1
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Who Prefers to Work with Whom?
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Michael G. Anderson & Robert P. Tett
University of Tulsa
Presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, May, 2006, Dallas, TX. Send correspondence to robert-tett@utulsa.edu
Abstract
Trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) predicts that individuals should prefer
working with others offering cues for trait expression. Working in 3- to 6-member
teams, 43 undergraduates completed a personality questionnaire and rated preference
in working with each other on class projects, yielding 294 unique rater-ratee pairs.
Significant rater-ratee trait interactions were obtained in 12 of 36 pairwise combinations
of achievement, affiliation, autonomy, dominance, abasement, and defendence (e.g.,
rater affiliation by ratee dominance), with 9 of 20 hypothesized directional effects
significant (p < .05). Results suggest a chain reaction of trait activation: team tasks
activate ratee achievement, affiliation, and dominance, whose expressions trigger
raters' trait-based reactions. Affiliative ratees were preferred by raters with abrasive
traits (e.g., high defendence), suggesting that people seek coworkers offering cues to
express desirable traits and avoid those provoking expression of undesirable traits.
Numerous complexities involving trait expression at work offer directions for future
research.
[150 words]
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
2
Who Prefers to Work With Whom? Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Organizations are increasingly relying on work teams to perform critical operations
(Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 2001),
making team building and group dynamics important targets of research. Personality
offers one approach to studying interpersonal processes within teams. Team members’
traits (e.g., Extraversion), for example, have been found to influence team outcomes
through the task and socioemotional inputs of individual members (Barry & Stewart,
1997). In addition, team composition regarding Conscientiousness, Agreeableness,
Extraversion, and Emotional Stability has been reported to influence team performance
and viability (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998). Personality is clearly involved
in team functioning, but the precise mechanisms are far from clear.
Kichuk and Wiesner (1998) identified three ways that personality can contribute to
team success: (1) identification of individuals who can work as a part of a team, (2)
prediction of team members’ success in particular team roles, and (3) optimization in the
compatibility of team members’ personalities. Drawing from trait activation theory (Tett
& Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000; Tett & Murphy, 2002), the current study
targeted the third, and most ambitious, of these possibilities. Specifically, we sought to
clarify how team members’ personality traits interact to influence coworker preference.
Personality and Workplace Outcomes
Decades of research support linkages between personality and important
workplace criteria. Meta-analyses diverse in method and scope converge in their
overall support for personality-job performance linkages (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991;
Hogan & Holland, 2003; Hough, Eaton, & Dunnette, 1990; Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, &
Stone, 2001; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon,
1999). Meta-analysis has also demonstrated notable relationships between four of the
Big Five traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and
job satisfaction (estimated true correlations = -.29, .25, .17, and .26; respectively).
Absenteeism has been reported to be positively related to Extraversion (e.g., Furnham
& Miller, 1997; Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997) and negatively to
Conscientiousness (e.g., Hattrup, O’Connell, & Wingate, 1998; Judge et al., 1997).
Collectively, these findings suggest that personality effects on individual-level workplace
outcomes are quite broad in scope.
Personality is also related to group cohesion (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Dryer &
Horowitz, 1997; Dyce & O’Connor, 1992; Morse & Caldwell, 1979), which is important
because cohesion is positively related to group performance (Evans & Dion, 1991;
Mullen & Cooper, 1994), organizational citizenship (Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett,
1997), and organizational commitment (Yoon, Ko, & Baker, 1994); and it is negatively
related to role uncertainty and absenteeism (Zaccaro, 1991). How personality relates to
cohesion, however, has varied. Morse and Caldwell (1979) argued that similarity in
personality traits increases individuals’ satisfaction with their work group. Dyce and
O’Connor (1992) and Dryer and Horowitz (1997), on the other hand, found that
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
3
personality dissimilarity increased cohesion among coworkers. Observing such
complexity within a single study, Barrick et al. (1998) reported that cohesiveness was
positively linked to team member similarity on Extraversion but negatively to similarity
on Agreeableness. The reasons for such discrepancies are unclear. Moreover, given
the diversity of personality traits relevant to work teams, the possibilities for interactions
among team members with respect to personality far exceed those considered in simple
similarity hypotheses targeting only single traits. The current study was undertaken to
assess interpersonal interactions in work groups more broadly, subsuming same-trait as
well as different-trait effects. The theoretical framework connecting all our expectations
was that of personality trait activation, a topic to which we now turn.
