RICHARD BENJAMIN TRUST
Supporting Innovative Research
Personality at work and home: differentiation or integration?
FINAL REPORT
Dr Anna Sutton
Manchester Metropolitan University
a.sutton@mmu.ac.uk
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
Background
Personality is reasonably consistent across different situations, yet there are also
significant differences in how people behave when fulfilling different roles at work and home
(Heller, Watson, Komar, Min, & Perunovic, 2007). And while global or generalised personality
traits have been shown to predict such workplace outcomes as performance or job satisfaction
(e.g. Furnham, Petrides, Jackson, & Cotter, 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2002), contextual personality
(personality within a particular context) is a promising avenue of further research in increasing the
predictive validity for personality constructs. For example, work personality predicts job
satisfaction (Heller, Ferris, Brown, & Watson, 2009) and organisational citizenship behaviours
(Small & Diefendorff, 2006) more accurately than global personality does, and providing
respondents with a clear context when they complete personality questionnaires improves
prediction of performance (Bing, Whanger, Davison, & VanHook, 2004).
Work personality has been found to be consistently more Conscientious and less
Extraverted (Heller et al., 2009; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997) than various home
roles but results for other traits have been somewhat inconsistent, with some researchers
reporting that people are more Open to Experience at work than home (Heller et al., 2009) while
others report the opposite (Sheldon et al., 1997). It is highly likely that these inconsistencies are
due to the flaws in research design and Heller et al (2007) have called for future research to
employ more innovative methods. It is common for researchers to “evoke” role personality simply
by asking respondents to complete the questionnaire according to how they perceive themselves
in that particular role (e.g. Bing et al., 2004; Small & Diefendorff, 2006), meaning that respondents
may be influenced by their role stereotypes or respond in a more socially desirable way (Heller et
al., 2007). In addition, respondents usually complete all the questionnaires at the same time (e.g.
Donahue & Harary, 1998) and may therefore exaggerate or attenuate differences in roles
depending on their wish to appear consistent or flexible. This research seeks to address these
methodological concerns by using more robust methods: participants completed the work and
home role personality questionnaires while actually in the appropriate context and separated in
time by at least two weeks to mitigate against memory or direct comparison effects.
This leads to the following Research Question:
1. Can the differences between role personalities reported in the literature be replicated using
more innovative methodologies?
2
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
Not only is contextual personality better at predicting role-related outcomes but consistency
between different contextual personalities, and between role and general personality, has been
found to be associated with higher performance (Young & Dulewicz, 2009), greater satisfaction
(Donahue & Harary, 1998) and better psychological and physical well-being (Sheldon et al., 1997).
Inconsistency between role personalities on the other hand is associated with greater inter-role
conflict: it seems that the strain of maintaining role personalities that differ too greatly impacts
negatively on the individual (Sheldon et al., 1997). This strain may be mitigated somewhat by the
feeling of authenticity that the individual has, as Sheldon et al also found that while consistency
was related to well-being and satisfaction at the “person” level of analysis, it was unrelated to
either at the “role” level of analysis. Instead, at this level, authenticity (the feeling of being true to
oneself) was related to both outcomes. This intriguing finding deserves further exploration, as it
could provide the means for reducing the negative impact of the “necessary evil” of maintaining
differing role personalities. This exploration needs to be done at the individual level, using in
depth studies of how individuals experience the inconsistency between role personalities and
what strategies they employ to reduce the strain it apparently causes, as it is here that the role
personality inconsistency is seemingly contrasted with a feeling of personal authenticity.
This leads to further Research Questions:
2. Are individual differences in differentiation of role personalities related to authenticity?
3. To what extent do individuals perceive differentiation between their role personalities as a
source of distress and is this related to their feelings of authenticity?
4. Do respondents try to integrate or differentiate their role personalities and what strategies
might they employ?
Method
Quantitative
Participants in full time employment (defined as 37.5 hours a week or more) completed a
series of questionnaires contextualised for either work or home.Two weeks later, they completed
the same series for the second context. Administration order was counter-balanced over the
group. Online questionnaires were hosted on Surveymonkey and a unique link emailed to each
participant. The following precautions were taken to ensure that, as far as possible, the
participants completed the questionnaire while in the appropriate context (either work or home):
3
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
 Participants provided both a work and a home email address. The work-context
questionnaire was emailed to their work address while the home-context questionnaire was
sent to their home address.
