 

  

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

‘lenvIIO-|',3‘.

 

  

A. cpl

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
Private and Public Help: The Tripartite Model

of Personality and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior
presented by

Henry Moon

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D . degree in _B_us.ineas_Administration

 

Major professor

7/Z/7Z7M’

Date yIﬂf/CL

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE ' DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65~p.15

 

 

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC HELP: THE TRIPARTITE MODEL OF PERSONALITY
AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

By

Henry Moon

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Management

Spring 2002

~ ‘
(1,

ABSTRACT

Currently, a trait-bandwidth debate is engaged in the personality literature
regarding the proper level of measurement for personality variables. The most popular
conceptualization of personality argues that five broad traits best defines an individuals
personality. Others argue that facets embedded within the broad traits provide a more
conceptually clear link between personality constructs and organizational criterion.
However, a theoretically driven link between the broad traits and the narrow traits does
not exist. I present a tripartite theory whereby within each broad trait, facets differ along
the dimension of self versus other-centeredness.

One context in which the tri-partite facets might manifest themselves is offered to
be in both the level and type of OCB individuals engage in. 160 participants in a team
based computer simulation provided 320 observations in a within and between subject
design. It was hypothesized that, in general, other-centered facets would be positively
related to OCBs while self-centered facets would be negatively related to OCBs. A
laboratory study was conducted wherein support was not found relating facets of

personality to organizational citizenship behaviors.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES. .......................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................

PART I THE TRIPARTITE MODEL OF PERSONALITY: THEORETICAL
DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

Overview of the research question ...............................................
Self and other-centeredness ..............................................
Momentum towards a five-factor model of personality ..............
Reservations about the F F M .............................................

Summary and purpose ............................................................
Introduction to the tripartite model of personality ....................
Validation of the tripartite model .......................................

REVIEW OF PERSONALITY LITERATURE

Specification of personality ......................................................
Type and trait research ...................................................
Development of the FFM ................................................

Utility of personality ...............................................................
Historic oscillations ......................................................
Personality, environment, and situations ...............................

Integrating speciﬁcation and utility .............................................
The trait-bandwidth debate ..............................................

THE TRIPARTITE MODEL OF PERSONALITY

Internal versus external aspects of personality ..................................
Tripartite model of neuroticism .......................................
Tripartite model of conscientiousness ...............................
Tripartite model of personality .......................................

Organizational citizenship behaviors ............................................
Theory behind organizational citizenship behaviors ...............
Dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviors ...............
Citizenship behaviors: cognition versus affect ......................
Citizenship behaviors: personality ....................................

Tripartite facets and organizational citizenship behaviors .....................
Neuroticism, depression and anxiety ..................................

iii

vii

hi—sv—n

0°\)O\M

11
11
13
14
l4
16
18
18

22
23
26
27
28
28
29
33
35
39
39

 

42

Extraversion, surgency and sociability ................................
Agreeableness, straightforwardness and altruism. . . . . . . . . . .. 46
Conscientiousness, achievement striving and duty. . . . . . .. .. . .. 48
Personality and OCBs: Team based behaviors .................................. 52
PART II THE TRIPARTITE THEORY OF PERSONALITY: METHOD
METHOD
Setting and participants ............... ' ............................................. 54
Overall design of the study ....................................................... 54
Power analysis .............................................................. 54
Measures ..................................................................... 55
Task .......................................................................... 66
Procedures .................................................................. 71
Dependent variables ................................................................ 72
Public OCB ................................................................. 72
Private OCB ................................................................ 73
Control variables ................................................................... 74
Cognitive ability ........................................................... 74
Roles ........................................................................ 74
RESULTS .................................................................................... 76
DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 83
Design .............................................................................. 84
Measurement ....................................................................... 86
Theory ............................................................................... 86
Context .............................................................................. 87
Constructs ........................................................................... 90
Content ............................................................................... 92
REFERENCES ............................................................................. 94
APPENDIX A
Items from the NBC PIR evaluated by eXpert raters ........................... 109
APPENDIX B
Protocol and sample consent form ................................................ 114

iv

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Internal consistency of measures of the NEO PI-R scales .................... 56
Table 2. Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self
and other-tendencies in NEO-PIR items. . . '- ............................................... 58
Table 3. Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self
and other-tendencies within the Neuroticism factor ....................................... 59
Table 4. Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self
and other-tendencies within the Extraversion factor ...................................... 59
Table 5. Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self
and other-tendencies within the Agreeableness factor .................................... 60

Table 6. Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self

and other-tendencies within the Conscientiousness factor ................................ 60
Table 7. Comparative alphas of initial scale, ﬁnal scale and the N130 facets .......... 66
Table 8. The attributes associated with the vehicles and targets .......................... 70
Table 9. Descriptive and correlations of variables .......................................... 77

Table 10. Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models
neuroticism, anxiety and depression (changes in R2) ....................................... 78
Table l 1. Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models
extraversion, sociability and surgency (changes in R2) .................................... 80

Table 12. Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models

altruism, and agreeableness (changes in R2) ............................................... 81

 

Table 13. Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models

conscientiousness, duty and achievement-striving (changes in R2) ..................... 82

vi

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l. Depiction of the tripartite model of personality ................................. 8
Figure 2. Proposed interaction between anxiety an type of OCB ...................... 41
Figure 3. Proposed interaction between depression and type of OCB ................. 42
Figure 4. Proposed interaction between duty and type of OCB ......................... 50

Figure 5. Proposed interaction between achievement striving and type of OCB. . ....52

Figure 6. Example of the DDD four person team game playing area ................... 68

vii

 

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“It sounds-almost like a timely problem to speak on the striving for
perfection and the roots of social interest. For Individual Psychology,
however, it is an old problem. I'may well say that in these two questions

and their solution rests the entire value and the entire signiﬁcance of

Individual Psychology (Adler, 1933).”

Overview of the research question

Self and other-centeredness. The quote by Adler introduces a recurrent research
query across the social sciences pertaining to understanding the degree to which
individuals emphasize either self or other-centered interests in their daily interactions.
Individuals who are self-centered (striving for perfection) would tend to frame the
situation from a self-interested perspective while other centered (socially interested)
individuals would demonstrate more concern for other individuals or their surrounding
environment. These constructs have been addressed by a wide range of theorists at many
different levels of analysis.

Across societies Riesman (1961) asserts that societies in a high growth mode with
concomitant lower death rates tend toward self-centered (self-directed) behaviors. On the
other hand, when the society is on a downward slope, or in decline, its members become
increasingly other-centered (other-directed). Riesman sees a correlation between the life
cycle of a society and the centeredness of its population. In both infancy and decline

environmental forces tend to accentuate cooperative behaviors. During the apex of a

civilization individualism is emphasrzed.

 

Within societies, Mead (1937) surveyed several different cultures and noticed
differences in levels of other-centeredness (c00peration) and self-centeredness
(competition). However, while Riesman (1961) implies that cooperative and competitive
tendencies are somewhat mutually exclusive Meade states that “no society is exclusively
competitive or exclusively cooperative. .both competitive and cooperative habits must
coexist within the society (p. 460).”

At the individual level early psychologists viewed self and other-centeredness as
an individual’s internal struggle between selﬁsh and altruistic tendencies. Freud (1930)
focused on internally driven dysfunction by differentiating between the immature wants
and needs of the id and the maturity of the super ego. Homey (1937; 1945) summed the
manifestation of the internal needs of individuals as propelling individuals to move
toward, move against, or move away from other people. Rank (1964) provides an
interesting integration of early personality theorists. He classiﬁes early work by Freud
(1930) as based on self-centered personality issues, the work by Adler (1939) as
concerned chieﬂy with socially driven motives of personality and the work of Jung
(1923; 1933) as an integration of the self-centered and the socially interested aspects of
personality.

Some researchers at the individual level of analysis have taken a temporal view of
the relationship between cooperation and competition similar to Riesman (1961). Adler,
viewed individuals as naturally self—centered (striving for perfection) but with the ability
and need to develop other-centeredness (social interest). Bakan (1966) viewed the
progression from self-centeredness (agency) to other-centeredness (communion) as a

result of religious growth and enlightenment.

 

Other researchers imply a more situational conceptualization. Olson (1965) views
self and other-centeredness as a rational, situation driven decision. Individuals calculate
the utility of acting in their own self-interest versus that of the group, or collective using a
personal cost beneﬁt analysis; resulting behaviors can either be self or other-centered.
Buss and Craik (1985) provide theoretical support for this contingent view of self and
other-centered behaviors. They view personality as the outcome of an aggregation of
behaviors. Therefore, individuals can act both self-centered and other-centered over the
course a speciﬁc time period, which may involve thousands of interactions with other
individuals and the environment, but may tend toward one or the other.

Self and other-centeredness has also been studied as related constructs.
Individualism and collectivism are very close in their deﬁnitions to notions of self and
other-centeredness. Wagner and Moch (1986) deﬁne individualism as the condition in
which personal interests are given greater emphasis than are the needs of the group.
Wagner (1995) states “individualists tend to look out for themselves and tend to ignore
group interests if they conﬂict with personal desires (p. 153).” The opposite of an
individualist would be a collectivist. These individuals tend to have concerns about the
needs and interests of groups over that of themselves. Historically, these constructs have
also been afforded the greatest amount of attention at higher levels of analysis including
societal (Hofstede, 1980) and group (Early, 1993; Wagner, 1995) levels of analysis.

Recently, Triandis et al. (1985) established the measurement of individualism and
collectivism at the individual level of analysis. Allocentrism was deﬁned as those
individuals who were other-centered. They placed a higher emphasis on cooperation,

equality and honesty. Idiocentric individuals emphasized lifestyle, competition, pleasure,

 

and social recognition. Further, Hough et al. (1990) established “rugged individualism”
as one of 9 separable personality factors.

Although the extent to which an individual tends to be self and other-centered has
been a central construct across many ﬁelds, and many levels of analysis, current
conceptualizations of personality have devolved themselves from a focus on self and
other-centeredness as central components of an individual’s personality. Among
organizational scientists the most common conceptualization of personality currently in
use (this is the ﬁve factor model of personality including neuroticism, extraversion,
openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness hereafter referred to as the FF M) appears
to be devoid of direct references to self and other-centeredness. I contend that self and
other-centeredness is embedded within the current F FM (ﬁve-factor model) framework
and is manifested through the facets associated with the broad traits. That is, the purpose
of this manuscript is to detail a theory of how self and other-centeredness exists within
the F F M framework and inﬂuences the behavior of individuals.

Momentum towags a ﬁve-factor model of personality. The early 19903 witnessed
a large number of personality researchers converge on the assertion that the contents of
an individual’s personality can, and should, be described along ﬁve broad dimensions
(Costa and McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1992). This ﬁve—factor model
represented the culmination of nearly a half-century of consolidation by a large number
of researchers interested in a more parsimonious model of personality (Cattell, 1947,
1956; Digrnan & Inouye, 1986; Norman, 1963). Although the precision (Block, 1995)
and theoretical grounding (McAdams, 1992; Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987) associated with

the FFM has been questioned the popularity of a simpliﬁed model of personality has

coincided with the emergence of personality, once again, as a potentially viable predictor
of behavior within organizations (Hogan, 1991; Weiss and Adler, 1985).

The present momentum concerning the utility of a F F M of personality was
empirically buttressed by several large-scale meta-analyses (Barrick & Mount, 1991;
Hough et al., 1990; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991) that demonstrated
robust links between broad factors associated with the F FM and job related criteria.
Mount and Barrick (1998) attribute much of the recent resurgence in personality based
studies over the past decade to the ability of the FF M to both demonstrate predictive
ability on organizational variables of interest and to allow a taxonomic means by which
to accumulate a coherent body of knowledge.

Goldberg (1981) is credited with coining the phrase “the Big 5,” and has been a
staunch advocate (1972, 1990) of the legitimacy of personality being structured around
ﬁve broad constructs. Goldberg (1992), John (1989; 1990), and Digrnan (1989, 1990)
have all proclaimed the taxonomic validity of the FFM of personality using similar 1
. arguments. In sum, they proclaim that across a wide variety of studies attempting to
numerate the traits best suited to describe an individual’s personality ﬁve broad factors
have increasingly been found to holistically bound the contents of an individual’s
personality. Perhaps the most ambitious declaration of the validity of the FFM
personality dimensions was McCrae & John’s (1992) statement that “we believe it is an
empirical fact, like the fact that there are seven continents on earth or eight American

presidents from Virginia (p. 194).”

 

Resegations about the FFM. As important as the development of the FFM has I

been to the advancement of personality theory among organizational scientists Mount and

Barrick (1998) recently reﬂected upon the past decade of personality research and the
results of several meta-analyses and noted that there was wide discrepancy in the
correlations found between the FFM and job related criteria. Further, they note that they
initially had a level of concern about the relatively low predictive ability of their broad
measure of conscientiousness, the most. important personality predictor of job related
criteria. The stable but low predictive ability of several of the broad traits associated with
the FFM was recently conﬁrmed in a clarifying meta-analysis conducted by Hurtz and
Donovan (2000). Hurtz and Donovan restricted the studies used in their meta-analysis to
those that were speciﬁcally based upon the ﬁve factor constructs. They found similar,
although muted, relationships. Therefore, although the F FM has been instrumental in re-
establishing the importance of personality as a valid predictor of organizational criterion
there appears to be room for improvement even among its advocates.
Summm and pumose

In sum, today there exists a model of personality based upon 5 broad constructs
that has achieved a modicum of consensus pertaining both to its dimensions and its
empirical links to organizational criterion of interest. The FF M has been established
theoretically as the proper level of speciﬁcation of personality via a number of factor
analyses conducted over several decades. The FFM has been established as empirically
important to organizational researchers via a number of large-scale meta-analyses
conducted over the past decade. However, currently there is room for improvement based
upon concerns with both the theoretical development of the model and the amount of

variance in behavior it is capable of explaining.

 

 

There are 3 major challenges facing the FF M as we enter a new millennium of
personalin research. First, there is vigorous debate as to the proper level of speciﬁcation
of the model. Authors have provided evidence that from two (Di grnan, 1997) to twenty
(Browne & Howarth, 1977) factors encompass an individual’s personality. Second, a
growing number of researchers are beginning to question the narrow means by which the
FFM has developed over the past half century (Block, 1995). Finally, as eluded in the
introduction, a lack of integration between self and other-centeredness and the current
conceptualization of the FFM exists.

Introduction to the tripartite model of personality. Clark & Watson (1991)
introduce the term tripartite to demonstrate the relationship between the facets anxiety
and depression and their broad trait of neuroticism. Tripartite indicates a situation
wherein the shared variance between the facets forms the broad trait at the same time that
the unique variance attributable to each facet also has important and relevant meaning.
Recently, Moon (2001) presented what he referred to as a tri-partite model of personality
such that each of the broad traits associated with the FFM were created via a conﬂuence
of facets that reﬂected either a self or other-centered orientation. Moon presented duty as
an other-centered facet of conscientiousness and achievement striving as a self-centered
facet of conscientiousness. On the one hand, the shared variance between similar facets
forms the structure of the FF M. On the other hand, the variance unique to each facet,
which is currently thought of as random error is proposed to have systematic meaning.
That is, the unique variance of the facets comprising the FF M form a complementary
personality structure based upon the internal structure of personality associated with self

and other-centeredness. Recently, empirical support was found for the self and other

dimensions embedded within both conscientiousness (Moon, 2001) and neuroticism
(Moon, Hollenbeck, Humphrey & Maue, 2001).

In ﬁgure leach of the 5 factors of personality is depicted with facets that are both
related to the broad factor and to either a self or other-centered orientation. For example,
surgency represents the self-centered aspect of extraversion while sociability provides the
other-centered aspect of extraversion. Achievement striving represents the self-centered
aspect of conscientiousness while duty provides the other-centered aspect of
conscientiousness.

Figure 1. Depiction of the tripartite model of personality

 

 

 

 

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Self Depression Surgency Intellect Straightforward Achievement
striving
Other Anxiety Sociability Culture Altruism Duty

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mien of the tripartite model. Two issues have yet to be resolved concerning
the tripartite model. First, Moon (2001) and Moon et al. (2001) limited themselves to a
facet level integration of self and other-centeredness within the FF M. They called for
future research that extended the tripartite model to the item level of analysis. This would
allow for the impact of items related to other facets that were ignored in the initial test of
the model. Second, although the conceptualization of the tripartite model was a result of
the ﬁndings concerning the differential impact of duty and achievement striving and
anxiety and depression within escalation decision-making dilemmas the tripartite model
has yet to be tested outside of the decision-making literature.

Therefore, I extend the utility of conceptualizing personality in this manner by

analyzing the extent to which the tri-partite facets predict the behaviors of individuals.

 

 

 

Speciﬁcally, the tripartite conceptualization of personality will be theorized to provide
superior predictive ability of an individual’s self and other-centered behavior than that of

the FFM.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF PERSONALITY LITERATURE

The study of personality within the organizational sciences has generated a
substantial body of research over the past century and can be described as having
developed along two separate but parallel paths that have attempted to answer two
separate but related questions. Researchers on one path have attempted to holistically
deﬁne the relevant dimensions that best capture an individual’s personality. A more
recent but parallel path to the development of a taxonomic structure of personality has
been a substantial body of research attempting to demonstrate the ability of an
individual’s personality to predict organizational criterion of interest. After nearly a
century of attention by a multitude of researchers, a substantial body of theoretical and
empirical studies, and vast improvement in statistical technology, personality theory can
still be viewed as an immature science (Eysenck, 1997).

Eysenck (1997) suggests that personality psychology has not reached
paradigmatic status and will not do so until a theoretically driven deductive approach is
conceptually agreed upon. He argued that not only is there a lack of consensus about how
many dimensions best describes an individual’s personality, but also, we still haven’t
come to agreement upon the nature of those dimensions. Eysenck further contends that
the existence of a paradigm, or implicitly the advancement of the science of personality,
is predicated upon consensus among the experts on what dimensions personality is best
measured. For example, John (1990) noted that there was a perception that even with a
level of consensus that personality consists of 5 broad traits we have yet to reach

consensus on which ﬁve, or whose ﬁve is correct.

10

 

Nonetheless, a substantial amount of progress has been made over the past decade
as to which dimensions best deﬁne an individual’s personality and the extent to which
certain dimensions are relevant to organizational variables of interest. The following
sections will provide a brief review of the speciﬁcation of personality, the utility of
personality, and the current integrative debate (trait—bandwidth) attempting to resolve the
proper speciﬁcation of personality which maximizes the utility of personality constructs
as a predictor of behavior in organizations.

Speciﬁcity of personality

Type and trait research. The word personality is derived from the Latin word
persona, which means mask. In other words, the deﬁnition of personality is constructed
around social dimensions of how we are assessed based upon our public acts (Buss &
Craik, 1985). Hogan (1991) traces the attempt to classify personas taxonomically to
Galen in the second century AD. The Greek philosopher described four types of peOple in
the world: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic. The beneﬁt of the “type”
approach to specifying personality advocated ﬁrst by Galen, and advanced by recent
personality scholars (Holland, 1985; Jung, 1923; Myers & McCaulley, 1985), is in its
intuitive simplicity. This is based on the fact that people have a natural tendency to
simplify and categorize what they observe. However, Hogan (1991) notes that types are
actually conglomerates of speciﬁc traits. Therefore, one of the limitations of a type
approach to personality research is that it is often vague and fuzzy in nature. Moreover,
any one type can be embedded with various numbers of traits that can be argued to be
distinct constructs. As a result, although type research might be a valuable tool with

which to describe individuals, its lack of concrete boundaries makes it difﬁcult to apply

11

 

 

 

in research settings. This is especially true to the extent that individuals are thought of as
complex beings (Murray, 1938).

Trait researchers (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988) differed in their approach to
studying personality than type researchers. Rather than focus on general descriptive
categories, trait researchers focused on the complexities with which individuals, through
descriptive language, deﬁned the personas of other individuals. In other words, while
type researchers relied on generalities for personality description, trait researchers relied
on precision. The emphasis on speciﬁc descriptions of personality versus general
categories led to the lexiconal approach to personality. Cattell (1943b) deﬁned the
lexiconal approach to personality by stating “all aspects of human personality which are
or have been of importance, interest, or utility have already been recorded in the
substance of language (p. 483).”

Allport and Odbert (1936) used the trait approach to provide a more
comprehensive perspective of personality via an exhaustive search of language-based
. traits. They painstakingly produced every word from the 1925 Webster 19 New
International Dictionary judged to have been created with the purpose of distinguishing
one individual from another. In the end they came up with 17,953 descriptive words that
were later thinned to 4,504 objective personality traits. The trait approach to personality
brought with it promises of precision and reﬁnement and more “scientiﬁcally pure”
causal connections with behavior. However, the sheer number of potential traits that were
measurable made it difﬁcult to accumulate a coherent body of literature.

Cattell (1943a, 1943b, 1947) laid the methodological bridge between the

unwieldy number of traits associated with personality as comprehensively described by

12

 

 

Allport & Odbert (1936) to the present day parsimonious view of personality as 5 broad
factors. Through painstaking factor analysis (done by hand and without the aid of
statistical software) Cattell and his associates simpliﬁed the trait structure of personality
using 171, then 60, then 35, then 16 primary factors (see John, Angleitner & Ostendorf,
1988 for a full description of the lexiconal history). Later, Cattell (1956) conducted what
he referred to as a “secondary-order” personality factor analysis and discovered either 4
or 5 second-order factors of personality. He initially found ﬁve factors but through
rotation collapsed two factors into one.

Development of the FFM. What Cattell (1956) referred to as secondary-order
factors of personality were deﬁned by his contemporaries as primary factors. The ﬁrst
researcher to provide evidence that 5 factors emerged to describe an individual’s
personality was Fiske (1949). Tupes and Christal (1961) are often cited as the seminal
argument for ﬁve factors based upon the similarity between their descriptive labels of the
ﬁve factors (surgency or extraversion, agreeableness, dependability, emotional stability
and culture) and the labels describing the 5 factors today (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Norman (1963) similarly argued for 5 broad factors of personality (he substituted
conscientiousness for dependability). More recently, Digman and Inouye (1986)
replicated the S-traits through factor analysis argument but substituted will to achieve for
conscientiousness and intellect for culture (see Mount and Barrick (1995) who provide an
exhaustive table of the various constructs researchers have used in constructing the FFM
model).

The various forms of the FFM advocated by a wide range of researchers do not

differ greatly with the four types espoused by Galen thousands of years prior. Digman

l3

(1989; 1990) acknowledges that unanimity has not been reached concerning the exact
number of general factors but he observes that a substantial number of researchers across
different cultures have obtained 5 broad dimensions of personality. Although historic
debates about how an individual’s personality should be described has oscillated between
attempts to capture an individual’s personality either comprehensively (Allport and
Odbert, 1936) or parsimoniously (Cattell, 1943, 1947; Eysenck, 1992; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985) the development of factor analytic methods has underpinned attend
toward deﬁning an individual’s personality in the broadest of terms (Block, 1995). This
has spurred the recent trend toward parsimony and consolidation. The beneﬁts of the
FFM in its present form is that it provides the simplicity associated with type theory,
while having been developed through rigorous factor analysis of a broad range of traits.
In other words, perhaps the single largest contribution of factor-analytic methods to
personality literature has been a venue through which the comprehensiveness of a trait
approach gains the advantages inherent within the parsimony of a type approach to
personality.
Utility of personality

Historic oscillations. Just as the historic development of a taxonomic model of
personality has oscillated between broadly and narrowly deﬁned constructs, the perceived
utility of personality as a useful construct with which to predict behavior within
organizations has also waxed and waned. Perhaps an increasingly ambitious nomological
net (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) that personalin constructs have been tasked to
demonstrate relationships with has been the single largest inﬂuence hampering the

perceived utility of personality constructs.

14

For example, early personality theorists were often clinical psychologists
attempting to predict and understand an individual’s psychological state. It is important to
keep in mind that personality constructs were not initially intended to study behavior
within organizations. This clinical view of personality was concerned with understanding
speciﬁc behaviors that would then be an indicator of general well being (personality).
Freud (1930; 1935) differentiated between the selﬁsh wants and needs of individuals and
the many sacriﬁces required of individuals to live with fellow individuals in civilized
societies. Homey (1937; 1945) addressed the ability of individuals to suppress or
eliminate the inherent neurosis of anxiety attributable to early childhood development
and its impact on adult behavior. Adler (1939) also looked at the ability of an individual
to be adjusted based upon the reconciliation of the innate propensity for individuals to
strive for perfection against the altruistic concerns about social issues. Rather than having
personality predict behaviors, early researchers attempted to use behaviors to predict
personality.

The same level of generality underpinned the ﬁrst large-scale application of a
personality inventory. The United States during World War I screened out those
individuals who might be susceptible to wartime stress using the Woodworth Personal
Data Sheet. The utility of personality was limited to identifying those who might not be
well adjusted enough to handle the rigors of battle. Simply, you were or you were not
emotionally stable. The initial success of the inventory used for this purpose led to a
dramatic increase in the level of activity in personality research during the years

separating the two World Wars (Mount & Barrick, 1995). The popularity of personality

15

measures continued beyond World War H, and in the decades following personality
inventories proliferated (Whyte, 1954).

Personality, environmentLand situations. As the perceived utility of personality

 

increased in the post War years, so did the level of ambition of personality theorists. The
independent and dependent variables were switched such that instead of predicting
personality via measurement of behavior. Predictions of behavior were now based upon
measurements of personality. Personality researchers also began to relate personality
constructs to an increasingly broad nomological net. Clinical psychologists who were
concerned with intrapersonal implications were joined by social theorists who attempted
an interpersonal interpretation of an individual’s personality (Honnigrnan, 1954;
Kluckhohn & Murray, 1953) and value orientations (Kluckhohn & Strodbeck, 1961).

Kluckhohn and Murray (1953) observed that individuals are (1) like every other
human being (2) like some other human beings and (3) like no other human beings.
During this era of personality research several notable researchers wrote books
attempting to integrate bodies of literature including personality, culture, and social
systems (Honnigrnan, 1954; Smelser & Smelser, 1963). Honnigrnan (1954) stressed the
importance of integrating the individual’s personality and the communality of culture in
determining the value system of individuals. Murray (1938) viewed behavior as an
interaction of individuals and their environment.

Underlying this shift in personality theory is a subtle change in the general
criterion of interest from that of basic adjustment or well being to that of predicting a
number of speciﬁc socially driven behaviors. Ghiselli and Bartol (195 3) reviewed a large

number of personality studies in the prior half century and found positive albeit small

16

relationships with performance. Moreover, they found wide variance in effectiveness
across instruments and job categories. Guion & Gottier (1965) examined over a decades
worth of personality studies appearing in top tier journals and found negligible
relationships. They gave the often-quoted statement that “the best that can be said is that
in some situations, for some purposes, some personality measures can offer helpful
predictions (p. 159).”

Situational strength exacerbated the difﬁculty that personality constructs had in
predicting behavior. Mischel (1968; 1977), building upon the realization that personality
variables seemed unable to explain more than about 9% of the variance in behaviors, led
a vigorous attack on the utility of personality based on a situational strength argument.
Mischel argued that individual differences were useful predictors of behavior in
situations that allowed for the emergence of individual volition. However, some
situations were of such “strength” as to overwhelm an individual’s whims. An example of
a strong situation would be an individual approaching a red trafﬁc light while followed
by a patrol car. Most, individuals would st0p regardless of individual differences. A less
strong situation might be a stop sign on a deserted road. Here, individual differences may
predict those individuals who still come to a complete stop versus those who don’t.
Organizations were argued to be generally strong situations wherein rules, standard
operating procedures, organizational climate, and organizational culture were thought to
stiﬂe the utility of personality variables.

Weiss and Adler (1984) reﬂected upon the pessimism that had engulfed
personality literature and noted that perhaps the greatest problem with personality

research was self-inﬂicted. That is, it is not surprising that there were difﬁculties tying

l7

personality to speciﬁc behaviors to the degree that the literature had not reached
consensus on what encompassed an individual’s personality and how to measure it.
Moreover, they note that all too often personality constructs were developed to relate to a
particular theory, which then limited its ability to provide explanatory variance to a
network of criteria.

In sum, personality researchers have been limited by a two front battle. On one
side, there have been oscillations concerning the perceived correct number and breadth of
personality constructs. On the other side, there have been changing criteria of interest.
Personality has been thought of as both broad and narrow constructs while being asked to

answer questions pertaining to both broad and narrow criterion of interest.

Integzating speciﬁcation and utility

 

The trait-bandwidth debate. Cronbach & Gleser (1957) provided a means with
which to maximize the explanatory ability of personality by matching the speciﬁcity of
the constructs with the requisite breadth of criterion. They called this the band-
width/ﬁdelity trade-off. This was based on the realization that, on the one hand, broad
and global constructs enable one to predict diverse behaviors at moderate levels of
accuracy, while narrow constructs enable a higher level of prediction when matched with
a narrow range of behaviors but performed poorly when matched with broad criterion.

Contemporary arguments about when to use either broad or narrow traits have
thus far rested mainly upon an understanding of the criterion of interest (Hampson, John
& Goldberg, 1986; Stewart, 1999) and then measuring personality at the appropriate
breadth. It becomes necessary to use broad measures of personality to the degree that the

criterion becomes more complex or less understood. Narrow traits, it follows would

18

beneﬁt to the extent that criteria are more explicit, better understood, and easier to align
with the components of more narrowly deﬁned personality traits.

Ones and Viswesvaran (1996) make the general argument that broad traits should
be the primary level of measurement based on the fact that, within organizations,
performance criterion are most often broadly deﬁned constructs emanating from multiple
rather than singular acts. Schneider, Hough, and Dunnette (1996) replied to Ones and
Viswesvaran (1996) and argued for the potential utility of matching traits narrower than
the F FM to criterion using a construct-oriented approach. That is, carefully constructed
instruments should be developed to shed light on a speciﬁc type of criterion. Recently, a
string of researchers have demonstrated that narrow traits associated with the Big 5 have
superior predictive power than their broad traits do (Ashton, 1998; Hough, 1992; Moon,
2001; Stewart, 1999). As we go forward with more empirical research intended to resolve
level of speciﬁcation issues, there are two questions that have yet to be addressed that
would greatly advance our knowledge in this area. First, greater clarity must be provided
. as to how narrow should narrow be? Second, a theoretical justiﬁcation must accompany
predictive ability as guidance for when a researcher should measure and test personality
as either broadly or narrow constructs. To the extent that the trait-bandwidth debate
implicitly argues for a contingent approach, a theoretical model based upon the
personality factors does not exist that would instruct researcher when narrow or broad
traits might be more useful levels of measurement.

For example, in the NEO-PIR, the most used measure of 5 broad traits (Costa &
McCrae, 1992), the researcher has the choice of using either the 5 broad factors or one of

30 sub-factors (6 sub—factors per broad trait). Are 30 the correct number of traits to

19

encompass an individual narrowly? The 19th century philosopher Galton argued for the
existence of well over one thousand trait descriptors each with a different shade of
meaning. It is important to note that Costa & McCrae (1992) themselves provided neither
theoretical justiﬁcation for either the choice of their facets, nor why six relevant facets
underlie each and every broad trait. Saucier & Ostendorf (1999) mention that the facets
used by Costa and McCrae were chosen by review not theory. In discussing the various
facets used with agreeableness and conscientiousness, Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991)
concede that their proposed facets are open to revision. Currently, the facet structure of
the FFM in its current form reﬂect what is plausible, rather than what is theoretically
grounded. Costa and McCrae (1992) state,

“Making sense of the 30 unrelated scales would be extremely difﬁcult, and we
have recommended that interpreters examine the facets domain by domain. However,
there are also other ways of thinking about facet scales that may be useful, especially for
the experienced interpreter. One way is by considering the relations of facet scales across
domains — an approach that is justiﬁed by the secondary factor loadings of several scales
(p. 18, emphasis not added)” Moreover, Hurtz and Donovan (2000) mention that
developing composite constructs across the broad factors might be a useful mechanism to
boost the modest predictive ability of personality variables. Hurtz and Donovan state “we
also note that the formation of optimal composites may involve grouping facets from
across the ﬁve broad dimensions. For example, combining selected facets of
conscientiousness, emotional stability and agreeableness may optimize the prediction of

an interpersonal facilitation criterion (p. 877).”

20

 

Therefore, theoretical advancements to the efﬁcacy of the FF M may, and perhaps
should, be based upon a better understanding of the constructs themselves. In addition,
resolution of the trait bandwidth debate may stem from improving the theoretical
versatility of the FFM model rather than relying upon the nomological net surrounding
the personality variables (Schneider, Hough & Dunnette, 1996). This is especially true in
light of the attacks upon the F FM as being limited to nothing more than an atheoretical

taxonomy of personality (McAdams, 1992; Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987).

21

 

CHAPTER 3
THE TRI-PARTITE MODEL OF PERSONALITY
Internial versus extempLayspects of persogality
McAdarns (1992) critiques the FFM model on theoretical grounds. Although
McAdarns acknowledges the advancement and potential utility that the FFM taxonomy
brings to the ﬁeld of personality his main concern regarding the FFM is that, in the end, it
is limited by its role as a general taxonomy. The main problems associated with viewing
personality as 5 broad traits are thought by McAdarns to be: the inability of a general
framework to predict speciﬁc behavior, and the inability of the general framework in its
present form to provide a compelling view of the “whole person.” McAdams (1992), in
concert with the requirements laid forth by McClelland (1951, 1981), contends that the
FFM might be useful in describing the stylistic traits of an individual, but does little to
shed light on an individual’s values and schemas or his/her dynamic motives and needs.
Hogan (1991) argues that an individual’s personality has two very different
meanings. One meaning or perspective of an individual’s personality can be thought of as
that person’s social reputation. However, Hogan (1991) then adds that “personality may
also refer to the structures, dynamics, processes, and propensities inside a person that
explain why he or she behaves in a characteristic way...thus personality refers to a
person’s social reputation and to his or her inner nature (p. 875).” Internal motivations
are an important component of an individual’s personality (Humphreys & Revelle, 1984;
Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997). Olson (1965) and Organ (1988) both wrote of the constant
tension between obligations to the collective and tendencies toward self-preservation.

Although, the importance of self and other-centeredness has been well established, what

22

 

 

has not been determined to date is exactly how this construct is manifested, or related to
an individual’s personality.

One related theory provides that a separate construct termed “rugged
individualism” (Hough et al. 1990) captures elements of an individual’s centeredness.
That is, based upon a nine-factor model, differences in the level of individualism are
thought to be at the same level as the other eight broad factors. However, I argue that self
and other-centeredness is such a basic and important aspect of an individual’s personality
that it manifests itself through all of the social contents deﬁning an individual’s
personality. Two recent studies looking at the broad constructs neuroticism and
conscientiousness point toward the fact that the facets of personality are imbedded with
the internal nature of an individual’s personality. Both used the escalation of commitment
paradigm as a tool with which to separate the internal motives associated with self and
other centeredness. Each will be addressed in turn.

mania model of neuroticism. Neuroticism has a long-standing tradition as a
critical component of an individual’s personality within the FFM framework (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). The extent to which an individual displays evidence of neuroticism, or
demonstrates a lack of emotional stability has been a primary focus of clinical
psychologists for nearly a century (Freud, 1938; Jung, 1933). Early personality theorists
tied their deﬁnitions of neuroticism closely to deﬁnitions related to anxiety (Cattell,
1947; Norman, 1963; Tupes and Christal, 1961).

Recently, the deﬁnition of neuroticism used by organizational researchers has
begun to include elements of depression (Costa & McCrae, 1985; John, 1989). However,

Clinical scientists have long distinguished between two facets of neuroticism (depression

23

 

 

and anxiety) as being uniquely important (Clark & Watson, 1991; Kremen, 1996;
Mendels, Weinstein & Cochrane, 1972; Stavrakaki & Vargo, 1986). Clark and Watson
(1991) summarize. the body of literature concerning neuroticism, depression and anxiety
by asserting that they form a tripartite model of neuroticism whereby depression and
anxiety have both shared and unique variance. The shared variance between anxiety and
depression indicate general affective distress (neuroticism) but the unique variance forms
a separate and important construct. The unique difference between the two is best
exempliﬁed by Beck’s (1967; 1976) cognitive theory. Depressives are dominated by
thoughts of loss and failure while anxious individuals are thought to be fearful and
apprehensive.

Several authors have alluded to the fact that depression is a self-centered construct
and that anxiousness is an other-centered (environment) construct (Clark & Arkowitz,
1975; Coyne, 1976a; 1976b; Ingraham & Wright, 1987; Joiner & Metalsky, 1995).
Horney (1945) wrote of anxiety as an environmentally generated neurosis. That is, all
toddlers and young children face a world that is threatening and dangerous. There is a
general environmentally driven fear, or anxiousness, that all individuals must address as
they go through the maturation process. Those individuals who are unable adjust to their
environment as they mature develop environmentally driven anxiety. Tellegen (1985)
clariﬁes the external nature of anxiety as a heightened level of negative affectivity
centrally constructed around a fear factor. Depression, on the other hand, is related to a
lack of positive affectivity.

Early clinical psychologists had a view that depression led to insular or internal

focus among individuals. Ruesch (1962) wrote of the frustration in trying to

24

communicate with a depressed individual and mentioned that “to talk to a depressed
person made little sense and to listen to a depressed individual made little more (p. 60).”
Grinker (1964) mentioned that depressed individuals are non responsive to
communication of others. Coyne (1976a) views depression as equated to a relatively
closed system. Beck (1967) believes that depressed individuals are internally dogmatic to
the point that existing feelings of personal deﬁciency, self-blame, and negative
expectations dominate their cognitive processes.

Moon, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, and Maue (2001) demonstrated the differential
impact of depression and anxiety within an organizational decision-making context:
Escalation of commitment dilemmas. Escalation contexts are a situation wherein a large
amount of time or money has been spent on a previously chosen course of action (Arkes
& Blumer, 1985; Staw, 1976) but negative information has put the previous decision’s
success in peril. The tendency to escalate one’s commitment when confronting the
potential to admit failure is consistent with agency theory (Kirby and Davis, 1998) and is
based upon self-preservation or saving face (Brockner, Rubin & Lang, 1981). Moon
(2001) argued that the ability to admit personal failure in escalation dilemmas
demonstrated the ability to “do the right thing” even at one’s own personal expense.
Moon et al found clear evidence that depressed individuals were able to extract
themselves from these situations and de-escalate their commitment while anxious
individuals tended to escalate their commitment. As a result, the broad factor neuroticism
demonstrated no relationship with escalation of commitment.

Recently, organizational scientists have conceptualized neuroticism as low

emotional stability (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997). Basically, this entails

25

nothing more than reversing the polarity of the constructs. Viewing neuroticism in this
manner would have the following patterns in the Moon et al study. First, self-centered
emotional stability (which would be viewed as low levels of depression) would be
associated with ignoring negative information and escalating commitment in the face of
negative news. However, other-centered emotional stability (which would be viewed as
low levels of anxiety) would be associated with the de-escalation of commitment.

Ig'pprtite model of conscientiousness. Moon (2001) conducted a complementary
study looking at facets associated with conscientiousness (duty and achievement striving)
within the same decision dilemma. An argument about whether conscientiousness is
based upon deﬁnitions pertaining to duty or achievement striving has been long-standing
in the literature (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Mount and Barrick,
1995). Barrick & Mount (1991) argued that conscientiousness contains both duty
(dependability) and achievement striving. Although several authors have found that the
broad trait of conscientiousness predicts organizational criteria as well, if not better than
. its narrow traits (Judge & Bono, 2001; Mount & Barrick, 1995) others have demonstrated
the superior predictive ability of duty and achievement-striving (Ashton, 1998; Hough,
1992; Stewart, 1999).

Moon (2001) contended that the unique variance attributable to achievement
striving was associated with being self-centered. Conversely, duty was presented to be a
uniquely other-centered construct. Similar to the tripartite model of neuroticism, the
facets associated with conscientiousness can be viewed as also forming a tripartite
relationship having both shared (general conscientiousness) variance at the content level

and unique variance (duty and achievement striving) at the facet level. Once again, Moon

26

used the escalation of commitment dilemma as a venue through which to demonstrate the
unique difference between achievement striving and duty.

The extent-to which the escalation of commitment is congruent with agency
theory (Kirby & Davis, 1998) and an individual’s attempt to save face would lead one to
predict that if achievement striving is a self centered construct then individuals high in
achievement striving would exhibit the decision bias. On the other hand, the ability to
accept personal failure with the potential beneﬁt of saving the organization’s resources
would seem to be congruent with individuals who are concerned about others. Within an
escalation of commitment context achievement striving was associated with the
escalation of commitment while duty was associated with the de-escalation of
commitment.

Therefore, the ﬁndings between the two studies (Moon, 2001; Moon et al. 2001)
were consistent. Two facets that were associated with being self-centered (low depression
and achievement striving) were found to be associated with the escalation of commitment
to a losing course of action. Two facets that were associated with being other-centered
(low anxiety and duty) were found to be associated with the de-escalation of commitment
to losing courses of action. In both studies the broad traits associated with the FFM
demonstrated no relationship with this common organizational decision error.

T_rip_anite model of personally, The consistent nature of the relationship between
proposed self and other—centered facets of neuroticism and conscientiousness within a
FFM framework led Moon (2001) to suggest that self and other-centeredness might exist
across all ﬁve of the broad traits. That is, each of the broad traits comprising the ﬁve

factor model of personality was embedded with both a self and other-centered facet. This

27

would create a ten-factor model consisting of 5 pairs of related but measurably distinct
constructs.

In sum, across two studies self and other-centered aspects of both
conscientiousness and neuroticism were related to an individual’s decision making.
Across the FFM systematic relationships were supported in line with a tripartite
conceptualization of personality. I now address the extent to which personality
conceptualized along the tripartite dimensions might provide superior predictive power of
individual organizational citizenship behaviors. That is, in addition to preliminary model
support, and relationships with individual decision-making, I now explore the utility of
conceptualizing personality along tripartite facets when attempting to predict individual
behaviors.

Organizational citizenship behaviors

Theory behind ganizational citizenship behaviors. The importance of getting
individuals to act in the interest of the organization for which they work has long been
established in the organizational sciences. Bamard (1938) asserted that the chief function
of an executive was to get the workers to behave in a cooperative manner. This was to be
accomplished by providing a system of communication, securing essential efforts and
deﬁning a singular purpose. Katz and Kahn (1978) viewed the extent to which
individuals acted in a benevolent, proactive manner as critical to the survival of any
organization. That is, Katz and Kahn argued for individual actions beyond what was
speciﬁcally prescribed in the job.

Bateman and Organ (1983) coined the phrase organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCBs) to represent the other-centered actions of individuals within organizations.

28

Explicitly, Organ (1988: 4) describes OCBs as “individual behavior that is discretionary,
not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the
aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.”

An important aspect of the deﬁnition of OCBs provided by Organ is that the
behavior is not formally recognized by the reward structure. That is, Organ’s initial
deﬁnition of a true OCB is that of an act which is beneﬁcial to the organization but
unrewarded. There is an assumption that conceptualizing OCBs along the deﬁnition of
Organ implies a certain level of “privacy” such that the deed is done for altruistic reasons.

One difﬁculty in conceptualizing OCBs strictly in this manner is that several
researchers note that citizenship behaviors are often conducted inpublic regardless of
motive, and thus, enhance the impression of the individual who engages in that action
(Eastman, 1994). That is, although individuals might engage in OCBs without the
intention of being rewarded, they often are. Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994)
provided support for a generalized public participation construct related to OCBs in
addition to loyalty and obedience. They reconceptualize what was initially thought of as a
more private and altruistic action to that of civic (taken from political philosophy)
obedience and participation that could be undertaken for either altruistic or self-interested
reasons.

Dimensions of OrganizationgL Citizenship behaviors. Bolino (1999) expounds
upon the inherent difﬁculty separating self versus other-centered motives behind
organizational citizenship behaviors. He differentiates between behaviors that are
internally motivated towards being a good soldier or externally focused on being a good

actor. For example, suppose a supervisor happens to walk past the ofﬁce of a subordinate

29

 

working late into the evening without pay. This would be seen as a positive work event
and would reﬂect positively on that employee’s performance appraisal. The employee
could have been working late for one of two reasons. Perhaps the individual was
concerned with a departmental deadline, or altruistically covering for an employee that
was ill (good soldier). However, the individual might have rather been vying for a
promotion, or putting in extra work in order to distinguish himself/herself from other
members of the department (good actor).

Jones and Pittman (1982) outline several tactics individuals might use as
impression-management strategies - that on the surface -— seem very similar to citizenship
behaviors. Impression management (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995) refers to the
process by which individuals attempt to inﬂuence the image that others may have of them
in a positive way. Wayne and Green (1993) establish the fact that impression
management is highly (r = .49) correlated with citizenship behaviors. However, Schnake
(1991) observes that there are inherent difﬁculties trying to properly code actions that are
taken to manage impressions versus those that are more altruistic in nature. This
difﬁculty exists when positive actions are taken within the public purview.

Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) interviewed front line supervisors at several firms
to illicit employee behaviors that were valued but not necessarily rewarded in any
tangible fashion. Based upon their responses a factor analysis was conducted which
produced two general OCBs: altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism comprised
of direct speciﬁc help. Generalized compliance captured more conscientious driven
behavior such as attendance, time management and observing the rules. Organ (198 8)

expanded the contents of OCBs to ﬁve distinct dimensions: altruism, civic virtue,

30

 

conscientiousness (exhibited behaviors rather than the personality trait), courtesy and
sportsmanship. Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990) supported this ﬁve-
factor model of citizenship via factor analysis.

Recently, Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch (1994) reconceptualized OCBs along
the lines of civic citizenship behaviors. They build upon the work of Graham (1991) who
proposed three distinct types of civic behaviors: obedience, loyalty and participation.
Although Graham deﬁned these behaviors to depict individual orientations toward their
government, Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch applied them towards organizations.

“Organizational obedience reﬂects acceptance of the necessity and
desirability of rational rules and regulations governing organizational

structure, job descriptions, and personnel policies. Obedience can be

demonstrated by respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in

attendance and task completion, and stewardship of organizational

resources. Organizational loyalty is identiﬁcation with and allegiance to an

organization’s leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the

parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments.

Representative behaviors include defending the organization against

threats, contributing to its good reputation, and cooperating with others to

serve the interests of the whole. Organizational participation is interest in

organizational affairs guided by ideal standards of virtue, validated by an
individual’s keeping informed, and expressed through full and responsible

involvement in organizational governance (p. 767).”

31

Currently, there are two distinctly different conceptualizations of OCBs. The
private nature of OCBs as deﬁned initially by Organ (1988) can be contrasted with the
public nature of OCBs as deﬁned by Graham (1991) and applied by Van Dyne, Graham
and Dienesch (1994). Public citizenship can be conducted with altruistic motives but may
also be conducted with the intention to manage impressions. Private citizenship is more
in line with the initial conceptualization of citizenship of Organ (1988) wherein the act
does not receive public reward or recognition and because of this it is difﬁcult to argue
that an individual would engage in a private OCB with self-interested motives.

Smith, Organ and Near (1983) found two general forms of OCBs (altruism and
compliance) based on direct questions asked of actual supervisors. These two forms ﬁt
nicely into conceptualizations of OCBs as public or private acts. Altruism can be viewed
as public citizenship behaviors. These can be conducted with purely altruistic intentions,
but because of the public nature might also be confounded with impression management.
Compliance can be viewed as private citizenship type behaviors encompassing private
adherence and promotion of company values and regulations that go relatively unnoticed.
These two categories are not thought to be mutually exclusive but differ along the
dimension on which the behavior is conducted within the purview of the public.

The difﬁculty in distinguishing between public and private citizenship behaviors
extends to the way in which OCB research has been carried out. OCB literature has
focused on public observations rather than on private acts. This is due to the fact that,
most OCB research has been conducted via survey-based perceptions rather than actual
behaviors (Allen & Rush, 1998; Farh, Earley & Lin, 1997; Kidwell, Mossholder &

Bennett, 1997; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1993;

32

Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Neuman & Kickul, 1998; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Smith,
Organ & Near, 1983; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998; Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994).
This leads to an emphasis on observable public citizenship behaviors rather than
unrewarded private citizenship behaviors envisioned by Katz and Kahn (1978) and
Bateman and Organ (1983). Assuming that OCBs can be conceptualized as either private
or public acts of citizenship, I now turn to predictions of how and when individuals will
engage in these behaviors.

Citizenship behaviors: cognition versus pffect. Recently, Moorman (1993)
theorized that when trying to predict whether individuals will engage in citizenship
behaviors cognitive based predictors would be superior to affective based predictors. The
importance of cognitive based predictors is in concert with the requirements provided by
Barnard (1938) that the single most critical role of a leader is to compel individuals to
cooperate. Cooperation is deﬁned along unselﬁsh acts with the beneﬁt of the organization
in mind. Citizenship through direction has been explored as a consequence of leader
fairness (Farh, Podsakoff & Organ, 1990), leader charisma (Deluga, 1995a), leader-
member exchange (Hui, Law, and Chen, 1999) and leader-member trust (Deluga, 1994;
1995b)

Another powerful cognitive predictor of citizenship is the extent to which the
structure of the organization facilitates an environment of citizenship (Katz & Kahn,
1978). For example, Organ and Konovsky (1989) found a relationship between pay and
job cognitions and altruistic and compliance behaviors. Pay cognitions included items
such as: “Compared to all individuals who work for this organization, how good is your

pay?” and “How good is your pay compared to other people who have the same amount

33

 

 

 

 

of education as you?” Job cognitions included items such as “Compared to all individuals
who work for this organization, how good is your job?” and “How good is your job
compared to other people who have the same amount of education as you?” Here, a large
number of researchers have demonstrated a link between the citizenship of individual
members of an organization and their perceptions of how justly they have been treated
(Aquino, 1995; Bies, Martin, & Brockner, 1993; Farh, Earley & Lin, 1997; Folger, 1993;
Greenberg, 1993; Moorman, Niehoff & Organ, 1993; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993;
Robinson & Wolfe Morrison, 1995; Tansky, 1993).

Moorman (1991) argued that the fairness to citizenship link should be the most
robust relationship in OCB research. This is due to the discretionary nature of the
criterion of interest. Organ (1988) asserted that individuals might feel that they control
their level of citizenship to a greater extent than they do other job behaviors. Therefore,
based upon equitable exchange (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) individuals might ﬁnd it easier
to withhold citizenship behaviors if they feel that they have been treated unfairly.

Affective predictors of OCBs have received scant attention thus far among
organizational researchers. Although the positive relationship between justice and OCBs
has been consistent, the relationship between individual differences and OCBs has been
discouraging (Organ, 1994; Organ & Ryan, 1995). The link between disposition and
citizenship is based on similar theory as that of cognition and citizenship. Each predicts
that job satisfaction serves as a mediating inﬂuence on resulting OCBs. The theory that
individual differences in disposition might predict differences in citizenship draws from

the body of literature that has established individual differences in general satisfaction

34

 

 

(Arvey, Bouchard, Segal & Abraham, 1989; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986; Staw & Ross,
1985).

m mums: personarlity. Staw, Bell and Clausen (1986) conducted a
longitudinal study and found robust differences between individuals in the level of
satisfaction they felt toward their employment. These differences in level of satisfaction
were robust over time and situation. Therefore, in addition to cognitive determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior, dispositional differences have also been thought of as
a potential predictor of OCBs. Building upon the work of Krebs (1970), Smith, Organ
and Near (1983) predicted that extraversion would demonstrate a positive relationship
and that neuroticism would demonstrate a negative relationship with OCBs. Smith, Organ
and Near justiﬁed these hypotheses by asserting that extraverts are more sensitive to their
environment and more sensitive to social stimuli, while neurotics were more preoccupied
with their own anxieties. They found no relationship between extraversion and OCBs and
found an indirect relationship between neuroticism and OCBs (mediated by its negative
relationship with job satisfaction) among employees of two large Midwestern banks (they
used their own 16 item scale to measure OCBs.

Barrick, Mount and Strauss (1992) tested the degree to which conscientiousness,
extraversion and agreeableness related to OCBs using sales representative in a large
manufacturing organization. They found no relationship between agreeableness and
extraversion with OCBs and a positive relationship between conscientiousness and OCBs
(Barrick, Mount and Strauss used an abbreviated version of the Smith, Organ and Near

(1983) scale and the PCI personality scale).

35

Neuman and Kickul (1998) tested the extent to which conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and extraversion related to OCBs within a large wholesale/retail jewelry
organization with stores located in the northeast. Conscientiousness and agreeableness
again demonstrated relationships with OCBs based on ratings by supervisors. Again,
extraversion did not demonstrate any relationship with OCBs (N euman and Kickul used
the NED—PIR and the 5-factor OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990).

In sum, affective based relationships between personality and OCBs have been
tested in several recent studies but the results have been far from noteworthy. In the
Smith, Organ and Near study the average correlation between neuroticism and OCBs was
-.16, and the average correlation between extraversion and OCGs was -.O6. In the Barrick
et a1 study (1992) the correlations between the personality variables and OCBs were:
conscientiousness (.21), extraversion (.03) and agreeableness (.03). Finally, in the
Neuman and Kickul study (1998) the average correlations between the personality
variables and OCBs were: agreeableness (.26), conscientiousness (.32), extraversion (-
.11).

Organ and Ryan (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of antecedents of OCBs. Of
the two personality variables included in the meta-analysis conscientiousness was the
most robust predictor (Mp = .23, 95% conﬁdence interval .15 to .30), with agreeableness
barely excluding zero based upon a 95% conﬁdence interval (M, = .11, 95% conﬁdence
interval .03 to .19). Both neuroticism and extraversion have failed to demonstrate
signiﬁcant relationships with OCBs and were not tested in the meta-analysis. Prior to the
meta-analysis Organ (1994) conducted a review of the literature relating personality to

OCBs with a generally negative outlook. Organ stated “ﬁrst, the most disappointing

36

ﬁndings come from studies that take their personality measures unaltered from the Big
Five or other factorially-derived frameworks. We can see now why this is not necessarily
the most promising strategy (p. 474).” As a suggestion Organ notes, “results indicate that
the best predictor of OCB is not a factorially pure dimension of the Big Five, but a
constellation or proﬁle of personality facets drawn from different factors of the Big Five
(p. 465).”

Integrating the initial discussion of the importance of self and other-centeredness
within the organizational sciences, the historic development of personality as a predictor
of organizational criteria, the trait-bandwidth debate in the personality literature, and the
struggles with predicting OCBs through broad traits of personality leads to the proposal
that the tripartite model of personality might be a superior predictor of OCBs to the
extent that self and other-centeredness impacts the degree to which an individual would
engage in helping or citizenship behaviors.

Conceptualizing personality as a tripartite model heeds the advice of three
researchers whom have independently called for looking at personality across the facets
and constructing composite constructs to improve predictive ability: developers of the
most widely used FF M personality scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992) authors of the most
recent meta-analysis of the FF M (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), and a theorist of an
organizational criterion (OCBs) with a high level of individual discretion and proposed
positive impact on organizational performance (Organ, 1994). An overall proposition of
this manuscript is that the tri-partite facets associated with self and other-centeredness
will be superior predictors of OCB: than their broad traits (conscientiousness,

extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness).

37

In addition to the potential that tripartite facets might be superior predictors of
OCBs in general. The degree to which the OCB is public or private in nature might also
impact the relationship with personality variables. Organ ( 1994) theorized that the
dispositional differences related to personality might be an important predictor of OCBs
based upon the fact that these behaviors occur in “weak situations (Mischel, 1977).” That
is, critics of the impact of personality in organizations (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989;
Mischel, 1977) have often based their critique on the fact that organizations often provide
little latitude for individual actions. However, because OCBs are by deﬁnition
discretionary, individual differences should be allowed to ﬁ'eely impact behaviors.

Perhaps the most relevant difference between a public and a private OCB is in the
degree to which individual volition is involved. On the one hand, the socially desirable
nature of OCBs might pr0pel individuals to engage in public helping behaviors regardless
of disposition. Therefore, one would expect that other-centered individuals might engage
in public help because it is in their nature to do so, however, more self-interested
individuals might also engage in the very same behaviors based on impression
management tactics. Private OCBs would provide the highest level of individual
discretion, or be among the “weakest situations” (Mischel, 1977). Therefore, one would
expect that the impact of self and other—centeredness would reach its full potential as
other-centered individuals would engage in these behaviors but self-centered individuals
might actually shun private OCBs.

Tripartite facets will interact with type of OCB such that individuals high in self-

centered facets will engage in significantly less private OCBs than public OCBs, while

38

 

individuals high in other—centered facets will engage in signiﬁcantly more private OCBs J
than public OCBs

The next section will detail the speciﬁc hypotheses concerning the tripartite facets
and how they relate to both public and private citizenship behaviors.

Tripartite facets and organizational citizenship behaviors

Neuroticism, dgpression and anxiety. Costa & McCrae (1992) define the broad
trait neuroticism as “the general tendency to experience negative affects such as fear,
sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust. . .however N includes more than
susceptibility to psychological distress. Perhaps because disruptive emotions interfere
with adaptation, men and women high in N are also prone to have irrational ideas, to be
less able to control their impulses, and to cope more poorly than others with stress (p.
14).”

Anxiety and depression are the two facets thought to represent the self and other
dimensions of general neuroticism (see previous discussion of the Moon, Humphrey,
Hollenbeck & Maue, 2001 study for additional review of these two constructs). Anxious
individuals are “apprehensive, fearful, prone to worry, nervous, tense, and jittery (p. 16).”
Those who score low on this domain are thought to be calm and relaxed. A substantial
body of research has looked at anxiety as a lack of emotional adjustment between an
individual and his/her environment. Anxious individuals tend to be publicly self-
conscious (Beck & Clark, 1988) or overly conscious of their surroundings to the point of
hypervigilance (Eysenck, 1992). Hypervigilence refers to the extent that anxious
individuals tend to broadly scan their environment for any potential dangers and might

actually ignore neutral or non-threatening information. In terms of OCBs one would

39

 

expect that social concern would pervade those individuals who are anxious. Therefore, J
heightened environmental scanning (Eysenck, 1992) would lead anxious individuals to
act in a socially desirable manner. In organizations this might lead anxious individuals to
address any perceived need of others, even at the expense of themselves or their own
productivity.

H1 a: An individual’s level of anxiety will be positively related to OCBs.

One aspect of anxiety might impact the type of OCB that is most attractive to
engage in. Norton, Cox, Hewitt and McLeod (1997) demonstrated factor differences
between social anxiety and depression or neuroticism (as measured by the NBC) among
university students. They differentiated between social fears and what they refer to as
generalized social anxiety. Clark and Arkowitz (1975) and Ingraham and Wright (1987)
view anxiety as producing a type of social aversion to conﬂict or uncomfortable
situations

Beck and Emery (1985) view anxiety as a maladaptive schema wherein perceived
. sense of physical or psychological threat and vulnerability predominate the thought
processes. This makes the anxious individual tentative, and overly fearful (Beck & Clark,

1988). Therefore, anxious individuals might be more prone to engage in private OCBs A

 

than expose themselves to interactions with others when engaging in public OCBs (see
ﬁgure 2 for a depiction of the proposed interaction).

Hlb: An individual’s level of anxiety will interact with type of OCBs such
that individuals high in anxiety will engage in signiﬁcantly more private OCBs than

public OCBs.

40

 

Figure 2. Proposed interaction between Anxiety and type of OCB. J

Private OCB

OCBs

 

Public OCB

 

l l
l 1

Low Anxiety High Anxiety

Watson, Clark and Carey (1988) deﬁne the difference between anxiety and
depression along the lines of differences in affect. Both anxiety and depression were
related to negative affectivity, but only depression was consistently negatively related to
a lack of positive affect. Costa and McCrae (1992) deﬁne depressed individuals as those
who “are prone to feelings of guilt, sadness, hopelessness, and loneliness. They are easily
discouraged and often dejected (p. 16).” Abrarnson and Sackeim (1977) note that
depressed individuals tend to blame themselves more during negative events. Coyne
(1976a, 1976b) developed an interpersonal model of depression wherein depressed

individuals exhibit dysfunctional self-centered tendencies in the type and amount of

 

personal feedback they seek. This relationship was borne out in an empirical study by
Joiner & Metalsky (1995) wherein depressed college roommates engaged in more
negative feedback and reassurance seeking. This self-centered need for assurance was
found to be a destructive element of the roommate’s relationship.

Depression might have a different pattern of relationships with organizational

citizenship behaviors than anxiety. Also, as implied by the interaction model, the type of

41

citizenship behavior will be important based on the self-centered nature of depression.
The feedback seeking nature of depressed individuals might lead them to engage in
public OCBs while the hopelessness, feeling of inferiority, lack of positive affect, and
self-centered aspect of depression might lead to less attention to private OCBs.
H2a: An individual’s level of depression will be negatively related to OCBs.
H2b: An individual’s level of depression will interact with type of OCBs such
that they will engage in significantly fewer private OCBs in relation to public
OCBs.

Figure 3. Proposed interaction between Depression and type of OCB.

\ Public OCB
OCBs \
Private OCB

I l
l I

Low Depression High Depression

 

Viewing the hypotheses related to the tripartite facets of neuroticism leads to the
comparative assertion that the generally positive relationship between anxiety and the
interactive effects of depression and organizational citizenship behaviors would suppress
the relationship between the general trait anxiety and OCBs such that:

H3: Neuroticism will be unrelated to OCBs.

Extraversion, excitement seeking and warmth. Costa and McCrae (1992) view

extraverts as “sociable but sociability is only one of the traits that comprise the domain of

42

 

 

extraversion (warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking,
positive emotions). In addition to liking people and preferring large groups and
gatherings, extraverts are also assertive, active, and talkative. They like excitement and
stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition. They are upbeat, energetic, and
optimistic. Salespeople represent the prototypic extraverts in our culture (p. 15).”

Barrick and Mount (1991) found support for the fact that extraversion was a valid
predictor for two occupations: management and sales. The reasons they gave for the
relationship were the gregarious, talkative and sociable aspects of extraversion. However,
Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of predictors of
job performance among salespersons and found potency (Hough et al., 1990) as a
superior predictor of performance. Potency (surgency) is deﬁned along the lines of
assertiveness and intensity of interpersonal interactions.

Hogan (1993) argues that extraversion consists of two distinct facets including a
sociability and a surgency component. Sociability encompasses the gregariousness
(Digman & Takemoto-chock; 1981) warmth (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Krug & Johns,
1986) and talkative (Norman, 1963) aspects of an individual’s personality. Surgency
encompasses the energetic (Howarth, 1976), dominance (Lei & Skinner, 1982), and high
standards of leadership (Hogan, 1993) aspects of an individual’s personality.

Interestingly, a review of classic and contemporary personality research reveals that
extraversion normally contains these two dimensions. Saucier and Ostendorf (1 999) note
extraversion can be thought of as a composite of sociability and assertiveness. . .but some
(e. g., Costa & McCrae, 1992) see sociability as most central, whereas others (6. g.

Goldberg, 1993; Peabody, 1987) see assertiveness as most central.

43

 

There are many reasons to suspect that a sociability interpretation of extraversion
would lead to positive relationships with OCBs. Warm individuals are those who place an
emphasis on interpersonal intimacy, and who are generally warm and affectionate (Costa
& McCrae, 1992). Gregarious individuals are those who truly prefer and enjoy the
company of others (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In fact, one could actually conclude that the
concern for relationships and intimacy embedded within the warmth construct might
preclude one from taking an aggressive stance during competitive situations. The
sociability (Hogan, 1993) aspect of these facets would lead one to make the assertion that
sociable individuals would be more inclined to engage in OCBs. Further, the warmth and
gregarious nature of sociable individuals would interact with type of OCB (see previous
interactions for anxiety and duty for depiction of the relationship).

H4a: An individual’s level of sociability will be positively related to OCBs.

H4b: An individual’s level of sociability will interact with type of OCBs such

that individuals high in sociability will engage in signiﬁcantly more private

OCBs than public OCBs.

Stewart (1996) provides an interesting example of the unique aspects of
sociability and surgency within a sales organization. Stewart (1996) noted that Barrick,
Mount, and Strauss (1993) did not ﬁnd a relationship between extraversion and sales in a
ﬁeld study and proposed that future studies should search for some moderating
relationships. In the Stewart (1996) study, he surprisingly found that reward structure
moderated the relationship such that under conditions of high public reward extraversion
demonstrated a signiﬁcant relationship with performance. However, under no reward

conditions extraversion did not relate signiﬁcantly to performance. These ﬁndings are

perfectly consistent with those of Vinchur et a1. (1998) who promote the importance of
potency as essential to sales performance.

Therefore,iwhat Stewart (1996) is implicitly arguing is that a self-centered aspect
of extraversion (the seeking of external rewards) drives the extraversion — sales
performance link. Vinchur et al. (1998) interpret surgency as a facet related to
interpersonal dominance, while Costa and McCrae (1992) view excitement-seekers as
those who would crave excitement and stimulation.

This self versus other-centered distinction is consistent with clinical studies
concerning extraversion based upon cortical activity (Eysenck, 1967; Eysenck, 1973;
Gray, 1970; Gray, 1973). Here, clinical researchers differentiate extraverts from
introverts based upon levels of cortical activity. Extroverts have been demonstrated to
have a lower baseline cortical rate therefore; they are able to handle more external
stimulation. Introverts have a higher baseline rate and can become over stimulated more
easily. What the cortical school of extraversion contends is that the self-centered need for
excitement drives the behavior of extraverts.

In general, extraverts conceptualized along the dimension of surgency are by
nature self-centered. They are often thought of as dominant leaders (Lei & Skinner, 1982;
Hogan, 1993). This aspect of extraversion might not only lead to less OCBs but the
dominance and leadership qualities associated with this trait might be associated with
garnering OCBs from others (see previous ﬁgures related to depression and achievement
striving for an example of the predicted interaction).

HSa: An individual’s level of surgency will be negatively related to OCBs.

45

 

 

HSb: An individual’s level of surgency will interact with type of OCB such
that they will engage in significantly fewer private OCBs in relation to public
OCBs _

Viewing the hypotheses relating to the tripartite facets of extraversion leads to the
comparative assertion that the generally positive relationship between sociability and the
interactive relationship between surgency and organizational citizenship behaviors would
lead to the facets predicting more variance in OCBs than the broad trait extraversion.

H6: An individual’s level of extraversion will be unrelated to OCBs.

Aggeeableness, straightforwardness and altruism. Costa and McCrae (1992)
describe agreeableness as primarily an interpersonal dimension. “The agreeable person is
fundamentally altruistic. He or she is sympathetic to others and eager to help them, and
believes that others will be equally helpful in return (p. 15).” Tupes and Christal (1961)
view agreeable individuals as kindly and good-natured. Norman (1963) views agreeable
individuals as gentle and cooperative.

Of the six facets associated with agreeableness (trust, straightforwardness,
altruism, compliance, modest, and tender-mindedness) altruism is clearly the facet that is
most closely tied to an other-centered orientation. In fact, several authors who study
organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Organ & Ryan, 1995;
Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994) use altruism as a
synonym for citizenship behaviors. Costa and McCrae (1992) deﬁne altruistic individuals
as those who “have an active concern for others’ welfare as shown in generosity,
consideration of others, and a willingness to assist others in need of help.” The active

concern for others might be a critical dimension in propelling highly altruistic individuals

46

 

 

to engage private OCBs (see ﬁgures relating the other-centered facets for an example of
the proposed interaction).

