motivation literature are
self-esteem, locus of control, and need for achievement (Hollenbeck, 1987;
version also was a moderately strong correlate of self-efficacy
Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997; Mitchell, Thompson, & George-Falvy, 2000).
motivation. Across the three criteria, the number of correlations for
Following the classifications in prior research, we classified measures of
Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness was self-esteem and locus of control as measures of Neuroticism and measures
quite small, perhaps widening the credibility and confidence of need for achievement as measures of Conscientiousness. The validity of
intervals. these individual traits was similar to the Big Five traits they were consid-
ered to indicate. For example, for goal-setting motivation, the results were
Moderator Analysis Results as follows: self-esteem (k ⫽ 7), ␳ ⫽ .27; internal locus of control (k ⫽ 8),
␳ ⫽ .30; need for achievement (k ⫽ 13), ␳ ⫽ .28.
Across the three motivational criteria and the five personality 5
Because generalized self-efficacy was considered to be an indicator of
traits, 59% of the variability in the correlations was explained by (low) Neuroticism, some might see it as tautological to relate generalized
study artifacts. With 41% of the variability in the correlations self-efficacy to task-specific self-efficacy motivation. In reality, however,
unaccounted for, we investigated several moderators: (a) study generalized self-efficacy, as a distal motivational trait, is related to, but
setting (work vs. academic), (b) study design (concurrent vs. distinct from, task-specific self-efficacy, a proximal motivational state
longitudinal measurement of personality and motivation), and (c) (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000). Furthermore, even if the
three correlations between generalized self-efficacy and self-efficacy mo-
publication status (published vs. unpublished data).6 Table 4 pre-
tivation were removed from the analysis, the results would be nearly
sents the results of the moderator analyses.7 identical to those reported in Table 3 ([k ⫽ 29] ␳ ⫽ .35; both the 80%
Results show that studies conducted in work settings reflected, credibility and 90% confidence intervals excluded zero).
on average, slightly higher magnitudes of the personality– 6
Moderator analyses investigated the extent to which prospective mod-
motivation relationships than did studies conducted in academic erator variables impacted the relationships between Neuroticism and Con-
settings (k-weighted averages of .34 vs. .27, respectively), but the scientiousness, and the three motivational criteria. For the other three traits,
moderator effect was not consistent across traits and criteria. the number of estimates was relatively small, which would lead to unstable
Similarly, studies that used longitudinal designs to collect person- estimates of the true-score effect in moderator categories. Furthermore,
ality and motivation data reflected lower estimates than those that five of the nine meta-analyses investigating the effects of Extraversion,
used concurrent designs (k-weighted average of .24 vs. .32, re- Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness on the three motivational
spectively). Publication status of the data moderated the reported criteria accounted for all of the variance in the primary estimates (SD␳ was
zero), which indicates that no moderator effects were present in these
personality–motivation correlations; meta-analytical estimates
estimates.
from published studies were consistently larger than those result- 7
Meta-analytical evidence for the presence of moderators requires that
ing from unpublished reports or data (k-weighted averages of .32
(a) true estimates are different in the categories formed by the potential
vs. .25, respectively). Even though the variability in the correla- moderator variable and (b) the mean corrected standard deviation within
tions (measured by the corrected standard deviation) generally categories is smaller than the corrected standard deviation computed for
decreased in the moderated categories relative to the overall anal- combined categories. Accordingly, Table 4 presents true-score correlations
yses, this effect was not consistent across traits and motivational (␳) and corrected standard deviations (SD␳) for each category formed by
criteria (see Table 4), suggesting that part of the differences the proposed moderator variables.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 801

Table 1
Relationships Between the Big Five Personality Traits and Goal-Setting Motivation

Average
80% CV 80% CV 90% CI 90% CI
Trait k N r ␳ SD␳ lower upper lower upper

Neuroticism 19 2,780 ⫺.24 ⫺.29 .06 ⫺.36 ⫺.21 ⫺.33 ⫺.24

Extraversion 5 498 .13 .15 .00 .15 .15 .07 .24
Openness to Experience 4 262 .15 .18 .00 .18 .18 .06 .30
Agreeableness 4 373 ⫺.24 ⫺.29 .21 ⫺.56 ⫺.02 ⫺.06 ⫺.52
Conscientiousness 18 2,211 .22 .28 .07 .19 .36 .23 .33