 Both the invitation and the first page of the survey stated that participants should only
complete the questionnaire while actually at work or home, as appropriate.
 The initial invitations and subsequent reminders were sent at times that would maximise the
chances of arriving while participants were in the appropriate context. Work-context emails
were sent in the middle of the working week while home-context emails were sent on Friday
evenings.
A total of 213 participants completed the first questionnaire, with 191 completing the second. The
following analyses are based on those participants who provided a complete data set.The
questionnaire collected demographic information (including hours worked per week, job tenure,
sex and age) and consisted of the following scales:
Personality was measured using the IPIP 50-item Big Five personality inventory (IPIP, 2001)
and a 5-point Likert-type scale.In addition to work personality and home personality scores,
differentiation scores were calculated using the absolute difference between the trait scores for
each role. Finally, an overall personality differentiation score was calculated for each participant
from the mean of these five differentiation scores. This score was used to select participants for
the next phase of the research (described below).
Negative well-being was measured using the 4 item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen,
Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). Positive well-being was assessed using two questions: satisfaction
with role and preference for role based on Sheldon et al (1997), using a 7-point rather than 9-point
scale for consistency with other parts of the questionnaire.
The Sheldon et al (1997)Authenticity scale was used to measure participants’ feelings of
authenticity within each role, consisting of 5 items with a 7-point response scale. An overall selfintegration score was calculated from the mean of these two role scores.
Qualitative
A stratified sample of 48 participants from the first phase of the study (consisting of 12
participants in each of four categories: high or low personality differentiation combined with high
or low self-integration) was invited to complete the next phase.They completed a series of six
open-ended reflective questions in an online questionnaire, one per week, on the following topics:
4
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
 A reflection on the extent to which they felt their personality was different in the work and
home context
 A discussion of the effects of authenticity and inauthenticity on their work and home lives.
These two questions used prompts to guide respondents through a critical incident
technique structure (Flanagan, 1954).
 The personal importance they ascribe to authenticity at work generally.
 The role of authenticity in relationships at work.
 A reflection on the process of completing the questionnaires and discussion of any further
insights into personality differentiation since beginning the series of questionnaires.
Of the original sample, 22 participants completed all 6 questionnaires. Responses were analysed
using thematic analysis.
Findings
Table 1 (in appendix) presents the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations
for all measures, along with the alpha reliabilities for all scales. All scales showed high reliability
(≥ .75).
RQ1: Can the differences between role personalities reported in the literature be replicated using
more innovative methodologies?
Work and home personality traits were significantly and strongly correlated with each
other (r=.6 to .7, p<0.01), as would be expected from an understanding that personality shows
consistency across situations. To identify whether this consistency exists alongside differentiation
between roles, paired t-tests were conducted. Only the Conscientiousness trait showed a
difference,being significantly higher at home than work (t190=9.39, p<0.001). An increased level of
Conscientiousness has been reported in previous work, however the more robust design of this
study failed to replicate other reported differences in contextual personality.
While at the group level, there are minimal differences in contextual personality,
examination of the absolute differences between work and home trait scores reveals a different
picture. Differentiation scores were calculated for each trait using the absolute value of the
difference between work and home scores. Using a one-sample t-test, the differentiation score for
5
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
each trait was tested against a null hypothesis of zero difference and revealed highly significant
differences, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Differentiation between work and home personality traits (i.e. absolute differences)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
Mean
.41
.32
.53
.51
.30
SD
.35
.27
.45
.48
.28
T value
(df =190)
16.18*
15.90*
16.26*
14.79*
14.41*
* = p<0.001
RQ2: Are individual differences in differentiation of role personalities related to authenticity?