A Trait Activation Model of Job Performance
Building on classic trait-situation interactionist ideas (e.g., Murray's concept of
situational press), Tett and Burnett’s (2003) trait activation model clarifies the
mechanisms through which personality is linked to job performance and explains why
personality trait measures show situational specificity in predictive validity (e.g., Barrick
& Mount, 1991, Tett, et al., 1991; Hough, Ones, & Viswesvaran, 1998). Trait activation
holds that personality traits are expressed in response to trait-relevant situational cues
(Haaland & Christiansen, 2002; Tett & Guterman, 2000) operating at the task (e.g., dayto-day tasks and duties), social (e.g., coworker expectations, team functions, norms),
and organizational (e.g., climate, culture) levels. Job performance is conceived as trait
expression that meets work demands at each level. Workers gain intrinsic reward
through trait expression per se, and extrinsic reward when trait expressions are valued
positively by others. Thus, fit is highest when the work situation (in terms of tasks,
coworkers, and the organization as a whole) offers cues for positively valued trait
expression.
Trait activation theory is compatible with more established models of personenvironment fit. Operating primarily at the task level, Holland's (1985) RIASEC model
holds that personality and jobs can be classified into six categories (i.e., Realistic,
Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), and that pairing
individuals with appropriate work environments leads to predictable outcomes (e.g.,
satisfaction, turnover, behavior, performance). Essentially, when individuals’
personalities are properly aligned with the requirements of their work, good things
happen. The RIASEC model is perhaps the most widely used model of vocational
interests (Holland, 1996), and is supported by a large body of empirical research
(Rounds & Tracey, 1993; Tracey & Rounds, 1993). Operating at the organizational
level, Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model posits that
individuals are attracted to, selected by, and remain in organizations with characteristics
similar to their own. As with RIASEC, the ASA model has received considerable
empirical support (e.g., Bretz, Ash, & Dreher, 1989; Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof, 1996;
Kristoff-Brown, 2000).
Trait activation offers a basis for integrating RIASEC and ASA models. RIASEC
works because jobs in each category provide opportunities for the expression of specific
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
4
personality traits, such that, when those traits are expressed, job demands are met,
yielding high performance, satisfaction, and other positive outcomes. With respect to
organizations at the broadest level, ASA works because climates and cultures specific
to a given organization offer opportunities for the expression of certain traits. People
who have those traits are especially attracted to the organization, are selected into it
because expression of the targeted traits is positively valued, and are rejected if valued
traits are not expressed.
The current investigation targeted trait activation processes operating at the social
level, that is, in a team context. More specifically, we tested whether trait activation is
related to coworker preference. The main idea here is that one worker’s trait expression
offers cues for others to express their traits. If trait expression is intrinsically rewarding,
coworkers ought to prefer one another to the degree that each offers opportunities for
the other to express his or her traits. Cohesion, in this light, results from mutual trait
activation. Below, the distinction between supplementary and complementary fit is
reviewed, as well as previous trait activation research, as foundations for testable
hypotheses in the current undertaking.
Supplementary Versus Complementary Fit
Muchinsky and Monohan (1987) identified two types of person-environment
congruence. Supplementary fit occurs when individuals “possess characteristics similar
to others in the environment” (p. 269), and complementary fit occurs when an
individual's traits “complement the characteristics of an environment” (p.271). In terms
of trait activation, supplementary fit arises from similarity in personality characteristics
and complementary fit arises from dissimilar personality traits that fulfill mutual needs.
Personality can thus enhance interpersonal attraction through either or both types of fit.
The distinction may help explain why interpersonal attraction has been linked in some
cases to personality similarity and in other cases to dissimilarity.
The supplementary/complementary distinction is a key part of circumplex models
of personality, which, like trait activation theory, hold that individuals have an inherent
desire to express their personality traits (Bakan, 1966, Wiggins & Trobst, 1997). In
circumplex models, the two most basic drives are for agency (e.g., status, power) and
communion (e.g., love, companionship; Bakan, 1966). Interpersonal traits are mapped
onto a circle with a horizontal communion axis and a vertical agency axis. Similarity
congruency is expected along the communion axis, and complementary congruence
along the agency axis (Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1983). Thus, two people will be
compatible if similar on a communion trait, and/or where one is high and the other low
on an agentic trait.
Research has offered some support for circumplex models, but the mechanisms
underlying expectations of supplementary versus complementary compatibility are
vague. Trait activation offers a common link. Specifically, in both cases, one person's
trait expression offers cues for the other person to express his or her traits. In the case
of communion traits, one person's friendliness (e.g., as an expression of affiliation) is an
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
5
invitation for a similar other to respond in kind. In the case of agency traits, one
person's dominance, for example, is an invitation for someone low on autonomy to
express his or her submissiveness, which, in turn, invites dominance. The principle of
mutual trait activation extends beyond circumplex notions, however, encouraging
consideration of compatibility involving diverse trait combinations. Results from
previous studies of trait activation offer some examples, as discussed below.
Previous Trait Activation Research
Tett and Guterman (2000) introduced trait activation theory by showing how trait
expression as behavioral intentions relates to trait-relevant situational cues.
Participants completed a personality inventory and were asked how they would respond
to each of 50 scenarios varying in trait-relevance (10 scenarios for each of 5 traits).
