Personality and Consequential Outcomes

Flashcards covering personality trait predictive validity, achievement, health/longevity, relationship outcomes, social dynamics, and replication studies.

What is the core premise of the Lexical Hypothesis regarding prediction?

It states that important personality characteristics will, over human history, become coded in language because they enable people to predict others' actions, reliability, capabilities, and suitability as social partners or mates.

What are the three primary statistical mechanisms through which personality traits predict life outcomes?

1. Direct effects (general traits directly expressing as specific behaviors).
2. Indirect effects (statistical mediation, such as trait-driven situation selection).
3. Interactive/conditional effects (person $\times$ environment interactions, such as differential reactivity).

How do Cohen's (1988) benchmark effect sizes compare to the empirical guidelines proposed by Gignac & Szodorai (2016)?

Cohen (1988) benchmarked small, medium, and large correlation effect sizes at $r = .10$, $r = .30$, and $r = .50$. Gignac & Szodorai (2016) revised these to $r = .10$, $r = .20$, and $r = .30$ based on the actual distribution of effect sizes in personality psychology.

In the meta-analysis by Schmidt & Hunter (1998), what were the predictive validities ($r$) for job performance across traditional selection criteria and personality variables?

Years of education ($r = .10$), job experience ($r = .18$), reference checks ($r = .26$), employment interviews ($r = .38 - .51$), Big Five Conscientiousness ($r = 0.31$), and integrity tests ($r = 0.41$).

According to Schmidt & Hunter (1998), how much predictive validity ($R$) is achieved when combining cognitive ability with an integrity test?

Combining cognitive ability with an integrity test achieves a multiple correlation of $R = .65$ for predicting job performance, compared to $r = .51$ for cognitive ability alone and $R = .60$ for cognitive ability combined with conscientiousness.

What effect size range ($r$) did Barrick & Mount (1991, 1998) establish for Conscientiousness across all occupations, and how does it change for effort-related criteria?

Conscientiousness predicts job performance across all occupations at $r \thicksim .20 - .25$, but its predictive power increases to $r = .42$ when predicting effort-related criteria specifically.

According to the meta-synthesis by Wilmot & Ones (2019) shown in this figure, how does occupational complexity affect the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance?

While the overall relationship between Conscientiousness and performance is $r \thicksim .20$, the correlation is stronger in jobs characterized by lower occupational complexity compared to high complexity jobs.

Based on the meta-analysis by Roberts et al. (2007) shown in this graph, how does personality compare to SES, parental income, and IQ in predicting occupational success?

Personality traits ($\text{Beta} \thicksim 0.23$) are stronger predictors of occupational success than SES ($\text{Beta} \thicksim 0.09$) and parental income ($\text{Beta} \thicksim 0.14$), but weaker than IQ ($\text{Beta} \thicksim 0.27$).

In Poropat's (2009) meta-analysis on educational performance (GPA), which Big Five trait is the only one that adds predictive power beyond cognitive ability?

Conscientiousness ($r = .22$; cognitive ability $r = .25$) is the only Big Five trait that incrementally adds to the prediction of GPA beyond cognitive ability.

Which Big Five trait is the strongest predictor of overall educational attainment and intrinsic study motivation?

Openness/Intellect ($r \thicksim .35$ for both educational attainment and intrinsic motivation, and $r \thicksim .25$ for breadth/depth of reading).

How did Corker et al. (2012) demonstrate an indirect effect of conscientiousness on academic performance?

The relationship between conscientiousness and exam/coursework achievement was mediated by the use of effortful study strategies assessed prior to exams, specifically deep processing and persistence.

How did Stewart (1996) demonstrate an interactive effect between extraversion and sales performance?

Extraversion predicted new sales when new sales were rewarded, but predicted customer retention when customer retention was rewarded, showing that extraversion's effect on performance depends on incentive structures.

What pattern of mortality risk across age did Martin et al. (2007) identify for individuals with consistent conscientiousness scores in this study?

Individuals with consistently high conscientiousness scores (High-High) maintain a significantly lower probability of death across their lifespan compared to those with consistently low conscientiousness scores (Low-Low).