Participants’ role authenticity scores were significantly positively correlated (r=.26, p<0.01),
showing that those reporting high levels of authenticity in one context also felt they were being
authentic in the other.Differentiation scores were then correlated with Self-Integration scores to
determine whether differentiation in personality is related to authenticity. Self-Integration only
correlated to differentiation in Emotional Stability (r=-.16, p<0.05). This indicates that while
differentiation in most of the Big Five is unrelated to authenticity, those who have less
differentiation between their work and home Emotional Stability also report feeling more selfintegrated.
RQ3: To what extent do individuals perceive differentiation between their role personalities as a
source of distress and is this related to their feelings of authenticity?
Authenticity at work was negatively correlated with stress (r= -.53, p<0.01) and positively
with satisfaction and preference (r= .66 and .44 respectively, p<0.01). The same pattern was found
in the home role, though thenegative correlation between stress and authenticity was stronger in
this role (r= -.73, .64 and .38 respectively, p<0.01). This indicates that participants who felt able to
be themselves in each role had better well-being while inauthenticity was associated with lower
well-being.
The impact of authenticity and personality differentiation was further explored using linear
regression. Role differentiation scores and self-integration were entered into a regression
equation, using the stepwise entry method, to predict cross-role well-being (defined as individuals’
mean stress, satisfaction and preference scores). Results (Table 3 in appendix) indicate that self-
6
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
integration is a major contributor to well-being, predicting 41% of variance in stress and 48% of
variance in satisfaction. It also has an impact on people’s preference for their roles (or, how
contented they are with the amount of time they spend in each role), predicting 15% of variance.
In contrast, differentiation of personality had rather limited effect on well-being, with the only
significant predictor being differentiated Conscientiousness, accounting for an extra 2% of
variance in satisfaction.
This research question was explored in greater depth in the qualitative part of the
research.Firstly, the reasons participants gave for inauthentic behaviour at work were found to be
focused around a sense that they were expected to behave in certain ways at work and adapted
themselves to meet those expectations. Three sub-themes emerged within this theme:
1. Acting professionally:many respondents felt they had to display a professional image, being
serious and dispassionate, in order to create a good impression to others and to be able to
manage people at work.
‘I have learnt to adapt my personality to fit my professional role […] to be professional and
taken seriously.’ (P44)
2. Avoiding conflict:the majority of respondents talked about the efforts they made to avoid
disruptingharmonious working relationships and climate.
‘Acting in this way was most effective for not antagonising the situation or causing further
problems or an uncomfortable atmosphere.’ (P34)
3. Keeping the job:a small number of respondents considered that ‘hiding’ their authentic self
was part of the job and expressed some fear of negative consequences should they act more in
line with their ‘real self’.
‘I acted this way because I still want to be in a job […] In reality I would have liked to tell
him what an idiot I think he is, but as I said, I need a job!!! I worked within the constraints
of the role to survive.’ (P14)
Secondly, participants reportedon the impact of these inauthentic experiences. The
strongest consequences identified by participants were negative and included stress, a sense of
discomfort, damaged self-esteem, detachment from work and lower productivity. Illustrative
quotes are given below:
‘I found it incredibly stressful and emotionally exhausting as this role was a complete
opposite to my natural way of being’ (P28)
‘I think this adversely affects my effectiveness at work’(P19)
7
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
While all participants felt that there were negative impacts, a few mentioned a feeling of
having ‘learned a lesson’ from the inauthentic behaviour that would encourage them to be more
authentic in the future.
‘in the future I am determined to be less obliging where the issue is of importance to me!’
(P42)
Overall, then, participants identify that their work seems to expect a certain level of
inauthenticity from them but recognise that adapting themselves in this way has a negative impact
on their well-being and, sometimes, productivity.
RQ4: Do respondents try to integrate or differentiate their role personalities and what strategies
might they employ?
The thematic analysis identified two different approaches that participants took towards
their work and home roles. Some participants described having almost a ‘double self’, with a
dichotomy between their work and home personalities. For some, this meant that they were
themselves at home and put on an act at work:
‘…my true self comes out at home, whereas my work persona is often an act’ (P12)
For others, it was the work personality that they were more positive about, identifying how
the work situation encouraged the expression of more dynamic and socially desirable traits:
‘…work is the priority and that being at work gives my life meaning […]. I feel more alert
and motivated at work than at home […] I try to be a better person’ (P2)
Some of those who made this distinction between work and home personality enjoyed the
duality, particularly how it helped them to maintain a work/home boundary, while others felt that
not having this distinction would be to cause oneself unnecessary stress.