Results showed that trait-intention correlations were stronger in scenarios judged
independently to offer greater opportunity for trait expression. Moreover, crosssituational consistency in intentions was higher when situations were jointly high in traitrelevance.
Tett and Murphy (2002) applied trait activation theory to a study of coworker
preference based on "paper people." Participants completed a personality inventory
and were provided with a set of coworker descriptions in the context of a hypothetical
job of research assistant. The coworkers were described as either high or low on 1 of 5
targeted personality traits, and participants judged preference for each coworker in
terms of likeability and productivity under assumptions of working together versus apart
and with the coworker versus the participant in charge. Overall, results supported the
expectation that participants would prefer coworkers who allowed trait expression, and
effects were stronger, overall, when participants expected to work closely with their
coworkers and when preference targeted likeability versus productivity.
Circumplex-based predictions involving both communion and agency were
supported. Thus, affiliative participants preferred similar others, and participants low on
autonomy preferred dominant coworkers (especially when the latter were in charge).
Other findings supported trait activation more broadly. For example, dominant
participants avoided defendant coworkers, which, in trait activation terms, may be
attributed to the former expecting the latter to not take directions well (thereby
constraining expression of dominance). Low-abasement (i.e., arrogant) participants
preferred affiliative coworkers because, in trait activation terms, the latter were expected
to offer greater acceptance of arrogant expressions. Where defendence falls on the
circumplex relative to dominance and where affiliation falls relative to abasement
distracts from the more parsimonious idea that people prefer those offering greater
opportunity for trait expression. This principle was the primary target of investigation in
the current undertaking, building on previous research by examining coworker
preference in actual teams.
6
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses generally follow those proposed in previous research on trait
activation, stemming in part from circumplex models. They go beyond the communionbased similarity and agency-based complementarity expectations, however, offering
bases for compatibility in terms specific to each combination of traits in keeping with the
broader principle of trait activation.
Targeted traits were achievement, affiliation, autonomy, dominance, abasement,
and defendence. Descriptions of high and low scorers are provided in Table 1. Of the
36 possible interactions, 20 were judged to allow theory-based directional hypotheses.
Expectations with brief rationales are offered below, under intra-trait and inter-trait
effects.
All similarity effects are limited to intra-trait interactions. Some intra-trait
interactions, however, may be complementary in that someone high on a given trait may
prefer someone low on the same trait (and vice versa). All inter-trait effects are
complementary, taking either high-high or high-low forms. Such effects may have
multiple causes. For example, a high-low complementary interaction may be driven by
(a) raters high on trait A preferring coworkers low on trait B, (b) raters high on trait A
seeking to avoid others high on trait B, (c) raters low on trait A preferring others high on
trait B, or (d) raters low on trait A seeking to avoid others low on trait B. Our rationales
reflect what we consider to be the most plausible bases for the hypothesized
interactions. Other rationales may also be viable. Of the 17 inter-trait hypotheses, 12
are 6 pairs of reciprocal expectations (e.g., high Trait A prefers low Trait B, and low Trait
B prefers high Trait A). Such cases are identified to allow direct comparison of
rationales.
Finally, several hypotheses (i.e., 4, 8, 19, and 20) identify a special role for
affiliation in teamwork. Affiliative individuals prefer teamwork and are motivated to
promote team viability (i.e., the ability to work together again in the future; Barrick et al.,
1998). One mechanism by which this may play out is that affiliative individuals,
because of their desire to establish and maintain social relationships, are more tolerant
of abrasive trait expression by others. Of the 6 traits under consideration here, one end
of each of 4 may be seen by others as abrasive: high achievement ("task master"), high
dominance, low abasement (i.e., arrogance), and high defendence. Individuals with
such traits are expected to prefer affiliative coworkers.
Intra-trait Hypotheses
1.
Raters high on affiliation should prefer similar others because expressing affiliation
offers cues for other affiliative group members to respond in kind (similarity).
2.
Raters high on autonomy should prefer similar others, as those who value their
independence will appreciate those who allow them to work independently
(similarity).
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
3.
7
Raters high on dominance should prefer others low on dominance, as those
seeking to lead should find it easier to do so among others lacking that aspiration
(high-low complementarity).
Reciprocal (Paired) Inter-trait Hypotheses
Achievement-Affiliation
4.
Raters high on achievement should prefer affiliative coworkers, as the greater
involvement of the latter in group engagements increases opportunities to express
achievement (high-high complementarity). In addition, because achievement
strivers can be seen as “task masters,” they may especially appreciate the
acceptance offered by affiliative group members.
5.
Raters high on affiliation should prefer others high on achievement because the
latter will be especially engaged in the task, thereby increasing opportunity for the
expression of affiliation (high-high complementarity).
Autonomy-Affiliation
6.
Raters low on autonomy should prefer coworkers high on affiliation, as seeking
guidance and support will be welcomed more by affiliative than by non-affiliative
group members (high-low complementarity).
