Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Personality, Values, and Motivation
Personality, Values, and Motivation
Review
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 November 2008
Received in revised form 19 May 2009
Accepted 1 June 2009
Available online 26 June 2009
a b s t r a c t
In this manuscript we review the constructs of personality and values, clarifying how they are related and
how they are distinct. We then relate that understanding to motivation, and propose that personality and
values have different inuences on different motivational processes. We present a model in which personality and values inuence motivation via the motivational processes of goal content and goal striving.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Personality
Values
Motivation
Goals
2. Personality
Since 1937, when Allport recommended the exclusion of evaluative traits when investigating personality, the constructs of personality and values have rarely been studied together. However,
both are expected to inuence a variety of behavioral outcomes,
and so it seems evident that we should consider both in examining
the impact of individual differences on behavior. Yet this practice is
so infrequent, there is little understanding of how personality and
values are related to one another, much less how they might jointly
impact behavior. As such, this manuscript considers both personality and values simultaneously as predictors of motivated behavior.
In this paper we review the personality and values literatures in
terms of how the constructs are similar and distinct in order to
clarify their unique attributes. Because values have received less
literary attention in recent years, the values construct is reviewed
in greater detail. We then review how each is expected to relate to
motivation theoretically, and how they have been linked to motivation empirically. We also propose a model that integrates the
two constructs into one motivational framework and discuss
how they may differentially predict different motivational processes. The goal of this manuscript is to clarify our understanding
of how values and personality are similar, how they are distinct,
and how they might collectively inuence motivated behavior.
Personality is dened as enduring dispositions that cause characteristic patterns of interaction with ones environment (Goldberg, 1993; Olver & Mooradian, 2003). Research has demonstrated that personality is related to physiological processes (Olver
& Mooradian, 2003), and there is robust evidence that genetic factors substantially inuence personality traits (Caspi, Roberts, &
Shiner, 2005, p. 462), with heritabilities averaging around .40 (Bouchard, 1997). While there is little evidence for a shared environmental effect, there is obviously a signicant non-shared
environmental component that contributes to an individuals personality (Bouchard, 2004).
Although personality research has experienced a renaissance in
the last 25 years, until the early-1980s most of the research on personality particularly on workplace outcomes concluded that
personality did not matter (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Goldberg, 1993). That conclusion changed, however, with the emergence of the ve-factor model of personality (FFM), which
provided a relatively parsimonious taxonomy for grouping and
classifying specic traits. Aggregating personality traits into these
ve broad categories produces several benets, including greater
reliability in measurement and results that are more comparable
across studies. As noted by Mount and Barrick (1995, p. 160),
many personality psychologists have reached a consensus that
ve personality constructs, referred to as the Big Five, are necessary and sufcient to describe the basic dimensions of normal personality. Further, McCrae and Costa (1997, p. 509) state that
many psychologists are now convinced that the best representation of trait structure is provided by the ve-factor model.
russell-guay@uiowa.edu
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002
676
The FFMs ve factors (and examples of traits) are Conscientiousness (responsible, organized, efcient), Emotional Stability
(self-condent, resilient, well-adjusted), Extraversion (talkative,
ambitious, assertive), Agreeableness (friendly, cooperative, loyal),
and Openness to Experience (curious, imaginative, open-minded)
(Goldberg, 1992; Mount & Barrick, 2002). Although the FFM is
now widely accepted as a meaningful way to organize personality
traits and has been shown to have cross-cultural generalizability
(McCrae & Costa, 1997), some researchers defend taxonomies with
more or fewer factors (see, for example, Ashton et al., 2004; Block,
1995). Nonetheless, the emergence of the FFM led to increased
activity in the study of personality, with the conclusion that personality does indeed have meaningful relationships with performance, motivation, job satisfaction, leadership, and other work
outcomes.
3. Values
Broadly dened, values are conceptions of the desirable
(Kluckhorn, 1951). More specic denitions have been developed,
however, and the proliferation of descriptions has tended to hinder research in the values domain (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). In
general, values research has ascribed to one of two basic models
(Ravlin & Meglino, 1987a), which we refer to as values as preferences and values as principles. Values as preferences (work
values) are essentially attitudes. They indicate the preferences that
individuals have for various environments (Ravlin & Meglino,
1987a). For example, someone who values autonomy would be
more satised with a job that provides considerable discretion.
