Personality and Individual Differences 31 (2001) 129±144

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Comparison between Eysenck's and Gray's models of personality in the prediction of motivational work criteria
Chris J. Jackson *
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia
Received 27 November 1999; received in revised form 18 May 2000; accepted 22 June 2000

Abstract Impulsivity based on Gray's [Gray, J. A. (1982), The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the function of the septo-hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press; (1991). The neurophysiology of temperament. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner. Explorations in temperament: international perspectives on theory and measurement. London: Plenum Press]. physiological model of personality was hypothesised to be more predictive of goal oriented criteria within the workplace than scales derived from Eysenck's [Eysenck, H.J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Spring®eld, IL: Charles C. Thompson.] physiological model of personality. Results con®rmed the hypothesis and also showed that Gray's scale of Impulsivity was generally a better predictor than attributional style and interest in money. Results were interpreted as providing support for Gray's Behavioural Activation System which moderates response to reward. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Eysenck; Gray; Attributional style; Eysenck personality pro®ler; Interest in money; Personality±performance relationship

1. Introduction Typically, research investigating the validity of personality traits (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991) and attributional style (Corr & Gray, 1995a,b, 1996; Seligman & Schulman, 1986) in the work place centres on comparing them with predictors of performance. By means of meta-analysis, Tett et al. concluded that personality scales are reasonable predictors of performance at work (average validities ranged from 0.16 for Extraversion to 0.33 for Agreeableness). Speci®cally with regard to sales, Barrick and Mount concluded that extraversion generally predicts sales success, and Milford and Perry (1977) determined that self-esteem was predictive of
E-mail address: chrisj@psy.uq.edu.au (C.J. Jackson). 0191-8869/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

In the above studies.130 C. 1999). it is probably unusual''. and Anxiety is aligned at 30 to Neuroticism (Matthews & Gilliland. Funder. In general. guilt ridden. and is therefore related to neuroticism. Eysenck's (1967. although Jackson & Corr (1998) failed to ®nd any personality main e€ects in predicting ratings of sales performance. The result is better performance and greater likelihood of achieving those high goals (Locke & Latham). 1987. detached. McAdams. Thus the extravert is seen as possessing social skills and energy which seem relevant to the job of a sales person. 1999). outgoing). 1994. Gray's (1982. Hogan. Pervin. sociable. It consists of Extraversion (e. uncaring. and are motivated by. Hogan.g. 1994. 1990). 1994. aggressive. . 1998. The biological basis for psychoticism is less clear and has never been fully identi®ed. tough-minded. 1994). and Anxiety has a basis in the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). Harlow & Cantor. John & Robins. 1994). Motivation at work is generally explained in terms of goal-setting theory which is widely believed to be one of the most scienti®cally valid and useful theories within the organizational literature (Locke & Latham. punishment. Introverts are believed to be typically more aroused than extraverts. reward. & Gray. people with heightened reactivity to the BIS are sensitive to fear and punishment.b. p. Corr. then Gray's model of personality is likely to have more relevance to the prediction of motivational criteria in the work place than Eysenck's. Other researchers have also concluded that personality predicts sales success (Frei & McDaniel. The reticulo-limbic system is thought to become aroused with emotion-inducing stimulation. Verbeke. Eysenck identi®es two broad brain systems as being the key elements of his model of personality. trait scores are therefore unrelated to motivation within the workplace since motives are about what people do (Fiske.J. 1991) two scale theory of personality is also a biological model. & Kuhlman. risk-taking. The reticulo-cortical circuit controls cortical arousal that is generated from incoming stimuli. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 success for automobile sales sta€. & Gregory. brutal). but has a clearer motivational basis.g. under-con®dent) and Psychoticism (e. Gray's theory suggests that highly impulsive people learn best from. 1994. anxious. Joireman. If generalised expectancies of reward and punishment are extremely relevant to human behaviour (Zuckerman. solitary. A multitude of research indicates that high motivation to succeed results from the setting of hard. there is very little distinction between reward and punishment motivators. 1999. 1997) giant three model is a widely respected trait theory based on factor analysis and a psychobiological perspective. 1994. it seems implicit that personality traits are seen to be related to job performance as a result of the stable and consistent behaviours that personality traits are thought to represent. and be motivated by. On the other hand. impulsive. On the other hand. 1992. ``while it is possible to enjoy sales and to be a good salesperson without being extraverted. since the scale re¯ects a continuum containing the broad majority of the population. Although Eysenck (1967) does claim that introverts are more conditionable than extraverts. Neuroticism (e. speci®c and realistic goals. but recent clari®cation suggests that Impulsivity is aligned at 30 to Extraversion.g. Kraft. 1991. and therefore high scorers on anxiety are thought to learn best from. 1994a. This model is most often stated to be a 45 rotation of Eysenck's. Zuckerman. Snyder. The BAS is associated with pleasurable emotional states which are highly sensitive to reward. Traits are about the qualities that people have. Costa and McCrae (1992. Impulsivity has a biological basis in the Behavioural Activation System (BAS). Pickering.36) remark that. Psychoticism is not to be confused with clinical de®nitions of psychotic people.