7.
Raters high on affiliation should prefer coworkers low on autonomy, as those
seeking guidance and support offer greater opportunity to be affiliative (high-low
complementarity).
Dominance-Affiliation
8.
Raters high on dominance should prefer others high on affiliation, as expressing
affiliation in group engagements increases opportunities to express dominance
(high-high complementarity). In addition, because dominant individuals can be
seen as domineering, they may especially appreciate the acceptance offered by
affiliative group members.
9.
Raters high on affiliation should prefer others high on dominance, as expressing
dominance in group engagements increases opportunities to express affiliation
(high-high complementarity).
Autonomy-Dominance
10. Raters high on autonomy should seek to avoid those high on dominance because
the latter will seek to impose directions incompatible with a sense of independence
in task completion (high-low complementarity).
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
8
11. Raters high on dominance should prefer those low on autonomy because the latter
will more willingly accept direction (high-low complementarity).
Achievement-Defendence
12. Raters high on achievement should seek to avoid those high on defendence
because defensive reactions can dampen the climate for achievement initiatives
(high-low complementarity).
13. Raters high on defendence should seek to avoid those high on achievement
because the latter are likely to have low tolerance for defensiveness, reducing
opportunity to express defendence (high-low complementarity).
Dominance-Defendence
14. Raters high on dominance should seek to avoid those high on defendence
because the latter are likely to react negatively to direction, dampening the climate
for dominance expression (high-low complementarity).
15. Raters high on defendence should seek to avoid those high on dominance
because the latter are likely to have low tolerance for defensiveness, reducing
opportunity to express defendence (high-low complementarity).
Non-reciprocal (Unpaired) Inter-trait Hypotheses
16. Raters high on autonomy should prefer others high on achievement because task
focus, as an expression of achievement striving, clarifies what autonomous
individuals can be autonomous about (high-high complementarity).
17. Raters high on abasement should prefer coworkers high on achievement because
task focus, as an expression of achievement striving, enhances opportunities to
express humility (e.g., due to perceived unmet objectives; high-high
complementarity).
18. Raters high on abasement should prefer coworkers high on dominance because
receiving directions from dominant others offers greater opportunity to express
humility (high-high complementarity).
19. Raters low on abasement (i.e., arrogant raters) should prefer coworkers high on
affiliation because the former will especially appreciate the acceptance offered by
affiliative group members (high-low complementarity).
20. Raters high on defendence should prefer coworkers high on affiliation because the
former will especially appreciate the acceptance offered by affiliative group
members (high-high complementarity).
9
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Method
College students enrolled in two introductory I/O psychology classes (in different
years) completed the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1989) and were
randomly assigned during the semester to 3 different groups, each with 3 to 6 members
such that no student had the same coworker in more than one group. Each group
collaborated on 3 to 5 team exercises, at least one of which required meetings in and
out of class. For example, in one exercise, each group developed a behaviorally
anchored rating scale for the job of police officer using critical incidents derived from
watching TV cop shows. Group and individual performance did not contribute to course
grades, but groups shared the products of their efforts in class for pedagogical
purposes.
At the end of each group's tenure, participants rated one another on coworker
preference using an 18-item scale (alpha = .96). Sample items include, "I enjoyed
working with this person on the team tasks" and "In general, I would like to work with
this person in a real job." In all, 43 raters judged 4 to 12 different team members,
generating 332 unique rater-ratee pairs. Cases were dropped if PRF Infrequency
scores exceeded 3, suggesting nonpurposeful responding, and if raters failed to
distinguish among ratees on coworker preference within a given group. Useable N was
294 rater-ratee pairs.
In order to control for rater differences in leniency/severity on the preferences
measure, ratings were standardized per item within raters. Thus, for a rater with 9
ratees (e,g, 3 in each of 3 4-member groups), the mean and standard deviation across
those 9 ratees on a given item were calculated for that rater as a basis for converting
each raw rating into a rater-specific standard score. The result is that all transformed
item ratings capture variance across ratees within raters, centered on a value of 0. The
total score per rater-ratee pair was taken as the mean of the 18 standardized
preference items.
Although our primary focus was interactions between rater and ratee traits, we also
assessed corresponding main effects. Correlations between ratee traits and preference
ratings would address whether certain traits in coworkers are more desirable than
others. One might expect, for example, that affiliative ratees would be judged more
favorably. To assess ratee main effects, we averaged the standardized preference
ratings within ratees over all raters who judged a given ratee. N for these correlations
was 43 ratees. (Correlations using means of raw preference ratings were similar to
those obtained using mean standard scores and are not reported here.) Correlations
between rater traits and preference ratings would speak to whether rater personality
influences the rating process independently of ratees' traits. To assess rater main
effects, we averaged preference ratings within raters over all ratees judged by the given
rater, based on raw scores to allow rater differences to emerge. N for these correlations
was 37 raters.