Values as preferences have been studied extensively in relation
to career choice and, more recently, within the context of t. Results typically indicate that values as preferences are related to
attitudes, such as job satisfaction. They have not, however, typically been found to relate to behavior (except for career choices)
(Dawis, 1991).
Values as principles, often termed individual or personal values,
are guiding principles regarding how individuals ought to behave.
For example, an individual who values honesty believes that all
people ought to be honest, while an individual who values achievement believes that people ought to have many accomplishments
that will be socially recognized. This manuscript focuses on personal values (values as principles), because research and theory
suggest that they are more closely linked to motivation. That is,
values as preferences are attitudinal, and should primarily impact
attitudes, such as satisfaction. Personal values, however, should
more directly impact motivation, because they are general beliefs
that one ought to behave a certain way. In this paper, therefore,
any reference to values will implicitly refer to personal values,
which we dene as learned beliefs that serve as guiding principles
about how individuals ought to behave.
Values are evaluative; they guide individuals judgments about
appropriate behavior both for oneself and for others. Values are
also general they transcend specic situations, which helps us
to distinguish what values are from what they are not. Values
are not, for example, attitudes attitudes are specically related
to a given event, person, behavior, situation, etc. Values are more
ingrained, more stable, and more general than attitudes (England
& Lee, 1974). Additionally, values are ordered by importance, such
that one will tend to act according to the more important value
when two values are in conict. For example, consider a man
who values hedonism (pursuit of pleasure) more than benevolence
(concern for relationships). If forced to choose between golng and
helping his brother move, he would be more likely to golf, because
he places greater importance on fullling personal desires than on
relationships with others.
tions create more distance between the points. Values that are
across from one another on the circumplex will tend to conict,
such that individuals who endorse one will typically not endorse
the other. Those values that are adjacent to one another, however,
are more similar and more likely to be endorsed similarly by individuals. Schwartz and his colleagues have tested the circumplex
structure extensively and cross-culturally; results from samples
in over 40 countries have yielded quite consistent results (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). Based on the
placement of the values in the circumplex structure, Schwartz
has identied 10 meaningful groupings of values. Although these
10 value domains are essentially fuzzy sets (Schwartz, 1994),
conceptually they capture the values that tend to cluster together
most closely, and therefore provide a meaningful and relatively
simple way to group and organize individual values. The 10 value
domains (and sample values for each) are Power (authority,
wealth, social recognition); Achievement (ambition, competence,
success); Hedonism (pursuit of pleasure, enjoyment, gratication
of desires); Stimulation (variety, excitement, novelty); Self-direction (creativity, independence, self-respect); Universalism (social
justice, equality, wisdom, environmental concern); Benevolence
(honesty, helpfulness, loyalty); Conformity (politeness, obedience,
self-discipline/restraint); Tradition (respect for tradition and the
status quo, acceptance of customs); and Security (safety, stability
of society).
3.3. Why study values?
Recent organizational research has tended to shy away from
studying values (except in terms of t) in part because values
can be prone to social inuence a result of being learned initially
through social interactions. In this regard, Bardi and Schwartz
comment that [p]eople may conform with norms even when the
normative behavior opposes their own values (2003, p. 1217).
Some organizational scholars have therefore concluded that because a strong organizational culture encourages normative behavior, personal values are irrelevant to behavior. Yet culture can be a
challenging thing to manage, and although individuals may adjust
their behavior somewhat based on external cues, those external
cues may not impact their underlying motivation, or the goals they
want to pursue. If values impact motivation, then understanding
that process may be benecial to, for example, managers trying
to increase goal commitment. Aligning those goals with the individuals values could yield higher performance.
Another argument against the study of values is that values
expression may rely on cognitive control, meaning we may need
to rationally consider options within the context of our values for
our values to impact decision-making (Conner & Becker, 1994).
