ADAPTABILITY TO CHANGING TASK CONTEXTS: EFFECTS OF GENERAL COGNITIVE ABILITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE
Abstract
We examined the extent to which cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience predict decision‐making performance prior to and after unforeseen changes in the task context. Seventy‐three undergraduates made decisions on a series of 75 problems during a 3‐hour computerized simulation. Unbeknownst to participants, the rules used in determining correct decisions changed after problems 25 and 50. Effects of the individual differences on decision‐making performance became significantly stronger after the changes. Only cognitive ability explained variance in prechange performance. Individuals with higher cognitive ability made better decisions. After the change, the cognitive ability effect increased and the effects of Conscientiousness and Openness became statistically significant. As expected, those with high Openness made better decisions. Unexpectedly, those with low Conscientiousness made better decisions. Subsequent analyses revealed that this surprising effect for Conscientiousness was due to the traits reflecting dependability (i.e., order, dutiful‐ness, deliberation) rather than volition (i.e., competence, achievement striving, self‐discipline).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Openness to experience is linked to behavioral flexibility because openness is associated with receptivity to change, trying out new things, and being adaptable to changing situations.
“Similarly, openness to experience is linked to behavioral flexibility (Blickle, 1996;Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, & O'Shea, 2006), because openness is associated with receptivity to change, trying out new things, and being adaptable to changing situations (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000).”
From Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. (2020) · cites this paper as LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000
Cites
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 · see citing works
A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity
Feist, G. J. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 · Cited by 2,180 · see citing works
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 · Cited by 1,831 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ROBERTS, B. W., CHERNYSHENKO, O. S., STARK, S., & GOLDBERG, L. R. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x · Cited by 786 · see citing works
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0033901 · Cited by 482 · see citing works
Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close
Wilson, J. M., Boyer O'Leary, M., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607083105 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
When Is More Uncertainty Better? A Model of Uncertainty Regulation and Effectiveness
Griffin, M. A., & Grote, G. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0271 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Openness to Experience: Its Lower Level Structure, Measurement, and Cross-Cultural Equivalence
Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z.-X., Chiu, C.-Y., & Stark, S. E. (2014) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223891.2013.806328 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams.
Homan, A. C., Gündemir, S., Buengeler, C., & van Kleef, G. A. (2020) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000482 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
A Self-Regulation Model of Zhong Yong Thinking and Employee Adaptive Performance
Pan, W., & Sun, L.-Y. (2018) · Management and Organization Review · doi:10.1017/mor.2017.33 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Morelli, M., Chirumbolo, A., Bianchi, D., Baiocco, R., Cattelino, E., Laghi, F., Sorokowski, P., Misiak, M., Dziekan, M., Hudson, H., et al. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106502 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Individual differences in intelligence and personality guide human social learning
Burtenshaw, T., Walker, B., Gignac, G., Grueter, C. C., & Fay, N. (2026) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2026.113639
- Authors
- LEPINE, J. A., COLQUITT, J. A., & EREZ, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 563-593
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2051898706
- Cited by
- 710
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 51
- FWCI
- 10.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- decision performance, cognitive ability, conscientiousness, openness to experience, personality traits, individual differences, computer simulation
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