10
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Interactions were assessed using rater-ratee pairs (N = 294) by regressing raters’
coworker preferences onto rater and ratee personality (step 1) and their products (step
2, after centering on the basis of standard scores) in 36 analyses formed by pairing all 6
traits to each other (e.g., rater Abasement by ratee Dominance, rater Dominance by
ratee Abasement). Significant interactions were interpreted by examining plots of
(standardized) preference total score means based on participants scoring in the upper
and lower thirds of the sample on each trait involved in the given interaction (N range =
25 to 71).
Results
Main effect correlations for both ratees and raters are reported in Table 2. Notably,
none of the 6 correlations involving ratee traits is significant, suggesting that coworker
preference is not strongly tied solely to particular ratee traits in this sample. Three of
the 6 correlations involving rater traits, however, are significant. Results suggest that
raters high on affiliation, high on abasement, or low on defendence were more lenient in
judging coworker preference than those at the opposite ends of those dimensions.
Changes in R square with the addition of the rater-trait-by-ratee-trait interaction
term are shown in Table 3. Significant effects are evident in 12 of the 36 cases (33%).
Of the 20 hypothesized effects, 10 (50%) are significant, with all but one operating in the
expected direction. The exception, rater-Dominance-by-ratee-Dominance (H3),
supported a high-high similarity interaction rather than the expected high-low
complementarity. Notably, this is the only significant similarity effect observed out of the
6 possibilities.
Of the 6 pairs of reciprocal hypotheses, only the Dominance-Affiliation pair was
supported in both cases, such that dominant raters preferred affiliative coworkers (H8)
and vice versa (H9). For the remaining 5 pairs of reciprocal hypotheses, 2 received
support for one half of the pair: affiliative raters preferred high achievement coworkers
(H5) and defendant raters avoided them (H13), but the reverse was not supported
significantly in either case (H4 and H12, respectively). All 5 of the non-reciprocal
hypotheses were supported, such that autonomous raters preferred high achievement
coworkers (H16), low abasement (i.e., arrogant) raters avoided high achievement
coworkers (H17), high abasement raters preferred dominant coworkers (H18), and both
low abasement (i.e., arrogant) and high defendant raters preferred affiliative coworkers
(H19 and H20, respectively).
Both remaining significant interactions were unexpected (2 of 16 = 12.5%): nonautonomous raters preferred high abasement coworkers and non-affiliative raters
avoided defendant coworkers. The latter reciprocates the hypothesized rater
defendence by ratee affiliation interaction, adding to the significant expected
dominance-affiliation reciprocation. Significant hypothesized interactions are depicted
in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for ratee achievement, ratee affiliation, and ratee
dominance.
11
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Discussion
Our goal was to assess whether coworker preference in student teams can be
explained in terms of personality trait activation. Results were mixed, with under half of
the expected interactions statistically significant, and significant effects yielding overall
modest effect sizes (range = 1% to 3% unique variance explained). Of the 6 pairs of
expected reciprocal effects, only 1 (high DOM-high AFF) was supported both ways. An
additional reciprocation emerged for the AFF-DEF combination, only one direction of
which was expected (H20: rater high DEF-ratee high AFF). Reciprocated preferences
seem ideal for cohesion, and current results thus support such effects for 2 of the 6
traits. Interpersonal attraction working in just one direction may be beneficial
nonetheless, and 4 of the 5 predicted non-reciprocal effects (H16 to H19) were
supported.
The meager support for reciprocal effects led us to examine the pattern of results
differently. Notably, 10 of the 12 significant interactions involve just 3 of the 6 ratee
traits: achievement, affiliation, and dominance. High achievement ratees were preferred
by affiliative, autonomous, high abasement, and low defendant raters (see Figure 1),
affiliative ratees were preferred by dominant, low abasement, and high defendant raters
(Figure 2), and dominant ratees were preferred by affiliative, dominant, and high
abasement raters (Figure 3). The predominance of these 3 ratee traits may be tied to
the nature of the tasks, with achievement activated by task demands, and affiliation and
dominance by the social nature of the tasks. The interactions reveal trait-based rater
reactions to ratee trait expressions, suggesting a chain reaction of trait activation
effects: team tasks activate traits directly related to such tasks (achievement, affiliation,
dominance), and then raters, as a function of their own traits, react to ratees’ responses
to team-task cues, as expressed in differential coworker preference.
That some traits are activated directly by the team tasks and other traits by team
members’ trait expressions is consistent with trait activation theory’s separation of cues
at the task and social levels (Tett & Burnett, 2003), and shows how the theory can help
model the complexities of person-job fit based on personality traits. Further research
into which traits interact under which conditions relating to tasks, norms, and group
composition, we believe, will facilitate personality-oriented team building, leading to
better management of team cohesion and performance.