Note. Null values for SD␳ (standard deviation of true score correlation) indicate that differences in the primary
correlations, after correction for unreliability, are smaller than or equal to differences expected to result from
sampling error. k ⫽ number of correlations; N ⫽ combined sample size; ␳ ⫽ estimated true score correlation;
CV ⫽ credibility interval; CI ⫽ confidence interval.

ence were significant predictors of goal-setting and self-efficacy all three motivational criteria. The other Big Five traits—Extra-
motivation, and Agreeableness was a significant negative predictor version, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness— generally
of goal-setting motivation. Perhaps the most meaningful statistic displayed weaker correlations with the motivational criteria, and
was the strong and significant multiple correlation between the the direction of the correlations was somewhat inconsistent across
five-factor model and performance motivation (average R ⫽ .49). criteria. Because the numbers of correlations in the meta-analyses
for Openness to Experience and Agreeableness were the smallest
among the Big Five traits, the inconsistencies may result from
Discussion second-order sampling error.
These results, as well as the strong multiple correlations be-
The trait perspective is somewhat of an enigma in motivation
research. Though motivation researchers appear to be sympathetic tween the traits and performance motivation, suggest important
with dispositional variables (e.g., Hollenbeck, 1987), personality support for the trait perspective in motivation research. Why were
variables do not play a prominent role in most motivation theories. the results of the present review so positive when past conclusions
For example, the core tenets of goal-setting theory, expectancy were so equivocal? We believe there are two reasons. First, in
theory, and self-efficacy theory do not include dispositional traits. interpreting their results linking the five-factor model to job per-
Trait variables have been investigated in these theories (e.g., formance, Barrick and Mount (1991) commented, “The results
Hollenbeck & Brief, 1987). Nevertheless, the status of trait vari- illustrate the benefits of using this classification scheme to com-
ables with respect to these theories in particular, and motivation municate and accumulate empirical findings” (p. 17). We believe
research in general, is dubious. As Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) the same advantages apply to the present study. Because many
noted, “Although relatively few researchers would argue that traits traits previously considered in isolation can be effectively housed
should not be included in a comprehensive account of work under the five-factor umbrella, the findings in the personality–
motivation, previous work with trait constructs has proved prob- motivation literature may have yielded more than has been as-
lematic and unsatisfying” (p. 13). sumed. Indeed, this is one of the primary benefits of the five-factor
Results from the quantitative review presented herein suggest a model. Digman (1989) noted that “many reviewers despaired at the
fairly consistent pattern of results. Neuroticism was negatively lack of organization in the field of personality . . . a great major-
related to each of the theoretical perspectives on performance ity—if not all— of our verbally based personality constructs can be
motivation. Similarly, Conscientiousness was positively related to housed somewhere within that [five-factor] structure, bringing an

Table 2
Relationships Between the Big Five Personality Traits and Expectancy Motivation

Average
80% CV 80% CV 90% CI 90% CI
Trait k N r ␳ SD␳ lower upper lower upper

Neuroticism 11 1,770 ⫺.21 ⫺.29 .17 ⫺.51 ⫺.07 ⫺.40 ⫺.18

Extraversion 6 663 .07 .10 .00 .10 .10 .02 .17
Openness to Experience 5 567 ⫺.06 ⫺.08 .00 ⫺.08 ⫺.08 ⫺.16 .00
Agreeableness 5 875 .09 .13 .00 .13 .13 .07 .20
Conscientiousness 11 1,487 .16 .23 .09 .12 .34 .16 .30

Note. Null values for SD␳ (standard deviation of true score correlation) indicate that differences in the primary
correlations, after correction for unreliability, are smaller than or equal to differences expected to result from
sampling error. k ⫽ number of correlations; N ⫽ combined sample size; ␳ ⫽ estimated true score correlation;
CV ⫽ credibility interval; CI ⫽ confidence interval.
802 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 3
Relationships Between the Big Five Personality Traits and Self-Efficacy Motivation

Average
80% CV 80% CV 90% CI 90% CI
Trait k N r ␳ SD␳ lower upper lower upper

Neuroticism 32 6,730 ⫺.29 ⫺.35 .18 ⫺.58 ⫺.13 ⫺.42 ⫺.29

Extraversion 7 2,067 .24 .33 .16 .12 .53 .20 .45
Openness to Experience 3 755 .15 .20 .04 .15 .25 .12 .28
Agreeableness 6 1,099 .09 .11 .17 ⫺.10 .33 ⫺.04 .26
Conscientiousness 14 3,483 .17 .22 .15 .03 .42 .14 .31

Note. k ⫽ number of correlations; N ⫽ combined sample size; ␳ ⫽ estimated true score correlation; SD␳ ⫽
standard deviation of true score correlation; CV ⫽ credibility interval; CI ⫽ confidence interval.

orderliness to a field long in need of one” (p. 196). In using the motivation literature (Austin & Klein, 1996; Kanfer, 1990; Kanfer
five-factor model to classify and organize these myriad traits, this & Heggestad, 1997; Locke, 1997; Locke et al., 1981; Mitchell,
study may shed more light on the dispositional basis of motivation. Thompson, & George-Falvy, 2000), the present study is the first
Second, meta-analysis often has brought clarity to literature meta-analysis on the subject. Qualitative reviews have their merits,
shrouded in doubt. For example, it has been used to clarify the but as Rosenthal (1998) noted, “Even the best reviews of research
literature on intelligence tests in personnel selection decisions, the by the most sophisticated workers have rarely told us much more
relationship between job satisfaction and job performance, and about each study in a set of studies than the direction of the
many other areas of research (Schmidt & Hunter, 2000). Although relationship between the variables investigated and whether or not
the personality–motivation area has been subjected to many pre- a given significance level was attained” (p. 372). Given the un-
vious qualitative reviews, often as part of broader reviews of the certainty in previous qualitative reviews regarding the trait per-

Table 4
Moderator Analyses

Motivation criteria

Goal-setting Expectancy Self-efficacy

Trait/moderator k ␳ SD␳ k ␳ SD␳ k ␳ SD␳

Study setting
Neuroticism
Work settings 5 ⫺.34a,b .00 7 ⫺.39a,b .14 9 ⫺.32a,b .10
Academic settings 14 ⫺.27a,b .07 4 ⫺.08a,b .00 23 ⫺.37a,b .19
Conscientiousness
Work settings 3 .37a,b .14 2 .44a,b .12 4 .23a,b .12
Academic settings 15 .26a,b .02 9 .21a,b .05 10 .21a .17

Study design
Neuroticism
Concurrent 7 ⫺.27a,b .00 2 ⫺.42a,b .10 12 ⫺.36a,b .10
Longitudinal 8 ⫺.41a,b .13 1 ⫺.10a,b — 7 ⫺.22a,b .11
Conscientiousness
Concurrent 7 .36a,b .00 4 .22a,b .00 6 .30a,b .00
Longitudinal 4 .26a,b .08 3 .12a,b .00 4 .07 .12

Publication status
Neuroticism
Published data 13 ⫺.30a,b .00 1 ⫺.55a,b — 18 ⫺.37a,b .19
Unpublished data 6 ⫺.25a,b .11 10 ⫺.26a,b .16 14 ⫺.29a,b .14
Conscientiousness
Published data 11 .30a,b .06 5 .30a,b .13 8 .23a,b .08
Unpublished data 7 .22a,b .03 6 .20a,b .03 6 .19 .26

Note. Null values for SD␳ indicate that differences in the primary correlations, after correction for unreliability,
are smaller than or equal to differences expected to result from sampling error. k ⫽ number of correlations; ␳ ⫽
estimated true score correlation; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of true score correlation.
a
90% confidence interval excluding zero. b 80% credibility interval excluding zero.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 803

Table 5 pattern of results, though some of it may be due to the relatively

Regression of Motivation on the Big Five Traits small number of correlations involved. When the number of cor-
relations cumulated is small, meta-analytic results are valid and
Goal-setting Expectancy Self-efficacy still superior to interpreting single study results (Hunter &
motivation motivation motivation
Trait (␤/R) (␤/R) (␤/R) Schmidt, 1990). However, because analyses based on a small
number of correlations are subject to increased probability of
Neuroticism (␤) ⫺.31** ⫺.25** ⫺.25** second-order sampling error, the possibility that a larger-scale
Extraversion (␤) .15* .07 .27** meta-analysis would produce a different result must be noted. With
Openness to Experience (␤) .18* ⫺.13 .13*
Agreeableness (␤) ⫺.51** .03 ⫺.06 respect to the negative correlation between Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness (␤) .35** .15† .18** goal-setting motivation, it seems possible that agreeable individu-
als set less ambitious performance goals because they are moti-
Multiple R .63** .36** .49** vated more by communion (desire to be part of a larger spiritual or
Note. With the exception of the multiple R statistics, table entries are social community) than by agency (desire to achieve mastery or
standardized regression (␤) coefficients. power; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997).
† p ⬍ .10, two-tailed. * p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. ** p ⬍ .01, two-tailed. Study artifacts explain most of the variability in the correlations.
Nonetheless, a substantial amount of variability remains unex-
plained. Accordingly, we investigated several moderators. Overall,
spective, we believe these results contribute to motivation research results indicated that published studies, cross-sectional studies, and
in I-O psychology. studies conducted in work settings demonstrated higher levels of
Turning to the specific results, the results for Neuroticism and validity than unpublished studies, longitudinal studies, and those
Conscientiousness were especially consistent across the three mo- conducted in laboratory settings. The somewhat weaker results for
tivational criteria. This is comforting, as highly variable results laboratory studies are not surprising. Because most laboratory
across the criteria would suggest that motivation according to one studies in the motivation literature focus on the manipulated vari-
theory (at least in terms of its relation to personality) is quite ables, such “strong situations,” in which personality variables are
different from motivation according to another theory. In short, our
tangential to the investigation, may understate dispositional influ-
results suggest that individuals who display high levels of moti-
ences (Weiss & Adler, 1984). The weaker results for longitudinal
vation when motivation is conceptualized and measured according
studies are also easy to understand given that validities involving
to goal-setting theory are likely to be the same individuals who
individual differences generally deteriorate over time (Keil &
display high levels of motivation according to expectancy or
Cortina, 2001). Weaker results for longitudinal studies also may
self-efficacy theories. Because these motivation theories are com-
support the effects of common method variance in personality–
patible in a number of important ways (Locke et al., 1986), this
motivation relations. That published studies demonstrate higher
result is not surprising.
validity is not surprising, either, as published studies might have
The validity of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness should not
more construct valid measures. Indeed, this result has been found
be surprising in that these two Big Five traits are the most impor-
in other studies, most recently with respect to the satisfaction–per-
tant correlates of job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Sal-
gado, 1997). If personality affects performance mostly through formance relationship (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). It
motivation, and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness are the best should be noted, though, that our moderator analyses were only
predictors of performance, then it would almost have to be the case possible with respect to two traits—Neuroticism and Conscien-
that these two traits best predict performance motivation. One tiousness. Fortunately, these were the traits for which overall
might wonder why Neuroticism tended to be a stronger correlate of validities were the highest, and thus the moderating effects most
performance motivation given that Conscientiousness is a stronger meaningful.
correlate of job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). A plausi- Though the meta-analytic findings reported here contribute to
ble explanation is that whereas Neuroticism primarily influences the motivation literature, several limitations are apparent. First, the
performance through motivation, Conscientiousness influences per- number of correlations for some of the analyses is very small. This
formance in other ways. For example, conscientious individuals might cause one to question whether it is appropriate to cumulate
are likely to be orderly and decisive (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999), results based on relatively few studies. Schmidt, Hunter, Pearlman,
which may give these individuals an edge in many jobs. and Hirsh (1985) addressed this question directly in noting that
Extraversion also emerged as a consistently nonzero correlate of although meta-analyses based on small numbers of studies may
performance motivation; the correlation of Extraversion with self- increase the variability in the effect sizes, they do not affect the
efficacy motivation was particularly noteworthy. Given that pos- mean estimates. Thus, estimates that are distinguishable from zero
itive emotionality is a hallmark of extraverts (Watson & Clark, based on a small number of studies will very likely continue to be
1997), it makes sense that extraverts would have greater confi- distinguishable from zero as evidence accumulates. Conceptually,
dence in their abilities to perform. Openness to Experience and even small meta-analyses are superior to the subjectivity and
Agreeableness displayed inconsistent correlations with the moti- imprecision involved in interpreting primary study results. As
vational criteria. Specifically, Openness to Experience displayed Schmidt et al. (1985) noted, “Even with small numbers of studies
positive, nonzero correlations with goal-setting and self-efficacy and small N’s, meta-analysis is still the optimal method for inte-
motivation, but negative correlations with expectancy motivation. grating findings across studies. In the absence of such interim
Conversely, Agreeableness displayed a negative, nonzero correla- meta-analyses, psychologists would likely base judgments on the
tion with goal-setting motivation but relatively weak, positive findings of individual studies or nonquantitative (i.e., narrative)
correlations with the other criteria. It is difficult to explain this reviews of the literature— both of which are much more likely to
804 RESEARCH REPORTS

