CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 832Personality Traits and PsychologyJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmotional Intelligence and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Five-Factor Model of personality and Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions

Mount, Michael, Barrick, Murray, Stewart, Greg·1998·Human Performance
DOI 10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_3

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • For jobs requiring interpersonal interactions, agreeableness is the strongest predictor of job performance.

    “For jobs requiring interpersonal interactions, like teaching, agreeableness is the strongest predictor of job performance (Mount et al. 1998).”

    From A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout (2019) · cites this paper as Mount et al. 1998

  • A meta-analysis found that agreeableness was more important for jobs requiring teamwork than those involving dyadic interactions (Mount et al. 1998).

    “This finding was surprising as a meta-analysis found that this domain was more important for jobs requiring teamwork (and, therefore, greater interpersonal interactions) than those involving dyadic interactions (Mount et al. 1998).”

    From A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout (2019) · cites this paper as Mount et al. 1998

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Barrick, M. R. & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1996, April). Assessing "Fit" from a teamperspective: A policy capturing approach. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
  2. Bem, D , & Allen, A (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-sltuatronal wnslstencies m behavior Psychologzcal Review, 81. 506-520
  3. Bowen D. E., 1988, Research in Organrzational Behavior, 10, 43
  4. Campbell, J P (1991) Modelrng the performance predtctron problem m lndustnal and organrzatlonal psychology In M D Dunnette & L M Hough, (Eds ), Handbook oj rndurtrral and organrzaironal psychology (2nd ed , Vol 1, pp 687-732) Palo Alto, CA Consulting Psychologists Press
  5. 10.1037//0021-9010.75.2.107 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory ($careers.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  7. 10.1037//0033-2909.89.1.47 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Pamuraman, A, Zeithaml, V. A, & Beny, L. L. (1986). Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service qualiry. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Mount, M., Barrick, M., & Stewart, G.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
ORCID
Stewart, Greg
Venue
Human Performance
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1998-06-01
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
145-165
ISSN
0895-9285 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_3
OpenAlex
W1999923933
Cited by
832
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 48
FWCI
13.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Performance (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotional Intelligence and Performance
Keywords
Big Five personality traits, personality, employee performance, interpersonal interaction, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, teamwork, dyadic interaction, customer service, personnel selection

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