H7a: An individual’s level of altruism will be positively related to OCBs.

H7b: An individual’s level of altruism will interact with type of OCBs such

that individuals high in altruism will engage in signiﬁcantly more private

OCBs than public OCBs.

The broad trait agreeableness, when viewed alongside the other broad factors, is
the construct most concerned with interpersonal relationships (Graziano, J ensen-
Campbell and Hair; 1996). Hogan (1983) views the utility of agreeableness as enabling
humans to overcome the inevitable frustrations associated with communal living.
Therefore, at ﬁrst blush there does not appear to be promise of a self-centered aspect to
agreeableness.

Krug & Johns (1986) conducted a second-order factor analysis of the 16 PF
(Cattell, 1947) and came up with a slightly different deﬁnition of agreeableness. They
. found validity for a factor that was deﬁned along the lines of low levels of sensitivity or
warmth and dominance. This deﬁnition is close to that of straitforwardness (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). High scorers on this dimension are thought to be frank, sincere, and
honest. Strait-forward individuals refuse to manipulate others through ﬂattery, craftiness,
or deception. Admittedly, there has been a distinct lack of research on both agreeableness
and its facets (Graziano, J ensen-Campbell & Hair, 1996). However, to the degree that a
strait-forward individual is concerned with others understanding his/her stand on issues
could be viewed as a self-centered aspect of agreeableness. Both altruism and

straitforwardness seek and value a socially friendly environment. Perhaps the difference

47

 

 

is that altruistic individuals value agreeable situations based on others wants and needs
while strait-forward individuals value agreeable situations wherein their personal views
are known and craftiness is absent. There is no clear theory as to how straightforwardness
would relate with OCBs. Perhaps, straightforwardness would be related to more extreme
levels of OCBs. That is, straightforward individuals might be more sensitive to equity
issues and more consistently adjust their behaviors accordingly. Therefore, we do not
expect an overall main effect, or interactive effect, with straightforwardness.

Viewing the hypotheses relating to altruism and the lack of proposed relationships
with straightforwardness leads to the comparative assertion that the generally positive
relationship between altruism and OCBs might be somewhat muted by the non-
signiﬁcant relationship between straightforwardness and organizational citizenship
behaviors.

H8: Agreeableness will be positively related to OCBs.

Conscientiousneg, achievement striving and dug. Costa and McCrae (1992)

 

deﬁne conscientiousness as describing individuals, who are,

“purposeful, strong-willed, and determined. . .on the positive side, high C

is associated with academic and occupational achievement; on the

negative side, it may lead to annoying fastidiousness, compulsive

neatness, or workaholic behavior. Conscientiousness is an aspect of what

was once called character; high C scorers are scrupulous, punctual, and

reliable (p. 16).”

Conscientiousness has received the most attention among organizational
researchers over the past decade (Mount & Barrick, 1998). This is attributable in large
part to the ability of this broad construct to predict a wide range of organizational criteria.

However, Barrick and Mount (1991) and Mount and Barrick (1995) note that there has

been a long-standing disagreement in the literature about what exactly constitutes

48

 

conscientiousness. Some researchers have focused on the achievement striving aspect of
conscientiousness (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981) while others have viewed it more
along the lines of duty and dependability (Norman, 1963; Ashton, 1998).

Several authors have argued that indeed these two facets are, and should be
measured as separate constructs (Jackson, Ashton & Tomes, 1996; Jackson, Paunonen,
Fraboni & Gofﬁn, 1996). Mount and Barrick (1995) assert that the broad construct
conscientiousness includes both of these facets. Within the tri-partite model indeed
achievement striving and duty create a broad trait but their unique variance would be
associated with self and other-centeredness (see previous discussion of the Moon 2001
study for additional review of these two constructs).

Ashton (1998) found that lack of duty was a superior predictor of delinquent
organizational behaviors than the broad trait of conscientiousness. That is, individuals
high in duty engaged in signiﬁcantly less destructive behaviors. The broad trait of
conscientiousness was a weaker predictor. Moon (in press) demonstrated that dutiful
individuals were more likely to abandon losing projects even though quitting projects that
weren’t ﬁnished would reﬂect badly on them (Staw & Ross, 1980), but beneﬁt the
organization. Hough (1992) demonstrated that duty was an important predictor of
performance among health care workers where concern for others was important. This
would lead to the hypotheses that:

H9a: An individual’s level of duty will be positively related to OCBs.

Duty might be especially important when addressing the extent to which an
individual might engage in private OCBs. Hough (1992) found that duty (dependability)

was important to the job proﬁciency of health care workers (r = .18) where adherence to

49

 

rules and regulations is a central component to the job. Also, Ashton (1998) found that
the narrow trait of duty (responsibility) was negatively related to eight of eight forms of
workplace delinquency. Therefore high levels of duty might predict the sort of individual
who would engage in private OCBs.

H9b: An individual’s level of duty will interact with type of OCBs such that
individuals high in duty will engage in signiﬁcantly more private OCBs than public
OCBs

Figure 4. Proposed interaction between duty and type of OCB

 

 

 

Private OCB
OCBs
/ Public OCB
I l
l 1
Low Duty High Duty

There is along history of research suggesting that achievement striving is related
to performance only in “achievement” situations (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, &
Lowell, 1953). Achievement situations require that some level of personal
accomplishment is discernable. In fact, McClelland et al found that in low achievement
situations achievement striving was actually negatively related to performance.
Therefore, there are two aspects of achievement striving that would lead one to question
the extent to which individuals high in this trait would engage in OCBs. Achievement

striving is a self-centered construct (Moon, in press), and achievement striving has been

50

demonstrated to be negatively related to performance in conditions where individuals
view it as “low achievement” (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 195 3).
H1011: An‘individual’s level of achievement striving will be negatively related
to OCBs.
111%: An individual’s level of achievement striving will interact with type of
OCB such that they will engage in signiﬁcantly fewer private OCBs in
relation to public OCBs.

Figure 5. Pr0posed interaction between achievement striving and type of OCB.

\ Public OCB
OCBs \

l l
l 1

Low Achievement striving High Achievement striving

Private OCB

 

 

Viewing the hypotheses relating to the tripartite facets of conscientiousness leads
to the comparative assertion that the generally positive relationship between duty and the
generally negative relationship between achievement striving and organizational
citizenship behaviors would suppress the relationship between the broad trait
conscientiousness and OCBs such that:

H11: Conscientiousness will be unrelated to OCBs.

A concern with the hypotheses pertaining to conscientiousness is that the ﬁnal

hypothesis asserts no relationship between conscientiousness and OCBs when in fact a

51

 

string of recent research has demonstrated a positive relationship between
conscientiousness and OCBs (Barrick, Mount & Strauss, 1992; Neuman & Kickul, 1998;
Organ & Ryan, 1995). The rational behind the proposed lack of relationship between
conscientiousness and OCBs in this study is based upon the inclusion of private OCBs
which may have not been measured in previous studies. For example, Barrik, Mount and
Strauss conducted their study using sales representatives in a large manufacturing ﬁrm.
Neuman and Kickul (1998) used employees of a large wholesale/retail jewelry
organization. Perhaps in these service/sales contexts, OCBs are more actually a
requirement of successful completion of tasks as opposed to discretionary behaviors
envisioned by Organ (1988). In this study I balance (on equal footing) those OCBs that
can be noticed and rewarded (public) with those that are done more discretely (private).
Perscmam and OCBs: Team based Miors

Looking at an individual’s behavior within a team context can be viewed as a
microcosm of the duality that exists between the constant tension to act in a self or other
interested manner between an individual and his/her surrounding environment (Meade,
1937). However, there are differences between a broad perspective of competitive and
cooperative behaviors and that found in small groups or teams. Olson (1965) argues that
individuals will almost always act in their own self-interest when evaluating their
behaviors versus that of a society, thus distinguishing the need for government and public
goods. Olson notes that an individual’s choice between self and other-centered behaviors
becomes more complicated when operating within a small group, “If there is some
quantity of a collective good that can be obtained at a cost sufﬁciently low in relation to

its beneﬁt that some one person in the relevant group would gain from providing that

52

 

good all by himself, then there is some presumption that the collective good will be
provided (p. 22).” Translated, what Olson contends is that when an individual is in a
group setting he/she is better able to internalize group success with his or her own
success, therefore, rational calculations between individual and group goals become
muddled.

Hackman (1991) outlines various mechanisms at the disposal of groups to
engender cooperative behaviors among its members. Ambient stimuli are those that
pervade the group and/or its environment, and group members are normally exposed to
them as a regular part of their life in the group. Discretionary stimuli are actions taken by
the group that are transmitted or made available to individuals differentially and
selectively at the discretion of the other members. Similarly, Olson (1965) adds that it is
only via the small group that any actions can be taken to coerce cooperative behaviors
among its members. Therefore, the hypotheses will be based upon individual level

behaviors within a team environment.

53

CHAPTER 4
METHOD
Setting and participants

The hypotheses generated based on the tripartite facets will be assessed in a
laboratory setting. This choice was made based on two factors. First, the choice of a
laboratory experiment is almost a necessity based on the fact that one of the criteria of
interest — private OCBs -— is almost impossible to measure in a ﬁeld setting. Also, the
laboratory context allows one to directly measure OCBs and not rely solely on self or
supervisory ratings, which has been the standard practice in this area of research.

Second, the theory underlying the hypotheses does not imply boundary conditions
that preclude conducting the study in the lab. That is, there is nothing in the theory that
implies that it would not hold in a laboratory context. To test the hypotheses, all that is
required is teams of three or more members in a team-based task with opportunities for
individuals to engage in either private or public acts of citizenship. Therefore, the setting
. will be a computer simulation and the participants will be undergraduate students at a
large Mid-westem university.

Participation in the experiment was strictly voluntary. Permission to engage in the
experiment was subjected to and received approval of the UCHRIS human subject review
board (see appendix B a sample of the voluntary consent form and the UCHRIS approval
application).

Overall desigp of the study
Power analysis. It is important to conduct a power analysis to determine the

minimum appropriate number of participants required to be conﬁdent of the probability

54

of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false. This controls for the potential of
committing a Type 11 error. Three parameters determine the power of any study: (1) the
sample size, (2) the level of statistical signiﬁcance, (3) the size of the effect.

Inherent in any power analysis is a level of discretion given to the researcher. In
this study I chose the power to be .80 (which is the conventional level). Although there
are reasons that larger effect sizes should be chosen when appropriate I chose to consider
a small to medium effect size based upon the historically modest relationships between
personality and the criterion of interest (r = .25). The beneﬁts of choosing a larger effect
size is a decrease in the number of required subjects in a power analysis. Following
convention, I chose to establish the power requirements using an alpha of .05.

The analysis was conducted using multiple linear regressions. However, instead
of conducting a single regression comprising all variables of interest I chose to run
parallel regressions of the tripartite traits and their broad trait (see Judge & Bono, 2001).
In order to ﬁnd the minimum sample size to satisfy the power requirements, the
following formula is appropriate:

n=UF+K+1
Where f2 = srz/ l-Rz, L is based upon Table E2 in Cohen & Cohen (1983) where K3 = l,
sr2 represents the semi—partial effect size estimate, and K = the number of independent
variables (K = 5). In this study St2 = .0625, R2 = .3125 (5 independent variables x .0625).
If L/f’2 = (7.85/(.O625/1 - .3125)) alpha = .05, and power = .80, L = 7.85, the minimum
number of individuals needed is 87.
Measures. The measures used in this study are established in the literature.

At the broad level the personality measures were taken from the 240-item Costa

55

 

and McCrae (1992) NBC PI-R. Each of the four broad traits was comprised of 48
items representing 6 facets of 8 items each. Table 1 depicts of the reliabilities of
the broad traits and the facets of interest in this study. Each participant completed
the Wonderlic cognitive ability test approximately 1-3 months prior to
participating in the lab project.

Table 1.

Internal consistency of measures of the NBC PI-R scales

 

 

NEO Pl-R Scale coefﬁcient ﬂha

Domains

Neuroticism .92

Extraversion .89

Agreeableness .86

Conscientiousness .90
Neuroticism facets

Anxiety .78

Depression .81
Extraversion facets

Warmth .73

Excitement-seeking .65
Agreeableness facets

Straight- forwardness .71

Altruism .75
Conscientiousness facets

Dutifulness .62

Achievement-striving .67

 

The theory that self and other facets underlie the broad traits was argued along
two speciﬁc facets. For example, duty and achievement striving were argued to be the
other and self-centered facets comprising the broad factor conscientiousness. However,
the facets duty and achievement striving represent only 16 of the 48 total items

comprising conscientiousness. Perhaps items related to other facets of conscientiousness

56

 

such as self-discipline, order and competency also indicate self or other-centeredness.
Therefore, I decided to investigate self and other-centered facets at the item level. I ﬁrst
considered each of the 240 items with the purpose to determine if there was potential for
self or other-centered tendencies to embedded in that item. Items that were deemed to
contain no self or other-centered information were excluded. For scale construction
purposes I attempted to maintain as equal number of items per facet as possible. In the
end 96 of the 240 original items were deemed to contain some reference to self or other-
centered tendencies based on the author’s evaluation of the items (Note: Openness to
experience did not receive attention in the theory section, therefore I did not consider any
of the facet items in my analysis. This is not to say the openness is not a viable
personality construct but that I did not see a theoretical tie between openness and OCBs).

These items were then given to 4 independent subject matter experts
(characteristics are: average number of years holding degree = 20, average number of
publications = 31, 2 have been editors of major journals, average number of editorial
boards = 4) to determine if the raters would agree on the 96 items in terms of their
reﬂecting self or other-centeredness. A scale was constructed wherein each item could be
categorized as self, “?”, or other-centered (see Appendix A for a sample of the item rating
scale). One additional independent subject matter expert reported no experience
whatsoever with the personality literature, thus those ratings were not used.

The four subject matter experts and the author then rated the items to determine
the degree to which the items in the factor analysis tapped self versus other dimensions.
These ratings were correlated among each other, as well as with the ratings made by the

author. Indeed, a signiﬁcant level of agreement was shown in that the average inter-rater

57

 

 

correlation (ave r = .57) was signiﬁcant at p < .01. Table 2 speciﬁes the average
correlation of each of the SMEs with the self or other-centered construct.

Table 2.
Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self and other-

tendencies in NED-PIR items.

Author Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4

Author Pearson 1 .000
Correlation

Rater1 Pearson .34" 1.000
Correlation

Rater2 Pearson .45“ .65" 1.000
Correlation

Rater3 Pearson .51“ .66“ .57" 1.000
Correlation

Rater4 Pearson .55" .66“ .65" .61" 1.000
Correlation

N=122 " p<.01.

Although, the subject matter experts were able to demonstrate agreement in
distinguishing self versus other tendencies across the factors, it was also important to
determine the degree to which the SMEs could establish self versus other tendencies
within each factor of interest. All four factors of interest (Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) demonstrated a signiﬁcant level of rater
agreement. Tables 3 through 6 display the correlations between the raters and self versus
other-centeredness for Neuroticism (ave. r = .57, p < .01), Extraversion (ave. r = .59, p
< .01), Agreeableness (ave. r = .52, p < .01) and Conscientiousness (ave. r = .60, p <

.O 1) respectively.

58

 

 

Table 3.
Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self and other-

tendencies within the Neuroticism factor.

Author Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4

Author Pearson 1 .000
Correlation _

Rater1 Pearson .40“ 1.000
Correlation

Rater2 Pearson .52" .54“ 1.000
Correlation

Rater3 Pearson .28 .82" .70" 1.000
Correlation

Rater4 Pearson .77“ .62" .56" .51" 1.000
Correlation

N=26 'p<.05; ** p<.01.

Table 4.
Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self and other-

tendencies within the Extraversion factor.

Author Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4

Author Pearson 1 .000
Correlation

Rater1 Pearson .47' 1.000
Correlation

Rater2 Pearson .59“ .57" 1.000
Correlation

Rater3 Pearson 1.00" .47“ .59“ 1.000
Correlation

Rater4 Pearson .53“ .65" .48" .53“ 1.000
Correlation

N=24 *p<.05; ** p<.01.

59

 

 

Table 5.
Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self and other-

tendencies within the Agreeableness factor.

Author Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4

Author Pearson 1 .000

Correlation .
Rater 1 Pearson .40’ 1.000

Correlation
Rater 2 Pearson .73" .29“ 1.000

Correlation
Rater 3 Pearson .60" .63" .24 1.000

Correlation
Rater 4 Pearson .47“ .64“ .64“ .53" 1.000

Correlation
N=27 ‘p<.05; " p<.01.

Table 6.

Intercorrelations between subject matter experts and their determination of self and other-

tendencies within the Conscientiousness factor.

Author Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4
Author Pearson 1 .000
Correlation
Rater 1 Pearson .37 1.000
Correlation
Rater 2 Pearson .46" .79" 1.000
Correlation
Rater 3 Pearson .55' .67" .84" 1.000
Correlation
Rater 4 Pearson .60" .45“ .57“ .68“ 1.000
Correlation
N=20 'p<.05; " p<.01.

A signiﬁcant level of agreement was obtained both across the factors and within

each factor related to differences in self or other-centered orientations embedded within

items of the NBC. Self and other-centered facets were determined by a majority rule.

That is, a minimum agreement of 3 or more on any one item would place that item on

either the self or other-centered dimension of the ﬁve-factor model. This led to a model

60

 

consisting of the following items related to the eight facets of interest in this study
(parentheses represent the observed coefﬁcient alpha of the scale and/or the NEO facet
that the item was taken from).

Depression (alpha = .77)

1. I am not a worrier ® (anxiety).

2. I rarely feel lonely or blue ® (depression).

3. I tend to overindulge in things (impulsiveness).

4. I am easily frightened (anxiety).

5. Sometimes I feel completely worthless (depression).

6. I am often sad or depressed (depression).

7. I am often apprehensive about the future (anxiety).

8. I tend to blame myself when anything goes wrong (depression).

9. I often worry about things that might go wrong (anxiety).

10. I have a low opinion of myself (depression).

. 11. I sometimes eat myself sick (impulsiveness).

12. Sometimes things look pretty bleak or hopeless to me (depression).

13. Frightening thoughts sometimes come into my head (anxiety).

14. Even minor annoyances can be ﬁ'ustrating to me (angry hostility).

15. Too often, when things go wrong, I feel like giving up (depression).

Anxiety (alpha = .56)

1. I often get angry with the way people treat me (angry hostility).

2. In dealing with people, I always dread making a social blunder (self-conscious).

3. I often feel self-conscious when I am around people (self-conscious).

61

4. I often feel fearful or anxious (anxiety).

LII

. I get embarrassed if people ridicule and tease me (self-consciousness).

. I often feel inferior to others (self-consciousness).

O\

\l

. I do not feel comfortable in the presence of my bosses or authorities (self-

consciousness).

00

. I have more fears than most people (anxiety).

1°

If I have said or done the wrong thing to someone, I can hardly bear to face them
again (self-consciousness).

Surgency (alpha = .65)

l. I am attracted to crowds of people (gregariousness).

2. I often crave excitement (excitement seeking).

3. I have no trouble asserting myself (assertiveness).

4. I have sometimes done things just for “kicks or thrills (excitement seeking).
5. I often feel as if I’m bursting with energy (activity).

6. Other people often look to me to make decisions (assertiveness).

7. I like to be where the action is (excitement seeking).

8. I love the excitement of roller coasters (excitement seeking).

9. In conversations, I tend to do most of the talking (assertiveness).

10. I ﬁnd it easy to take charge of a situation (assertiveness).

Sociability (alpha = .81)

1. I really like most people I meet (warmth).

2. I am dominant forceful and assertive (assertiveness).

3. I like to have a lot of people around me (gregariousness).

62

 

9.

I am known as a warm and friendly person (warmth).

I have often been a leader of groups I have belonged to (assertiveness).
In meetings, Imusually do the talking (assertiveness).

I really enjoy talking to people (warmth).

I ﬁnd it easy to smile and be outgoing with strangers (warmth).

I would rather be a leader than go my own way (assertiveness).

10. I have strong emotional attachments to my ﬁ'iends (warmth).

11. I take a personal interest in the people I work with (warmth).

12. I enjoy parties with lots of people (excitement seeking).

13. I like being part of a crowd at sporting events (excitement seeking).

Straightforwardness (alpha = .30)

l.

2.

6.

7.

I am not crafty or sly (straightforwardness).

I can be sarcastic and cutting when I need to be (compliance).

I am hard headed and tough minded in my attitudes (compliance).
How I feel about things is important to me (modesty).

1 do not hesitate to express my anger when it is justiﬁed (compliance).
Being perfectly honest is the best way to do business (straightforwardness).

I am hardheaded and stubborn (compliance).

Altruism (alpha = .76)

1.

2.

b»)

I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them (compliance).

I try to be courteous to everyone 1 meet (altruism).

I could not deceive anyone even if I wanted to (straightforwardness).

We can never do too much for the poor and elderly (tender-mindedness).

63

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

. I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate (altruism).

If I do not like people I let them know it (compliance).

I would hate to be thought of as a hypocrite (straightforwardness).

I am known for my generosity (altruism).

Human need should always take priority over economic considerations (tender-
mindedness).

If someone starts a ﬁght, I’m ready to ﬁght back (compliance).

Most people I know like me (altruism).

If someone starts a ﬁght, I’m ready to ﬁghtback (compliance).

I feel that all humans are worthy of respect (tender-mindedness).

I tend to assume the best about people (trust).

I think of myself as a charitable person (altruism).

I would rather praise others than be praised myself (modesty).

l have sympathy for others less fortunate than me (tender-mindedness).

I pride myself in my shrewdness in handling people (straightforwardness).
I would rather be known as merciful than just (tender-mindedness).

I go out of my way to help others if I can (altruism).

Achievement striving (alpha = .85)

1.

2.

Most times, I am dependable or reliable (duty).

I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion (achievement

striving).
I am a productive person who always gets the job done (self discipline).

I like to keep everything in its place just so I know where it is (order).