and Teasdale (1978) and Peterson and Seligman (1984) and suggest that a pessimistic explanatory style predisposes people to poor performance. Russell & Jones. In this study. and achieving a greater percentage of the target. especially in sales (Bagozzi. Seligman and Schulman (1986) administered the attributional styles questionnaire to 94 experienced life insurance sales agents and found that those individuals who internalised failure initiated fewer sales attempts. performance levels of sta€ who have been set the goals. Hollenbeck & Brief. since the participants worked for a large ®rm that is well known for pioneering work in creating a positive rewarding environment for sta€. cardiovascular measurements. it is dicult to explain a link between Impulsivity and goal oriented behaviour. Therefore this study is a good means of distinguishing between these two competing biological models of personality. 1978. The ®rst hypothesis is that Gray's scale of Impulsivity will be more highly correlated to goaloriented criteria than Eysenck's scales. & Ford 1977). as opposed to a punishmentoriented culture. Measurement of these criteria is an essential aspect of sta€ management and selection. Without the underlying link between Impulsivity and reward.J. According to Gray's model.b. Philips & Gully. 1982. Corr and Gray (1995a. mood studies. ability and e€ort or as a result of external factors such as task diculty. Thus an optimistic sales person may . where sta€ tend to be set high and speci®c goals and the ®nancial criteria underpinning these goals are very clear cut. luck. Reviewers of other lines of research have concluded that the evidence from other approaches (such as EEG.C. Seligman. Certainly. the characteristic of `leaping into things without looking ®rst') is likely to be a poor personality characteristic of a sales person. Eysenck and Gray's models of personality are compared as well as attributional style and interest in money. It is not hypothesised that Anxiety will be related to goal oriented criteria in this study. Any personality theory of motivation should also be compared within the context of other theories to determine whether its explained variance is in addition to these other approaches. event related potentials. These results support the work of Abramson. obtaining high sales performance. 1997). 1987. and help from others. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 131 Several studies have examined the role of individual di€erences in the self-setting of goals (Campbell.e. A positive explanatory style internalises success and externalises failure. from the stable trait perspective. Sales people repeatedly encounter failure. Churchill. and represents a good test of the two models. Nevertheless. Walker. Impulsivity seems to be unrelated to sales success since Impulsivity (i. produced less and quit more than those with an external attributional style for failure. and the achievement of goals. conditioning and attention) has not produced outstanding evidence in favour of either model (Matthews & Gilliland. but there has been scant research on the relationship between personality and goals set by organizations. rejection and indi€erence from prospective clients and therefore provide an interesting population for attributional style research. The literature on attributional styles suggests people try to explain events as internal factors resulting from their mood. The attributional theory of motivation argues that people with a positive style will learn from mistakes and subsequently develop an improved technique. 1999). there are serious doubts about the cross situational consistency and usefulness of attributional style as a trait measure (Cutrona. 1984). highly impulsive sta€ are thought to be motivated by rewards such as the ®nancial commissions and greater self-worth that is associated with being set higher organizational goals.1996) found that a positive attributional style for success was predictive of sales criteria in the UK. were less persistent.

