Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 79 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Samanipoor M, Mashhadi Farahani M. The Structural Relationship between Adaptive and Nonadaptive Personality Traits and Organizational Behavior with the Mediating Role of Emotional Information. MEJDS 2020; 10 :79-79
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1829-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1829-en.html
1- Department of Psychology, Karaj branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract: (1987 Views)
Background & Objectives: Investigating positive psychological capabilities and human resource strengths leading to the improvement and management of employee performance is defined as positive organizational behavior. Organizational capital includes human, social, and psychological resources. When coping with the same situations, individuals fail to act in the same way; however, the nature of their processing is different from the information obtained. Therefore, the way they respond to situational demands will be different. Recognizing this difference helps to understand and predict individuals’ behavior. The five–factor model of personality traits has determined individuals' manners of thinking, feeling, and behaving, based on their origins. It focuses on 5 main areas; neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. According to the five–factor model of personality, adaptive and nonadaptive personality traits lead to the formation of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that link small and large tensions to positive and negative outcomes. Some personality traits may lead to adaptation in response to adversity and misery, and others may exacerbate life crises. The rational processing style acts non–consciously and consciously. Besides, it processes information purposefully and reasonably; however, the experiential style operates emotionally and tends to have cognitive distortions and biases. Organizational behavior requires an intellectual approach to issues. Furthermore, fostering a rational style induced by adaptive personality traits protects one from unplanned entry into challenging situations. The current study aimed to determine the relationship between personality traits and organizational behavior based on the mediating role of emotional information processing.
Methods: This was a descriptive–correlational research study and consisted of modeling of structural equations. The statistical population of this study consisted of all male and female employees of Mammoth Company in 2018–2019. Of them, 310 individuals were selected by stratified random sampling technique. Research tools included the NEO Five–Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) by Costa and McCrae (1989); Psychological Capital Questionnaire by Luthans et al. (2007), and Rational–Experiential Inventory by Pacini and Epstein (1999). Structural equation modeling, AMOS software, and the significance level of 0.05 were used to analyze the obtained data. We examined causal relationships between the study variables in the form of a structural model.
Results: In the present study, the indirect path coefficient between neuroticism and organizational behavior was mediated by rational emotional information processing style (p=0.012, β=–0.08). The indirect path coefficient between openness to experience (p=0.002, β=0.089) and conscientiousness (p=0.009, β=0.059), and organizational behavior was positive and significant. The indirect path coefficient between agreeableness (p=0.043, β=–0.031) and organizational behavior was negative and significant.
Conclusion: The obtained data revealed that neuroticism and agreeableness negatively influence organizational behavior through nonadaptive and negative effects on the rational processing of emotional information. Conscientiousness and openness to experience positively impacted organizational behavior through adaptive and positive effects on rational emotional information processing style. The present research findings explained that personality traits affect individuals’ emotional information processing in various ways. Furthermore, individual differences in emotional responses could be attributed to individual personality manifestations. Individuals with neuroticism fail to employ the rational emotional information processing style; therefore, they are unable to present proper organizational behavior. Individuals with agreeableness tend to express information processing and emotional decision–making due to their personality manifestations in interpersonal situations, such as work environment; this negatively affects their psychological capitals and organizational behaviors. It also negatively affects their dignity. As a result of the openness to experience, by resorting to the rational information processing, one can be flexible and manifest psychological capital against the changes and challenges of work. Individuals with conscientiousness enjoy psychological capitals and suitable adaptation process; accordingly, they recover quickly and successfully through the rational emotional information processing after encountering challenging events and tasks.
Methods: This was a descriptive–correlational research study and consisted of modeling of structural equations. The statistical population of this study consisted of all male and female employees of Mammoth Company in 2018–2019. Of them, 310 individuals were selected by stratified random sampling technique. Research tools included the NEO Five–Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) by Costa and McCrae (1989); Psychological Capital Questionnaire by Luthans et al. (2007), and Rational–Experiential Inventory by Pacini and Epstein (1999). Structural equation modeling, AMOS software, and the significance level of 0.05 were used to analyze the obtained data. We examined causal relationships between the study variables in the form of a structural model.