In the 75-year peer-rated personality study by Jackson et al. (2015) shown here, which traits predicted longevity for men and women?

For males, higher peer-rated conscientiousness in their 20s predicted living longer. For females, lower neuroticism and higher agreeableness predicted longer life.

According to Bogg & Roberts (2004), what health-risk behaviors correlate negatively with conscientiousness?

Alcohol use ($r = -.25$), drug use ($r = -.28$), unhealthy eating ($r = -.13$), risky driving ($r = -.25$), and risky sexual behaviour ($r = -.13$).

What shape describes Neuroticism as a predictor of participation in periodic health checks in the study by Armon & Toker (2013)?

Neuroticism displayed a curvilinear (concave) relationship with the odds of returning for a second recommended health check.

According to Takahashi et al. (2012) in this mediation diagram, what pathway connects changes in conscientiousness to overall health?

Changes in healthy behaviour ($\Delta\text{ healthy behaviour}$) mediate the relationship between changes in conscientiousness ($\Delta\text{ conscientiousness}$) and changes in overall health ($\Delta\text{ overall health}$).

What specific facet of low agreeableness serves as the active ingredient connecting Type A personality traits to heart disease?

Trait hostility (cynical, antagonistic orientation toward others, and quickness to anger), which predicts cardiovascular disease and mortality.

In the meta-analysis by Roberts et al. (2007) shown in this graph, how does the predictive power of Conscientiousness (C) for longevity compare to IQ and SES?

Conscientiousness ($r \approx .09$) predicts longevity more strongly than cognitive ability ($r \approx .06$) and SES ($r \approx .02$) across follow-up periods of up to 76 years.

What explanation for couple trait similarity was supported by van Scheppingen et al. (2025) in their 16-year study of 1,180 couples?

Couple similarity is best explained by assortative mating at baseline rather than convergence over time or selective breakup.

In relationship research, what is the conceptual difference between Actor effects and Partner effects?

Actor effects refer to how an individual's own personality trait influences their own relationship outcomes, whereas Partner effects refer to how an individual's partner's personality trait influences the individual's relationship outcomes.

According to the model of relationship dissolution by Solomon & Jackson (2014) shown here, which intermediate pathway received clearer empirical support?

The Enduring Dynamics pathway received clearer support, showing that personality traits consistently affect baseline relationship satisfaction dynamics in ways that lead to dissolution.

Based on the meta-analysis by Roberts et al. (2007) displayed in this graph, which personality trait has the strongest correlation with divorce?

Neuroticism (N) has the strongest positive correlation with divorce ($r \approx .18$), whereas Conscientiousness (C) and Agreeableness (A) correlate negatively with divorce.

What process is depicted in the 8-path model by Eaton & Funder (2003) shown in this figure?

The Personality and Social Dynamics model, illustrating reciprocal interactions between an individual's personality, behavior, others' impressions, others' behaviors, and the social environment.

In Yao & Moskowitz's (2015) 20-day co-worker study, how did individuals high in Agreeableness differ from those low in Agreeableness regarding behavioral reactivity?

Individuals low in Agreeableness were highly reactive (behaving quarrelsomely when a co-worker was quarrelsome), whereas individuals high in Agreeableness remained agreeable regardless of the co-worker's behavior.

What was the observed replication success rate in Soto's (2019) LOOPR project shown in this graph compared to the Reproducibility Project: Psychology?

The LOOPR project achieved an observed replication success rate of 87% (and 88% corrected), compared to only 36% in the Reproducibility Project: Psychology.

How strong were the replicated effect sizes in the LOOPR project (Soto, 2019) relative to the original published studies?

Replicated effect sizes in the LOOPR project were approximately 75% as strong as those reported in the original studies.

What did Soto (2021) report regarding the generalisability of LOOPR personality-outcome associations across demographic subsamples?

Associations were highly generalisable: 95% confirmed in women, 90% confirmed in age-representative samples, and 93% confirmed among racial and ethnic minority groups.