Interestingly, rater achievement was involved in none of the significant rater-ratee
interactions (see ACH column results in Table 3). This may be due in part to
achievement being a task-related variable and, accordingly, less sensitive to the effects
of coworkers' traits. Our results are somewhat surprising, nonetheless, as others' traits
were expected to affect achievement expression (e.g., as per H4 and H12). One
possible explanation is that task objectives and methods in the current study were clear
enough to negate coworker trait effects. Rater achievement might be more likely to
interact with ratee traits if conditions for success are more ambiguous, creating
opportunity for conflict regarding goals and paths. Further research is needed to assess
the conditions under which achievement expression is affected by coworker traits.
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
12
Our results also revealed no significant interactions involving ratee autonomy (see
upper middle row of Table 3). Thus, in terms of trait activation, ratee autonomy did not
affect expression of targeted coworker traits. This was unexpected, especially in the
case of rater dominance (H11), which previous research, in keeping with circumplexbased expectations, has been found to interact with autonomy (e.g., Tett & Murphy). A
possible reason for the noted null results is that the tasks in the current undertaking
were unstructured with respect to authority, creating no obvious demand for leadership
or followership. Ratee autonomy may be more likely to affect expression of rater's traits
— especially dominance — when command hierarchies are more salient, for example,
by assignment of leader and follower roles.
Special Roles for Affiliation in Team Work
We reasoned that affiliative group members would be preferred by members with
abrasive traits identified here as high achievement (i.e., "task master"), high dominance
(i.e., domineering), low abasement (i.e., arrogance), and high defendence (i.e.,
defensiveness). Three of the 4 hypothesized cases were significant: raters high on
dominance (H8), low on abasement (H19), and/or high on defendence (H20) especially
preferred affiliative coworkers. The interaction involving rater achievement (H4) was not
significant, but the expected pattern was clearly evident in the plot of preference means
for that effect.
Our results are consistent with previous research showing that group member
affiliation contributes to group cohesion (Barrick et al., 1998; van Vianen & De Dreu,
2001). In terms of trait activation, one reason for this may be that affiliative members
tolerate abrasive trait expression, accepting members with such traits for who they are.
A second possibility, not raised earlier, is that affiliative behavior deactivates abrasive
traits. These two rationales are not mutually exclusive, and both fall within a refined trait
activation framework. The first explanation (i.e., acceptance of abrasive reactions)
bears on extrinsic motivation, deriving from the value others place on one’s trait
expressions. The second (i.e., deactivation) bears more on trait activation per se, but
calls for refinement of the underlying principle, one that takes into account the
desirability of the given trait. Greater opportunity for trait expression should be
appreciated when the trait is desirable. For traits whose expression the individual finds
undesirable (perhaps from the negative reactions of others in past experience), greater
appreciation may be given to those who limit provocation of such negative traits (e.g.,
by being friendly). Current results offer no basis for distinguishing between these two
mechanisms, calling for more detailed investigation into why affiliative coworkers are
especially preferred by those with abrasive traits.
Untold Complexities
Trait activation offers a parsimonious basis for understanding both supplementary
and complementary fit among team members and for integrating fit at the social level,
task level (e.g., RIASEC), and organizational level (e.g., ASA). The broad scope of trait
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
13
activation belies complexities that challenge the predictability of personality-based
person-job fit.
One such complexity, noted above, is that traits activated at the task level may
differ from those activated at the social level. We suggest in the current study, for
example, that achievement-related responses to the tasks became fodder for positive
reactions by autonomous team members because, as per the rationale in H16,
achievement behaviors clarify what team members can be autonomous about. Thus,
trait activation operating at the social level can be driven by task features, and
predictions of trait-based coworker preference need to take account of factors operating
at both levels (i.e., in terms of interactions among rater traits, ratee traits, and task
variables, e.g., who is in charge; Tett & Murphy, 2002).
A second set of complexities arises from consideration of interactions among traits
within individuals. For example, the way others react to a dominant team member will
likely depend on whether that member’s dominance is combined with high versus low
emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and open-mindedness. Stronger
interactions among team members leading to differential coworker preference may be
evident using personality profiles. Current results, offering modest support for the
effects of individual trait activation, likely underestimate the impact of personality trait
configurations on coworker preference.
Following from the previous point, current results suggest that coworker preference
need not rely on mutual trait activation. Preference was a two-way street for
dominance-affiliation, defendence-affiliation, and dominance-dominance, but 7 of 12
significant interactions were non-reciprocal. This raises the interesting question of
whether interpersonal compatibility (or incompatibility) can result from one-way trait
activation involving different pairs of traits. For example, person A, who is high on
defendence and high on dominance might be compatible with person B, who is low on
achievement and high on abasement because the high rater DEF-low ratee ACH
complementarity will lead A to prefer B, and the high rater ABA-high ratee DOM
complementarity will lead B to prefer A. Such possibilities may be managed in part
using personality profiles, as discussed above, but they may require consideration at
the level of specific traits.