Results: In the present study, the indirect path coefficient between neuroticism and organizational behavior was mediated by rational emotional information processing style (p=0.012, β=–0.08). The indirect path coefficient between openness to experience (p=0.002, β=0.089) and conscientiousness (p=0.009, β=0.059), and organizational behavior was positive and significant. The indirect path coefficient between agreeableness (p=0.043, β=–0.031) and organizational behavior was negative and significant.
Conclusion: The obtained data revealed that neuroticism and agreeableness negatively influence organizational behavior through nonadaptive and negative effects on the rational processing of emotional information. Conscientiousness and openness to experience positively impacted organizational behavior through adaptive and positive effects on rational emotional information processing style. The present research findings explained that personality traits affect individuals’ emotional information processing in various ways. Furthermore, individual differences in emotional responses could be attributed to individual personality manifestations. Individuals with neuroticism fail to employ the rational emotional information processing style; therefore, they are unable to present proper organizational behavior. Individuals with agreeableness tend to express information processing and emotional decision–making due to their personality manifestations in interpersonal situations, such as work environment; this negatively affects their psychological capitals and organizational behaviors. It also negatively affects their dignity. As a result of the openness to experience, by resorting to the rational information processing, one can be flexible and manifest psychological capital against the changes and challenges of work. Individuals with conscientiousness enjoy psychological capitals and suitable adaptation process; accordingly, they recover quickly and successfully through the rational emotional information processing after encountering challenging events and tasks.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Martelli PF, Stimmler MK, Roberts KH. Organizational Behavior☆. In: Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology. Elsevier; 2017.
2. Hoveida R, Mokhtari H, Forohar M. The relationship between psychological capital and organizational commitment components. Research in Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;2(2):43–56. [Persian] [Article]
3. Ghanenia M, Forouhar M, Jalili S. the effect of managers psychological capital components training on increasing the employees engagement. Positive Psychology. 2015;1(3):59–72. [Persian] [Article]
4. Howard MC. The empirical distinction of core self-evaluations and psychological capital and the identification of negative core self-evaluations and negative psychological capital. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;114:108–18. [DOI]
5. Durning SJ, Dong T, Artino AR, van der Vleuten C, Holmboe E, Schuwirth L. Dual processing theory and experts’ reasoning: exploring thinking on national multiple-choice questions. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4(4):168–75. [DOI]
6. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49(8):709–24. [DOI]
7. Epstein S, Pacini R. Some Basic Issues Regarding Dual-Process Theories from the Perspective of Cognitive–Experiential Self-Theory. In: Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1999.
8. Jocob D, Tourans E. Management and cognitive styles. Journal of Organizational. 2006;31:141-50.
9. Smith ER, DeCoster J. Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2000;4(2):108–31. [DOI]
10. South SC, Jarnecke AM, Vize CE. Sex differences in the Big Five model personality traits: A behavior genetics exploration. Journal of Research in Personality. 2018;74:158–65. [DOI]
11. Livingston NA, Heck NC, Flentje A, Gleason H, Oost KM, Cochran BN. Sexual minority stress and suicide risk: Identifying resilience through personality profile analysis. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2015;2(3):321–8. [DOI]
12. Stajkovic AD, Bandura A, Locke EA, Lee D, Sergent K. Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018;120:238–45. [DOI]
13. Oshio A, Taku K, Hirano M, Saeed G. Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018;127:54–60. [DOI]
14. Sharpe JP, Martin NR, Roth KA. Optimism and the big five factors of personality: beyond neuroticism and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences. 2011;51(8):946–51. [DOI]
15. Mutlu T, Balbag Z, Cemrek F. The role of self-esteem, locus of control and big five personality traits in predicting hopelessness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;9:1788–92. [DOI]
16. Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H. Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71(2):390–405. [DOI]
17. Pacini R, Epstein S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(6):972–87. [DOI]
18. Epstein S. Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory of Personality. In: Weiner IB, editor. Handbook of Psychology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2003.