Verplanken and Holland (2002) found that individuals made
choices consistent with their values, but only when those values
were cognitively activated (or made salient). Values might not impact behavior, then, if individuals do not regularly consider their
values prior to making decisions about how to behave. However,
Bardi and Schwartz (2003) demonstrated that values also inuence
behavior through habitual routines, in which case cognitive processing may not be needed for values to inuence behavior. They
suggested that values impact habitual behavior through affective
mechanisms, such that we feel positive emotions when acting consistently with our values and negative emotions otherwise. Human
decision-making is widely believed (among cognitive psychologists) to consist of two different information-processing systems,
one experiential and intuitive, the other rational and analytical
(Epstein, 1994). The experiential system (System 1) is reactive
and quick, relying on cognitive heuristics, or shortcuts built from
prior experiences and their outcomes. It is this system that enables
humans to act almost instantaneously in the face of danger, with-
677
out rationally considering options and outcomes (Facione & Facione, 2007). Additionally, System 1 is often triggered by our
emotions, such that fear triggers an efcient, life-saving response
(though it should be noted that efcient is not necessarily better;
Epstein, 1994). The rational, analytical system (System 2) of decision-making, in contrast, is deliberative and conscious. When this
system is in use, the decision-maker considers various options
and their possible outcomes logically, reectively, and systematically; this process is better for unfamiliar situations, abstract concepts, and when there is time to consider all possible options
(Facione & Facione, 2007). Although research is lacking in this domain, values can potentially inuence behaviors through either
system. This is consistent with research on goal activation, which
demonstrates that even unconsciously activated motives impact
behavior (Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994). If true, then cognitive support
would likely only be necessary for the rational system (System 2).
Finally, researchers have been hesitant to study values because
of measurement issues (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). Until recently, values were examined individually (not aggregated into broader domains), making it difcult to discern any pattern across studies.
Englands research on managerial values exemplies this approach
(England & Lee, 1974). Similar issues were faced with personality
prior to the emergence of the FFM suggesting that Schwartzs
taxonomy could be of great benet to values research. An additional issue with values measurement is that some researchers
contend that values should be measured ipsatively (using a rankorder scale) to control for social desirability and to better approximate the way individuals make choices when considering their
values (selecting one over another). This limits the statistical analyses that can be performed, because the scores are not independent. Research is mixed on whether an ipsative scale is really
superior to a normative (Likert-type) scale. Ravlin and Meglino
(1987b) administered both and found that the ipsative measure
produced results most consistent with theoretical expectations.
Maio, Roese, Seligman, and Katz (1996), however, reached the
opposite conclusion in a study that similarly had participants complete both types of measures. Schwartz has also addressed (or perhaps side-stepped) this issue by suggesting that one use a
normative scale and control for scale usage by calculating the
mean value score and partialling it out of subsequent analyses
(Schwartz, 1992). This has the effect of controlling for social desirability, in that each individuals response becomes a measure of
how important that particular value is to him/her after taking into
effect the importance of all the other values they have rated. That
is, a persons absolute score on the value domain of benevolence is
less important than knowing their benevolence score relative to
the other rated values. One individual might rate all values around
6 on a 7-point scale, while someone else might rate all values
around 4. A score of 5 for benevolence values would mean something completely different for these two individuals in terms of
predicting how they might behave. Partialling out the mean score
controls for this possible confound. Multiple researchers (see, for
example, Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) have recently utilized this approach with good results (i.e., results fairly consistent with theoretical expectations).
678
Table 1
Relationships between (Big Five) personality traits and (Schwartz Value Theory) personal values (generalizable relationships from Parks (2007) meta-analysis; N = 11).
Conscientiousness
(responsible, dependable)
Emotional Stability
(calm, self-condent)
Extraversion
(talkative, assertive)
.19
.26
Agreeableness
(friendly, loyal)
Openness to Experience
(curious, imaginative)
.34
.23
.11
.26
.29
.49
.23
.48
.29
.05
.35
.35
.22
.02
.46
.07
.27
5. Motivation
Motivation is an energizing force that induces action (Pinder,
1998). It relates to decisions (conscious or unconscious) that involve how, when, and why we allocate effort to a task or activity.
While we try to address motivation in a broad sense, we found it
helpful to focus the discussion of motivation around goals (cognitive representations of desired states), the most frequently studied
motivational construct (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Goals are fundamental to the human experience (Locke, 1997), and regardless of
awareness, goals direct action. There is substantial evidence that
setting goals leads to enhanced performance (Locke, 1997).
Mitchell (1997) describes motivation as psychological processes
involving arousal, direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed (p. 60). Arousal is essentially
the motivational process of being interested in a given goal (such
as a student being interested in earning good grades), while direction is the process of actually selecting a goal and choosing to pursue it (i.e., the student setting a goal to earn an A in all his/her
classes in a given semester). Intensity relates to the amount of effort that one puts forth in pursuit of the goal (i.e., how much the
student chooses to study), and persistence refers to ones continued pursuit of the goal, even in the face of challenges (for example,
continuing to strive for As even after being sick and missing a week
of classes). Motivation, therefore, relates to what we choose to pursue (arousal and direction) and how we pursue it (intensity and
persistence). These two broader categories have alternately been
termed goal setting and goal striving, choice motivation and
control motivation, goal selection and goal implementation,
and goal choice and self regulation (Mitchell, 1997). We refer
to these two categories as goal content and goal striving.