‘…is important for me to have a 'separate' home/work life’ (P17)
‘Sticking by your traits when they don’t really fit with a job is stressful, self-inflicted stress.’
(P47)
A smaller group of respondents felt that their personality remained consistent in both
contexts and felt that it was important to be themselves in both situations:
‘I am fairly similar both at work and at home […] it is important to reflect your normal
personality at work’ (P37)
8
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
When asked about their ‘ideal situation’, participants were unanimous in wishing to bridge
the gap between home and work personalities and described an ideal workplace as being one
where they could be authentic, without being unprofessional.
‘Ideally I feel that if the gap was smaller I would find it easier to adjust back into each
situation.’ (P23)
‘the ideal would be a work place that gives us space to be truly ourselves’ (P47)
Implications
Theory
Previous research on contextual personalities has relied on methods that could be
confounded by social desirability or role stereotypes. Using more robust methods, this study
supports the finding that, at a group level, people are more conscientious at work than home, but
identifies that other differences may be artefacts of the research design.
While group differences are minimal, there isexcellentquantitative and qualitative
evidencethat at an individual level, employees adapt their personality to suit their own particular
work or home context. Previous work has suggested that personality differentiation is associated
with lower well-being but this work demonstrates that the key contributing factor is in fact
authenticity. Employees who feel they are being authentic, regardless of the extent of their role
personality differentiation, are less stressed and more satisfied with their roles.
Practice
Differentiation between work and home personality was identified by employees as a
necessity in many cases, being important in maintaining a sense of professionalism and a
harmonious working environment. However, the negative impact of having to behave
inauthentically on both well-being and productivity was also made very evident. How then can
organisations encourage professional behaviour at work yet still safeguard employee well-being
and productivity? The answer lies in the finding that some employees identified their work role as
a positive influence on their sense of self and personal development. By encouraging personal
development within the work context, organisations and managers can help employees to develop
a certain level of integration in role personalities, with all the well-being and productivity benefits
that brings.
9
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
Future Research
One of the aims of this research was to develop a questionnaire to identify the key features
of the work and home context, based on the extent to which the context elicited the Big Five
personality traits. Unfortunately, this questionnaire did not have adequate reliability. Future
research into creating a reliable questionnaire like this would help to further refine the
relationship between context and personality, and develop understanding of the mechanism for
the impact of authenticity on well-being.
Dissemination
An abstract has been accepted for the 2013 European Association of Work and
Organisational Psychology conference, which will allow this research to be disseminated to over
1,200 researchers and practitioners in the occupational psychology field.
An agreement has been reached with the North West branch of the CIPD to provide a
practitioner-focused summary of this work to be included in their newsletter, which goes out to all
registered HR practitioners in the North West.
Two papers are being prepared for publication in academic peer-reviewed journals: one
reporting on the replication and extension of the quantitative findings and one focusing on the
qualitative exploration of role personality differentiation. These will be aimed at journals with an
impact factor above 5, such as the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Finally, one of the participants in this research, who writes for the popular magazine
Psychologies, has suggested co-authoring an article based on these findings.
10
Work and Home Personality: Final Report
References
Bing, M., Whanger, J., Davison, H., & VanHook, J. (2004). Incremental Validity of the Frame-of-Reference
Effect in Personality Scale Scores: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1),
150-157.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396.
Donahue, E., & Harary, K. (1998). The Patterned Inconsistency of Traits: Mapping the Differential Effects of
Social Roles on Self-Perceptions of the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(6),
610-619.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358.
Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Jackson, C. J., & Cotter, T. (2002). Do personality factors predict job
satisfaction? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1325-1342.
Heller, D., Ferris, D. L., Brown, D., & Watson, D. (2009). The Influence of Work Personality on Job
Satisfaction: Incremental Validity and Mediation Effects. 77(4), 1051-1084.
