The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Five-Factor Model of personality and Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions
Abstract
In this article, the results of a meta-analysis that investigates the degree to which dimensions of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality are related to performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions are reported. The article also investigates whether the nature of the interactions with others moderates the personality-performance relations. The meta-analysis was based on 11 studies (total N = 1,586). each of which assessed the FFM at the construct level using the Personal Characteristics Inventory. Results support the hypothesis that Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability are positively related to performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Results also support the hypothesis that Emotional Stability and Agreeableness are more strongly related to performance in jobs that involve team- work (where employees interact interdependently with coworkers), than in those that involve dyadic interactions with others (where employees provide a direct service to customers and clients). Implications for developing theories of work performance and for selecting employees are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SERVQUAL: A multiple-Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14579729 · Cited by 21,118
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
Self-citationThe development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure
Goldberg, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 · Cited by 5,530
Cited by
(1999) · Cited by 7,995
Personality Development: Stability and Change
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913 · Cited by 2,699
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160 · Cited by 2,356
Self-citationPsychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.2.128 · Cited by 1,469
Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751 · Cited by 1,382
Metadata
- Authors
- Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L.
- Venue
- Human Performance
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 145-165
- ISSN
- 0895-9285 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7043
- OpenAlex
- W1999923933
- Cited by
- 831
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
