NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 traits (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996; Witt,

126 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 traits (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996; Witt,

Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002). As observed by Barrick et al. (2003), motive (or goal) conflict would be especially pertinent to models of job satisfaction and worker morale, given that self-concordance is difficult to achieve in organizations, where goals must be negotiated, aligned with, and sometimes set by others whose motives and values may not match one’s own. Likewise, the same applies for the two motive patterns of ‘getting along’ versus ‘getting ahead’ (i.e., Hogan & Holland, 2003) and performance, particularly in jobs involving teamwork.

Cognitions

With the advent of the cognitive revolution more than 40 years ago, some personality researchers turned inward, imbuing ‘personality’ with cognition (Winter & Barenbaum, 1999). Unlike motives, there is no unifying concept or comprehensive definition of ‘cognitions’ in personality. Rather, the incor- poration of cognition into personality research precipitated two significant developments: (a) the emergence of cognitively oriented constructs (e.g., attributional style, need for cognition, Locus Of Control (LOC), conceptual complexity), and a host of self-related constructs (e.g., self-concept, self- esteem, self-monitoring, self-efficacy); and (b) attention to the relationship between personality and cognitive processes (e.g., encoding and attention to situational information).

Although some cognitively oriented constructs (e.g., attributional style) have been cast as stable, dispositional tendencies (i.e., Weiner & Graham, 1999), there are meaningful differences between cognitively oriented constructs and traits. Whereas traits emphasize what people do (or have done), cognitive aspects of personality focus on what people think or believe. Cognitive aspects of personality, particularly those from the social–cognitive domain (cf. Mischel, 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1999), also encompass both the structure and process of personality. In contrast, traits involve the description of structure and the organization of stable, enduring patterns of behaviors, culminating most prominently in the emergence of the Big Five or the Five-Factor Model (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1999; Ozer & Reise, 1994).

As with other areas of psychology, I/O psychology has been influenced by the cognitive revolution. Although the trait paradigm currently dominates I/O psychology, cognitive aspects of personality are receiving some attention in our field. Like motives, however, research on cognitively oriented person- ality constructs such as LOC and self-efficacy has progressed largely inde- pendent of research on traits. As a result, how these constructs ‘fit’ within the Big Five is unclear, leading to recent qualitative and quantitative reviews summarizing research related to these variables separately from the Big Five (i.e., Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001; Hough & Furnham,

P ERSONALITY IN I NDUSTRIAL /O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 127 2003; Perrewe & Spector, 2002). The bulk of our attention in this area has

been devoted to LOC and self-efficacy (Perrewe & Spector, 2002; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Two other concepts that have received some attention in our literature are James’s (1998) conditional reasoning, which is comparable with the concept of attributional styles in personality psychology (i.e., Weiner & Graham, 1999), and Judge and colleagues’ (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) core self-evaluations, a compound ‘trait’ comprised of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, LOC, and neuroticism. While these efforts are comparatively few (Judge & Larsen, 2001), I/O psychologists are beginning to integrate traits and personality-oriented cog- nitions, with cognitions typically serving an intermediary, process-oriented role to explain the relationship between traits and organizational behavior (i.e., Gellatly, 1996; Johnson, 2003; Judge & Locke, 1993).

Comparatively little attention in I/O psychology has been paid to implicit (or unconscious) cognitions (for exceptions, see James, 1998). Although primarily focused on attitudes, research in social cognition demonstrates that implicitly activated cognitive processes influence people’s judgments of others in ways that confirm negative or prejudicial stereotypes (Fazio & Olson, 2003; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Within I/O psychology, how and when these processes are activated would be informative to models relating personality to organizationally relevant judgements, ranging from job candi- date evaluations to organizational choice. More practically, research by James and colleagues (James, 1998; James et al., 2000) on personality-oriented implicit cognitive processes, labeled conditional reasoning, has produced validities with organizational criteria that exceed those generated by research adopting a trait approach.

There is in addition emerging research from social–cognitive theories of personality. In particular, research by Mischel and colleagues (i.e., Mendoza- Denton, Ayduk, Mischel, Shoda, & Testa, 2001; Mischel & Shoda, 1999; Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1993) carries interesting implications for person- ality, especially our current conceptualization of ‘traits’. In brief, this re- search finds that people reliably encode and infer their own personality and that of others in if–then situation behavior profiles. That is, individuals categorize personality in person x situation terms (e.g., Mark is extraverted at parties, but introverted in class). These findings suggest that people’s natural conceptualization of personality meaningfully differs from that presumed by the trait paradigm. The implications of this work for the conceptualization and measurement of traits are substantial. These findings suggest that frame-of-reference effects are more than a bandwidth fidelity issue.

There are also alternatives to personality oriented cognitions as mediators of trait–behavior relationships. For example, Larsen and colleagues (Larsen, Billings, & Cutler, 1996; Larsen, Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987) found that people differentially engage in certain cognitive processes (e.g., rumination)

128 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 that amplify their affective reactions to life events depicted in photographs.

