INTEGRATION AS AN OPPORTUNITY

During the 1970s and 1980s, as the person–situation debate reached its apex, the number of graduate programs in personality psychology declined (Funder, 2001). As a result, much of the research on personality currently taking place is being conducted not by people who necessarily identify themselves as personality psychologists, but by their colleagues in social, developmental, and clinical psychology, and by non-psychologists, such as anthropologists, molecular biologists, neuroscientists, and sociologists (Cervone & Mischel, 2002a; Funder, 2001). Indeed, one might say that personality research, like small-group research a decade ago (e.g., Levine & Moreland, 1990), is ‘alive and well, but living elsewhere.’ One of the areas where interest in personality is presently thriving is, of course, I/O, which has witnessed a dramaticrebirth in personality research and assessment (see Hough & Furnham, 2003; Hough & Ones, 2001; Perrewe & Spector, 2002).

Integrating our current personality research with areas outside of I/O presents an opportunity to advance our understanding of: (a) key components of personality beyond traits (i.e., motives, cognitions, physiology); (b) the dynamic, interactive nature of personality over time, across persons, and across situations; (c) the processes by which personality causes work-related behavior, cognitions, and affect; and (d) the contributions of personality to both micro- and macro-level organizational phenomena. More practically, this integration is expected to lead to less contaminated, more construct- valid measures, and greater predictive efficiency.

However, I/O psychologists should not merely follow the lead of others. I/O psychology is in a unique position to make substantive contributions to the scientific study of personality. The following are several examples (by no means exhaustive) of ways in which I/O psychology could and should contribute to meaningful advances in personality research and assessment.

Strong Tradition and Training in Psychometrics

In personality psychology, emphasis and formal training in psychometrics has declined (Funder, 2001). This has precipitated concerns regarding the current state of personality assessment, particularly the reliance on short, self-report questionnaires in contemporary personality research (i.e., Funder, 2001; Kagan, 1988; Pervin, 1996, 1999). By contrast, psychometrics

P ERSONALITY IN I NDUSTRIAL /O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 139 remains a core component of graduate education in I/O psychology, and I/O-

trained psychologists continue to make substantive contributions to psychometrics. Two recent examples are James’s (1998) conditional reasoning approach to personality measurement and Hough’s (Hough & Furnham, 2003; Hough & Ones, 2001) nomological-web-clustering conceptual framework. This tradition and expertise would greatly benefit personality assessment by providing new methods, tools, and conceptual frameworks for measuring personality. It would also create a niche within the broader field for I/O psychology.

Opportunities for Relating Personalityto PracticallyRelevant and TheoreticallyMeaningful External Criteria

Until recently, there had been a lack of empirical research within personality psychology relating traits (Big Five) to practically meaningful external criteria such as criminality, academic performance, and long-term physical and mental health outcomes (Funder, 2001; John & Srivastava, 1999). Instead, personality psychologists have tended to rely on internal criteria (e.g., intercorrelations among self-reports of different traits), or external criteria that were conveniently and easily accessible (e.g., subjects’ prefer- ences for ‘paper people’). Organizations offer numerous opportunities to relate personality to criteria that are both practically relevant and theoretic- ally meaningful. These include job and training performance, counter- productive behavior, career and occupational choice, person–organization fit, leadership, and occupational health and safety. Therefore, I/O psychologists have access to a wealth of external criteria that can (and do) speak to the applied and scientific relevance of personality. Indeed, within the past decade, our field has accumulated an extensive research base relating personality to a variety of organizational criteria (see Hough & Furnham, 2003; Hough & Ones, 2001; Perrewe & Spector, 2002); and a research base that has been cited by personality psychologists as evidence supporting the utility of the Big Five (i.e., John & Srivastava, 1999). The critical challenge, as raised in the preceding section, will be to effectively balance organizational access with scientific and methodological progress.

Taxonomies for Assessing and Conceptualizing the Psychological Significance of Situations and Behavior

The study of personality involves three, interrelated components: (a) the person, (b) the situation, and (c) outcomes. While the description and conceptualization of personal variables, most prominently traits, has been extensive, comparatively less progress has been made in conceptualizing and developing personality-based methods for assessing situational variables and the outcomes that might result from combinations of personal and

INTEGRATION AS AN OPPORTUNITY