Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:01:29.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blinded By the Light: The Dark Side of Traditionally Desirable Personality Traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Mallory A. McCord ,
Dana L. Joseph  and
Emily Grijalva
Mallory A. McCord*
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Dana L. Joseph
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Emily Grijalva
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
*
E-mail: m.mccord@knights.ucf.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, FL 32816
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 130 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014

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.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.910646Google Scholar
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307–324. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.xGoogle 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 & Assessment, 9(1/2), 9.Google Scholar
Beauducel, A., Brocke, B., & Leue, A. (2006). Energetical bases of extraversion: Effort, arousal, EEG, and performance. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 212–223.Google Scholar
Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232–236.Google Scholar
Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. (2010). The dark side of conscientiousness: Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following unemployment. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 535–539. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O'Connell, M. S., Kung, M. C., & Delago, K. (in press). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology.Google Scholar
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19, 88–106.Google Scholar
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. doi: 10.1037/a0024004Google Scholar
Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. T. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, L. A., Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Maladaptive personality functioning within the big five and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16(5), 385–401.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Côté, S., Decelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg, I. (2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1073–1080. doi: 10.1177/0956797611416251Google Scholar
Del Líbano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). About the dark and bright sides of self-efficacy: Workaholism and work engagement. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 688–701.Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 465–476.Google Scholar
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the big five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959–970.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.Google Scholar
Grieve, R., & Panebianco, L. (2013). Assessing the role of aggression, empathy, and self-serving cognitive distortions in trait emotional manipulation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(2), 79–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2012.00059.xGoogle Scholar
Guenole, N. (2014). Maladaptive personality at work: Exploring the darkness. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of NEO PI-R items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 339–358.Google Scholar
Harms, P. D., & Crede, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5–17. doi: 10.1177/1548051809350894Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “big five” personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.Google Scholar
Hough, L., & Oswald, F. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives On Science And Practice, 1(3), 272–290.Google Scholar
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879.Google Scholar
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). (2012). A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/.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 (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. doi: 10.1037/a0017286Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for personnel selection in individual and team contexts. In Langan-Foz, R. J., Cooper, J., & Klimoski, C. L. (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 332–355). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kafetsios, K., Nezlek, J. B., & Vassiou, A. (2011). A multilevel analysis of relationships between leaders' and subordinates' emotional intelligence and emotional outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5), 1121–1144. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00750.xGoogle Scholar
Lahuis, D. M., Martin, N. R., & Avis, J. M. (2005). Investigating nonlinear performance relations for clerical employees. Human Performance, 18(3), 199–212.Google Scholar
Le, H., Oh, I. S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 113–133. doi: 10.1037/a0021016Google Scholar
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential effects of big-five personality characteristics and general cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success. A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(367), 408.Google Scholar
O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 818(2010), 788–818. doi: 10.1002/jobGoogle Scholar
Piedmont, R. L., Sherman, M. F., & Sherman, N. C. (2012). Maladaptively high and low openness: The case for experiential permeability. Journal of personality, 80(6), 1641–1668. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00777.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robie, C., & Ryan, A. M. (1999). Effects of nonlinearity and heteroscedasticity on the validity of conscientiousness in predicting overall job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7, 157–169. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00115Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B., & Gore, W. L. (2012). Maladaptive variants of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Journal of Personality, 80(6), 1669–1696. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00770.xGoogle Scholar
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167–177. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4Google Scholar
Schyns, B., & vonCollani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219–241. doi: 10.1080/13594320244000148Google Scholar
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.Google Scholar
Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits: Agreeableness, neurotic and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 88–98.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P. (1998). Is Conscientiousness always positively related to job performance? The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 36, 24–29.Google Scholar
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1146–1153. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146Google Scholar
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 506–516. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 605–620. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.4.605Google Scholar
Verhaeghen, P., & Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Meta-analyses of age–cognition relations in adulthood: Estimates of linear and nonlinear age effects and structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 231–249.Google Scholar
Williams, C. R., & Livingstone, L. P. (1994). Another look at the relationship between performance and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar