INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT

VOLUME 10

NUMBERS 1/2

MARCH/JUNE 2002

The Big Five Personality Dimensions and

Counterproductive Behaviors
Jesus F. Salgado*

Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Little systematic research on personality measures has been directed at investigating
whether the Big Five are predictors of counterproductive behaviors such as absenteeism,
accidents, deviant behaviors, and turnover. For example, published meta-analyses did not
investigate whether the Big Five personality factors predicted these criteria. The results of
the meta-analyses carried out here showed that conscientiousness predicted deviant
behaviors and turnover, and extroversion, openness, agreeableness and emotional
stability predicted the turnover criterion. However, none of the Big Five personality
measures were found to be predictors of absenteeism or accidents. The implications of
these findings for future research and practice are discussed.

Introduction

n the last ten years, several meta-analyses of the

criterion-related validity of the Big Five personality
dimensions carried out in America and Europe have
shown that the Big Five are related to supervisory ratings
of job performance and training success (Anderson and
Viswesvaran 1998; Barrick and Mount 1991; Barrick,
Mount and Judge 2001; Hough 1992; Hurtz and
Donovan 2000; Salgado 1997, 2000). As a whole, these
meta-analyses have found that conscientiousness and
emotional stability are related to supervisory ratings of
job performance and training success across occupational
groups. In addition to this, extroversion, openness, and
agreeableness have been found to be predictors for
specific criteria. For example, Barrick and Mount (1991)
found that extroversion predicted training success, and
Barrick and Mount (1991) and Salgado (1997) found that
openness to experience predicted training success.
Additionally, Mount, Barrick and Stewart (1998) found
that agreeableness was related to performance in jobs
involving interpersonal interactions (conscientiousness
and emotional stability were also found to be valid
predictors in this meta-analysis). Other meta-analyses
have been carried out to examine the criterion and
construct validity of criterion-focused occupational
personality scales (COPS) and job-focused occupational

* Address for correspondence: Jesus F. Salgado, Departamento de

Psicolog a Social y Basica, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela,
15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. e-mail: psjesal@usc.es

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

personality scales (Ones and Viswesvaran 2001). This

group of scales includes integrity tests, customer service
scales, stress tolerance scales, and managerial potential
scales. Evidence of criterion validity for predicting job
performance has been found for integrity tests (Ones,
Viswesvaran and Schmidt 1993), managerial potential
scales (Ones, Hough and Viswesvaran 1998), and
customer and service orientation scales (Frei and
McDaniel 1998; Ones and Viswesvaran 1996a). With
regard to the construct validity of these scales, Ones
(1993) has found that integrity tests are largely correlated
with conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, with
agreeableness and emotional stability. These three
personality dimensions were also found to be correlated
with other criterion-focused personality scales (Ones and
Viswesvaran 1998, 2001).
It is well known that job performance assessed as
supervisory ratings and, to a lesser extent, training
success are the two most investigated criteria in work
settings. According to Lent, Auerbach, and Lewin (1971),
between 1954 and 1966, 63% of validity coefficients of
selection procedures were estimated using judgments by
others (58.4% supervisory ratings and 4.6% peer
evaluations) and 28% of validity coefficients were
calculated using objective measures (production records
= 3.6%; work samples = 0.5%; achievement tests =
12.4%; tenure = 3.5%; advancement = 5.8%; turnover
= 1.2%, wages = 1.3%). Between 1980 and 1986, Landy
(1989) found that 46% of validity studies used ratings,
21% used productivity measures, 5.9% used absenteeism
records, 13% used turnover, 0.01% used accidents, and

117

JESUS F. SALGADO

118

12.7% used a variety of other measures as the criterion.

In the case of validity studies of personality measures, the
use of ratings to assess job performance may be more
pervasive. For example, Barrick and Mount (1991)
reported that job proficiency measures were included in
68% (58% ratings) of the samples contributing data to
their meta-analysis, training proficiency was used in 12%
of the samples, and personnel data were available in 33%
of samples. Moreover, they found that 85% of
proficiency measures were job performance ratings and
90% of training success measures were training
performance ratings. However, in this list of criterion
categories one cannot find counterproductive work
behaviors (e.g. theft, drug and alcohol use, destruction
of property)
Recently, Sackett and DeVore (2001) have defined
counterproductive behaviors as `any intentional behavior
on the part of an organization member viewed by the
organization as contrary to its legitimate interest'. In
connection with this criterion, Sackett and DeVore (2001)
have suggested that the counterproductive behaviors at
work could be grouped into three categories: deviant
behaviors (e.g. theft, drug and alcohol use), absenteeism
(e.g. absences, lateness), and unsafe behaviors (e.g.
accidents, injuries). Arguably, turnover may belong with
absence-related behaviors. Some empirical results
support this. For example, Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz
and Singer (1997) have meta-analyzed the relationship
between lateness and turnover. They found a correlation
of .27 for the turnover-lateness relationship. Additionally, Mitra, Jenkins and Gupta (1992) have found a
correlation of .33 between absences and turnover. It
appears that lateness, absenteeism and turnover are part
of withdrawal behaviors at work.
To date, no systematic meta-analytic research of
personality measures has been directed at investigating
whether the Big Five are related to counterproductive
work behaviors. For example, the published metaanalyses have not checked whether the Big Five
personality dimensions predicted absenteeism, accidents,
deviant behaviors, and turnover. A potential explanation
for the lack of meta-analytic research using these criterion
categories may be the small number of studies in which
they were used as criteria in the early 1990s. For example,
in the USA, Barrick and Mount (1991) were unable to

conduct separate meta-analyses for absenteeism, turnover

and tenure due to the small number of studies available.
In Europe, Salgado (1997, 1998) also reported similar
difficulties in carrying out independent meta-analyses for
these criteria. Only the quantitative review by Hough
(1992) has considered some counterproductive behaviors.
Hough's (1992) review included the criterion
`irresponsible behaviors', including measures of poor
attendance, counterproductive behavior, disciplinary
actions, not following directions, unauthorized absences,
and drug and alcohol use on the job. However, Hough
did not differentiate between different categories of
counterproductivity. Furthermore, Hough (1992) only
found four correlations for achievement and
agreeableness, and two correlations for openness, each.
Nonetheless, there are currently three new
developments which facilitate the goal of conducting
separate meta-analyses for counterproductivity-related
criteria, discussed above. First, in the field of personality,
the Five Factor Model (FFM) has been consolidated as
the most investigated and empirically supported model of
personality (Goldberg 1995; Goldberg and Saucier 1995;
Saucier and Ostendorf 1999; for critics of the FFM see,
for example, Block 1995 and Eysenck 1992). Second,
meta-analytic research has shown that the criterion
validities of the Big Five are similar for the USA and
Europe, allowing the integration of the American and
European databases into one single database (Barrick et
al. 2001). Third, given the positive meta-analytically
established criterion-related validities for conscientiousness and emotional stability, during the last decade
a large number of single studies using the Big Five
personality dimensions have been carried out, using
counterproductivity criteria. Consequently, the number
of studies which can be meta-analyzed is larger.
The main goal of this study is to carry out a metaanalysis on the relationship between the Big Five and
counterproductive behaviors at work. Based on the
literature review, the following criteria will be considered
in this research: absenteeism, accident rate, deviant
behavior, and turnover. A description of the measures
included in these criterion categories appears in Table 1.
The results from prior meta-analyses (e.g. Barrick and
Mount 1991; Barrick et al. 2001; Hough 1992; Mount et
al. 1998; Ones 1993; Ones et al. 1993; Ones and

Table 1. Description of the measures included in the criterion categories

Criterion

Measurement

Absenteeism:
Accidents:
Deviant behaviors:

Measures of absence or lateness to work.

Measures of accidents and injuries taking place at work
Measures of theft, admissions, actual theft, disciplinary problems, substance abuse,
property damage, organizational rule breaking, and other irresponsible behaviors
Measures of turnover rate as voluntary quits and discharges

Turnover:

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Viswesvaran 1996, 2001; Salgado 1997, 1998, 1999) form

the base from which the following hypothesis is
advanced:
Hypothesis: Agreeableness, conscientiousness and
emotional stability will be valid predictors for all
counterproductive behaviors.

Method
Search for Studies
Based on the goals of this research, a database was
developed containing American validity studies as well as
European validity studies. These studies had to meet two
criteria in order to be included within the database: (a) to
report on validity coefficients relating personality
measures and counterproductivity; and (b) to report on
applicant, employee or trainee samples, but not students.
The search for American studies was made using three
strategies. First, a computer search was conducted in
PsycLit (January 1990December 1999). Second, an
article by article manual search was carried out in the
Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Personnel Psychology,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, and
Journal of Organizational Behavior. Third, the reference
section of articles obtained was checked to identify
further papers. Finally, several well-known American
researchers were contacted in order to obtain additional
papers and supplementary information relating to
published papers (e.g. complete matrix of correlation
coefficients).
The strategy used to find European studies for the
meta-analyses was similar to the strategy used to obtain
American studies. In order to identify studies, a computer
search using the PsycLit database was carried out
(January 1990-December 1999). Second, a manual
article-by-article search was conducted through European behavioral science journals which were most likely
to present data on the validity of personality measures.
Third, nine European publishers of psychological
material were contacted for validity studies of personality
instruments. Finally, 25 European researchers were
contacted and asked for published and unpublished
papers on the topic under study.
Combining the published and unpublished studies
conducted in both America and Europe from 1990 to
1999, the final database contained 13 independent samples
with absenteeism as the criterion, 9 with accidents, 17 with
deviant behaviors, and 5 with turnover. As can be seen,
there are a few correlations reported for some predictorcriterion combinations in the meta-analysis which could
suggest that the data cannot allow sound conclusions.
However, it should be taken into account that the stability

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

119

of the estimate is mainly dependent on the sample sizes

and the meta-analyses were carried out with sample sizes
in the hundreds or even in the thousands in all cases.
Furthermore, meta-analyses with a small number of
correlations in some cells have been carried out when
the area of investigation is theoretically relevant and
important (see, for example, Ackerman and Heggestad
1997).

Procedure
Two researchers served as judges in classifying the
personality scales into the Big Five personality factors,
and the classification was made using two strategies. First,
those studies in which inventories developed within the
FFM had been used were identified and the scales from
those inventories were assigned to each Big Five according
to the paper author's classification. This task was
facilitated as a large number of validity coefficients were
obtained using well-known questionnaires based on the
five factor model, e.g. HPI (Hogan and Hogan 1995),
NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae 1992), and PCI (Barrick
and Mount 1993). The second strategy was used for the
non-FFM based inventories and involved two steps.
Firstly, each researcher was given a description of the
Big Five as presented by Digman (1990), together with the
descriptions provided by Costa and McCrae (1992) and
Hogan and Hogan (1995). Second, each researcher was
then given a list and a definition of the personality scales
from each inventory. If the two researchers agreed on a
dimension, the scale was coded in that dimension. A disagreement was solved by discussion until the researchers
agreed on a dimension. The agreement between researchers (prior to the consensus) was .91, .90, .84, .87,
.93 for emotional stability, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, respectively. All scales were then assigned to a single Big Five
factor. For each scale, only one overall validity coefficient
was used. In situations with more than one coefficient for
a Big Five, validities were averaged and this last value was
used to calculate the validity of a composite for those
scales, using the formula provided by Hunter and Schmidt
(1990). In order to apply this formula, the average number
of scales used to estimate each Big Five was used.
Frequently, in meta-analyses of validity coefficients,
three statistical artifacts are taken into account when true
validity is to be estimated. These artifacts are predictor
and criterion unreliability and range restriction. In order
to correct the observed validity for these artifacts, the
most common strategy is to develop specific distributions.

Criterion Reliability
In the present research, the following measures were used
as criteria: absenteeism, accident, deviant behavior, and

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

JESUS F. SALGADO

120

Table 2. Summary of reliability distributions used for the Big Five personality dimensions
Component

ryy

SD

Source

Absenteeism
Accidents
Deviant behaviors
Turnover

.67
.45
.69
.84

.13
.23
.09
.15

John (1994)
Original meta-analysis
Ones et al. (1993)
Mathieu and Zajac (1990)

turnover. In order to obtain a reliability distribution of

each criterion measure, three strategies were used: (a)
previous meta-analyses reporting on the reliability of
criterion measures were used as the main information
source for the present meta-analysis; (b) large-sample
single studies were consulted; and (c) original reliability
generalization studies were carried out when metaanalyses or large-sample studies were lacking the
necessary information (e.g. accidents). Thus, based on
John's (1994) meta-analysis, an average reliability of .67
(SD = .13) was used for absenteeism. Interestingly, a
similar average reliability for absenteeism was also
reported by Schmidt and Rader (1999), who found an
average reliability of .64 (SD = .16). For accidents, a
reliability of .45 (SD = .13) was used; based on a metaanalysis conducted with accident reliability coefficients.
For deviant behaviors, the value used was .69 (SD = .09)
based on Ones et al.'s (1993) meta-analysis. Based on
Mathieu and Zajac's (1990) meta-analysis, a value of .84
(SD = .05) was used for the turnover category. A
summary of these criterion reliability distributions
appears in Table 2.

Predictor Reliability
The reliability of predictors was estimated: (a) from the
coefficients reported in the studies included in the metaanalysis; (b) using the coefficients published in the
various questionnaire manuals; and (c) from I/O
psychology articles in which these data were reported.
For each personality dimension, a reliability distribution
was estimated. The average reliabilities were .81, .79, .74,
.76, and .81, for emotional stability, extraversion,
openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, respec-

tively. The predictor reliability estimates are only used to

eliminate artifactual variability in the variability of
validity coefficients because in personnel selection the
interest is on the operational validity of the Big Five
(validity coefficient corrected unreliability in the criterion
and range restriction, but not unreliability in the
predictor). Table 3 presents a summary of these artifact
distributions.

Range Restriction Distribution

The distribution for range restriction values was based
on: (a) range restriction coefficients obtained from the
studies that reported both restricted and unrestricted
standard deviations for personality scales; and (b) range
restriction coefficients was obtained using the reported
standard deviation in the study as the SD of the restricted
sample and the standard deviations reported in test
manuals as the unrestricted SD. This last strategy was
examined by Sackett and Ostgaard (1994) for cognitive
ability tests and by Ones and Viswesvaran (1999) for
personality scales. According to these authors, the
strategy of using national norms' SDs is a warranted
practice as they found that the SD of job applicants on
personality measures is about 2 to 9% less than those
based on the national norms. Following these strategies,
five range restriction distributions were developed, one
for each Big Five personality dimension. The average
range restrictions were .76 (SD = .27), .78 (SD = .21),
.83 (SD = .34), .78 (SD = .30), and .80 (SD = .26) for
emotional stability, extroversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, respectively. A summary
of these distributions appears in Table 4.

Table 3. Summary of reliability distributions used for the criterion categories

Dimension

rxx

SD

Number of coefficients

Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

.81
.79
.74
.76
.81

.08
.09
.10
.08
.07

52
54
42
50
60

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

121

Table 4. Summary of range restriction distributions used for the Big Five personality dimensions
Dimension

RRw

SDw

Number of RR

Total sample

Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

.76
.78
.83
.78
.80

.27
.21
.34
.30
.26

37
39
27
39
44

5,931
6,381
5,350
5,872
7,450

Notes: RRw = averaged restriction of range weighted by sample size

SDw = standard deviation of restriction of range weighted by sample size

Results
Table 5 presents the results of the meta-analyses of the
five personality dimensions for predicting counterproductive behaviors. Results in Table 5 are presented
in criterion alphabetical order. It was hypothesized that
emotional stability, agreeableness and conscientiousness
would be predictors of all criterion types. However, a
look at Table 5 shows that the hypothesis was not fully
supported by the data.
The first criterion that appears in Table 5 is
absenteeism. The results show that no Big Five
dimensions were predictors of this criterion type, as
their operational validity coefficients were all very small,
ranging from .06 to .08. Moreover, all 90%
credibility values included zero, and therefore, not even
in the case of extraversion, which showed an operational
validity of .08, was it possible to conclude that, even
minimally, there was small validity generalization.
Consequently, with regard to the absenteeism criterion,
the hypothesis was not supported.
The second criterion shown in Table 5 was the
accident rate criterion. Similar to the absenteeism
criterion, none of the Big Five were predictors of accident
rates. Furthermore, the sizes of the operational validities
were very small in all cases, ranging from -.09 to .08, and
in all cases the credibility intervals contained zero.
Accordingly, the data failed to support the hypothesis
in this case.
The third criterion analyzed was deviant behavior.
The findings showed that conscientiousness and
agreeableness were valid predictors of the deviant
behavior criterion and, additionally, showed validity
generalization. The operational validity for conscientiousness was .26 and .20 for agreeableness. All the
observed variability for these two dimensions was
explained by statistical artifacts corrected for. These
results partially supported the hypothesis.
The last criterion examined was turnover. Lack of
turnover was predicted by all the Big Five personality
dimensions. The best predictor of lack of turnover was
emotional stability with an operational validity of .35,
followed by conscientiousness with an operational

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

validity of .31, and agreeableness with .22. These results

fully supported the hypothesis. These findings for
turnover suggest that emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are major determinants of
turnover.

Discussion
This study follows a tradition established at the beginning
of the last decade of using the Big Five personality
dimensions as a taxonomy to study the relationships
between personality and job-related behaviors. The
findings of this meta-analysis suggest several relevant
conclusions. First, conscientiousness was a generalizably
valid predictor of deviant behaviors and turnover.
Agreeableness was a generalizably valid predictor of
deviant behaviors and turnover. Emotional stability,
extraversion and openness were predictive of turnover.
Second, conscientiousness did not predict all the
criteria used in this study. In fact, conscientiousness did
not predict absenteeism and accident rate. In the case of
accidents, a possible explanation for the results is that
accidents are by definition out of the volitional control of
individuals and conscientiousness is largely a volitional
trait (e.g. conscientiousness assesses hard-working
nature, persistence, dependability, responsibility,
achievement). However, the same explanation may not
hold for absenteeism due to the fact that this criterion is
partially under the control of individuals.
Recently, Ones and Viswesvaran (1996b) have
suggested a theory of conscientiousness at work,
according to which highly conscientious individuals
show greater productivity than less conscientious
individuals because: (a) they spend more time on task(s)
they are assigned; (b) they acquire greater job knowledge;
(c) they set goals autonomously and persist in following
them; (d) they go beyond role requirement in the
workplace; and (e) they avoid counterproductive
behaviors. Implicit in this theory is the fact that
conscientious individuals are better workers than less
conscientious people because they control their workrelated behaviors.

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

JESUS F. SALGADO

122

Table 5. Results of the meta-analyses of the Big Five alternative criteria combinations
Personality dimension

Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

12
10
8
8
10

2,491
1,799
1,339
1,339
2,155

Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

5
7
5
4
6

2,121
2,341
1,660
1,540
2,094

Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

15
12
8
9
13

3,107
2,383
1,421
1,299
6,276

Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

4
4
4
4
5

554
554
554
554
748

rw

SDr

rho

Absenteeism (Lack of)

.03
.14 .04
.05
.03 .08
.00
.08 .00
.03
.06 .04
.04
.10
.06
Accidents
.04
.02
.05
.00
.03

(Lack of)
.09
.08
.12
.04
.07 .09
.06
.01
.08
.06

Deviant Behavior (Lack of)

.04
.11
.06
.01
.14 .01
.10
.13 .14
.13
.09
.20
.16
.07
.26
Turnover (Lack of)
.25
.06
.35
.14
.11
.20
.11
.03
.14
.16
.08
.22
.23
.07
.31

SDrho

%VE

90%CV

.19
.25
.00
.00
.10

26
19
106
155
52

.20
.24
.00
.04
.07

.15
.20
.07
.04
.10

29
21
63
86
52

.12
.22
.02
.05
.07

.14
.18
.14
.02
.03

38
27
38
98
92

.12
.23
.05
.18
.18

.00
.09
.00
.00
.00

374
66
872
148
212

.35
.08
.14
.22
.31

Notes: K = number of independent samples; N = total sample size; rw = observed validity; SDr = standard
deviation of observed validity; rho = validity corrected for criterion reliability and range restriction in predictor;
SDrho = standard deviation of rho; %VE = percentage of variance accounted for by artifactual errors; 90CV =
90% credibility value
Taken as a whole, these findings only partially
supported the hypothesis stated, as conscientiousness
was not a valid predictor of some criteria. The findings
also supported the suggestion by Hough (1999) and
Robertson and Callinan (1999) that general conscientiousness might not be a good predictor for some criteria.
Some limitations of this study must be noted. A first
limitation is that, in some cases, the number of studies
included in meta-analyses was small. A second limitation
is that both FFM personality measures and non-FFM
measures were clustered in order to carry out the metaanalyses. However, previous research has noted that the
FFM-based measures may have larger validity than
non-FFM based measures (Salgado 2000). A third
limitation is that combinations of criteria-occupationspersonality dimensions were not analyzed because the
number of studies was too small.
The immediate future research agenda in this area
should include the conducting of more primary studies.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Also, additional primary studies as well as meta-analyses

should be conducted in order to check if the subdimensions of the Big Five have more, equal or less
operational validity than the broader dimensions. Until
now, there has been no consensus with regard to the
necessary specific sub-components of the Big Five and
how well specific inventories assess such subcomponents.
Recently, Saucier and Ostendorf (1999) showed that 18
sub-components define the broad personality factors.
Emotional stability would be defined by irritability (low),
insecurity (low), and emotionability (low). Extraversion
would be defined by sociability, unrestraint, assertiveness, and activity. Openness to experience would be
defined by intellect, imagination-creativity, and
perceptiveness. Agreeableness would be defined by
warmth-affection, gentleness, generosity, and modestyhumility. Finally, conscientiousness would be defined by
orderliness, decisiveness, reliability, and industriousness.
Hough and Ones (2001) have also provided a working list

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

of sub-dimensions for the Big Five, along with a list of

personality scales assessing each sub-dimension. I suggest
these frames of sub-components of the Big Five for
guiding future studies in which it can be tested whether
or not the Big Five or the sub-components linked to
criteria have larger operational validities. In a similar
vein, future research should also compare the validities
found for compound personality traits (e.g. composed of
multiple Big Five dimensions or sub-dimensions) to those
found for the Big Five here. Hough and Ones (2001) also
offer a working list of compound traits and scales
measuring them.
In sum, the present study has offered some metaanalytic evidence that personality measures are valid
predictors of two additional categories of work-related
behaviors: deviant behaviors and turnover. For other
criteria (e.g. absenteeism and accidents), the potential
reasons behind the null findings reported in this study
will need to be explored. Some of these may include
potential moderators of criterion-related validity,
including nature of criterion measurement (organizational records, self-reports, etc.) and behavioral
legitimacy (e.g. excused vs. unexcused absences).

Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was partially
supported by XUGA Grant no. 21104B97 from the
Xunta de Galicia (Spain). The author wishes to thank
Deniz S. Ones for her support and comments on a
previous version of this manuscript.

References
Note: * indicates studies included in the meta-analysis.
Ackerman, P.L. and Heggestad, E.D. (1997) Intelligence,
personality and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219245.
Anderson, G. and Viswesvaran, C. (1998) An update of the
validity of personality scales in personnel selection: A metaanalysis of studies published after 1992. Paper presented at
the 13th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Dallas.
*Arthur, W., Jr. and Graziano, W.G. (1996) The Five-Factor
model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involvement.
Journal of Personality, 64, 593618.
*Ashton, M.C. (1998) Personality and job performance: The
importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 289303.
*Balasse, F. (1998) Personnalite, emotions (frequence) et qualite
de service (performance) [Personality, emotions (frequency)
and service quality (performance)]. J.P. Rolland, Directeur,
thesis of licenciature. Universite de Paris X, Paris, France.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991) The big five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personal
Psychology, 44, 126.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

123

*Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1996) Effects of impression

management and self-deception on the predictive validity of
personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
261272.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Judge, T. (2001) The FFM
personality dimensions and job performance: A metaanalysis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 9, 930.
*Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Strauss, J.P. (1994)
Antecedents of involuntary turnover due to a reduction in
force. Personnel Psychology, 47, 515535.
Block, J. (1995) A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to
personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187
215.
*Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., Judge, T.A. (1999) Effects of
Personality on Executive Career Success in the US and
Europe. CAHRS Working Paper Series, Working Paper 9912. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
*Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., Judge, T.A. and Bretz, R.D.
(1999) Predictors of Job Search and Separation among
Employed Managers. CAHRS Working Paper Series,
Working Paper 99-13. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
*Chen, X.P., Hui, C. and Segi, D.J. (1998) The role of
organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypothesis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 922931.
*Conte, J.M. and Jacobs, R.J. (1999) Temporal and personality
predictors of absence and lateness. Paper presented at the
14th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, April 30May 2.
*Cortina, J.M., Doherty, M.L. and Schmitt, N. (1992) The `Big
Five' personality factors in the IPI and MMPI: predictors of
police performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 119140.
Costa, P.T., Jr. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Digman, J.M. (1990) Personality structure: Emergence of the
five-factor model. In M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter
(eds.) Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417440.
*Duffy, M.K., Gangster, D.C., Shaw, J.D. (1998) Positive
affectivity and negative outcomes: The role of tenure and
job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 950959
Eysenck, H.J. (1992) Four ways five factors are not basic.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667673.
*Fallon, J.D., Avis, J.M., Kudisch, J.D., Gornett, T.P. and
Frost, A. (1998) Conscientiousness as a predictor of
productive and counterproductive behaviors. Paper
presented at the 13th annual conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, April.
Frei, R.L. and McDaniel, M.A. (1998) Validity of customer
service measures in personnel selection: A review of criterion
and construct evidence. Human Performance, 11, 127.
*Frone, M.R. (1998) Predictors of work injuries among
employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
565577.
*Furnham,A. and Miller, T. (1997) Personality, absenteeism
and productivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
705707.
*Furnham, A. and Thompson, J. (1991) Personality and selfreported delinquency. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 585594.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992) The development of markers for the Big
Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 2642.
Goldberg, L.R. and Saucier, G. (1995) So what do you propose
we use instead? Psychological Bulletin, 117, 221-225.
*Green, R.L. and Nowack, K.M. (1995) Hassles, hardiness and

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

124

absenteeism: Results of a 3-year longitudinal study. Work

and Stress, 9, 448462.
*Haapasalo, J. (1990) Sensation seeking and Eysenck's
personality dimensions in an offender sample. Personality
and Individual Differences, 11, 8184.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (1995) Hogan Personality Inventory
Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hough, L.M. (1992) The `Big Five' personality variablesconstruct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human
Performance, 5, 139155.
Hough, L.M. (1998) The millennium for personality
psychology: New horizons or good ole daze. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 47, 233261.
Hough, L.M. and Ones, D.S. (2001) The structure,
measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in
industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In N.
Anderson, D.S. Ones, H. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds.)
Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational
Psychology, vol. 1. London: Sage.
Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990) Methods of MetaAnalysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hurtz, G.M. and Donovan, J.J. (1998) Personality and job
performance: Will the real `Big Five' please stand up? Paper
presented at the 13th annual conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, 2426
April.
*Iverson, R.D. and Erwin, P.J. (1997) Predicting occupational
injury: The role of affectivity. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 113128.
*Jacobs, R.R., Conte, J.M., Day, D.V., Silva, J.M. and Harris,
R. (1996) Selecting bus drivers: Multiple predictors, multiple
perspectives on validity, and multiple estimates of utility.
Human Performance, 9, 199217.
John, G. (1994) Absenteeism estimates by employees and
managers: Divergent perspectives and self-serving
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 229239.
*Judge, T., Martochio, J.J. and Thoresen, C.J. (1997) FiveFactor Model of personality and employee absence. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 745755.
*Kolz, A.R., Cardillo, E.P. and Pena, S.A. (1998) Cognitive
ability and personality as predictors of performance and
counterproductive behavior. Paper presented at the 13th
annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Dallas, 2426. April
Kowsloswy, M., Sagie, A., Krausz, M. and Singer, A.D. (1997)
Correlates of employee lateness: Some theoretical
considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 7988.
Landy, F. (1989) Criteria for selection. In M. Smith and I.T.
Robertson (eds.) Advances in Selection and Assessment.
Chichester: John Wiley.
Lent, R., Aurbach, H.A. and Levin, L.S. (1971) Predictors,
criteria, and significant results. Personnel Psychology, 24,
519533.
*Magnavita, N., Narda, R., Sani, L., Carbone, A., De Lorenzo,
G. and Sacco, A. (1997) Type A behaviour pattern and
traffic accidents. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70,
103107.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990) A review and metaanalysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of
organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108,
171194.
*McCloy, R.A., Campbell, J.P. and Cudek, R. (1994) A
confirmatory test of a model of job performance
determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 493505.
Mitra, A., Jenkins, G.D. and Gupta, N. (1992) A meta-analytic
examination of the relationship between absence and
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 879889.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

JESUS F. SALGADO

Mount, M.K. and Barrick, M.R. (1995) The Big Five

personality dimensions: Implications for research and
practice in human resources management. In K.M. Rowland
and G. Ferris (eds.) Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, vol. 13. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R. and Stewart, G.L. (1998) FiveFactor Model of personality and performance in jobs
involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance,
11, 145166.
*Musgrave-Marquart, D., Bromley, S.P., Dalley, M.B. (1997)
Personality, academic attribution, and substance use as
predictors of academic achievement in college students.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 501511.
Ones, D.S. (1993) The construct of integrity tests. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Ones, D.S., Hough, L.M. and Viswesvaran, C. (1998) Validity
and adverse impact of personality-based managerial
potential scales. In R.C. Page (Chair), Personality
determinants of managerial potential, performance,
progression and ascendancy. Symposium conducted at the
13th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Dallas, April.
Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1996a) What do preemployment customer service scales measure? Explorations
in construct validity and implications for personnel
selection. Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
San Diego, CA.
Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1996b) A theory of conscientiousness at work. Paper presented at the 11th annual
conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1998) The effects of social
desirability and faking on personality and integrity
assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance,
11, 245270.
Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1999) Job-specific applicant
pools and National Norms for personality scales:
Implications for range restriction correction in validation
research. Paper presented at the 14th annual conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Atlanta, 29 April2 May.
Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (2001) Integrity tests and other
criterion-focused occupational personality scales (COPS)
used in personnel selection. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9, 3139.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C. and Reiss, A.D. (1996) Role of
social desirability in personality testing for personnel
selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 660679.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C. and Schmidt, F.L. (1993)
Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities:
Findings and implications for personnel selection and
theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 679703.
Robertson, I.T. and Callinan, M. (1998) Personality and work
behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 7, 321340.
*Rolland, J.P. (1997) Work related subjective well-being:
Examining the `influence' of personality and perceived
context. Paper presented at the 11th Conference of European
Health Psychology Society, Bordeaux, France, 35
September.
Sackett, P.R. and DeVore, C.J. (2001) Counterproductive
behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H. Sinangil
and C. Viswesvaran (eds.) Handbook of Industrial, Work,
and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1. London: Sage.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Sackett, P.R. and Ostgaard, P.J. (1992) Job specific applicant

pools and national norms for cognitive ability tests:
Implications for range restriction corrections in validation
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 680684.
Salgado, J.F. (1997) The Five Factor Model of personality and
job performance in the European Community. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 3043.
Salgado, J.F. (1998) Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance in army and civil occupations: A European
perspective. Human Performance, 11, 271288.
Salgado, J.F. (1999) Predicting job performance using
personality measures based explicitly on the five-factor
model. Paper presented at the 14th annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Atlanta, 29 April2 May.
Salgado, J.F. (2000) Predicting job performance by FFM and
Non-FFM personality measures. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Saucier, G. and Ostendorf, F. (1999) Hierarchical components
of the Big Five personality factors: A cross-language
replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 613627.
Schmidt, F.L. and Rader (1999) Exploring the boundary
conditions for interview validity: Meta-analytic validity
findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology,

125

52, 445464.
*Schuerger, J.M., Ekeberg, S.E. and Kustis, G.A. (1994) 16PF
scores and machine operators' performance. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 79, 1426.
*Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R. and Tesluk, P. (1999) Personality as
moderator in the relationship between fairness and
retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100109.
*Smernou,
L.E.
and
Lautenschlager,
G.J.
(1991)
Autobiographical antecedents and correlates of neuroticism
and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,
49-60.
*Trevor, C.O., Gerhart, B. and Boudreau, J.W. (1997)
Voluntary turnover and job performance: Curvilinearity
and the moderating influences of salary growth and
promotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 4461.
*Trimpop, R. and Kirkcaldy, B. (1997) Personality predictors of
driving accidents. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
147152.
*Vavrik, J. (1997) Personality and risk-taking: a brief report on
adolescent male drivers. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 461
465.
*Wooley, R.M. and Hakstian, R. (1993) A comparative study of
integrity tests: The criterion-related validity of personalitybased and overt measures of integrity. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 1, 2740.

All
Blackwell
Ltdunderlined
2002
Volume
Numbers
1/2 them
March/June
in-text Publishers
references
in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting10
you access
and read
immediately.

2002