In short. 1981. Elliott & Dweck. the underlying driving force within the sales industry is generally money (Amabile. Terborg. a positive attributional style should be related to work success and goal achievement. Following on from this. For example. 1987).J. and protestant work ethic were predictive of a person's attitude to money. in this study it is suggested that individual di€erences in interest in money might direct attention to ®nancial goal achievement. Hennessey. & Kendall. 1994. unhappy view of money. Mowen. 1978). 1973. employed groups viewed money much more positively and as desirable. whereas the unemployed seemed to take a tense. Lord & Hanges. it is surprising how little research has touched upon the area (Furnham. Middlemist. 1997.132 C. Other theorists have also suggested that people resolve goal con¯icts by using situational cues within the work environment (Austin & Bobko. Vandewalle and Cummings (1997. A performance goal orientation seeks favourable judgements and avoids negative judgements relating to competence. 1968. Phillips & Gully. be more tenacious or make more sales calls (Harmon. 1994. Vandewalle & Cummings). Sujan. they view ability as a malleable attribute that can be developed through e€ort and experience''. Terborg & Miller. sex and socio-economic level appeared to in¯uence their perceptions of money. Richins & Rudmin. & Tighe. education. successful social or family life). Brown. worrisome. individuals with a learning goal orientation tend to hold an incremental theory about their ability. Dweck & Leggett (1988) identi®ed two broad goal seeking strategies: performance goal orientation and learning orientation.g. & Luther. Thus the limited resources of the individual are directed towards the achievement of the goal in which interest is high. Using a similar rationale about goal prioritization. further research by Furnham (1996) has also shown political beliefs and work values to be powerful predictors. whereas a negative attributional style in positive and negative situations is typical of a performance goal orientation (avoiding negative judgements and withdrawal from the task even though there may still be the intention to perform well (Dweck & Leggett. 391) note: `Individuals with a performance goal orientation tend to hold an entity theory about their ability. Wernimont and Fitzpatrick (1972) carried out a study using 500 subjects from various occupations. 1992) and employees are often motivated to achieve targets through the use of commission-based wages and target incentives. We therefore see a positive attributional style in both positive and negative situations as re¯ecting the superior learning goal orientation (since optimists will learn to strive harder and apply more e€ort). 1985. Locke. A learning orientation is concerned with developing competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations. they view ability as a ®xed. Scales re¯ecting a motivation to make money could be expected to be correlated with goaloriented criteria. They found that the subject's work experiences. In contrast. Kernan and Lord (1990) argue that di€erential feedback can lead to attention to one goal at the expense of another. 1984). Hill. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 be motivated to work longer hours. Wright. & Hammond. 1982. Results showed that age. . uncontrollable personal attribute. 1994. 1988. important and useful. 1986). particularly in that of attitude to money in the prediction of work-oriented performance. Furnham (1984) developed a multi-faceted instrument known as the Money Beliefs and Behavior Questionnaire to measure money beliefs. Bryan. Although. Financial reward certainly seems to have the power to in¯uence performance (Campbell. Here high interest in money is seen as prioritising success within the work place such as by the achievement of sales goals in comparison to achievement of other goals (e. 1976. Pritchard & Curtis.