 

 

5. I work hard to achieve my goals (achievement striving).

6. Once I start a project, I almost always ﬁnish it (self-discipline).

7. I am often successful at things (achievement striving).

8. I adhere strictly to my ethical principles (duty).

9. I strive to achieve all I can (achievement striving).

10. I’m a very competent person (competency).

11. I try to do jobs carefully — so they wont have to be done again (methodicalness)

12. I strive for excellence in everything I do (achievement striving).

13. I plan ahead carefully when I go on a trip (deliberation).

14. I’d really have to be sick before I miss a day of work (duty).

15. I’m something of a workaholic (achievement striving).

16. I have a lot of self-discipline (self-discipline).

Duty (alpha = .41)

l. I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously (duty).

2. I take civic duties like voting very seriously (duty).

3. I pay my debts promptly and in full (duty).

4. When I make a commitment I can always be counted on to follow through (duty).
Table 7 demonstrates the reliability of the initial facet scales, the reliabilities of

the ﬁnal facet scales (with number of items in parentheses) and the reliability of the

facets as measured by the NBC PI-R all of which are based on eight item scales (Costa &

McCrae, 1992).

65

Table 7.

Comparative alphas of initial scale, ﬁnal scale and the NBC facets

 

NEO PI-R Scale

 

Adj. Ntunber of NBC
scale items facets
Neuroticism facets
Anxiety .56 (09) .78
Depression .77 (16) .81
Extraversion facets
Warmth .81 (14) .73
Excitement-seeking .65 (10) .65
Agreeableness facets
Straight-forwardness .30 (07) .71
Altruism .76 (20) .75
Conscientiousness facets
Duty .41 (04) .62
Achievement-striving .85 (16) .67

 

Task. The Distributed Dynamic Decision-making (DDD) simulation was

employed, which was developed by the Department of Defense for research and training
purposes. The generic version of this simulation is a networked realistic command and
control simulator that can produce scenarios that range from high to low ﬁdelity. The

version of the simulation used in this manuscript utilizes a low ﬁdelity structure based

upon 4 person teams.

Each team worked together in a common room, and each team member was
stationed at a separate computer (PC). These were situated so that people could not see
their teammate’s computer screens; however, each PC was networked to other team
members. Participants controlled various military vehicles such as tanks, helicopters, jets,

and scout planes via a mouse. The purpose of the game was to efﬁciently identify, and

66

react to, unknown targets (either ﬁiendly or unﬁiendly) that moved in and out of the
game playing area.

A depiction of the game area is shown in Figure 6. The game—playing grid was
partitioned in several ways. First, in terms of the team member’s physical location, the
grid was partitioned into four geographic quadrants of equal area and assigned to
individual players (player 1, 2, 3, and 4).

The geographic region was also divided into three regions that varied in terms ,of the
extent to which the areas needed to be protected from penetration by unfriendly targets.
There were three separate regions in the game: neutral areas (all areas outside the boxes),
restricted areas, and highly restricted areas. Each individual was instructed that they were
in charge of keeping their area ﬁee of enemy targets. That is, they were directed to their
own scoring bar indicating the extent to which they were able to monitor and keep clear
their part of the overall grid. The players were also instructed that they were part of a 4~
person team. The team’s mission was to keep unfriendly vehicles from entering the
restricted, and the highly restricted areas, while at the same time, allowing safe passage
for all ﬁiendly vehicles. The overall task, therefore, was to monitor the game screen,
identify targets as quickly as possible and determine their nature (friend or foe), and
disable any unfriendly targets that entered restricted areas. At the same time, the teams
were to avoid attacking any friendly targets. Each individual started out with a set
number of points and were penalized a point for every second that an enemy target
remained in a restricted area (the larger green box) and 2 points for every second an
enemy target remained in a highly restricted area (the smaller red box). Individuals were

penalized severely (300 points) for attacking any friendly target or unfriendly target in a

67

 

neutral zone. Players were also informed of the team scoring system and told that those
teams who scored highest would receive a cash prize at the end of the semester.

Therefore,each individual had to keep track of two scoring systems. First, he or
she could monitor his or her offensive score. Each time individual players successfully
cleared an enemy target in either restricted zone they were rewarded with 5 personal
offensive points. On the other hand, their team defensive score indicated how efﬁciently
the team maintained the integrity of the restricted airspace.

Figure 6. Example of the DDD four person team game playing area.

In terms of monitoring the geographic area, each team member’s base (see the

Base DR and Base 1R rings) had the same sight range as every other member. The DR

 

68

 

indicated the extent to which an individual could see a target moving on the screen while
the IR indicated the extent to which an individual could identify an unknown target. Any
target outside of an individual’s rings (either base or vehicle) would be undetectable to i
that individual. What is clear in the ﬁgure is that although any individual was limited in
what they could see from their base, their vehicles could extend their vision by moving
into other areas of the game screen. Each individual controlled 4 vehicles that could be
launched from the base and manually moved anywhere on the game screen. These

vehicles had different abilities and unique characteristics.

Differences in the vehicles (scout plane, jets, tanks, and helicopters) were based
upon (1) range of vision, (2) speed of movement, (3) duration of operability, (4) and
weapons capability. Targets on the other hand varied by being (1) friend or enemy, (2)
fast or slow, (3) easy or difﬁcult to disable (4) easy or difﬁcult to identify. Each
individual had the same set of vehicles (one each of the helicopter, tanks, jets and
AWACs scout planes).

All targets originated from outside the screen and proceeded inward. Table 8
depicts the speciﬁc attributes of all the vehicles and targets used in this game. These
targets would start from random locations on the edge of the screen and pass through the
various player’s areas. Each individual player was tasked with the same number of targets
throughout the game although the pattern of targets took on two distinct forms. Some of
the targets would come in singularly from random locations, pass through and exit the

game screen in another location. Other targets came in waves (8 targets entering one
player’s zone simultaneously). These targets would then stop in the red (highly restricted)

zone. Prosecuting these wave targets required teamwork, or the help of other team

69

 

members. That is, occasionally targets would arrive in bunches and “ﬂood” one particular
player’s area. These would overload that individual’s capacity to monitor their area. Each
individual encountered one wave of targets per game.
Table 8.
The attributes associated with the vehicles and targets.

Characteristics and Symbol Associated with Sub-Platfonns and Tracks

Sub— Track
platform
Dur- Speed Vision Power Nature Speed Need to
ation Disable

Tank 8:00 slow very limited high (5)
Helicopter 4:00 medium limited med. (3)
Jet 2:00 very fast far low (1)
AWACs 6:00 fast very far none

A0 Friendly Fast T,H,J
A 1 Enemy Fast T,H,J
A3 Enemy Fast T,H

A5 Enemy Fast T

G0 Friendly Slow T,H,J
G1 Enemy Slow T,H,J
G3 Enemy Slow T,H

G5 Enemy Slow T

U+ (A0) Friendly Fast T,H,J
U- (Al) Enemy Fast T,H,J

UX (A3) Enemy Fast T,H

U# (A5) Enemy Fast T

 

Notes: For subplatforms: duration = amount of time a vehicle may stay away from the base before needing
to refuel, speed = how fast the sub-platform travels across the game screen, vision = refers to the range of
vision the sub-platform has to both see and identify tracks, power = the ability of the sub-platform to
engage enemy tracks. For tracks: nature = whether the track is an enemy or friend, speed = how fast the
track travels across the game screen, need to disable = which of the sub-platforms can successfully engage

the track.

To summarize, in this simulation, the team members were tasked with monitoring

a game screen consisting of a dynamic picture, ﬁlled with large numbers of vehicles,

70

 

 

rings, and targets that were moving at different speeds and different directions. With
limited vision, they were employing a mouse to launch, move, and direct 4 vehicles in an
effort to keep anywrestricted or highly restricted area clear. While engaging in this activity
they were free to exchange information either verbally or electronically with other
members of the team.
Procedures

The NEG-PIR was handed out to the subjects on the ﬁrst week of class. At this
time each individual was given a 12 minute timed ability test (Wonderlic). Subjects were
then told to return the completed personality forms within one week. Subjects also
signed-up for a 3-hour time slot. Consent forms were completed when the subjects
showed up for a scheduled appointment. They were randomly placed into a 4-person
team and randomly assigned to one of 3 different rooms where they were subsequently
trained on the task.

Training consisted of two separate parts. The ﬁrst part consisted of an explanation
of the game and the task. The second part consisted of a hands-on practice session lasting
a full hour. The total time for training was around 90 minutes. After training, individuals
completed a 20-item quiz testing them on they declarative knowledge of the task. Teams
were given a 30-minute break while a research assistant scored the exams. The research

assistant gave individual feedback on the exam. Teams then played a 30-minute game.

Dependent variables

71

 

 

 

Public OCB. A requirement for a public OCB as explained earlier in the
manuscript was that the public OCB be a helping behavior that was confounded with both
a self-interested arid an other-interested component. Public OCBs in this simulation are
measured as the ntunber of times a particular player directs one of his/her vehicles into
another teams area to help clear an enemy target during an enemy wave attack. First, I
focused on the wave targets because these were situations where, clearly, the individual
who received a wave of targets (situation where 8 targets invade the airspace of a single
individual simultaneously) was in need of help. There are two underlying reasons why
the other members of the team would come to the aid of the individual who is confronting
a wave.

On the one hand, they may have done it for altruistic reasons and focused on the
team score. As the wave targets overwhelm another player they were instructed to ask for
the help of their teammates. On the other hand, members may aid the overloaded
teammate for more self-centered reasons such as making sure the target did not have a
chance to enter their zone, or for impression management reasons. Moreover, because
individuals also kept track of their individual offensive score, they may have sent help in
order to seek opportunities to improve their personal offensive score. Also, helping
another player attack a target in their zone was a high proﬁle public action. Every vehicle
launched by an individual was visible to all team members regardless of sight restrictions.
Further, each team member’s vehicles and base was color coded (either red, blue, green
or purple) for easy identiﬁcation and association. When help was requested, it was easy
to track who was responding. When a target was destroyed a ﬂashing ﬁreball would

appear on the screen that was easily visible to all members.

72

 

 

I was interested in “total attempted helps” not total successful helps. Attempted l
helps were deﬁned as movement of an individual’s vehicle to within one grid square of a
teammates highly restricted zone during a wave attack. There are many reasons why an
attempted public OCB might not result in an actual clearing of an enemy vehicle. The
team-member might have sent a jet with low power and subsequently not found a target
to destroy. Moreover, two team members might have sent the same vehicle in response to
a need, but only one vehicle would be able to successfully engage the enemy target.

Public citizenship behaviors were coded by 3 investigators replaying each of the
games used in this study and manually counting the number of times team members
responded to a wave target by sending their vehicles. As a check on the reliability of the
public citizenship behaviors each of the investigators independently counted the public
citizenship behaviors of 16 individuals across 4 different teams. The average correlation
between the three investigators was .97.

Pmaye Citizepghip behaviors. Unlike the case for public citizenship behaviors,
private citizenship behaviors provided little opportunity for public recognition. Private
citizenship was presented as a behavior more in line with the private nature of Organ’s
(1988) original conceptualization of OCBs. Within the team task, the extent to which an
individual transferred the identity of targets for their teammates was used as the construct
measuring private citizenship behaviors.

During training, participants were informed that one critical aspect of the game
was the extent to which they shared the information of identiﬁed targets with their
teammates. Once an individual identiﬁed a moving target, only the identifying individual

knew the information regarding that target. As a result, if the target left that person’s area,

73

 

 

it would be unidentiﬁed to any other teammate unless that individual would identify the
target for him/herself. If the individual transferred the information concerning the target
to the rest of the team, this saved the other team members‘from having to identify the

target themselves. This took extra time to accomplish, but beneﬁted the other members.

However, this speciﬁc type of helping behavior typically went unnoticed and
unrewarded. This is due to the fact that targets where coming in from all directions and
players would not know who initially transferred info on a target that came into their
zone. Thus, the actual act of transferring information was not public, more importantly,
there was no reward for transferring information. When helping other team members to
clear enemy targets, individuals were rewarded with offensive points. However, when
transferring information, there was no personal beneﬁt or reward associated with this
behavior.

Private citizenship behaviors were acquired via a computer generated output of
the performance of each individual. Each transfer of info was recorded and stored
electronically during the actual playing of the game.

Control ya_riafbles

Cognitive abilitL Cognitive ability has a rich history of construct validation and
links to workplace performance (Hunter, 1986; Hunter and Hunter, 1984). Because the
purpose of this study was to relate disposition to behaviors, I controlled for ability.

Roles. The speciﬁc role (or location) each team member was assigned to serve as

 

another set of control variables. As stated previously, each individual encountered the
same number of targets, however, the order of the wave targets was ﬁxed. For example,

DMl received the ﬁrst wave and DM2 received the last wave. To eliminate any effects

74

 

 

based upon the order that wave targets were encountered 1 controlled for the various roles

that individuals played.

75

 

 

 

RESULTS

The experiment utilized a repeated measures design consisting of 160 participants
by two conditions; There were a total of 198 initial participants who both played the
game and had usable personality scores. However, for 38 of the participants both
measures of OCBs could not be calculated, therefore 38 participants were not used. This
resulted in 320 useable observations. The total variance in the total observations could be
traced to two orthogonal sources: variance within each individual and variance across
individuals. Using the guidelines provided by Cohen and Cohen (1983) I calculated the
percentage of variance within subjects (30%). The percentage of variance between
subjects was 70%. Table 9 provides the descriptive statistics associated with the

individual-level variables and the criterion of interest.

76

 

 

 

Eds: guards uz

 

 

so: :3. $.- :.- :2. cc. 8.- 8.- z..- 2. ,3.- 3- 5. Ms. .2. N2 mom 50233.2
8:: a..- 8.. No. .2. 8.- 8. S.- :e_. a...- _o.- 8.- :2. 8. 3m 9; muouaaai
it we. :a. :3. ram. :3. :3. :8- :No. :8. :3. :3..- _c.- om. m:- assuazéi
52 :1.. :2; .2. :2”. we. 3.- .z. :8. 3. :3- :2.- mv. 3a Eanu.m.~_
$3 .3.- .2. :5. ram. :3.- 8. 2... :8. :_~.- 8. 9.. 3m .6595:
:5 :2.- eor :3- :9. :R- :2.- ..mm; :8. as. me. Be 532892
:1 :2. :R. :2- :S. :ﬁ. :3. :8: as. mm. in band
3: :8. 8.- :2. :.a. :2. .2.- oo: mm. Ed 522.2 .22
2M: :2: :2. :ﬁ. :8. :3. 2.- mm. and £388 A
32 :_N.- 8.- :9..- :£. 8.- S. gm aeé< e
:3 :2. :mm. :2; 3. 3. arm 32.8625 .m
E: :2. :3.- m..- mm. o~.m accuses? .4
Si :2..- 5- 3. «on assassin a.
83 3.- 3. and 582282 .N
:5: 8.0 83 E3 ._
m. 3 2 N. : 2 o w a e m e m N _ am 2

 

6285 no 833:2, Co mecca—2.50 Ea mcocmSoc Emcee; memo—2

.0 p33-

77

Hypothesis la predicted that anxiety would be positively related to OCBs. The -

 

data supported this hypothesis (t(7, 152) = 2.11, p = .03). Hypothesis 1b predicted that
anxiety would interact with type of OCB such that individuals high in anxiety would
engage in signiﬁcantly more private OCBs than public OCBs. Support for this interaction
was not demonstrated (t(9, 150) = -.32,. p = .75). Hypothesis 2a predicted that depression
would be negatively related to OCBs. The data did not support a signiﬁcant relationship
(t(7, 152) = -.O6, p = .95). Hypothesis 2b predicted an interaction such that individuals
who were high in depression would engage in signiﬁcantly more public OCBs than
private OCBs. The data did not support this hypothesis (t(9, 150) = -1.00, p = .32).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that neuroticism would be unrelated to OCBs. However, the data
supported a relationship such that neuroticism was positively related to OCBs (t(6, 153) =
2.70, p = .03). Table 10 depicts a side-by—side comparison of the predictive ability of the

facets and the broad factor comprising neuroticsm.

Table 10.
Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models

- . . . 2
neuroticrsm, anxrety and depressron (changes in R )

 

 

 

Facet model Factor model
AR’ B AR2
(step) (step)
1. Co nitive ability .13 1. Cognitive ability .13
IngMl .03 .11" IfDMl .03 .11"
IfDM2 - .20 IfDM2 - .20
IfDM3 - .30 If DM3 - .30
2. Type OCB .01 .00 2. Type OCB .01 .00
3. D ression .Ol
Ariiiiety .16 .02 " 3. Neuroticism . 16 .02“
4. Depression x OCB - .51 .00
Anxiety x OCB .15

 

78

Note: N = 320. The controls (cognitive ability and roles) explain 16% of the
between subject variance. Depression and anxiety and neuroticism both explain 3% of

between subject variance. *p < .05 ** p < .01.

Hypothesis 4a predicted that sociability would be positively related to OCBs.

The data did not support this hypothesis (t(7, 152) = -1.00, p = .32). Hypothesis 4b
predicted that an individual’s level of sociability would interact with type of OCB such
that individuals high in sociability would engage in signiﬁcantly more private .OCBs than
public OCBs. The data did not support this hypothesis (t(9, 150) = —.86, p = .39).
Hypothesis 5a asserted that an individual’s level of surgency would be negatively related
to OCBs. The data did not support the hypothesis (t(7, 152) = 1.66, p = .10). Hypothesis
5b proposed that surgency would interact with type of OCB such that individuals high in
surgency would engage in signiﬁcantly fewer private OCBs. An interaction was not
supported (t(9, 150) = -l .28, p = .20). Hypothesis 6 predicted that extraversion would be
unrelated to OCBs. This assertion was supported by the data (t(6, 153) = .04, p = .96).

Table 11 depicts a side-by-side comparison of the predictive ability of the facets and the

broad factor comprising extraversion.

79

 

Table 11.
Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models

sociability, surgency and extraversion (changes in R2)

 

 

Facet model Factor model
AR: B AR:
(Step) (step)
2. Cognitive ability .13 1. Cognitive ability .13
If DMl .03 .11" 1f DMl .03 .11"
If DMZ - .20 If DMZ - .20
If DM3 - .30 If DM3 - .30
2. Type OCB .01 .00 2. Type OCB .01 .00
3. Surgency .11
Sociability -.07 .01 3. Extraversion .00 .00
4. Surgency x OCB .68

Sociability x oca -.43 '00

 

Note: N = 320. The controls (cognitive ability and roles) explain 16% of the
between subject variance. *p < .05 ** p < .01.
Hypothesis 7a predicted that altruism would be positively related to OCBs. The
data did not support this hypothesis (t(6, 153) = .59, p = .55). Hypothesis 7b predicted
that altruism would interact with type of OCB such that individuals high in altruism
would engage in signiﬁcantly more private OCBs. The data did not support this
hypothesis (t(7, 152) = -.l3, p = .80). Hypothesis 8 predicted that agreeableness would
be positively related to OCBs. The data did not support this hypothesis (t(6, 153) = .64, p
= .53). Table 12 depicts a side-by-side comparison of the predictive ability of the facets

and the broad factor comprising agreeableness.

80

 

 

Table 12.

Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models

altruism and agreeableness (changes in R2)

 

 

Facet model Factor model
an2 B AR2
' (step) (step)
3. Cognitive ability .13 1. Cognitive ability .13
1f DMl .03 .11“ If DMl .03 .11"
If DM2 - .20 If DM2 - .20
If DM3 - .30 If DM3 - .30
2. Type OCB .01 .00 2. Type OCB .01 .00
3. Altruism .03 .00
3. Agreeableness .04 .00
4. Altruism x OCB - .13 .00

 

Note: N = 320. The controls (cognitive ability and roles) explain 16% of the

between subject variance. *p < .05 ** p < .01.

Hypothesis 9a predicted that duty would be positively related to OCBs. However,

the data did not support this hypothesis (t(7, 152) = .27, p = .79). Hypothesis 9b predicted

that duty would interact with type of OCB such that individuals high in anxiety would

engage in signiﬁcantly more private OCBs than public OCBs. Support for this interaction

was not demonstrated (t(9, 150) = -.57, p = .57). Hypothesis 10a predicted that

achievement striving would be negatively related to OCBs. The data did not support

relationship (t(7, 152) = -l .30, p = .20). Hypothesis 10b predicted an interaction such that

individuals who were high in achievement striving would engage in signiﬁcantly more

public OCBs than private OCBs. The data did not support this hypothesis (t(9, 150) =

.43, p = .67). Hypothesis 11 predicted that conscientiousness would be unrelated to OCBs

(t(6, 153) = -2.l2, p = .06). Surprisingly, the data demonstrated partial support for a

 

negative relationship between conscientiousness and OCBs. Table 13 depicts a side-by-
side comparison of the predictive ability of the facets and the broad factor comprising
conscientiousness.
Table 13.
Hierarchical Regression results associated with comparative personality models

conscientiousness, achievement striving and duty (changes in R2)

 

 

Facet model Factor model
ARZ AR:
(step) (Step)
4. Cognitive ability .13 1. Cognitive ability .13
lfDMl .03 .11" IfDMl .03 .11"
If DM2 - .20 If DM2 - .20
If DM3 - .30 If DM3 - .30
2. Type OCB .01 .00 2. Type OCB .01 .00
3. Achievement - .09
Duty .02 .01 3. Conscientiousness - . 12 .01"
4. Achieve x OCB .43 00
Duty x OCB -.S7 '

 

Note: N = 320. The controls (cognitive ability and roles) explain 16% of the

between subject variance. The broad factor conscientiousness explains 2% of the between

subject variance. *p < .05 “f p < .01.

82

 

DISCUSSION
This dissertation was based on building a case that the five-factor model of
personality might be better conceptualized by measuring personality via the facets that
comprise the broad factors. The differential beneﬁts of measuring personality either
broadly or narrowly has been long established in the personality literature (Stewart,
1999). However, I noted that heretofore, there have been no theories based on the
personality variables themselves that provide guidance to the researcher as to what facets
might be relevant and why facets, in certain instances, might provide superior predictive
ability over their broad trait. A recent article demonstrating a self (achievement striving)
and other-centered (duty) aspect to the broad factor conscientiousness (Moon, 2001) was
proposed to serve as a base from which all of the ﬁve factors could be similarly
conceptualized. A review of the literature revealed that the other broad factors have been
deﬁned in ways that could be interpreted as “colore ” by self and other-centered
deﬁnitions.
Organizational citizenship behaviors were presented as a context in which the
explanatory power of self or other-centered facets might be superior to those of the broad
factors. This was based on the assertion made recently by Organ (1994) that the broad
factors have proved to be weak predictors of OCBs and that traits across the broad factors
might prove to be superior predictors. Unfortunately, the results found in this particular
study were quite disappointing. Moreover, in the instances where empirical relationships
between dispositions and OCBs were demonstrated, the relationships were in unexpected

and dubious directions (for example, conscientiousness was found to be negatively

83

 

related to citizenship behaviors). Reﬂecting on the study post hoc, the lack of results of
this study might have been due to faulty design, faulty measurement, or faulty theory.
Beige

First, let us reﬂect upon the choice of dependent variable: organizational
citizenship behaviors. The literature regarding OCBs has been replete with construct
conﬁision (Organ, 1994). Researchers have been unclear as to what constitutes an OCB,
how to effectively measure an OCB, and what organizational criterion of interest,
exactly, OCBs are able to predict (Lepine et al.,2002). Moreover, Organ (1994)
emphasized the trouble that researchers, in general, have had in linking OCBs to
dispositional variables related to individual personality.