lead to error. Thus, such meta-analyses are, in fact, very desirable” salesperson goal setting and performance. Journal of Marketing, 62,
(p. 749). 88 –98.
Another limitation of this review is that personality–motivation *Campbell, D. E. (1975). Locus of control and expectancy theory: Pre-
relationships were analyzed according to only three theories of dictions of academic effort. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
performance motivation. These theories are relatively cognitive sity of Houston, Houston, TX.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Exami-
and, with the exception of self-efficacy, distal explanations of
nation of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like
motivation. More proximal measures, such as effort, persistence,
individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied
and self-regulation (beyond self-efficacy) could be studied; how- Psychology, 85, 835– 847.
ever, there simply was not a sufficient number of correlations to *Colquitt, J. A. (1997). [Self-efficacy, expectancy, and personality]. Un-
cumulate results. That such data are lacking, of course, does not published raw data.
mean that personality is not relevant to these theories. In time, a *Colquitt, J. A. (1998). [Self-efficacy, expectancy, and personality]. Un-
meta-analytic review of personality–motivation relations should be published raw data.
able to include other theoretical perspectives on motivation. *Colquitt, J. A. (2000a). [Personality, fit, and development]. Unpublished
Given the results presented herein, an important direction for raw data.
future research is to test process models involving the Big Five *Colquitt, J. A. (2000b). [Self-efficacy and personality]. Unpublished raw
traits. Although some research has appeared testing process mod- data.
els involving Conscientiousness and goal-setting motivation (Bar- *Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal
orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A
rick et al., 1993; Gellatly, 1996), this involved only one of the Big
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654 – 665.
Five traits that is potentially relevant to motivation and only one
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
theory of motivation. Austin and Klein (1996) specifically called Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) pro-
for more work motivation research utilizing other Big Five traits in fessional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.
addition to Conscientiousness. Kanfer and Heggestad (1997, 1999) *Davis, W. D. (1998). A longitudinal field investigation of antecedents and
have begun important work on a dispositional process model of consequences of self-efficacy during aviation training. Unpublished
motivation that involved traits closely related to two of the Big doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Five traits (Neuroticism and Conscientiousness). In light of the Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability,
results presented in this quantitative review, these and other mod- and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214.
els need to be tested. *Douga, A. (1985). A cross-cultural study on expectancy theory of work
motivation and its relationship to the locus of control concept. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San
Diego, CA.
References Ernst Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and
the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for orga-
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the nizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psy-
meta-analysis. chology, 83, 139 –149.
*Evans, M. G., Kiggundu, M. N., & House, R. J. (1979). A partial test and
*Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and noncog-
nitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Jour- extension of the job characteristics model of motivation. Organizational
nal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 270 –304. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 24, 354 –381.
*Adams, J. D. (1993). Self-esteem as a moderator of the expectancy theory Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and
of motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Individual Differences, 13, 667– 673.
Technology, Chicago. *Gasparikova-Krasnec, M. J. (1981). Persistence as a function of gener-
*Adler, S., & Weiss, H. M. (1988). Criterion aggregation in personality alized and specific expectancies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
research: A demonstration looking at self-esteem and goal setting. Hu- Washington State University, Pullman.
man Performance, 1, 99 –109. *Geiger, M. A., & Cooper, E. A. (1995). Predicting academic performance:
Austin, J. T., & Klein, H. J. (1996). Work motivation and goal striving. In The impact of expectancy and needs theory. Journal of Experimental
K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organiza- Education, 63, 251–262.
tions (pp. 209 –257). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. *Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of
*Awang-Hashim, R. (1999). The effects of state and trait worry, self- cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474 – 482.
efficacy, and effort on statistics achievement of Malay and Chinese George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the work-
undergraduates in Malaysia: A causal modeling approach. Unpublished place: The effects of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation.
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 75–109.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen- Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
1–26. ogy, 59, 1216 –1229.
*Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory.
and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722. *Gowan, M. A., Craft, S. L. S., & Zimmermann, R. A. (2000). Response
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to person- to work transitions by United States Army personnel: Effects of self-
ality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215. esteem, self-efficacy, and career resilience. Psychological Reports, 86,
*Broedling, L. A. (1975). Relationship of internal– external control to work 911–921.
motivation and performance in an expectancy model. Journal of Applied Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of
Psychology, 60, 65–70. personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
*Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1998). Effects of trait personality psychology (pp. 795– 824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on *Grimm, R. H. (1982). Distinguishing between self-efficacy expectancies
 RESEARCH REPORTS 805