19. Bernz E. Health Behavior in Academic. Chicago: Hilly Press; 2001.
20. Bayrami M, Abad THN, Ghoradel JA, Daneshfar S, Heshmati R, Moslemifar M. The role of positive and negative affectivity, optimism, pessimism, and information processing styles in student psychological adjustment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;46:306–10. [DOI]
21. Sobhanipour A. Rabete sabkhaye pardazesh etela’at va omid: Naghsh vaseteie sabkhaye pardazesh hoviat [The relationship between information processing styles and hope: The mediating role of identity processing styles] [Thesis for M.Sc in Educational Psychology]. [Tehran, Iran]: Tehran University; 2014. [Persian]
22. Zahed Babalan A, Karimianpour G. The mediator role of change self-efficacy in relationship between psychological capital and commitment to change. Positive Psychology. 2017;3(2):77–88. [Persian] [DOI]
23. Guadagnoli E, Velicer WF. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol Bull. 1988;103(2):265–75. [DOI]
24. Costa PT, McCrae RR. The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1989.
25. Costa PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.
26. Garousi Farshi M, Mehryar A, Ghazi Tabatabaei M. Application of the Neop I-R test and analytic evaluation of it. Journal of Humanities. 2001;11(39):173–98. [Persian]
27. Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology. 2007;60(3):541–72. [DOI]
28. Ghadimi Nouran M, Younesi J. Construction and validation the psychological capital scale and its relation to psychological well-being. Training Measurement. 2016;7(25):159–86. [Persian] [DOI]
29. Rezaie A. Investigating factorial structure and reliability of the intuitive-rational information processing styles inventory in the university students population. Journal of Research in Behavioural Sciences. 2013;10(1):20–9. [Persian] [Article]
30. Weston R, Gore Jr. PA. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist. 2006;34(5):719–51. [DOI]
31. Ahmadi H, Davari R. Structural model of personality traits with mediating role of spirituality in suicidal tendency and drug abuse. Thoughts and Behavior in Clinical Psychology. 2019;14(51):67–77. [Persian] [Article]
32. Boyette L-L, Korver-Nieberg N, Verweij K, Meijer C, Dingemans P, Cahn W, et al. Associations between the Five-Factor Model personality traits and psychotic experiences in patients with psychotic disorders, their siblings and controls. Psychiatry Res. 2013;210(2):491–7. [DOI]
33. Su M-H, Chen H-C, Lu M-L, Feng J, Chen I-M, Wu C-S, et al. Risk profiles of personality traits for suicidality among mood disorder patients and community controls. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2018;137(1):30–8. [DOI]
34. Cameron S, Brown VJ, Dritschel B, Power K, Cook M. Understanding the relationship between suicidality, current depressed mood, personality, and cognitive factors. Psychol Psychother. 2017;90(4):530–49. [DOI]
35. Burger JM. Personality. San Francisco, CA: Cengage Learning; 2019.
36. Kachooei M, Parsa V, Soveizi R. Comparison of defense styles and personality traits in non- depressed and depressed individuals referred to associated clinics of University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences. Medical Science Journal of Islamic Azad Univesity- Tehran Medical Branch. 2014;24(3):182–8. [Persian] [Article]
37. Widiger TA, Oltmanns JR. Five-Factor Model antagonism. In: Miller JD, Lynam DR. The Handbook of Antagonism. Academic Press; 2019. pp: 25–37.
38. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Bogg T. Conscientiousness and health across the life course. Review of General Psychology. 2005;9(2):156–68. [DOI]
39. Soltanzadeh S, Abedi MR, Baghban I. Predicting career adaptability in employees of industrial centers through domains of psychological capital. Positive Psychology. 2016;2(1):19–30. [Persian] [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