Goal content refers to the decision to pursue a given goal that
is, to the actual content of the goal that is being pursued. The term
goal content was chosen specically because there is an existing
literature on the content of goals that individuals pursue. For
example, Austin and Vancouver (1996), in their seminal review
of the goal construct, include a section that reviews existing taxonomies of goal content. While much of this focuses on goals that
individuals set either for learning or for workplace performance,
some of the existing taxonomies aspire to be comprehensive and
include all the major goals that individuals might pursue. Some
of the prevalent goal content theories include Ford and Nichols
(1987) Taxonomy of Human Goals and Roberts and Robins
(2000) Major Life Goals. Goal orientation also ts under the broad
umbrella of goal content; this stream of research specically examines two types of achievement goals (performance goals and mastery goals); why individuals tend to pursue one over the other; and
what the implications are for their subsequent success (see, for
example, Grant & Dweck, 2003).
Goal striving refers to the amount of effort and persistence that
goes into goal pursuit after a goal is chosen. It reects the self-regulatory processes that ensure adequate attention and effort are given to the goal, and are maintained when challenges arise. Goal
striving encompasses those activities that individuals engage in
to ensure goal attainment, including taking personal initiative,
establishing how one will achieve ones goals (implementation
679
680
6. Propositions
As discussed, we propose that both personality (especially Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) and values (mainly
through goals, valences, and decision-making) are antecedents to
motivational processes. This proposal is consistent with past research and theory in the elds of personality, values, and motivation. However, past theories have not simultaneously considered
personality and values, thus have not explicated the unique effects
that personality and values might have on motivation. We expect
personality and values to each make unique contributions to motivational processes. In particular, we focus on the two broad motivational processes encompassed by goal content and goal striving.
From a theoretical perspective, needs, values, and goals are believed to be arranged hierarchically, with needs inuencing the
development of values systems, and values inuencing the decision to pursue various goals (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Locke,
2000; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). The fulllment of longterm goals leads to the attainment of values, which leads to the
satisfaction of needs (Locke, 2000). Consistent with these theoretical expectations, we propose that values will be related to the content of goals individuals choose to pursue. For example, we would
expect that a college student who values achievement would
choose to set goals related to earning good grades in his/her classes. Support for this proposition comes from the demonstrated link
between values and decision-making. Goal content reects a decision to pursue a particular goal. That decision may be made after
considerable cognitive processing, by rationally considering how
important it is to pursue the goal given ones values. As mentioned,
multiple studies have shown that values are related to decisions
that individuals make. This suggests that individuals will be more
likely to make decisions to pursue goals that are consistent with
their values.
Values may also relate to goal content via experiential processing. Self-concordance research has found that individuals are more
satised when they pursue goals consistent with their values and
interests (see, for example, Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon et al.,
2004). Likewise, Bardi and Schwartz (2003) found that individuals
engaged in habitual activities consistent with their values, and
proposed that an affective mechanism was at work, because
value-congruent behavior yields positive emotional outcomes. This
implies that some goals may be selected rather automatically,
without analytical processing, because their pursuit is pleasurable
or satisfying. Whether via cognitive or affective/experiential mechanisms, therefore, values should relate to goal content.
Proposition 1: Values will be systematically related to goal
content.
While values may be more closely related to goal content, we
expect personality traits especially Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability to be more closely related to goal striving, which
refers to the amount of intensity, effort, and persistence individuals
engage in when pursuing their goals across time (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1999; Mitchell, 1997). In their research on personal projects
(similar to goals), Little, Lecci, and Watkinson (1992) commented
that personality was likely to inuence both the ease with which
personal projects can be accomplished and the alternate routes
through which they are carried out (p. 507). Thus, once a goal is
set, personality determines if and how the goal will be attained.
Likewise, we expect that once a goal is chosen, personality will
take over in determining how the goal is pursued because personality affects how we behave across situations and over time.
Past studies demonstrate that Conscientiousness and Emotional
Stability are related to goal striving processes (Judge & Ilies, 2002).