and Psychoticism was calculated as the average score of risktaking. Barrett. seem to be a reasonable 1 All the questionnaires used in this study are available from the author. The three-factor model of personality has a wide international following and has advantages over ®ve-factor models from its stronger basis in physiological research (Eysenck. irresponsibility. A total of 65 sta€ provided questionnaire scores and objective measures of performance were available for 60 of these participants. respectively) from the EPP provide the dimensions that Gray (1982. 1987.J. Eysenck's sub-scales do. anxiety. activity. manipulativeness. however.1. Eysenck Personality Pro®ler The Eysenck Personality Pro®ler (EPP. Although there are speci®c scales available for measuring the Gray dimensions (MacAndrew & Steele. 1995). The scales of impulsiveness and anxiety (sub-scales of Psychoticism and Neuroticism. although it may not provide such a good factor description of personality (Costa & McCrae. & Gray. 1999). All the sales managers and sales executives are paid on a commission basis determined by their performance against set targets. dogmatism and expressiveness.1. 1989). Method 2. Extraversion was calculated as the average score of sociability. 1991) advocates as the major two dimensions of personality. In addition to the above scales. guilt and hypochondria. 1992) is a 420item questionnaire measuring three higher order personality scales which are the summed average scores of underlying traits that are also measured in the questionnaire.C.2. Neuroticism was calculated as the average score of dependence. 1997). Wilson. The participants consisted of 62% males/38% females and the ages ranged from 20±61 years. and in line with the analysis of Jackson. impulsiveness. there is a Lie scale (similar to that of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire). & Jackson. The UK is managed by six customer business units located around the country and each covers a set geographical area. 2. Barrett. assertiveness and ambition. 1991. . Furnham and Lawty-Jones (2000). Following the recommendations of Eysenck et al. 2. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 133 The second hypothesis was that Impulsivity would better explain goal oriented criteria than attributional style and / or attitudes toward money. unhappiness. they are not convincing (Matthews & Gilliland. sensation-seeking. The information collected in this study was for the purpose of this research only and results were not shared with the company or the participants. 1967. aggression. Eysenck. Participants The `blue chip' company used in this study employs around 4000 people in more than 50 locations and provides one of the widest range of document processing and management solutions in the industry. inferiority.2. The questionnaires were distributed by post to all sales sta€ presently working within the southern customer business unit in the UK and 65 replied (52% response rate). Wilson. Questionnaires Each subject completed the following three questionnaires1 2.

This study reports on a shorter form of the questionnaire which comprises 30 items and is the ®rst study to investigate the validity of ®nancial beliefs in the prediction of occupational success. 1998a. and the EPP has been the centre of theoretical work (Furnham. 2. 1984) This questionnaire aims to assess the value people place on money and therefore the degree of importance they attach to it. Furnham & Lawty-Jones. The factor structure of the EPP has been investigated (Costa & McCrae. 1993). Sadka and Brewin (1992) was used. & Cotter. 1994. Jackson. externality and personal control. This measure of expected performance has been labelled Goal since it represents the goals set by the organization for the sales person. subjects were asked vividly to imagine themselves in the situation described and to write down the single most likely cause of the event. For each hypothetical event. or goal. 2. The OASQ consisted of six brief descriptions of hypothetical situations commonly experienced and particularly relevant to employed individuals. and other people's money.3. 1999). globality. It should however be noted that the EPP places the Impulsivity scale in Psychoticism. speci®c groups have been studied (Jackson & Wilson. such as central London. This ®gure is partly based on the geographical territory each employee is given as their particular selling area. Wilson & Jackson. whereas Gray would seem to place Impulsivity close to Extraversion. The sum of these scales can be calculated as a global measure of positive attributional style for positive (Co-Pos) and negative (Co-Neg) situations. 1984). Since assigned territory and other factors such as age are likely to in¯uence the set goal. Again it should be noted that performance will tend to be higher when the set goals are higher because it is usually easier to make money in these areas than other areas. stability. Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire A revised version of the Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire (OASQ) originally constructed by Furnham. 1993. The third criterion used in this study represents the percent of the goal achieved by the sales sta€ and is labelled Goal . It is a 60-item inventory which requires subjects to respond to various statements regarding their behaviour in relation to their own. Eysenck et al. The sales people working in recognised business areas. Each sales person is assigned a sales target.4. for the year which represents the amount of revenue they are expected to earn for the company. Forde. b. Money Beliefs and Behavior Scale (Furnham. 2.J.5. 1992). variations in the amount set do not totally re¯ect goal diculty. 1998. The second criterion used in the study is the actual ®nancial performance of the sales sta€ and is labelled Performance. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 representation of the di€erent levels of description and levels of physiological mechanisms between the two models. Objective measures Three concurrent objective measures were collected.. Responses are made on a seven-point scale ranging from `never' or `not at all' to `very much' (Furnham. Jackson & Corr.134 C. This is the ®rst study to examine the validity of the OASQ against objective occupational measures. are assigned higher targets than those with territories in less populated or rural areas. The hypothetical situations describe three positive outcomes and three negative outcomes. This cause was then rated by the subjects on ®ve separate seven-point scales concerned with the attributional styles of internality. 1995.