I suggested that OCBs could be conceptualized as either public or private in
nature. Public OCBs were confounded with the potential to be engaged for either
altruistic or self-serving reasons (Bolino, 1999). Private OCBs were thought to be more
altruistic in nature. This assertion was based on the initial introduction of organizational
citizenship behaviors as unrewarded and altruistic (Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Organ,
1988). Recently, Organ (1994) has allowed for the fact that OCBs could be both public in
nature (Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994) and rewarded (Bolino, 1999).

I noted that past OCB research was often restricted to public OCBs as a result of
the use of survey-based designs. However, one constant during the development of the
OCB literature regardless of any public or private distinction is that the behavior is
discretionary. That is, OCBs are deﬁned as behaviors engaged by individuals that are at
the whim of individual rather than required by the individual. OCBs are, at their core,

discretionary.

84

 

The context of this study was different than the majority of previous OCB
research in that it was conducted via a laboratory experiment. Previous research in OCBs
has been based almost exclusively on survey—based perceptions. Here, individuals were
asked speciﬁcally the degree to which they engaged in “discretionary” behaviors such as
compliance, helping and sportsmanship (Moorman, 1993; Moorman, Niehoff & Organ,
1993). Although the conceptual distinction between public and private helping behaviors
as measured in this study may have been valid, the overall discretionary level of the
behaviors may have, in retrospect, been faulty.

In a laboratory study wherein 4 individuals played a networked computer
simulation, I argued that two speciﬁc behaviors would be used as indicators of
organizational citizenship behaviors: transferring information and helping. Transferring
information to your other team members was thought to be important to the extent that it
would save other team members the inconvenience of having to re-identify targets that
have already been identiﬁed once. Helping behaviors was thought to be important to the
extent that it would help redistribute work requirements that were unbalanced (i.e. the
wave targets, which were central to the helping construct, were instances wherein a large
number of enemy targets “ﬂooded” each team-members area at a different time).

However, in this context the four participants faced a novel task, integrated with
new team members, and faced a situation in which they were constantly “ﬂooded” or
overwhelmed with duties that were both numerous and conﬂicting, it might be difﬁcult to
argue that the individual participants actually felt any level of personal discretion. That is,
it may be more likely that individuals were just trying to stay aﬂoat rather than

considering whether to engage in “extra” behaviors.

85

Measurement

A critical shortcoming of the study was embedded in the personality measures.
Scales were created to measure facets of interest using all' available items comprising the
broad factor of personality. Therefore, instead of using the established facets for each
broad factor (totaling 16 items), all 48 items were considered in constructing the scales
used in this study. Although the scales were deveIOped with the aid of expert raters and
demonstrated acceptable reliabilities, there are two major impediments that would give
pause to future use of these scales. First, although inter-rater agreement among 4 subject
matter experts was acceptably high, the actual reliabilities of the eight scales were not
much better, and in some cases unacceptably worse, than that of the established facets.
The average reliability of the facets used in the NEO is 71.5 while the average reliability
of the hybrid scales is 63.8. This was in spite of the fact that the hybrid facets used in this
study had an average of 3.4 more items per scale.

A related problem concomitant with the low reliability of measures is the high
correlation between the scales developed, and used in this study, with the broad factors.
For example, anxiety was correlated .83 with the broad trait of neuroticism. Correction
for measurement error would bring the correlation beyond 1.00. Further examples include
sociability correlated .90 with extraversion and achievement striving correlated .92 with
conscientiousness. Therefore, any interpretation of results demonstrating differential
predictive ability of the facets with their broad factors would be highly suspicious.
Mm

Finally, the theory pr0posed in this study is quite novel and somewhat

controversial. The central argument underlying the author’s theory is that a “method

86

bias” is embedded in the FFM structure such that facets across the ﬁve broad factors
share commonality in either self or other-centered orientations. The author extends the
observation made by Costa and McCrae (1992) that there were high levels of cross-
loadings in the factor matrix of their 240-item NEO PIR such that the cross loadings were
based on systematic error variance related to an individual’s centeredness (either self or
other-centered). The general pattern of this was not supported in this manuscript using
OCB as the criterion of interest and employing a lab design. Perhaps future research can
support this contention (although measurement issues would have to be addressed)
exploring different contexts, relating personality to different constructs, or reﬁning the
content of the personality structure via measurement.
M

The perceived importance of teams in organizations has increase dramatically
over the past several decades (Sundstrum, De Meuse, & F utrell, 1990; Ilgen, 1999).
Historically teams have been thought of as a “black box” from which a level of input is
processed into a level of output (Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1964). The “process”
whereby input is transformed into an output via a team structure was initially thought of
as a cost that needed to be minimized (Steiner, 1972). Recently, theorists have taken a
more positive stance on the beneﬁts of structuring work around teams and have proposed
that indeed there may be synergies rather than costs (Ilgen & Sheppard, 2001; Tziner &
Eden, 1985).

In an extensive review of personality and its impact upon team outcomes Mann
(1959) noted that between 1900 and 1957 more than 500 measures of personality were

investigated for potential relevance to group behavior. Further, less than a quarter of

87

these measures were used in more than a single study. In an update, Moreland and Levine
(1992) offered that “even more traits have been added to the list, and there is still little
agreement about which ones are the most important (pg. 263).” The difﬁculty in culling a
deﬁnitive set of individual difference measures that are relevant to work in teams is also
exacerbated by the fact that there are several dependent variables of output such as:
conformity, cohesiveness, productivity, leadership emergence, satisfaction, and turnover.
Recently, the FFM has been looked at as a potential vehicle through which personality
impacts team performance. However, the ﬁndings have been equivocal.

For example, conscientiousness was determined to be the single most important
global predictor of performance across all jobs and job criteria. Barrick, Stewart, Neubert,
and Mount (1998) found that indeed a team’s level of conscientiousness (operationalized
as its mean) was positively related with the team’s performance. However, Barry and
Stewart (1997) looked at the impact of conscientiousness on self-managed work groups
and found no effect.

Nonetheless, as evidenced by the Barrick et al (1998) piece, there is reason to
believe that personality variables measured with the FFM construct are important to
understanding team performance. However, there is reason to believe that the facets of
focus in this study might provide superior predictive ability in team settings. This would
be especially true to the extent that interdependence is a central component to team
performance (Ilgen & Sheppard, 2001; Kiggundu, 1981; 1983).

Thompson (1967) assumes that organizations, at their core, are composed of
interdependent parts. However, the degree of interdependence varies as a function of the

work ﬂow design. Interdependence has been central to a host of researchers examining

88

team structure and its implications to team-level outcomes (Hackman, 1988; Shiﬂett,
1979; Steiner, 1972; Tesluk, Mathieu, Zaccaro & Marks, 1997) and are thought to be a
deﬁning characteristic of what constitutes a work- group or team (Guzzo & Dickson,
1996). Ilgen & Sheppard (2001) suggest that performance at the team level introduces
team level processes, related to interdependence, exclusive to the team level of analysis
including constructs such as: coordination, cooperation, cohesiveness, and conﬂict.
Fleishrnan & Zaccaro (1992) offer that although previous classiﬁcation schemes offer
insight into team performance they do not “specify the synchronized functions engaged in
by team members as they perform different tasks (pg. 32).”

The premise behind the tripartite theory of personality is that it captures self and
other centeredness not currently found in the F FM. It is asserted that these constructs
become important within a team context where the level of interdependence varies. The
basic assumption underlying the perceived beneﬁts of viewing personality via self or
other-centered facets is that individuals who are high in self-centered aspects of
. personality may not do will in situations where they are called upon to rely upon, and be
relied upon, by others. Conversely, those individuals high in other-centeredness might do
will in highly interdependent teams but less so when the team structure calls for
independent behaviors. As a result, one would expect interactions between the various
facets associated with the tripartite model and the level of interdependence within a team.
The higher order factor structure of the FF M, containing elements of both self and other
centeredness, would lead one to suspect that the F FM would do a poorer job of

demonstrating sensitivity with team interdependence.

89

 

Constructs

In the organizational sciences the constructs individualism and collectivism are
very close in their deﬁnitions to what the tripartite refers to as self or other centeredness.
Wagner and Moch (1986) deﬁne individualism as the condition in which personal
interests are given greater emphasis than are the needs of groups. Wagner (1995) states
“individualists tend to look out for themselves and tend to ignore group interests if they
conﬂict with personal desires (p. 153).” The opposite of an individualist would be a
collectivist. These individuals tend to have concerns about the needs and interests of
groups over that of themselves speciﬁcally and individuals in general. Historically, these
constructs have been afforded the greatest amount of attention at higher levels of analysis
including country (Hofstede, 1980) and group (Early, 1993; Wagner, 1995) levels of
analysis. However, Triandis et al (1985) established the measurement of individualism
and collectivism at the individual level of analysis.

Recent research has established that the constructs individualism and collectivism
rather than being a simple dichotomy (Schwartz, 1990) are potentially complex
constructs. For example, in Wagner’s (1995) study on the inﬂuence of collectivism on
group processes ﬁve separate factors associated with individualism and collectivism
emerged from his scale.

Wagner (1995) looked at the impact of individualism and collectivism on the
level of cooperation provided by individuals within a group task. He developed a scale of
collectivism comprised of measures taken from several studies concerning the

individualism/collectivism construct (Erez & Early, 1987', Hui, 1988', Triandis,

90

Bontempo, Villereal, Asai & Lucca, 1988; Wagner & Moch, 1986). Five distinguishable
factors emerged and although Wagner (1995) refrained from providing the factors with a
speciﬁc label; a content analysis of the items reveals three that have relevance to a
tripartite model of personality.

Collectivism construct 1 consisted of questions related to self-reliance and
independence. This construct included items such as: Only those who depend on
themselves get ahead in life, If you want something done right, you’ve got to do it
yourself. For purposes of this study this construct will be provided the label of
“individualism.”

The collectivism construct 4 regarded the extent to which it was deemed
important for an individual to subordinate personal needs to group interests. This
construct included items such as: People in a group should realize that they sometimes
are going to have to make sacriﬁces for the sake of the group as a whole, people in a
group should be willing to make sacriﬁces for the sake of the group’s well being.

The collectivism construct 3 evaluated the extent to which an individual placed
value in working alone or with a group. This construct included items such as: I prefer to
work with others in a group rather than working alone, given the choice I would rather do
a job where I can work alone rather than doing a job where I have to work with others in
a group. Factor 2 evaluated the achievement orientation of the individual and can be
interpreted as the value the individual placed in competitive success. This contained
items such as: winning is everything and success is the most important thing in life. It
was determined that both the deﬁnition of this construct and the items themselves were

too close to the deﬁnition and items associated with the facet “achievement-striving”

91

associated with the conscientiousness construct. The ﬁnal factor collectivism construct 5
comprised the perceptions of personal pursuits on group productivity. This consisted of
items including: a—group is more productive when its members do what they want to do
rather than what the group wants them to do, and a group is most efﬁcient when its
members do what they think is best rather than doing what the group wants them to do.
Future studies can further explore the extent to which personality constructs are related to
individualism and collectivism. Integrative studies can look for both conceptual and
empirical links.
Content

If indeed, self and other-centeredness is embedded within the deﬁnitions of each
of the ﬁve factors two ﬁnal observations need to be made. The ﬁrst observation is a
determination of how many factors does the tripartite model call for? The present tone of
the debate concerning personality among researchers would beg for a deﬁnitive single
number. One can maintain an argument for the present ﬁve factor conceptualization, one
can also argue that based upon the deﬁnitional differences and empirical ﬁndings
concerning the tripartite facets outlined above that ten distinct factors provides a better
picture of our personality. Yet again, one can conjecture that because self and other-
centeredness serves as a systematic construct underlying the ﬁve factor model, it can be
thought of as “systematic” error such that two additional factors exist parallel to the ﬁve
factor model (the ﬁve broad factors, self-centeredness and other-centeredness), creating a
seven factor model. Finally, one can argue that self and other-centeredness is in actually

ends of a single continuum which then creates a sixth factor.

92

A deﬁnitive answer to the number of factors cannot be provided within the
conﬁnes of this single manuscript. Certainly, whether self and other-centeredness is a
single continuum or two distinct factors is also beyond the scope of this manuscript. In
trying to determine the number of factors contained within the tripartite model I reﬂect
upon the writings of Murray (1938) who wrote of the innate complexities of individuals
and their personalities. The last couple of decades have seen personality researchers call
for and demonstrate empirically models comprising from 2 to 20 theoretically orthogonal
factors as properly capturing an individual’s personality. The tripartite model I present
provides 10 distinct facets in 5 distinct pairs. Therefore, instead of a single number of
factors, the tripartite model allows for a more versatile conceptualization of personality at
both a broad and narrow level of analysis. Versatility of measurement might provide a
better match for the complexity of personality.

Therefore, perhaps the ﬁrst step in future studies is to address the content of the
items used to measure the tripartite facets. That is, using the theory provided within a
tripartite model of personality, measures of facets can be developed with higher
reliability of measurement and more internal consistency than what is presently validated
via current instruments that are developed to measure broad traits ﬁrst and narrow traits

as only a byproduct.

93

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abramson L. Y., & Sackheim, H. A. (1977). A paradox in depression: Uncontrollability
and self-blame. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5): 838-851.

Adler, A. (1933). Superiority and Social Interest: A collection of later writings. (Ed.
Ansbacher, H. L. & Ansbacher, R. R.). Chapter 2, p. 30, London; Routledge &
Kegan Paul.

Adler, A. (1939). Social Interest. New York: Putnam.

Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgements: A ﬁeld study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83: 247-260.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological Monographs, 47(1).

Aquino, K. (1995). Relationships among pay inequity, perceptions of procedural justice,
and organizational citizenship. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
8(1): 21-33.

Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35: 124-140.

Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J ., Segal, N. L. & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction:
Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 187-
192.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: the importance of narrow traits.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 289-303.

Bakan, D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and communion in Western
Man. University of Chicago: Beacon Press.

Barnard, C. I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press:
Cambridge Massachusetts.

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., Mount, M. K. & Strauss, J. P. (1992). The big ﬁve and ability predictors
of citizenship, delinquency, and sales performance. Paper presented at the
Seventh Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Montreal.

94

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance
of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(5): 715-722.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member
ability and personality to work-tearn processes and team effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(3): 377-391.

Barry, B. & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-
managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1):
62-78.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management
Journal. 26, 587-595.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New
York: Harper & Row.

Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1988). Anxiety and depression: An information processing
perspective. Anxiety Research, I : 23-36.

Beck, A. T., & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive
perspective. New York: Basic Books.

Bies, R. J ., Martin, C. L. & Brockner, J. (1993). Just laid off, but still a “good citizen?”
Only if the process is fair. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3):
227-238.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ﬁve-factor approach to personality description.
Psychological Bulletin, 117(2): 187-215.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good
actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 82-98.

Brockner, J ., Rubin, J. 2., & Lang, E. (1981). Face-saving and entrapment. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 1 7: 68-79.

Browne, J. A. & Howarth, E. (1977). A comprehensive factor analysis of personality
questionnaire items: A test of twenty putative factor hypothesis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Oct: 399-427.

Buss, D. M. & Craik, K. H. (1985). Why not measure that trait? Alternative criteria for

identifying important dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
48(4): 934-946.

95

 

 

Cattell, R. B. (19433). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38: 476-506.

Cattell, R. B. (1943b). The description of personality: I. Foundations of trait
measurement. Psychological Review, 50, 559-594.

Cattell, R. B. (1947). Conﬁrmation and clariﬁcation of primary personality factors.
Psychometrika, 12(3): 197-220.

Cattell, R. B. (1956). Second-order perSonality factors in the questionnaire realm. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 20(6): 411-418.

Clark, J. V. & Arkowitz, H. (1975). Social anxiety and the self-evaluation of
interpersonal performance. Psychological Reports, 36: 211-221.

Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression:
Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 100(3): 316-336.

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NE 0-PIR):
Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and
conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and
Individual Diﬂ‘erences, 12: 887-898.

Coyne, J. C. (19763). Depression and the response to others. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 85: 186-193.

Coyne, J. C. (1976b). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39:
28-40.

Cronbach, L. J. & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions.
Urbana: University of Illinois.

Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52(4): 281-302.

Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects
in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 385-400.

96

 

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and
organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67: 315-326.

Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate
organizational citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 7(1), 1-16.

Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25:
1652-1669. ’

Di grnan, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility.
Journal of Personality, 5 7, 195-214.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the ﬁve-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Di grnan, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big ﬁve. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73(6): 1246—1256.

Digman, J. M. & Inouye, J. (1986). Further speciﬁcation of the ﬁve robust factors of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1): 116-123.

Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of
personality: Reanalysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, I 6: 149-170.

Eastman, K. K. (1994) In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to
ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 37: 1379-1391.

Early, C. P., (1993). East meets west meets mid-east: Further explorations of
collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal,
36(2): 319-348.

Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across
cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 658-665.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C
Thomas.

Eysenck, H. H. (1973). Eysenck on extraversion. New York: Wiley.

Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways ﬁve factors are not basic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 773-790.

97

 

Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The uniﬁcation of
psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(6): 1224-1237.

Eysenck, H. J ., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and Individual differences.
London: Plenum Press.

Farh, J. L., Barley, C. P., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of
justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42: 421-444.'

Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational
citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal
of Management, 16(4): 705-721.

F iske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of factorial structures of personality ratings from
different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44: 329-344.

Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance
functions. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas Teams: Their training and performance.
Ablex publishing, Norwood, N. J.

Folger, R. (1993). Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3): 239-248.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. New York: Norton.
Freud, S. (1935). The ego and the id. London: The Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1938). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Modern.

Ghiselli, E. E. & Barthol, R. P. (1953). The validity of personality inventories in selecting
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3 7: 18-20.

Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Some recent trends in personality assessment. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 36: 547-560.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in
personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990) An alternative “Description of Personality”: The Bi g-Five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216-1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992) The development of marker variables for the Bi g-Five structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

98

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48: 26-34.

Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights, 4(4): 249-270.

Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 8: 249-266.

Gray, J. A. (1973). Causal theories of personality and how to test them. In J. R. Royce
(Ed.) Multivariate analysis and psychological theory (pp. 409-464). New York:
Academic Press.

Graziano, W. G., J ensen-Campbell, L. A., Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal
conﬂict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology. 70(4): 820-835.

Greenberg, J. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship: A commentary on the state
of the science. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3): 249-256.

Grinker, R. R. (1964) Reception of communications by patients in depressive states.
Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 10: 576-580.

Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel
selection. Personality Psychology, 18: 135-164.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on
performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 307-33 8.

Hackman, J. R. (1991). Group inﬂuences on individuals in organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology Vol. 3, (2nd ed., pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, Inc.

Hackman, J. R. (1988). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed), Handbook of
organizational behavior. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 315-342.

Hampson, S. H., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth and
hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in judgements of trait

implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 I , 37-54.
Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette and L.

M. H on gh ( Eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychologi, Vol. 2
(pp. 873-919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

99

 

 

 

Hogan, R. T. and Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Assessment systems.

Hogan, R. T., & Nicholson, R. A. (1988). The meaning of personality test scores.
American Psychologist, 43(8): 621-626.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture ’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

Holland, J. L. (1985). The SDS professional manual — 1985 version. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

Honigrnann, J. J. (1954). Culture and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Homey, K. (1937). The Neurotic personality of Our Time. New York: Norton.
Homey, K. (1945). Our Inner Conﬂicts. New York: Norton.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The “bi g—ﬁve” personality variables - construct confusion:
Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5(l&2): 139-155.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D. & McCloy, R. A. (1990).

Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response
distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5): 581-595.

Howarth, E. (1976). Were Cattell’s personality Sphere factors correctly identiﬁed in the
ﬁrst instance? British Journal of Psychology, 67(2): 213-230.

Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal for research on
personality, 22, 17-36.

Hui, C. H., Law, K. S. & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects
of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on
In-role and Extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 77(1): 3-21.

Humphrey, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A
theory of the relationship between individual differences and informational
processing. Psychological Review, 91(2): 153-184.

Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge, and job
performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3): 340-362.

Hunter, J. E. & Hunter R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1): 72-98.

100

 

Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big ﬁve
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6): 869-879.

Ilgen, D. R. (1999.). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American
Psychologist, 54(2): 129-139.

Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L. (2001). Motivation in teams. In M. Erez, H. Thierry, & U.
Klienbeck (Eds.), Motivation in multinational organizations. New York: Erlbaum.

Ingraham, L. J. & Wright, T. L. (1987); A social relations model test of Sullivan’s
Anxiety Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6): 1212-
1218.

Jackson, D. N., Ashton, M. C. & Tomes, J. L. (1996). The six-factor model of
personality: Facets from the big ﬁve. Personality and Individual Differences,
21(3): 391-402.

Jackson, D. N., Psunonen, S. V., Fraboni, M., & Gofﬁn, R. D. (1996). A ﬁve-factor
versus six-factor model of personality structure. Personality and Individual
Diﬂerences, 20(1): 33-45.

John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N.

Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions
(pp. 261-271). New York: Springer-Verlag.

John, O. P. (1990). The “Bi g-ﬁve” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexiconal approach to
personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of
Personality, 2: 171-203.

Joiner, T. E. & Metalsky, G. I. (1995). A prospective test of an integrative interpersonal
theory of depression: A naturalistic study of college roorrnnates. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4): 778-788.

Jones, E. E. & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-
presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.) Psychological perspectives on the self: 231-263.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 751-765.

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological Types. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

101

 

Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern Man in Search of a Soul. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered
approach to work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds) Research
in Organizational Behavior, (vol. 19 pp. 1-56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2"d ed.). New
York: Wiley.

Kidwell, R. E., 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.

Ki ggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of
Management Review, 6(3): 499-508.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance 31: 145-172.

Kirby, S. L. & Davis, M. A. (1998). A study of escalating commitment in principal-agent
relationships: Effects of monitoring and personal responsibility. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(2): 206-217.

Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H. A. (1953). Personality formation: The determinants. In C.
Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray, & D. M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in Nature,
Society and Culture (2nd ed.) (pp. 53-67). New York: Knopf.

Kluckhohn, F. & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, 111:
Row, Peterson and Company.

Konovsky, M. A., Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 17:
253-266.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, D. S. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Academy of Management Journal, 3 7(3): 656-669.

Kremen, A. M. (1996). Depressive tendencies and susceptibility to anxiety: Differential
personality correlates. Journal of Personality, 64: 209-242.

Krug, S.E., & Johns, E. F. (1986). A large scale cross-validation of second-order
personality structure deﬁned by the 16PF. Psychological Reports, 59: 683-693.

Krebs, D. L. (1970) Altruism - an examination of the concept and a review of the
literature. Psychological Bulletin. 73: 258-302.

102

Lei, H., & Skinner, H. A. (1982). What difference does language make? Structural
analysis of the personality research form. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1 7:
33-46.

Lepine, J. A., Erez, A., Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87: 52-65.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance
in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56: 241-270.

McAdarns, D. P. (1992). The ﬁve-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal.
Journal of personality, 60, 329-361.

McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The
Achievement Motive. Appleton-Century-Croﬁs, Inc. New York.

McClelland, D. C. (1981). Is personality consistent? In A. I. Rubin, J. Aronoff, A. M.
Barclay, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), Further explorations in personality (pp. 87-113).
New York: Wiley.

McCrae R. R. and John O. P. (1992). An introduction to the ﬁve Factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60: 175-215.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Mead, M. (1937). Cooperation and competition among primitive peoples. Boston, MA:
Beacon.

Mendels, J ., Weinstein, N., & Cochrane, C. (1972). The relationship between depression
and anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 27: 649-653.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist,
32: 246-254.

Moon, H. (2001). Two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving within

escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychologr, 86(3): 533-
540.

103

 

Moon, H. (2001). The tripartite model of personality: The integration of internal and
external aspects of personality within the ﬁve-factor model of personality. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management conference, Washington DC.

Moon, H., Hollenbeck J. R., Humphrey, S. E., & Maue, B'. (2001). The tripartite model of
neuroticism and decision-making in organizations. Poster presented at the 17th
annual SIOP conference, San Diego, CA.

Moreland R. L. & Levine, J. M. (1992) The composition of small groups. Advances in
Group Processes, (vol. 9) pg.: 237-280, J AP Press Inc.

Moorman, R. H. (1993). The inﬂuence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction
measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Human Relations, 46(6): 759-776.

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 6(3): 209-225.

Mount, M. K. & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big ﬁve personality dimensions: Implications
for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, 13: 153-200.

Mount, M. K. & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the “big ﬁve” article has been
frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51: 849-857.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford.

Myers, 1. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of
the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.

Neuman, G. A. & Kickul, J. R. (1998). Organizational citizenship behaviors:
Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Business and Psychology,
13(2): 263-279.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy
of Management Journal, 36(3): 527-556.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6): 574-5 83.

Norton, G. R., Cox, B. J., Hewitt, P. L. & McLeod, L. (1997). Personality factors

associated with generalized and non-generalized social anxiety. Personality and
individual difference, 22(5): 655-660.

104

 

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ones, D. Z., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-ﬁdelity dilemma in personality
measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1 7,
609-626.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington books.

Organ, D. W. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and the good soldier. In
Michael G. Ramsey, Clinton B. Walker, et al. Personnel selection and
classification (pg. 53-67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1): 157-
164.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48: 775-
802.

Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52: 59-71.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,

satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1:
107-142.

Rank, O. (1964) Will Therapy and Truth and Reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Riesman, D. (1961). The Lonely crowd: A study of the changing American Character.
Yale University Press, New London.

Robinson, S. L., & Wolfe Morrison, E. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: the
effect of unfulﬁlled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16: 289-298.

Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995) Impression management in
organizations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge.

Ruesch, J. (1962). Therapeutic communication; Norton.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The ﬁve-factor model of personality and job performance in the
European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1): 30-43.

105

Saucier, G. & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the big ﬁve
personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76(4): 613-627.

Shiﬂett, S. (1979). Toward a general model of small group productivity. Psychological
Bulletin, 86: 67-79.

Schneider, R. J ., Hough, L. M., Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How
to sink science in ﬁve dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17: 639-655.

Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed reﬁnements.
Journal of cross-cultural psychologt, 21(2): 139-157.

Smelser, N. J. & Smelser, W. T. (1963). Personality and Social Systems. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Smith, A. C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 653-663.

Staw, B. M., (1976). Knee deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a
chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16:
27-44.

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E. & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job
attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 56-
77.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach
to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 469-480.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic press.
Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between

extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (6): 619-
627.

Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing
differential effects for conscientiousness and its sub-traits. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(6): 959-968.

Stavrakaki, C. & Vargo B. (1986). The relationship of anxiety and depression: A review
of the literature. British Journal of Psychiatry, 149: 7-16.

Sundstrom, E. DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45: 120-133.

106

Tansky, J. W. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the
relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3): 195-207.

Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing
anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.),
Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tesluk, P., Mathieu, J. E., Zaccaro, S. J ., & Marks, M. (1997). Task and aggregation
issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In Brannick, M. T.,

Salas, E., & Prince, C. (Eds.) Team performance assessment and measurement.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, N. J.

Tett, R. R, Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of
job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44: 703-742.

Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in action. New York, McGraw-hill.

Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J ., & Clark, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus
idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of
Research in Personality. 19: 395-415.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait
ratings. USAF ASD tech. Rep., no. 61-97.

Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does
the whole equal the sum of the parts?

Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent
workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal. 41(6): 692-703.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Construct redeﬁnition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(4): 765-802.

Vinchur, A. J ., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S. & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic
review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(4): 586-597.

Wagner, J. A. III (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on c00peration in
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1): 152-172.

Wagner, J. A. III, & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and
measure. Group and Organizational Studies, 11: 280-304.

107

Waller, N. G., Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychology to embrace the
ﬁve-factor model of personality? American Psychologist, 887-889.

Wayne, S. J ., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on
employee citizenship and impression management behavior

Weiss, H. M., Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In Barry M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings, Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. 6 pp. 1-50).
JAI Press Inc., Greenwich Conn.

Whyte, W. H. (1954). The fallacies of personality testing. Fortune, 5 0, 117-121.

108

Address

 

Phone Number

 

 

 

 

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (please conrplete only if you have agreed to participate in the study):

What is your age? What is your gender? What is your GPA?
What is your ethnicity? White/Caucasian African American Hispanic
American Asian
How skilled are you in using computers? (circle one) 1 2 3
unskilled somewhat skilled
skilled
How skilled are you in using a mouse? (circle one) 1 2 3
How often do you play video games? (circle one) 1 2 3
almost never sometimes
often
129

Native
4
very
4
4
very

APPENDIX A

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

 

Question Item#
1. I am a worrier. (I am not a worrier). l
2. I really like most people I meet. _g 2
3. I have a very active imagrrlation. 3
4. I often get anggy at the way people treat me. 6
5. I am attracted to crowds of people. (I shy away from crowds ofpeople) 7
6. Aesthetic and artistic concerns are very important to me. 8
(Aesthetic and artistic concerns aren’t very important to me)
7. I’m not crafty or sly. : 9
8. I often feel lonely or blue. (I rarely feel lonely or blue) 11
9. I am dominant, forceful. and assertive. 12
10. I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously. 15
11. In dealingﬂth other people, I always dread making a social blunder. 16
12. I’m pretty set in my ways. 18
13. I would rather cooperate with others than corrrpete with them. 19
14. I tend to overindulge in thin_gs. (I rarely overindulge in thingi 21
15. I often crave excitement. 22
16. I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas. 23
17. I am easily frightened. 31
18. I take civic duties like voting very seriously. 35
(I don’t take civic duties like votiﬂry seriously)
19. I like to have a lot of people around me. 37
20. Sometimes I feel completely worthless. 41
21. I have no trouble asserting myself. 42
(I sometimes fail to assert myself as much as I should)
22. I try to be courteous to everyone I meet. 44
23. Most times 1 am dependable or reliable. 45
(Sometimes I’m not as dependable or reliable as 1 should be)
24. I often feel self-conscious when I’m around people. 46
(I seldom feel self-conscious when I’m aroungpeople)
25. I think it is interestingt_o learn and develop new hobbies 48
26. I can be sarcastic and cutting when I need to be 49
27. I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fasion. 50
28. l have trouble resistingmy cravings. 51
29. I believe that laws and social policies should change to reﬂect the needs of a changing 58
world.
30. I am hard headed and toguih minded in my attitudes. 59
31. I often feel fearful or anxious. (I rarebt feel fearful or anxious) 61
32. 1 am known as a warm and friendly person. 62
33. I have an active fantasy life. 63
34. I couldn’t deceive anyone even if I wanted to. 69
35. I am often sad or depressed. 71
36. I have often been a leader of guys I have belorgggd to. 72
37. Howl feel about things is important to me. 73
38. lpay my debts promptly and in full. 75
39. At times I have been so ashamed_ljust wanted to hide. 76
40. Once I ﬁnd the right way to do somethiﬂ. I stick to it. 78
41. I do not hesitate to exgess myﬂgr when it is justiﬁed. 79
42. I have sometimes done things just for “kicks" or “thrills 82
43. I enjoy solving problems or puzzles. 83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44. I am a productive person who always gets the Eb done. 85
45. We can never do too much for the poor and elderly 89
46. I like to spend my time daydreaming. 93
( I don’t like to waste mytime dpydreaming)
47. I really feel the need for other people if I am bLﬂ’D’Sle for lprgg. 97
48. I am intrigued bgthe patterns I ﬁnd in art and nature. 98
49. Beipgperfectly honest is the best way to do business. 99
50. I like to keep evcrjythingin igplace Lust so I lcnow where it is. 100
51. In meetings, I usually do the talkipg. (In meeting§_,1 usually let others do the talkipg) 102
52. I generallLtry to be thoughtful and considerate. 104
53. I get embarrassed if people ridicule and tease me. 106
(It doesn’t embarrass me too much ifpeople ridicule and tease meL
54. I often feel as if I’m burstipg with enemﬂ. 107
55. I often try new and foretigp foods. 108
56. If I don’t like people I let them know it. 109
57. I work hard to achieve my gals. 110
58. I often have sgnpathgfor the Loor. (I seldom have symgthyfor panhandlerﬂ 119
59. 1 am often apprehensive about the future. (I’m seldom apprehensive about the ﬁiture) 121
60. I ream epjoLtalkinthoieople. 122
61. I edgy concentratinion a fantasy or deream and e_xploringall its possibilities. 123
62. I would hate to be thought of as a hypocrite. 129
63. I tend to blame myself when anythinggoes wrong. 131
64. Other peOple often look to me to make decisions. 132
65. I am known for my generosﬂ j’m not known for my ggnerosity) 134
66. When I make a commitment, I can alwame counted on to follow throuih. 135
67. 1 often feel inferior to others. 136
68. I like to be where the action is. 142
69. Igjonvorkinm “mind-twister” type puzzles. 143
70. Once I start a prgject. I almost alwpys ﬁnish it. 145
71. I believe that loyalty to one’s ideals is more ir_nportant than ‘Qren-mindedness.” 148
72. Human need should alws take Monty over economic considerations. 149
73. I often wom' about thﬁﬂthat might go Wl‘Oﬂg. 151
74. I ﬁnd it easy to smile and be 0mm with strapgers. 152
75. I am often successful at things. 155
76. I have a low opinion of myself. 161
77. I would rather be a leader than go my own way. 162
(I would ratheﬂo my own way, than be a leader of others)
78. I often notice the moods or feelings that different environments produce. 163
79. Most petlle 1 know like me. 164
80. I adhere strictly to my ethical prinpiples. 165
81. I do not feel comfortable in the presence of my bosses or other authorities. 166
82. Sometimes I make clgges around the house Just to try something different. 168
83. If someone starts a ﬁght, I’m ready to ﬁght back. 169
84. I strive to achieve all I can. 170
85. I sometimes eat myself sick. 171
86. I love the excitement of roller coasters 172
87. 1 have great interest in speculating on the universe and the human condition. 173
(1 have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human condition)
88. I consider myself broad-minded and tolerant of other people’s lifestyles. 178
89. I feel that all humans are worthy of respect. 179

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90. I have more fears than most people. (I have fewer fears than most people) 181
91. I have strppggmotional attachments to my friends. 182
92. As a child I often played games of make believe. 183
93. I tend to assume the best about pepple. 184
94. I'm a veg competent person. 185
95. In conversations, I tend to do most of the talking 192
96. Sometimes when I am readingpoetry or looking at a work of art, I feel chills/excitement. 188
97. Sometimes thingg. look pretIy bleak or hopeless to me. 191
98. In conversations, I tend to do most of the talking 192
99. I ﬁnd it easy to empathize - to feel mgself what others are feelirg. 193
100. I think of myself as a charitableJrerson 194
101. I tgy to do jobs carefully - so they won’t have to be done pgpin 195
102. If I have said or done the wrggthinito someone, I can harcgy bear to face them gain. 196
103. I am hard-headed and stubborn. 199
104. I strive for excellence in everythigZI do. 200
105. I have a lot of intellectual curiosigl. 203
106. I would rather praise others than bgpraised rnygelf. 204
107. I have sympathy for others less fortunate than me. 209
108. Iplan ahead carefully when I go on a trip. 210
109. Fnﬁrteninithougﬁ sometimes come into myhead. 211
110. I take a personal interest in the people I work with 212
111. Even minor annognces can be frustrating to me. 216
112. I egjoy parties with lots of people. 217
113. I pride myself on my shrewdness in handling people. 219
114. Too often, when things go wrong. I get discouraged and feel like gijggup 221
115. I ﬁnd it easy to take charge of a situation. 222
(1 don’t ﬁnd it easy to take charge of a situation)
116. IE) out of my wpy to help others if 1 can. 224
117. I’d ream have to be sick before I’d miss a dayof work. 225
1 18. I like to gy different routes when 1 gp sompplace. 228
119. I’m somethingif a workaholic. 230
120. I like beingpart of a crowd at smirting events 232
121 I have a wide rapge of intellectual interests. 233
122 1 have a lot of self-discipline. 235
123 I would rather be known as merciful than just. 239

112

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

113

 

 

BEFORE PARTICIPANTS ENTER:

Put keyboards on top of monitors.

Have paper ready to write their names.

Make sure that the task bars are not accessible at the bottom of the screens. This just
makes things easier in the long run.

Set up the Training Game for the team leader.

At the dos prompt, type “con”. A blue controller window appears. In this blue con
window:

3"”9 999‘!”

g.

Select “Pilot02” from the Team Name section (can actually select any name)
Select “lTraindiv” from the Expt # section

Click on “Start New Game.”

Click “OK to overwrite log ﬁle?” if necessary

Highlight the xterm window, you should see “Start Five Locals, Please.”

Go to station DM1 and bring up the game playing screen by entering L1 at the
command prompt.

Repeat at all consoles

ONCE PARTICIPANTS ENTER:

After four 302 subjects arrive in the teamlab, take them into one of the DDD rooms (long
or square), seat them at DMl-DM4, and collect their consent forms.

Welcome to the teamlab. The ﬁrst thing I need you to do is write your ﬁrst name in big block letters
on one of these small sheets of paper. (Point out the paper and markers). Since you will be working as a
team, and you will be able to talk to each other as much as you want, it would be helpful to know who

everyone is.

Post their names above their carrels, if they haven’t done so already. Get all the
participants started on the NEO.

114

THE BINDERS:

Page 1 ' “Welcome to the team effectiveness lab”

Please take the binder at your station and open it up to the ﬁrst page. This page offers some
background into the teamlab, so just follow along as I go through each point. Our purpose here is to
improve individual and team performance in organizations. Who beneﬁts? Society, MSU, and. most

importantly, you the students. You get your course credit and experience in teams. Plus we award
cash prizes to top performing teams. So if you guys do really well on the game you’ll get a check for
$10 at the end of the semester.

Page 2 “The Game”

The game you are going to be playing in called the DDD. It’s on your screens right
now, but nothing’s going to happen until I start it up. Basically the game simulates a
military command and control context, where you own and operate various vehicles,
such as helicopters, jets, tanks, and radar planes. In fact, pilots in the Air Force
actually play this game as part of their training. The object of the game is to
monitor restricted airspace and prevent enemy vehicles from entering forbidden
locations by detecting them, identifying them, and attacking them if necessary.
However, you must not attack any friendly vehicles that are operating in the same
locations. As a side note, only the vehicles get destroyed, not any of the people.
Everyone escapes safely.

Page 3 “How you will be spending your time”

Your time here will be broken down into three parts. The ﬁrst part is what we are
doing now. I will give you a quick general overview of the game. Here I will explain
the game screen, the scoring, the vehicles you will operate and the targets you will
face. Next, we will give you an opportunity to practice the game for an hour or so.
This is where you will really learn how to play the game and begin to interact as a
team. Finally, you will play the actual game, which consists of 2 short 30-minute
games. It is here that your performance will count, and will decide whether you

receive a cash prize.
Pages 4-5 The Game Screen and Scoring

Take a look at the diagram of your game screen - that laminated page. You .can also
refer to your monitor screen if that’s more clear for you. There are two sections of
the screen: the game playing area which is the grid, and the report area which 15
shaded in blue. The ﬁrst thing we’re going to do is go over the game playing area.

The game playing area is basically one geographic area broken down into four separate quadrants.
Each of you has a home base inside your quadrant - that base shows up in your binder as a black
rectangle. If you look closely you will see your station’s name msrde, DMl, 2, 3, or 4. These games

correspond to the ones posted above your names. Does everyone see where their base rs.

115

 

 

Note that two of the bases are in the Northern part of the screen, and two of the bases are in the
Southern part of the screen. DM2 and DM4 will be in charge of the North, DM1 and DM3 will be in
charge of the south. The four of you as a team will be in charge of the entire gridded area.

Now, within the grid system is a large green square, this is a restricted area which
I’ll call “THE FORBIDDEN ZONE.” This is the area that you must keep enemies
from entering. Within the green Forbidden Zone is a red square. This is “THE
REALLY FORBIDDEN ZONE.” This is the area you DEFINITELY must keep free
from enemies. The way the game is scored is that, if an enemy were to enter the
Forbidden Zone - the green square - you will lose 1 point per second from your
score. If an enemy were to enter the Really Forbidden Zone - the red square — you
will lose 2 points per second from your score.

So you’re going to want to destroy enemy targets as soon as they enter the
Forbidden Zone. In fact, if you do that, you’ll get 5 points. However, you have to be
careful not to destroy them before they get into the Forbidden Zone - if you do that
you’ll actually lose 25 points. You’ll also lose 25 points if you accidentally destroy a
friendly target, no matter where it is on the screen.

You will have three different scores. One covering your own personal quadrant, one
covering your pair (North or South), and one covering your team as a whole. Since
you’re a team, you need to worry about your team score in order to have a chance at

the cash.

To reiterate the scoring, take a look at the page facing this one — How the Game is
Scored. Again, your offensive score is affecting by attacking things. You can either
Gain 5 points or Lose 25 points. Your defensive score is affected by having things in
the green or red Forbidden Zones. You can either lose 1 point per second or 2 points
per second. Finally, you have three separate scores, one individual, one group, and
one team.

Now look at the report area — which is the blue part. You can see that the top of the
report area tells you what station you are. Under that is the clock, which tells you
how much time has expired during the game. Under the clock is what is most
important- the scoring bars.

If you notice, you have six different scoring bars- three for offense and three for defense. Let’s say
that an enemy target enters the screen at the top left corner and makes its way into DMZ’s green
zone. Since it is an enemy, DM2 will be losing 1 point per second on his/her individual defensive
score, 1 point per second on the northern group’s defensive score, and 1 point per second on the
team’s defensive score. However, no one else’s individual defensive scoring bar will go down and the
southern group’s defensive scoring bar will not be going down. Do you notice how the bars are
completely ﬁlled and a large number is in the box? That means defensive scores can ONLY go down.
You can, however, gain offensive points. So if DM2 were to destroy that target he/she would get 5
points on their individual offensive score, the northern group would get 5 offensive points, and the
team would get 5 offensive points. However, none of the other individual offensive scoring bars would
go up and the southern group offensive score would not change. If one of you screws up and shoots
down a friendly or shoots an enemy outside of the forbidden zone, your offensive score is the and that
drops by 25 points.

116

Under the scoring bars is a black bar, which is called the busy signal. Basically, when you launch
something, it indicates the length of time your base requires before it can launch again. Under the
busy signal are a set of buttons. Again, when the practice game starts. I’ll tell you what each of those
buttons does. Under the buttons is the message box. You will be able to talk as much as you want
during the game, so you will never need to use the message box. Let me just say that teams ALWAYS
do MUCH better when they frequently talk amongst themselves during the game, so try and do it as
often as possible. Finally, on the bottom of the screen are two long windows: the report and
conﬁrmation windows. Basically, if you were to attack something, the computer would write it down
in text in one of those windows. You will not use either of the windows during the actual game, so
don’tworry about them.

Pages 6-7 Locating and Identifying Targets

Now we’re going to talk about playing the game. Speciﬁcally, how to locate and
identify targets.

There are two different rings around your base. The outer black ring is your
detection ring. This ring shows you how far you can see. You will not be able to see
targets that are outside of this ring, even if it is in one of your teammates detection
rings. When it enters your detection ring, you will be able to see it but you won’t
know whether it is a friend or foe. For that, you have to wait until it gets within your
blue ring, which is your identiﬁcation ring. This ring enables you to identify
whether the target is a friend or foe. Does anyone see a potential problem with the
size of your identiﬁcation ring? (Wait. . ..). If you notice, the identiﬁcation ring does
not cover all of your green forbidden zone. So a target could come into the corner of
your forbidden zone and, although you will be able to see it in your black ring, you
will not be able to identify it and you will start losing points if it’s an enemy. That’s
why you have jets, helicopters, tanks, and radar planes. You can launch them to go
identify the target and attack it if necessary.

Pages 8-9 The Vehicles

As you can see. there are four different types of vehicles. You each will have a certain combination of
these vehicles. The vehicle on the left is the jet, on the top is the tank, on the bottom is the helicopter,
and on the right is the radar plane, which is called an AWACS. If you notice, the AWACS has two
rings that look similar to the ones around your base. That’s because it is a radar plane and only has
the capability to detect and identify targets at points on the screen that aren’t covered by your base.
You cannot attack any enemies with the AWACS. However, if you have one of the other three
vehicles, you will be able to attack enemies. Notice that each has three rings instead of two. Now there
is a third red ring. That is your attack ring. So now you can see the targets when they get within the
black ring, id targets when they get within the blue, and attack when they get inside the red ring.