and outcome expectancies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State Uni- person-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organiza-
versity of New York College at Buffalo. tional Behavior, 19, 1–56.
*Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1999). Individual differences in motiva-
college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Coun- tion: Traits and self-regulatory skills. In P. L. Ackerman & P. C.
seling & Development, 76, 317–324. Kyllonen (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and
*Heppner, M. J., Fuller, B. E., & Multon, K. D. (1998). Adults in invol- content determinants (pp. 293–313). Washington, DC: American Psy-
untary career transition: An analysis of the relationship between the chological Association.
psychological and career domains. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, *Kavussanu, M., Crews, D. J., & Gill, D. L. (1998). The effects of single
329 –346. versus multiple measures of biofeedback on basketball free throw shoot-
*Hewell, S. W. (1993). Individual differences in comprehension self- ing performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 132–
assessments and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Geor- 144.
gia State University, Atlanta. Keil, C. T., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). Degradation of validity over time: A
*Hinsz, V. B., & Matz, D. C. (1997). Self-evaluations involved in goal test and extension of Ackerman’s model. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
setting and task performance. Social Behavior & Personality, 25, 177– 673– 697.
182. *Kernan, M. C., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Effects of participative vs. assigned
Hogan, R., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality and industrial and goals and feedback in a multitrial task. Motivation and Emotion, 12,
organizational psychology. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Per- 75– 86.
sonality psychology in the workplace (pp. 3–16). Washington, DC: *Kirk, M. A. (1988). Predictors and correlates of effectiveness in young
American Psychological Association. adults in a stressful environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Hollenbeck, J. R. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: York University, Ontario, Canada.
Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Ap- Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure.
plied Psychology, 72, 215–220. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622– 629.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Brief, A. P. (1987). The effects of individual differ- *Landine, J., & Stewart, J. (1998). Relationship between metacognition,
ences and goal origin on goal setting and performance. Organizational motivation, locus of control, self-efficacy, and academic achievement.
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 392– 414. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 32, 200 –212.
*Houle, P. A. (1996). Toward understanding student differences in a *Lee, L. H. (1998). Goal orientation, goal setting, and academic perfor-
computer skills course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, mance in college students: An integrated model of achievement motiva-
25– 48. tion in school settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
*Huang, H. J. (1995). Commitment to a chosen course of action: Individual Southern California, Los Angeles.
differences in decisional persistence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, *Leeds, J. (1991). The relationships among locus-of-control, shame/guilt,
Washington State University, Pullman. career self-efficacy, and intensity of job search behavior in unemployed
Hunter, J. E. (1992). REGRESS: A multiple regression program in male professionals over forty years of age. Unpublished doctoral dis-
BASICA [Computer software and manual]. Department of Psychology, sertation, New York University, New York.
Michigan State University, East Lansing. *Lerner, B. S., & Locke, E. A. (1995). The effects of goal setting,
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury self-efficacy, competition, and personal traits on the performance of an
Park, CA: Sage Publications. endurance task. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 138 –152.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: *Liu, C. (1990). Interaction effects of personality and situational strength
The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869 – 879. on goal setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,
Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, NY: West Lafayette, IN.
Research Psychologists Press. Locke, E. A. (1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In M. L.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (pp. 375– 412). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. Locke, E. A., Motowidlo, S. J., & Bobko, P. (1986). Using self-efficacy
102–138). New York: Guilford Press. theory to resolve the conflict between goal-setting theory and expec-
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: tancy theory in organizational behavior and industrial/organizational
The relationship between positive self-concept and job performance. psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 328 –338.
Human Performance, 11, 167–187. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). setting and task performance: 1968 –1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90,
Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core 125–152.
evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative *Malouff, J., Schutte, N., Bauer, M., Mantelli, D. (1990). Development and
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407. evaluation of a measure of the tendency to be goal oriented. Personality
*Kane, S. T. (1994). Psychological and social-cognitive factors in career and Individual Differences, 11, 1191–1200.
indecision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, *Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between consci-
Los Angeles. entiousness and learning in employee training: Mediating influences of
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of 764 –773.
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–170). Palo *Matsui, T., Okada, A., & Kakuyama, T. (1982). Influence of achievement
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. need on goal setting, performance, and feedback effectiveness. Journal
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational of Applied Psychology, 67, 645– 648.
skills and self-regulation in learning: A trait perspective. Learning and McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness.
Individual Differences, 8, 185–209. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivation traits and skills: A *Meier, S. T., McCarthy, P. R., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of
806 RESEARCH REPORTS

