ALTERNATIVES TO A TRAIT APPROACH

ALTERNATIVES TO A TRAIT APPROACH

In this section, we discuss alternatives to the trait-based conceptualization of personality that dominates our field. Specifically, we focus on major focal concepts other than traits that have received substantial research attention by psychologists in various subdisciplines. These concepts include: (a) motives, (b) cognitions, and (c) physiology. For each of these three areas, we define central construct(s) and distinguish them from the conceptualization of traits. Next, we identify research trends and exemplars in I/O psychology examin-

P ERSONALITY IN I NDUSTRIAL /O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 123 ing these alternatives and summarizing where I/O currently stands. Finally,

we discuss what is presently missing in our field, incorporating relevant theory and research from Personality Psychology.

Motives

Although receiving less consideration than traits, motives and related con- structs (i.e., needs, goals, values, interests) have a long history in personality psychology (Winter & Barenbaum, 1999; Winter, John, Stewart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). At their most abstract, motives represent an individual’s wishes, goals, and desire to bring about particular states of affairs (con- sciously or unconsciously), or in the case of avoidance motives, states of affairs he/she would like to prevent (Winter et al., 1998). Put simply, motives constitute the why of behavior (McClelland, 1985). That is, motives drive behavior, as people are inclined to behave in ways that satisfy one or more underlying motives.

Despite being lost for much of the heyday of the cognitive revolution, motives are re-emerging, coupled with traits, as the two essential ingredients of ‘personality’ (i.e., Pervin, 1994; Snyder, 1994; Winter et al., 1998). How- ever, there is little consensus regarding how traits and motives are related, with positions that include (a) traits and motives are the same concept, (b) motives are subsumed by traits (i.e., Digman, 1997; Hofstee, 1994; McCrae, 1994; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996), (c) traits are caused by motives (e.g., Omoto & Snyder, 1990), and (d) traits and motives represent distinct, but complementary constructs (i.e., Pervin, 1994; Winter et al., 1998). While we wait for empirical research to provide a more definitive answer, there are theoretically meaningful differences in how motives and traits are typically conceptualized. First, unlike traits, motives are grounded in the principles of equipotentiality and equifinality (Pervin, 1994; Winter et al., 1998). That is, the same motive (or goal) may lead to a variety of different behaviors or actions, depending on the person and the situation (equipotentiality). Corre- spondingly, the same behavior or action may serve multiple and varied motives for different persons and situations (equifinality). In contrast, traits, as previously defined and as typically examined in I/O psychology, are rooted in the principle of cross-situational consistency and are tied to specific behavioral indicators. Second, motives differ from traits in that motives are conceived of as drivers of behavior, whereas traits are equated with the behaviors themselves.

Although comparatively few I/O psychologists conceptualize motivation as

a personality variable (Hough & Furnham, 2003), motives are not new to our field. Unfortunately, research on motivational concepts such as goal-setting and vocational interests, and research on personality have co-existed as separate literatures with too few efforts to integrate them. That now appears to be changing.