However, there are differences between the various vehicles. You can see that the ring diameter is
different for the various vehicles. Also notice the red line coming out of each of the vehicles. That
denotes the speed of the vehicle. The tank is the slowest, while the jet is the fastest. If you look at the
page facing this one, you can see that, although the tank is the slowest, it also has the most power. It
can destroy enemy targets with a power of 1, 3, or 5. The helicOpter, with a power of 3 can destroy
enemies with a power of 1 or 3. Finally, the jet, although fast, can only destroy enemies with a power
of 1. The AWACS, as 1 said before, is a radar plane so it doesn’t have any power to destroy enemies.

117

 

One thing you must remember is that you only get one shot with each vehicle, then
you are out of ammunition and you must return that vehicle to the base to reload.
Even if you attack an enemy with a power of 1 with a tank, which has a power of 5,
you still get one shot. After attacking, you MUST return your vehicle to your base in
order to reload. I’ll explain how to do that once the practice game starts.

The last thing you see regarding the vehicles is fuel time. The chart shows you how
much time you have to move each vehicle around the screen until they run out of
gas. For example, you have 8 minutes to move the tank around the screen. After the
8 minutes is up, the tank will turn into an X and it will automatically return to its
base. As soon as it gets back to the base you can launch it again for another 8
minutes. So if you see your vehicle X out during the game for no reason, you
probably just ran out of gas.

Pages 10-11 The Targets

This is what the targets are going to look like on your screens. When they ﬁrst enter your detection
ring, which is the black ring, they are going to show up looking like #201 in your notebook- a
diamond with a question mark in the middle. They will always look that way no matter if they are a
friend or foe. You have to manually identify them as friend or foe once they enter your blue ring. As
you can see, #200 has entered the blue ring of DM2 and DM2 has manually identiﬁed it. When
targets are identiﬁed, they show up as a box. Inside that box is what type of target it is. So you can
see that #200 is a G3, which means it is a ground target with a power of 3. #202 also has been
identiﬁed by DM2 because it too turned into a box on the screen. But notice where it is. It is outside
of the blue ring of DMZ’s base, but it is inside the blue ring of DMZ’s AWACS radar plane. As long
as it is inside ONE of the blue rings that correspond to your base, you can identify the target.

As you can see on the page facing this one, there are eight different targets. There are both ground
and air targets. The air targets move faster than the ground targets. And each type also has power 0,
1, 3, and S, which corresponds to the power levels of your vehicles. So you can only destroy an enemy

with a power of S with a tank. An enemy with a power of 3 can be destroyed by both the helicopter
and tank and an enemy with a power of 1 can be destroyed by the jet, helicOpter, and tank. What you
have to watch out for are the A0 and the GO. Both of these are friendly targets and, like I said before,

you NEVER want to destroy those targets no matter where they are on the screen.

Also notice that there are four U targets, or unidentiﬁed targets: a U+, a U-, a U#,
and a U*. These targets will only appear during the actual game. Each one
corresponds to either an A0, an A1, an A3, or an A5 and their power level will
remain constant through the entire game. Unfortunately, you won’t know which is
which when the game starts. As a team, you must ﬁgure out what the unidentiﬁeds
are in order to score well in the game. If you are wrong, you could start losing a lot
of points if you are destroying the A0. So how do you ﬁgure that out? I’ll give you a
couple of hints. If a U target enters your green zone, and you look to your score and
see that it is going down, you would know what? ....... (that it’s an enemy) On the
other hand, if you were to attack the U target in the forbidden zone with a
helicopter, and you did not destroy it, what would that mean?. . . . . . . . (you didn’t
have enough power- it was the A5).

118

Pages 12 A Quick Quiz

Go ahead and turn to the next page, which shows you how the screen looks with a lot of targets on it.
Everyone ﬁnd target #211. Since #211 has entered DMZ’s detection ring, DM2 can see it. Can he/she
identify it? ...... (No) How about #210, which is right next to DM2’s base, can he/she identify that? .
...... (Yes) Now #202 is right in the middle of the screen. It is behind another target, but you can see
that it has a power of 3. Are you losing points as a team? ...... (Yes) How many? ..... (2 points per
second) Can you attack #202 with the vehicle that is right next to it? ...... (No) Why not? . . . .
(Because it’s the AWACS and it has no power)

Page 13 A Successful Attack

So just to reinforce what we have been talking about so far, I want to reiterate what
constitutes a successful and an unsuccessful attack. To get ﬁve points you must
attack an ENEMY target ANYWHERE inside the big green box. Plus, it has to be
within the RED ring of your vehicle and you MUST have enough power. Remember
that, if you do shoot something, you must always return the vehicle to your base
before attacking again, because you lose all of your power after one attack.

If you look at your score and you lost 25 points, that means that you either attacked
something OUTSIDE of the forbidden zone or you attacked a FRIENDLY. If the
enemy is too far away or you don’t have enough power, you will be unsuccessful, but
your points will remain the same. You will only be losing time.

119

HANDS-ON TRAINING:

Alright, let’s begin. Using the mouse, click on the start button on the right hand side of the screen in
the report area. It should say refresh if you clicked correctly.

(Click “start” on DMO’s computer).

Ok, so now you can see that the clock has started. The practice targets don’t come up for a while yet,
so we’re going to practice a few basic things. The ﬁrst thing we are going to practice is zooming in-
BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING YET. If there are a lot of targets in one portion of the screen, you will
ﬁnd it difﬁcult to specify which one you want to identify and which you want to attack. So you can
zoom in on that portion of the screen. 0k, everyone go ahead and click the “zoom in” button and
move your cursor back onto the game playing area- DON’T CLICK AGAIN UNTIL I TELL YOU
WHAT TO DO. So you can see that your cursors have changed into a weird shape.

If you click on something, and your cursor changes, but you wanted to click something else, you can
go over to the cancel button next to the refresh button. Everyone go ahead and click cancel. Your
cursors are now back to normal.

0k, go ahead and click on zoom in again and move the strange cursor to the exact center of the grid,
where the four Forbidden Zones meet. Now click on that point, and KEEP THE BUTTON
CLICKED DOWN. Keeping the button down, drag your mouse to the opposite corner of your
Forbidden Zone. You should be creating a box around your Forbidden Zone. Now let go.

(Make sure that each person does it correctly)

Ok, to zoom out you just have to click on the “zoom out” button in the report area. Once you’ve done
that, I want you to practice zooming in one more time. This time zoom in on your portion of the red
box in the center of the screen.

(Make sure each person does it correctly)

Remember the zoom in function during the game. Most people forget about it and it makes the game
much more difﬁcult.

Now take a look at the mouse-chart thumb-tacked up at your station. You will be using the right and
left buttons of your mouse today, and sometimes it can get a little confusing. Everyone is used to
using the left mouse button to click on things. The only difference here is that sometimes you will also
use the right mouse button. In DDD, you ﬁrst use the right mouse button to open up a menu, then
you use the left mouse button to select speciﬁc menu choices. Which menu you open up depends on
what you right-click on. As you see on your mouse-chart, if you right-click on your base you get a
menu with options like “Info on Asset.” If you rightoclick on one of your vehicles you get a menu with
options like move, attack, return to base, etc. If you right-click on a target, you get a menu with
options like identify or transfer identity. We’ll go over all of these choices, but if at any point you
forget how to do something, just refer to that mouse-chart.

The ﬁrst thing we are going to do is launch something from your base. To do that you have to open
up a menu from your base. So put your cursor right on top of your base and RIGHT click. You’ll see
a long menu. Go all the way to the bottom and click on “Info on Asset.” When you do that a window

will pop up.

(Make sure they have the correct window up).

120

Before I talk about what’s inside this box, I want to explain a couple of things about these windows.
This is UNIX, not Windows, so you CANNOT close the windows using one of the little buttons in the
upper right hand corner. If you do, it will exit you out of the system and I will have to restart the
game. The only way to close one of these windows is to click on the “cancel” or “ok” buttons on the
bottom. Also, sometimes these windows may pop up and the buttons will appear below the screen. To
move them up, just use the dark blue bar at the top of the window to drag it up a bit. Everyone just
go ahead and drag this window up about an inch or so.

(Make sure they drag it up properly).

Ok, so now we’re going to launch something. See where it says “Sub”? That stands for “Sub-
Platform,” which is what the vehicles in DDD are called. So the Sub column tells you which vehicles
you have available for launch at your base. Next to that it says whether they’re aboard or not. Since
we haven’t launched anything yet, all the vehicles are aboard. Next to that is the launch column with

arrows pointing right and left. The left arrow does NOT do anything. ALWAYS click the right
pointing arrow next to the vehicle that you want to launch. Go ahead and click one of the right
pointing arrows so it becomes highlighted in black. Then go down and click on ok.

(Make sure everyone launches their vehicle correctly).

Once you’ve done that, look at the busy signal in the report area. When that white line reaches the
bottom, your vehicle will appear next to your base. When it does appear, you are going to practice
moving the vehicles. If you look at your mouse-chart, you can ﬁnd the Move option by right-clicking
on your vehicle. So everyone right click on whatever vehicle you just launched, then go down and
click on Move Fast. Now your cursor looks like a plus sign. Now take that plus sign and click it
wherever you want that vehicle to move to. The vehicle will move to the exact spot you just clicked
on.

(Make sure that they move their vehicles correctly).

Ok, now remember when I was talking about how much time and power each vehicle has? Well, you
can check the status of that time and power by right clicking on your vehicle and going down to “Info
on Asset.” This window tells you two important things. It tells you how much time your vehicle has
left before it’s going to return to your base and it tells you how much power you have left. So if you
weren’t sure whether you used one of your vehicles to attack, you could check use Info on Asset to
check. If it had zero power, either it is an AWACS or you already used it to attack something. Go
ahead and click on “ok” to close this window.

I want you to practice moving your vehicles, so go ahead and move them a couple more times.

(Watch to make sure they lmow what they‘re doing).

Let’s pretend that you attacked a target with your vehicle, so you used your one
shot. That means that you have to return that vehicle to your base. To do that, you
have to right click on your vehicle again. This time go about half way down in this
box to where it says “Return.” Go ahead and click on “Return” and then click on
“ok” when the next box comes up. You’ll see that your vehicle automatically returns
to your base when you do that. You MUST use the “Return” option to return your
vehicle. You CANNOT just move your vehicle near your base.

Ok, now I want you to practice what we have been doing. I want you to launch all
four of your vehicles and then I want you to move each one to a different corner of

121

your Forbidden Zone. Remember, you can only launch one at a time. So launch one
and move it to one corner. Then, while the ﬁrst one is moving, go back and launch

another from your base. When you launch everything, pay attention to the different
ring radiuses and the different vehicles speeds.

(Again, make sure they are doing everything correctly and wait for everyone to deploy all their vehicles).
Ok, now go ahead and return your vehicles to your base.

(Make sure everything returns correctly).

 

 

13:00 Identifying a FriendlL

 

 

 

 

 

Four ground targets will enter at the corners of the screen. Before they do, please launch your Jet.
Once it is launched, move it toward the target once you see it.

(Wait until they get their vehicles close to the target).

Once the target gets within the blue rings of EITHER your base or your vehicle, you will be allowed
to identify it as either a friend or foe. If you look at your mouse-chart, you can see that you can
Identify things by right-clicking on the target, then choosing the Identify option. Everyone go ahead
and do that - right click on the target then choose Identify. Now another window will pop up. This
window will appear every time you want to identify a target.

(Make sure they have the identify window on their screens).

You always do the same thing to identify a target using this window- ﬁrst click on
“Fused” and then go down and click on “ok.”

Now you can see that the target has a G0 in the middle of its box, so you know that
it’s a ground target, because of the G, and a friendly target, because of the 0. Look
at your defensive score - it’s NOT going down. So that’s another way to determine
whether the target is a friendly or an enemy without having to manually identify it.

Another option you have is to transfer the identity of that target to your teammates.
To do that, you right click on the target again and go down to “Transfer Info.” Then
click on “all linked DMs” in the next box that appears. You just transferred the
identity of that target to the rest of your team. So now when that target enters your
teammates DETECTION RING, it will appear as a G0 and not a question mark.

Go ahead and return your .let to your base and launch your Helicopter to prepare
for the next target.

(Make sure they return and launch everything ok).

Now move this vehicle to the same corner the last target came from.

122

 

 

 

16:00 Practicing Identifying and Transferring Info

 

 

 

 

Another set of friendly targets, this time air targets, will come into the corners of the screen. Practice
identifying and transferring that identity to your teammates. Watch your defensive scores again.

(Make sure they do everything ok.).

Now return your Helicopter and launch your Jet. Again, move it to the corner of your Forbidden
Zone.

 

18:00 Attackin Some A1 ’5

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next air targets will be coming in quickly from the corners again. They are A1 s. When they enter
the Forbidden Zone, watch your defensive score. When you see it going down, move your vehicle
toward it so the target is in your red attack ring.

(Make sure they are following ok)

As you can see on your mouse-chart, you attack something by right-clicking on your vehicle and
choosing Attack. Once you choose Attack your cursor will turn into a big black “X.” Put it directly
over the target and click. Your Jet and the target will then X-out and you will see a red explosion and
it will say “hit- +5 points.”

(Make sure everyone is following along. If they missed the ﬁrst target, they may be able to catch one
coming from another quadrant).

Always look for the ﬁre. If you don’t see the ﬁre and the hit sign, you did something wrong. Now look
at your offensive scores. Each individual score went up 5, the groups’ went up 10. and the team
offensive score went up 25. Since you attacked with your Jet you have to ALWAYS remember to
return it to your base. So go ahead and do that now.

 

 

120:00 Attacking Something Outside the Forbidden Zon

 

 

 

 

The next targets are going to enter at the corners again, but this time they are going to stop just
outside your forbidden zone. 50 launch your Helicopter and move it close to the target so you can
identify it.

(Wait for everyone to identify it as an enemy).

Ok, do you want to attack this target right now? . . . . No you don’t because it’s outside your
Forbidden Zone, but you do want to watch it because it could come in at anytime. However, just to
show you what happens when you make a mistake, go ahead and attack the target outside the
Forbidden Zone. And watch what happens.

(Make sure they all do it correctly).

123

So when you attack an enemy outside of the Forbidden Zone, or you attack a friendly anywhere on
the screen, you’ll get an X and it will say “error -25 points.” Make sure you always look for the ﬁre
when you attack something or you’ll start losing a lot of points. Now that you used up your
Helicopter’s power, you have to return it to your base, so go ahead and do that before the next

‘ targets come onto the screen.

 

23:00 Attacking enemies inside the Forbidden Zon

 

 

 

 

 

Four enemies are going to come in from the corners again, but this time they are
going to sit just inside of your forbidden zone and you will be losing points off your

defensive score. So, just like before, launch your Jet and go destroy the enemy
target.

(Make sure they do everything ok).

Since you used your Jet to attack the target, what do you have to do with it now? . . . Right, return it
to your base.

 

 

5:00 DM2 gets bombarded

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, now one person is going to get bombarded with 8 targets at once in their

quadrant. When that happens, you have to let your teammates know what is going
on.

(Have everyone come and look at DM2’s screen).

. Remember, they can only see what’s in their own detection rings. Anything outside
of those rings cannot be seen without the help of a vehicle. So tell people that you
need help if you get bombarded. You can identify all the targets for your teammates,
you can tell them what they are (as in enemy or friendly), and you can tell them
where they are. To tell people where targets are, you can say something like
“number 200 is a G1 and it is at .40 and .40.” Use the coordinates at the right and at
the top of the game playing area. First use the top coordinates and then use the side
coordinates. Or you can say “there are four enemies to the north of my base.”
Whatever works best for you as a team.

(Make sure they destroy all 8 targets).

Practice Time

For the next half hour I’m going to let you play the game on your own for practice. But I’ll be here to
answer any questions that you might have.

124

 

(Watch them play for the next 30 minutes and help them whenever necessary).

DDD QUESTIONNAIRES:

(When there are 10 minutes left, give them the DDD questionnaire).
Ok, while you are playing the last 10 minutes of the practice game, please ﬁll out BOTH

sides of this questionnaire. You can use the mouse to help you if you want. Just circle the

answer you think is correct.

SHORT BREAK:

(At 60 min., pull the game playing area on DDD’s screen down so you can see the
controller window. Click “terminate experiment” to end the practice game).

Before the actual game starts, you can take a short break. So if you need to use the

bathroom or get a drink of water, please do so now.

THE FIRST 30 MINUTE GAME:

1. At the dos prompt, type “con”. A blue controller window appears. In this blue con
window:
2. Select any Team Name listed in the “Team” box. Highlight that name, then hit

Backspace to erase it. Now type in the Team Name listed in the log book. It will
either be:

Drfp_a
Dpfr_a where _ is ﬁlled in with the team number
der_a
Frdp_a
3. Select the Expt # listed in the log book. It will either be:
1divr30
1divp30
lfunr30
1divr3O
Click on “Start New Game.”
Highlight the xterm window, you should see “Start Five Locals, Please.”
Type “10” (e1 - zero)
Type “11” “12” “13” “14” at DM 1 through 4, respectively

N99.“

125

 

We are ready to start the actual game. Before we do, there are two things I need to
go over. The ﬁrst is the unidentiﬁed targets. Remember that unidentiﬁed targets are
targets that, even- after you identify them, you still don’t know what they are.
They’re the UX, U-, U+, U#. They correspond to A0, A1, A3, and A5, so you’ll have
to ﬁgure out which is which. You’re going to want to help each other out with that -
if you ﬁgure out what a UX is, for example, make sure you tell your teammates.

The other thing I want to go over is the Team Structure sheet thumb-tacked up in
your station. In a divisional structure everyone has one of everything. That is the
kind of structure you were each trained in. In a functional structure, everyone has 4
of one speciﬁc thing. Speciﬁcally, DMl has only AWACS, DM2 has only Tanks,

DM3 has only Helicopters, and DM4 has only Jets. You guys will play 2 30 minute
games, one under each of these structures.

(At the thirty minute mark, the game automatically ends. You will get a blue “quit” box.
TELL PLAYERS AT THE 29 MIN. MARK NOT TO CLICK ON THE QUIT BOX).

(Write down everyone’s score -- ind, group, team. Note you need four ind. scores, two
group scores, and one team score. Check to make sure all team scores match. Write down
both offensive and defensive scores. Now quit each station, and hit “terminate
experiment” in the controller window.)

(If someone quits their screen, note it in the log book under comments. Try to get an idea
of at least the team score, in case there is a crash at the 30 min. mark. If a crash occurs,
email Jeff (danie115@pilot.msu.edu) the room, time, team name, and exp. condition).

THE SECOND 30 MINUTE GAME:

1. At the dos prompt, type “con”. A blue controller window appears. In this blue con
window:
2. Select any Team Name listed in the “Team” box. Highlight that name, then hit

Backspace to erase it. Now type in the Team Name listed in the log book. It will
either be:

Drfp_b
Dpfr_b where __ is ﬁlled in with the team number
derﬁb
Frdp_b
3. Select the Expt # listed in the log book. It will either be:
ldivr30
ldivp30
lfunr30
ldivr30
4. Click on “Start New Game.”

Highlight the xterm window, you should see “Start Five Locals, Please.”
6. Type “10”(el - zero)

3"

126

 

7. Type “11” “12” “13” “14” at DM 1 through 4, respectively
(Again, at the thirty minute mark, write down scores).

POST-GAME STUFF:

1.

2.

7.

Give them the U questionnaire.

Encourage them to sign up for an experienced DDD session at the bottom of the
U questionnaire.

Thank them, ask them not to talk with anyone about the experiment.

After players leave, again, check to make sure you have scores, quit each station,
and terminate experiment.

File everything.

After the night session, turn off the monitors. DO NOT SHUT DOWN
COMPUTERS.

CHECKLIST:

Did you:

-put DM stations and team name on questionnaires?
-ﬁle consent forms and questionnaires?

-take down old names and straighten up the stations?

Thanks!!!

127

TEAM PERFORMANCE STUDY CONSENT FORM

 

This study is designed to investigate team performance. If you choose to participate in this study, you will
be asked to learn a computer simulated target identiﬁcation task, operate the simulation task with other
individuals, complete a series of questionnaire items while in the laboratory, and listen to a short debrieﬁng
at the end of the study. In addition, if you choose to participate in this study, you authorize the researchers
to have access to the questionnaires that you completed in your Management 315 section.

Your participation in the simulation should take approximately three hours. In exchange for your
participation in this study, you will receive miscellaneous credit for your Management 315 class
requirement to participate in a research project. Other research projects or alternatives are available from
your instructor if you decide not to participate in this study. If you do participate, you have the opportunity
to earn a cash bonus up to $20.00. This bonus will take the form of a check given to you in one of the ﬁnal
class meetings. This will be explained more fully during the study. Not all get a cash bonus; the bonus is
based on how well you and/or your team performs.

Your participation in this research is corrrpletely voluntary. You are free to decline to answer any questions
or to terminate your participation at any time without penalty. Your participation in this study will be kept
c_on_ﬁdential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your data will be included in a summary report
along with the data from others. The report will not include any information that will allows anyone to
identify any of your individual responses.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, you may contact Daniel R. Ilgen in the
Management Department at 432-3513. You may also contact David E. Wright of the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects at 355-2180 for further information about your role and rights as a
participant in this study.

Participant’s Statement

I agree to participate in the Team Performance Study. I understand that I will learn to operate a computer
simulation, perform the simulation with other individuals, and ﬁll out a series of questionnaires. I authorize
the researchers to use questionnaire that I already completed in my Management 315 section. It is my
understanding that these materials will be kept conﬁdential and will not be seen by anyone other than the
research team I consent to having these materials used for research purposes. I understand that the top
performing teams will be eligible for cash prizes.

I understand that my participation is voluntary, that I may discontinue participation at any time without.
penalty, that all of my individual responses will be kept strictly conﬁdential, and that I Will not be identiﬁed

in any report of this study.

Signature Date

 

Printed Name

 

The following information is used for no other purpose than for us to insure proper class credit is awarded
for participation in the research or to locate individuals to pay those in high perforrmng teams If the persons

are absent from class the day payments are made.

PID (MSU ID Number)

 

My MGT 315 instructor’s name My MGT 315 Section number (if

unsure see bulletin board)

128

 

 

”ii—ah