Conscientiousness describes the extent to which individuals tend
to be organized, responsible, dependable, achievement-oriented,
etc. These traits are instrumental to someone pursuing a difcult
goal, in part because individuals with these traits tend to develop
good strategies for goal pursuit, and also because they tend to persevere and carry out their plans. Conscientiousness is related to the
tendency to set goals and engage in effortful goal pursuit (Barrick
et al., 1993; Judge & Ilies, 2002). Individuals low on Conscientiousness, however, will tend to be irresponsible and disorganized, making it difcult to develop good strategies or stick with them.
Emotional Stability describes the extent to which individuals
tend to be self-condent, resilient, and well-adjusted. These traits
are believed to be benecial because individuals will not be distracted by emotional fears, such as fear of failure. Judge et al.
681
682
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., deVries, R. E., DiBlas, L., et al. (2004). A
six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from
psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 356366.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure,
process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338375.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efcacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 8799.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 12071220.
Bargh, J. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control of goal-directed
action: Automatic and strategic contingencies between situations and behavior.
In Spaulding (Ed.), Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion. The
Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 41). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at
the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go
next? Personality and Performance, 9, 930.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance
among sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715722.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Pietrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job
performance. Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales
representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 4351.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ve-factor approach to personality
description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187215.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality
predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, 5269.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., (1997). Genetic inuence on mental abilities, personality,
vocational interests and work attitudes. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.).
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12,
pp. 373395). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., (2004). Genetic inuence on human psychological traits. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148151.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and personorganization
t. Personnel Psychology, 54, 123.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability
and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453484.
Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait
multimethodmultioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 12661282.
Conner, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1994). Personal values and management: What do we
know and why dont we know more? Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 67
73.
Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive
workplace behavior. In Barrick & Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work:
Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 150182). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences (chapter). In
Dunnette & Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 833871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Dubinsky, A. J., Kotabe, M., Lim, C. U., & Wagner, W. (1997). The impact of values on
salespeoples job responses: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Business
Research, 39, 195208.
England, G. W., & Lee, R. (1974). The relationship between managerial values and
managerial success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59, 411419.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious.
American Psychologist, 49, 709724.
683
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2007). Thinking and reasoning in human decision
making: The method of argument and heuristic analysis. Millbrae, CA: The
California Academic Press.
Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The inuence of values on the
perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 11351151.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought.
In Damon, W., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development.
Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313399). New York:
Wiley.
Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some
possible application. In M. E. Ford & D. H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as selfconstructing living systems: Putting the framework to work (pp. 289311).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garling, T. (1999). Value priorities, social value orientations and cooperation in
social dilemmas. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 397408.
Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive
process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 474482.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efcacy A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183211.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five Factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 2642.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48, 2634.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541553.
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review
of Sociology, 30, 359393.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869879.
Illies, J. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., Nies, J. A., & Merriam, J. M. (2005). Personal values and
task-oriented versus relationship-oriented leader emergence. Paper presented
at the 20th annual conference of the society for industrial and organizational
psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation
between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11,
167187.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoreson, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five
personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.
Personnel Psychology, 52, 621652.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance
motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797
807.
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1999). Individual differences in motivation: Traits and
self-regulatory skills. In Ackerman & Kyllonen, et al. (Eds.), Learning and
individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 293309).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kapes, J. T., & Strickler, R. E. (1975). A longitudinal study of change in work values
between 9th and 12th grades. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 8193.
Kluckhorn, C. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In
Parsons & Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388433).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the
dawn of the twenty-rst century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485516.
Lewin, K. (1952). Constructs in eld theory [1944]. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field
theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin (pp. 3042).
London: Tavistock.
Little, B. R., Lecci, L., & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and personal projects:
Linking Big Five and PAC units of analysis. Journal of Personality, 60, 501
525.
Locke, E. A. (1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In M. L. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrick (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 375412).
JAI Press Inc.
Locke, E. A. (2000). Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task
goals and knowledge. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 408429.
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In Robertson Cooper
(Ed.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 134).
Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (1998). Values as truisms: Evidence and implications.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 294311.
Maio, G. R., Roese, N. J., Seligman, C., & Katz, A. (1996). Rankings, ratings, and the
measurement of values: Evidence of the superior validity of ratings. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 171181.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (1997). Personality trait structure as a human
universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509516.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D.,
et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span
development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173186.
McFarlin, D. B., Baumeister, R. F., & Blaskovich, J. (1984). On knowing when to quit
task failure, self-esteem, advice, and nonproductive persistence. Journal of
Personality, 52, 138155.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,
controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351389.
Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational
contexts. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 57149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
684