self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy Big Five personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of
and Research, 8, 107–120. Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 613– 627.
Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, K. R., & George-Falvy, J. (2000). Goal setting: Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2000). Select on intelligence. In E. A.
Theory and practice. In C. L. Cooper & E. A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp.
and organizational psychology: Linking theory with practice (pp. 216 – 3–14). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
249). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., & Hirsh, H. R. (1985). Forty
*Mone, M. A., Baker, D. D., & Jeffries, F. (1995). Predictive validity and questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel
time dependency of self-efficacy, self-esteem, personal goals, and aca- Psychology, 38, 697–798.
demic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, *Schutz, C. M. (1992). Construct validity of personality trait and motiva-
716 –727. tional measures: A comparison of two integrative motivational models.
*Moore, B. J. (1988). The relationship of self-efficacy, achievement need, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri—St. Louis.
trait anxiety, health value, health locus of control, and social desirability *Sodikoff, C. L. (1975). Internal– external locus of control as a moderator
to finger temperature control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana of expectancy theory, normative beliefs, and need achievement predic-
University, Bloomington. tions of motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State
*Moussa, F. M. (1996). Determinants and process of the choice of goal University, Detroit, MI.
difficulty. Group and Organization Management, 21, 414 – 438. *Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., Nord, D., Holm, C., Hohner, R., Zima, N., et
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior al. (1994). Assessing career search expectations: Development and val-
in organizations. New York: Academic Press. idation of the Career Search Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assess-
*Necowitz, L. B. (1994). Examining the relationship of negative affectivity ment, 2, 111–123.
and subjective well-being to goal-setting processes and task perfor- *Srivastava, R., & Sager, J. K. (1999). Influence of personal characteristics
mance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, on salespeople’s coping style. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Columbus. Management, 19, 47–57.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related
attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240 –261.
ratings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 66, 574 –583. *Stanley, K. D., & Murphy, M. R. (1997). A comparison of general
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social self-efficacy with self-esteem. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red her- Monographs, 123, 79 –99.
ring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660 – 679. *Steers, R. M. (1975). Task-goal attributes, n achievement, and supervi-
*Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of sory performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Ap- cesses, 13, 392– 403.
plied Psychology, 83, 835– 852. *Stelly, D. J. (1998). Explicating the personality–performance relation: An
*Pavett, C. M. (1978). Expectancy theory, personality and the situation. investigation of the motivating effects of personality in work contexts.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri—St. Louis.
*Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, *Tang, T. L. P., & Reynolds, D. B. (1993). Effects of self-esteem and
need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and perceived goal difficulty on goal setting, certainty, task performance,
goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792– 802. and attributions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 153–170.
*Phillips, J. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Prevalence and *Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Cynthia, L., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A
prediction of positive discrepancy creation: Examining a discrepancy behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms?
between two self-regulation theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 34, 402– 418.
498 –511. *Teeter, S. L. (1976). A study of task goals, performance, and achievement
*Pilegge, A. J., & Holtz, R. (1997). The effects of social identity on the motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
self-set goals and task performance of high and low self-esteem indi- Los Angeles.
viduals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, *Thompson, R. F., & Perlini, A. H. (1998). Feedback and self-efficacy,
17–26. arousal, and performance of introverts and extraverts. Psychological
*Reimels, E. M. (1991). Selected antecedents of desire for participation in Reports, 82, 707–716.
work-related decision-making among selected hospital employees. Un- Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based
published doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia. on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force
*Roberson-Bennett, P. A. (1985). The relationship between need for Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
achievement and goal-setting and their joint effect on task performance. Van Earde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Park. ogy, 81, 575–586.
Rosenthal, R. (1998). Meta-analysis: Concepts, corollaries and controver- Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., III, & Roth, P. L. (1998).
sies. In J. G. Adair & D. Belanger (Eds.), Advances in psychological A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.
science, Vol. 1: Social, personal, and cultural aspects (pp. 371–384). Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586 –597.
Hove, England: Psychology Press. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psy-
*Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., Greguras, G. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1998). chometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel
Test preparation programs in selection contexts: Self-selection and pro- Psychology, 48, 865– 885.
gram effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 51, 599 – 621. *Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). Individuals without
*Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Change in job search behaviors jobs: An empirical study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment.
and employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 277– Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 76 – 87.
287. *Wang, A. Y., & Richarde, R. S. (1988). Global versus task-specific
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job perfor- measures of self-efficacy. Psychological Record, 38, 533–541.
mance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional
30 – 43. core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 807

Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 31, 305–
Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 1–50. 323.
*Williams, S. (1991). The effects of choice of rewards upon individual Zuckerman, M., Joireman, J., Kraft, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1999). Where
behaviors and attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of do motivational and emotional traits fit within three factor models of
Nebraska—Lincoln. personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 487–504.
Wright, P. M. (1990). Operationalization of goal difficulty as a moderator
of the goal difficulty-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 75, 227–234. Received January 30, 2001
*Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee Revision received December 10, 2001
participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, Accepted December 10, 2001 䡲

Call for Nominations

The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board has opened nominations for the
editorships of Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, Developmental Psychol-
ogy, and Psychological Review for the years 2005–2010. Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, James L.
Dannemiller, PhD, and Walter Mischel, PhD, respectively, are the incumbent editors.
Candidates should be members of APA and should be available to start receiving
manuscripts in early 2004 to prepare for issues published in 2005. Please note that the P&C
Board encourages participation by members of underrepresented groups in the publication
process and would particularly welcome such nominees. Self-nominations are also encour-
aged.
Search chairs have been appointed as follows:

• Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books: Susan H. McDaniel, PhD,

and Mike Pressley, PhD
• Developmental Psychology: Joseph J. Campos, PhD
• Psychological Review: Mark I. Appelbaum, PhD

To nominate candidates, prepare a statement of one page or less in support of each

candidate. Address all nominations to the appropriate search committee at the following
address:

Karen Sellman, P&C Board Search Liaison

Room 2004
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242

The first review of nominations will begin November 15, 2002. The deadline for accept-
ing nominations is November 25, 2002.