A fourth complexity stems from the observation that team cohesion is not strongly
tied to team performance. Evans and Dion (1991) reported a corrected meta-analytic
mean correlation of just .42, suggesting that there may be an optimal level of cohesion
beyond which performance suffers. Those seeking to take personality into account
when building teams need to consider that connecting personality to performance
requires both trait activation and evaluation of trait-expressive behaviors (Tett & Burnett,
2003). Finding people who prefer one another in team settings may or may not be
productive. Looking at it the other way around, more productive teams may be
composed of members who are not entirely mutually preferred. Identifying the
conditions under which high versus moderate (and perhaps even low) cohesion yields
the best team performance is an important target for future research.
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
14
Further complexities challenging personality-based predictions in teams can be
expected from a variety of other sources, including team size, team member roles and
their interdependence, group norms, individuals’ unique skills and abilities (and the lack
thereof), and organizational culture. Personality operates in such a rich nexus of factors
that sorting out all the important main and interaction effects can be expected to occupy
researchers' attention for some time to come. No one approach is likely to account for
all the noted complexities, and trait activation theory is no exception. However, that
people are motivated to express positively valued traits and, hence, to seek situations
where they can express those traits and be accepted for who they are offers a
parsimonious framework for addressing the noted complexities toward making better
use of personality data in the workplace.
Summary and Conclusions
1.
Of 20 hypothesized directional interactions between rater and ratee traits, 9 were
significant (45%), effects ranging from 1% to 3% explained variance in coworker
preference. Two pairs of reciprocal complementarity effects were observed, one of
which was unpredicted. Significant results are consistent, nonetheless, with trait
activation principles.
2.
That 10 of the 12 significant interactions involved just 3 of the 6 ratee traits relevant
to the team tasks suggests a chain reaction of trait activation effects: the tasks
activated achievement, affiliation, and dominance, then raters reacted to those trait
expressions based on their own traits. Research on personality-based coworker
preference needs to account for trait activation operating at both the task and
social levels.
3.
Affiliative team members were preferred by those with abrasive traits of high
dominance, high defendence, and low abasement (high achievement yielded a
similar but non-significant pattern). Whether ratee affiliation confers acceptance or
deactivation of abrasive trait expression (or both) is a matter for further inquiry.
4.
Trait activation theory warrants refinement by taking account of trait desirability.
Specifically, individuals can be expected to seek conditions offering cues to
express desirable traits and avoid those offering cues to express undesirable traits.
5.
Personality operates in a veritable sea of potential moderators. Current findings
encourage further research into associated complexities using trait activation
theory as a relatively parsimonious integrative framework.
15
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
References
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western
man. Boston: Beacon.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member
ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in selfmanaged groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6278.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An
examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology,
42, 561-581.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67,
294-311.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams
in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group
Research, 30, 687-711.
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal
complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72(3), 592-603.
Dyce, J., & O’Conner, B. P. (1992). Personality complementarity as a determinant of
cohesion in bar bands. Small Group Research, 23(2), 185-198.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis.
Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186.
Furnham, A., & Miller, T. (1997). Personality, absenteeism and productivity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 23(4), 705-707.
Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait-activation theory for
evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Personnel
Psychology, 55, 137-163.
Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional
criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance,
11(4), 305-319.
Hogan, J. & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and jobperformance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 100-112.
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
16
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and
work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology, American Psychologist, 51, 397406.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., & Dunnette, M. D. (1990). Criterion-related validities of
personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and metaanalytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897-913.
Jackson, D. N., (1989). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma
Assessment Systems.
Kichuk, S. L., & Wiesner, W. H. (1998). Work team: Selecting members for optimal
performance. Canadian Psychology, 39, 23-32.
Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and
organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and
individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775-793.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in
human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 149.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’
perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53,
643-671.
Hough, L. M., Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998, April). Personality correlates of
managerial performance constructs. Paper presented 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 Organizational Psychology, Dallas.
Jackson, D. N. (1989). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma
Assessment Systems.
Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-Factor Model of
personality and employee abuse. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745-755.
Morgan, B. B., Jr., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (2001). An analysis of team evolution
and maturation. The Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277-291.
Morse, J. J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1979). Effects of personality and perception of the
environment on satisfaction with task group. The Journal of Psychology, 103, 183192.
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
17
Muchinsky, P.M., & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence?
Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31, 268-277.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.
Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1993). Prediger’s dimensional representation of Holland’s
circumplex. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 875-890.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and
cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 34, 397-423.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors
of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1999). Meta-analysis of bidirectional relations in personality-job performance research, Human Performance,
12, 1-29.
Tett, R. P., & Murphy, P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in coworker preference:
Similarity and complementary in worker compatibility. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17, 223-241.
