Personality dynamics at work: The effects of form, time, and context of variability

Beckmann, Nadin; Birney, Damian P.; Minbashian, Amirali; Beckmann, Jens F.

doi:10.1177/08902070211017341

Cited by 22 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, focusing on the most meaningful SCSCs may yield larger stabilities. This is consistent with recent work reporting some stability of specific theoretically expected contingencies over longer timeframes (Beckmann et al, 2021;Mota et al, 2022).…”

Section: Rq1: Basis Properties Of Scscssupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Differences in Contingencies Between Situation Characteristics and Personality States

Kuper¹,

Breil²,

Horstmann³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contingencies between situational variables and psychological states have been proposed as key individual difference variables by many theoretical approaches to personality. Despite their relevance, the basic properties, nomological correlates, and factor structure of individual differences in contingencies have not been examined so far. We address these fundamental questions in five studies with overall N = 952 participants and N = 32,052 unique assessments. Individual differences in situation characteristic – state contingencies (SCSCs) between DIAMONDS situation characteristics and Big Five personality states were examined in everyday life. SCSCs showed substantial variation across participants, and individual differences in them were moderately reliable (average meta-analytic reliability = .47) and short-term stable (average meta-analytic latent stability = .43). They were weakly and inconsistently related to average personality states, self-reported personality traits, subjective happiness, and socio-demographic variables across studies. However, there were meaningful intercorrelations among SCSCs that could be described by four factors: contingencies involving (1) positive states and situational problems, (2) positive states and situational rewards, (3) thinking/work and requirements of thinking/work, and (4) neurotic states. Overall, our findings support the notion of SCSCs as potentially important individual difference variables, and we sketch future lines of research on contingencies.

show abstract

Section: Rq1: Basis Properties Of Scscssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Zooming in on specific contingencies in the work context, Beckmann et al (2021) were among the first to examine the stability of individual differences in situational contingencies, reporting some long-term stability of task-contingent Conscientiousness and Neuroticism.…”

Section: Previous Empirical Work On Contingenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Contingencies Between Situation Characteristics and Personality States

Kuper¹,

Breil²,

Horstmann³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies reported associations between individual differences in contingencies and personality trait variables (i.e., cross-level interactions, e.g., Breil et al, 2019; Quintus et al, 2021), but others reported few significant interaction effects (e.g., Abrahams et al, 2021; Sherman et al, 2015). Zooming in on specific contingencies in the work context, Beckmann et al (2021) were among the first to examine the stability of individual differences in situational contingencies, reporting some long-term stability of task-contingent Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. While these studies have provided first insights into SCSCs, several open questions remain, concerning particularly the basic properties of individual differences in a wide range of SCSCs (including their reliability 1 and stability), their nomological correlates, and their factor structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.

Kuper¹,

Breil²,

Horstmann³

et al. 2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contingencies between situational variables and psychological states have been proposed as key individual difference variables by many theoretical approaches to personality. Despite their relevance, the basic properties, nomological correlates, and factor structure of individual differences in contingencies have not been examined so far. We address these fundamental questions in five studies with overall N = 952 participants and N = 32,052 unique assessments. Individual differences in situation characteristic-state contingencies (SCSCs) between DIAMONDS situation characteristics and Big Five personality states were examined in everyday life. SCSCs showed substantial variation across participants, and individual differences in them were moderately reliable (average meta-analytic reliability = .47) and short-term stable (average meta-analytic latent stability = .43). They were weakly and inconsistently related to average personality states, self-reported personality traits, subjective happiness, and sociodemographic variables across studies. However, there were meaningful intercorrelations among SCSCs that could be described by four factors: contingencies involving (1) positive states and situational problems, (2) positive states and situational rewards, (3) thinking/work and requirements of thinking/work, and (4) neurotic states. Overall, our findings support the notion of SCSCs as potentially important individual difference variables, and we sketch future lines of research on contingencies.

show abstract

“…The inherent subjectivity of self-report means that the field has had to address its fair share of method effects (faking, for instance, is a significant challenge). Somewhat consistent with notions of reactivity, we have recently reported on a series of studies to try and better understand the dynamic components of psychological attributes, especially personality, in different contexts and circumstance (Beckmann et al, 2010(Beckmann et al, , 2020(Beckmann et al, , 2021Wood et al, 2019). In Beckmann et al (2020) we were interested in the assessment of personality attributes of a sample of business managers in either work and non-work situations (context factors) as rated by themselves (i.e., self) and as rated by others who knew them either through their work or non-work settings (i.e., source factors).…”

Section: Dynamic Personality: Within-person Accounts Of Form Context ...mentioning

confidence: 58%

“…These repeated observations are not taken simply to improve reliability of measurement, although this is obviously important. Rather, our observational design is structured so as to systematically assess latent attributes across different occasions, situations, and sources in terms of the observed level of the attribute (e.g., sum-scores), but also its variability (Birney et al, 2017;Beckmann et al, 2020Beckmann et al, , 2021.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sophisticated Statistics Cannot Compensate for Method Effects If Quantifiable Structure Is Compromised

Birney

Beckmann

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers rely on psychometric principles when trying to gain understanding of unobservable psychological phenomena disconfounded from the methods used. Psychometric models provide us with tools to support this endeavour, but they are agnostic to the meaning researchers intend to attribute to the data. We define method effects as resulting from actions which weaken the psychometric structure of measurement, and argue that solution to this confounding will ultimately rest on testing whether data collected fit a psychometric model based on a substantive theory, rather than a search for a model that best fits the data. We highlight the importance of taking the notions of fundamental measurement seriously by reviewing distinctions between the Rasch measurement model and more generalised 2PL and 3PL IRT models. We then present two lines of research that highlight considerations of making method effects explicit in experimental designs. First, we contrast the use of experimental manipulations to study measurement reactivity during the assessment of metacognitive processes with factor-analytic research of the same. The former suggests differential performance-facilitating and -inhibiting reactivity as a function of other individual differences, whereas factor-analytic research suggests a ubiquitous monotonically predictive confidence factor. Second, we evaluate differential effects of context and source on within-individual variability indices of personality derived from multiple observations, highlighting again the importance of a structured and theoretically grounded observational framework. We conclude by arguing that substantive variables can act as method effects and should be considered at the time of design rather than after the fact, and without compromising measurement ideals.

show abstract

Personality dynamics at work: The effects of form, time, and context of variability

Cited by 22 publications

References 93 publications

Individual Differences in Contingencies Between Situation Characteristics and Personality States

Individual Differences in Contingencies Between Situation Characteristics and Personality States

Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.

Sophisticated Statistics Cannot Compensate for Method Effects If Quantifiable Structure Is Compromised

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About