Heller, D., Watson, D., Komar, J., Min, J.-A., & Perunovic, W. (2007). Contextualized Personality: Traditional
and New Assessment Procedures. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1229-1253.
IPIP. (2001). International Personality Item Pool. Retrieved 20 December, 2004, from http://ipip.ori.org/
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic
Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797-807.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait Self and True Self: Cross-Role
Variation in the Big Five Personality Traits and Its Relations with Psychological Authenticity and
Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1380-1393.
Small, E., & Diefendorff, J. (2006). The Impact of Contextual Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings of
Personality on the Personality-Performance Relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
36(2), 297-320.
Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2009). A study into leadership and management competencies predicting
superior performance in the British Royal Navy. Journal of Management Devleopment, 28(9), 794820.
11
RICHARD BENJAMIN TRUST
Supporting Innovative Research
Appendix – Statistical tables
Table 1: Descriptives, alpha reliabilities and bivariate correlations for all scales
Work Role
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Work Role
1 Extraversion
3.45
.65
2 Agreeableness
4.15
.54
.356**
(.84)
3.87
.55
.047
-.024
3.18
.81
.176*
-.049
.345**
(.89)
3.74
.52
.333**
.092
.012
.060
(.75)
.75
-.153*
.124
-.206**
-.595**
-.094
.063
.205**
.470**
.071
-.562**
3 Conscientiousness
4 Emotional
Stability
5 Openness
6 Stress
2.53
(.83)
(.75)
(.76)
7 Satisfaction
5.12
1.55
.217**
8 Preference
2.98
1.23
.011
.008
.175*
.298**
.052
-.355**
.483**
9 Authenticity
4.92
1.11
.336**
.124
.226**
.550**
.159*
-.533**
.659**
10 Extraversion
3.48
.65
.658**
.260**
.102
.157*
.138
-.148*
.164*
-.019
.256**
11 Agreeableness
4.15
.54
.283**
.697**
.055
-.013
.137
.065
.055
-.032
.073
3.48
.71
.052
-.041
.618**
.236**
-.132
-.146*
.016
.181*
.184*
3.14
.82
.114
.021
.200**
.628**
.035
-.349**
.266**
.125
.317**
14 Openness
3.72
.57
.268**
.038
-.081
.068
.718**
-.026
-.038
.022
.036
15 Stress
2.33
.81
.043
-.130
-.401**
.085
.283**
-.199**
.013
-.173*
.344**
-.032
-.161*
.163*
-.004
.181*
-.034
.107
-.084
-.341**
-.070
.066
-.194**
.196**
6
7
8
.438**
(.79)
Home Role
12 Conscientiousness
13 Emotional
Stability
-.050
16 Satisfaction
5.60
1.54
.088
.058
.167*
17 Preference
5.26
1.37
-.009
.015
.061
1.13
.153*
.162*
.177*
18 Authenticity
5.55
-.033
.351**
Table 1 cont’d
Work Role
Home Role
1
2
3
4
5
10 Extraversion
11 Agreeableness
(.83)
12 Conscientiousness
.122
13 Emotional Stability
.157*
14 Openness
.187**
15 Stress
.006
(.82)
.206**
(.89)
-.039
.119
(.78)
-.077
-.617**
-.006
.013
-.665**
(.83)
16 Satisfaction
.141
.069
.474**
17 Preference
.097
-.052
.121
-.011
-.293**
.321**
18 Authenticity
.219**
.096
.645**
.116
-.723**
.642**
Alpha reliabilities are given in brackets where relevant.
* indicates p<0.05
** indicates p<0.01
.376**
(.81)
-.032
.263**
RICHARD BENJAMIN TRUST
Supporting Innovative Research
Table 3: Regression analyses: predicting overall well-being from self-integration and personality
differentiation
Stress
Model 1
Self-integration
R2
F
-.64***
.41***
131.21***
Model 2
Self-integration
Differentiated Conscientiousness
R2
F
* indicates p<0.05, *** indicates p<0.001
Satisfaction
.69***
.48***
174.14***
.694***
.121*
.02*
91.82***
Preference
.39***
.15***
33.12***