Tracey, T. J., & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Holland’s and Gati’s vocational-interest
models: A structural meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 229-246.
van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship
to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97-120.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trobst, K. K. (1997). When is a circumplex an “interpersonal
circumplex”? The case of supportive actions. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.),
Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp. 57-80). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Yoon, J., Ko, J., & Baker, M. R. (1994). Interpersonal attachment and organizational
commitment: Subgroup hypothesis revisited. Human Relations, 47(3), 329-351.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and
group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social
Psychology, 131(3), 387-399.
18
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Table 1
Descriptions of High and Low Scorers on Six Targeted Personality Traits.
Trait
Description of High Scorers
Description of Low Scorers
Achievement
Aspires to accomplish difficult tasks;
maintains high standards and is willing
to work toward distant goals; responds
positively to competition; willing to put
forth effort to attain excellence.
Tends not to set ambitious goals;
prefers easy work over difficult
challenges; doers not strive for
excellence; may respond negatively to
challenges and competition;
overestimates or exaggerates
obstacles.
Affiliation
Enjoys being with friends and people in
general; accepts people readily; makes
efforts to win friendships and maintain
association with people.
Satisfied being alone; does not actively
seek out the company of others; has
little urge to meet new people; does not
initiate conversations; keeps people at
an armÕs length.
Autonomy
Tries to break away from restraints,
confinement, or restrictions of any kind;
enjoys being unattached, free, and not
tied to people, places, or obligations;
may be rebellious when faced with
restraints.
Willingly accepts social obligations and
attachments; prefers to follow rules
imposed by people or by custom;
listens to the advice and opinions of
others, including superiors and leaders;
is amenable to being easily led or
influenced; is reliant on others for
direction.
Dominance
Attempts to control environment, and to
influence or direct other people;
expresses opinions forcefully; enjoys
the role of leader and may assume it
spontaneously.
Avoids positions of power, authority,
and leadership; does not like to direct
other people; prefers not to impose
own opinions on others; rarely
expresses opinions other than to
agree.
Abasement
Shows a high degree of humility;
accepts slams and criticisms even
when not deserved; willing to accept an
inferior position; tends to be selfeffacing.
Refuses to take blame for others'
mistakes; has a high self-opinion; does
not experience guilt easily; does not
allow others to take advantage of his or
her good will; asserts own rights;
avoids apologizing.
Defendence
Ready to defend self against real or
imagined harm from other people;
takes offense easily; does not accept
criticism readily.
Is willing to concede mistakes; willingly
changes own opinions; is not angered
or upset by criticism; is vulnerable to
attack or question; is not easily
offended; has "nothing to hide."
Source: Personality Research Form Manual (Jackson, 1989).
19
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Table 2
Correlations Between Coworker Preference and Ratee and Rater Trait Scores.
Trait
Rateea
(N = 43)
Raterb
(N = 37)
.00
.06
-.02
.11
-.07
-.15
-.04
.40 *
.27
-.12
.36 *
-.32 *
Achievement
Affiliation
Autonomy
Dominance
Abasement
Defendence
a
based on mean standardized coworker preference scores
based on mean raw coworker preference scores
*p<.05, two-tailed
b
Table 3
R2 Change for Rater-by-Ratee Trait Interactions in Predicting Mean Standardized
Coworker Preference (N = 294 pairs).
Rater trait
Ratee trait
ACH
AFF
AUT
DOM
ABA
DEF
Achievement
Affiliation
Autonomy
Dominance
Abasement
Defendence
.005
.005
.000
.004
.003
.005
.013 *
.004
.000
.033 ***
.004
.012 *
.017 **
.001
.003
.002
.011 *
.005
.005
.009 *
.000
.009 *
.002
.003
.021 ***
.022 ***
.002
.010 *
.004
.003
.013 **
.026 ***
.001
.006
.004
.000
*p < .05, **p < .025, ***p < .01, one-tailed
20
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Figure 1
Rater-Ratee Trait Interactions Involving Ratee Achievement (ACH)
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
High ACH
Low ACH
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
Low
High
Rater Affiliation
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
Low ACH
High ACH
Low
High
Rater Defendence
Low ACH
High ACH
Low
High
Rater Autonomy
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
High ACH
Low ACH
Low
High
Rater Abasement
21
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Figure 2
Rater-Ratee Trait Interactions Involving Ratee Affiliation (AFF)
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
High AFF
Low AFF
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
Low
High
Rater Dominance
Low AFF
High AFF
Low
High
Rater Abasement
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
High AFF
Low AFF
Low
Rater
High
22
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Figure 3
Rater-Ratee Trait Interactions Involving Ratee Dominance (DOM)
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
High DOM
Low DOM
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
High DOM
Low DOM
Low
High
Rater Affiliation
Low
High
Rater Dominance
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
High DOM
Low DOM
Low
High
Rater Abasement