Within a trait activation framework (i.e., Tett & Burnett, 2003), these findings imply that the ‘press’ of a situation in eliciting a trait would be modulated by cognitive processes, specifically how the situation is inter- preted and encoded. An even more powerful example can be found in re- search on cognitively oriented constructs, such as attributional style and need for closure. Research on these variables and related constructs demonstrates that how one processes social information, and the attributions one makes, predicts their response to others in interpersonal situations (Weiner & Graham, 1998). These findings have clear implications for theories of work-related phenomena, as few (if any) jobs do not involve interpersonal interaction with others (supervisors, co-workers, customers, etc.).

Physiological and Biological Bases of Personality

Although research on the physiological and biological bases of personality has a long history, this research stream has exploded recently, such that it is now recognized as its own paradigm within personality psychology (i.e., Funder, 2001), and warrants its own focused, narrative literature reviews (i.e., Livesley, Jang, & Vernon, 2003; Pickering & Gray, 1999; Plomin & Caspi, 1999; Zuckerman, 2003). When we refer to physiology, we are not referring to a single entity (or focal concept), but a loose collection of genetic and physiological variables and processes. Research on the physiological and biological basis of personality can be roughly organized into two streams: (a) behavioral genetics, which focuses on the heritability and genetic origins of personality (see Grigorenko, 2002; Livesley et al., 2003); and (b) neuroscience/ biology, which focuses on identifying neurological and other biological (e.g., nervous system) structures and processes related to personality (see Pickering & Gray, 1999; Zuckerman, 2003).

While some have conceptualized ‘traits’ as internal, physiological struc- tures (i.e., Eysenck), there are substantive differences between physiological variables and traits, as traditionally conceptualized. Traits differ meaning- fully from physiological variables in that physiological variables cover both personality structure and processes. More importantly, there is distinction between ‘causes’ and ‘reasons’ as explanations of socially relevant behavior (i.e., Peters, 1958). That is, ‘causes’ are internal processes, typically biological, that propel individuals to action. Conversely, ‘reasons’ refer to cognitive or psychological constructs that provide direction and focus for people’s actions. This distinction maps onto traits and physiological vari- ables, in that the latter constitute ‘causes’, and the former ‘reasons’. In this regard, physiological variables may be viewed as temporal antecedents and traits as consequences.

Of the three alternatives to traits discussed, physiological variables have received the least attention within I/O psychology. At the same time, genetics

P ERSONALITY IN I NDUSTRIAL /O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 129 and physiology, as they pertain to personality, are not complete strangers to

I/O. In particular, there is increasing acknowledgement of the revolutionary potential of genetics to re-shape psychological science and practice in the 21st century (Patenaude, Guttmacher, & Collins, 2002; Plomin & Crabbe, 2000). Some researchers (i.e., Hough & Furnham, 2003; Hough & Ones, 2001) have started discussing genetics and biological testing (e.g., DNA, biometrics) as alternative assessment methods to self-reports. One can also find physio- logical and biological elements in personality constructs, such as Type A Behavior Pattern (TABP), and to a lesser extent, Positive Affectivity (PA) and Negative Affectivity (NA). Finally, there is a modest theoretical and research base in I/O regarding the genetic bases of dispositional effects and their relationship to organizational phenomena, such as job satisfaction (i.e., Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Ilies & Judge, 2003; Judge & Larsen, 2001).

Since examination of personality from a biological perspective is relatively rare in our field, what then are the major themes from the extant literature on physiological psychology of which we should be aware? At the risk of oversimplification, we suggest the following as starters. First, there is growing and reasonably compelling evidence that personality is, to some degree, genetically and biologically influenced (Funder, 2001; Livesley et al., 2003; Pickering & Gray, 1999; Plomin & Caspi, 1999; Zuckerman, 2003). It is no longer a question of ‘if ’ personality and biology are related, but ‘how’ and ‘by how much’. For example, there is now little doubt that introverts exhibit greater physiological sensitivity to stimuli than do extraverts (Stelmack, 1990). More recently, research has identified specific areas within the brain important to personality, such as the amygdala for aggression (Zuckerman, 2003), and specific genes related to particular traits (Livesley et al., 2003; Plomin & Caspi, 1999). Other research references Behavioral Approach System and Behavioral Inhibition System (BAS and BIS; e.g., Fowles, 1988; Gray, 1994) that regulate responses to reward and punishment cues, respectively. These systems are used to explain behavior patterns referenced in trait descriptors. While there is a risk of reductionism in linking personality to physiological variables and processes, attention to these processes would be informative for methodological reasons and for understanding the underlying ‘causes’ of personality.

Second, research in genetics yields two interesting findings regarding the relative impact of personality and the situation (environment) on behavior (see Plomin & Caspi, 1999). This research suggests a greater need to consider the ways that physiology and situation interact to influence behavior. For example, evidence that the same situation differentially influences individuals of the same ‘personality’ suggests a more idiographicapproach, comparable with Mischel and colleagues’ (Mischel, 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1998, 1999) social–cognitive conceptualization of personality.