05. r=0. A one-tailed directional test was used to show signi®cance of the scales. The factors used in this study have some.05. standard deviations and alpha reliability for the EPP. p<0.05. Since the Eysenckian scale of Psychoticism includes impulsiveness as a sub-scale. Whereas Goals were highly correlated with Performance (r=0.=58). Partialling Impulsiveness from the correlations between the other predictors and the criteria had almost no e€ect. r=0. d.=58. representing Gray's Behavioural Approach System. P<0.f. Procedure The EPP. P<0. since the expected direction of the relationship was predicted.68 and Financial image which is 0. the correlations between each of the scales and the three objective measures were determined after having partialled out the e€ect of gender and age. the signi®cant scales were entered using the stepwise method.f. Performance and Goal achievement (r=0. Table 3 also shows that Co-Pos was signi®cantly correlated with Performance and Goal achievement (r=0. was positively correlated with Goal. only Psychoticism was positively correlated with Goal and Performance (r=0. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 135 achievement (%). Seligman and Schulman (1986) used a similar methodology.22.01. but not major. except for Co-Neg which is 0. The alpha reliabilities for all of the scales are greater than 0. Money Beliefs and Behavior Questionnaire and the criteria.05. Of the three criteria. resemblance to those of Furnham. and in Step 2. Five factors from the 30 items of the Money Beliefs and Behavior Questionnaire were extracted by Principal Components Analysis using the scree slope method.f.F.7. Gender and Age were entered.25. r=0. P<.J. mean scores.f.05.25. P<0. 2. OASQ and Money Beliefs and Behaviour Questionnaire were correlated with the three criteria (Table 3).C.69. P<0. 3.=58). D. Results Table 1 shows the number of subjects. However Performance was correlated with Goal achievement (r=0.24.29. this is likely to be the best measure of achievement orientation. 2. In Step 1.29. VARIMAX rotation of the ®ve factors is shown in Table 2. P<0. the analysis proceeded at two levels. Second.29. Statistical analysis After a factor analytic examination of the Money Beliefs Questionnaire.7.05. Of the Eysenckian personality scales. d.05.26. Money Beliefs and Behavior Questionnaire and the OASQ were administered to all employees working within the southern region of the UK for the purposes of this study.05. Goals was not signi®cantly correlated with Goal achievement. the correlation between Psychoticism and the criteria with Impulsiveness partialled out (in addition to Gender and Sex) was determined. a two-step multiple regression was used of the signi®cant variables against the criteria. All signi®cant correlations of Psychoticism against the criteria became almost zero and non-signi®cant (r=0.91. d. OASQ. r=0. First. P<0. d. The item numbers used in Table 2 refer to the original 60-item questionnaire fully labelled and described in Furnham (1984).05 with Goal Achievement) suggesting that it was the Impulsiveness sub-scale as opposed to the higher order scale of Psychoticism that was the signi®cant predictor.00 with Goal. r=0. P<0.6. whereas Co-Neg was signi®cantly .=58).02 with Performance. The Impulsiveness scale. The scales of the EPP. and r=À0.=58).

01. the e€ects of age and gender . Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire.05.72.95 0.51 6.=58). attributional style and money scales on each of the criteria. Beliefs about money and the criteriaa Mean Eysenck's model of personality Extraversion Neuroticism Psychotism Lie scale Gray's model of personality Anxiety Impulsivity Attributional styleb Co-Pos Co-Neg Money beliefs M1: Financial locus of control M2: Financially careful M3: Financially spend thrift M4: Financial image M5: Financially secure Criteriac Goal Performance Goal achievement% a S. r=0.78 13.73 0.=58).35.26. Percent.79 0.f. Performance. r=0.47 Sixty-®ve participants completed the questionnaire measures. b Co-Pos.92 28.05.01. d.41 68. From the Money Beliefs and Behavior Questionnaire. correlated with Goal and Performance (r=0.67 10.05.69 7. p<0. P< 0.48 24.=58).01. P<0.11 19. P<0.23. All scales are scored so that a high score re¯ects the name of the scale. d.87 878 598.37.f.40 7.36 1 343 171.89 0.88 5.05. target assigned to sales person. Correlations between all the signi®cant predictors are shown in Table 4. Here two tailed tests are reported since no a priori directional hypotheses have been made.19 5. Hierarchical multiple regression was then used to regress the most important personality. Financial Locus of Control and Financial Image were signi®cantly correlated with Goal achievement (r=0.34. actual sales achieved. and Financial Security was signi®cantly correlated with Goal and Performance (r=0. P<0.05.25 6. r=0. d. P<0. d. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 Table 1 Descriptive statistics for Eysenck Personality Pro®ler.80 18. and M1: Financial Locus of Control (r=0.41. P<0.01. and Financial Locus of Control and Security are also signi®cantly correlated (r=0.13 10.f. Co-Neg. Co-Pos is correlated with Impulsivity. P<0.60 21.=58).95 19.J.79 0. P<0. In Step 1.54 10.69 0.D. d.05 4.71 8. P<0. P<0.38.74 0.136 C.52 8.89 0.61 Alpha 0. Co-Neg. r=0.97 5.01.f. d.75 0.23.62 51.24. P<0. percent of target reached.f. positive attributional style across negative situations.26 8.45 29.41.71 £1 122 166.01. d. Co-Neg is correlated with M1: Financial Locus of Control and M5: Security (r=0. P<0. r=0. r=0.33.=58).=58).f. Objective records of Revenue and Percent were kept for 60 of these participants. positive attributional style across positive situations.69 6. 15. c Goal.69 21.95 37.30.80 £773 278.f.=58).01. Psychoticism is highly correlated with Impulsivity (r=0.83 0.68 0.74 0.01.

7 a The item numbers of the original Furnham (1984) questionnaire are presented here.03 À0.34 À0.29 À0.61 0.04 À0.77 0.05 À0. Impulsivity and Co-Neg were signi®cant.64 0.15 À0.17 0.33 M1 16.56 0.20.09 0. the adjusted R2 was 0.62 0. Two-tailed tests of signi®cance are reported for the Step 1 variables.03 0.11 À0.08 0.11 0.30 0. ®nancially secure. Financial Image and Impulsivity were signi®cant Step 2 predictors. After Step 2.03 À0.64 0.08 À0.09 À0. ®nancial locus of control.59 0.15 À0.03 0.70 0.30 0.04 0.64 0.16 À0.28 compared with 0. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 Table 2 Rotated factor matrix of the 30 items of the money questionnairea Item 60 56 57 52 46 22 24 08 55 14 31 35 15 03 50 37 01 18 21 23 09 26 48 59 11 07 05 10 06 58 Factor % Var LOC 0.11 À0.21 0.03 0.15 À0.10 0.44 À0.25 M2 11.06 À0. Financial locus of control.69 0.71 0.02 À0. See that study for a full description of the items.37 À0.12 À0.24 0.36 À0. were partialled out.08 À0.J. With regard to goal achievement.33 0. the signi®cant main e€ects for each scale were entered in stepwise fashion.25 compared with 0.13 M5 50.09 M3 80.20 À0.01 À0. ®nancial image.22 À0.10 0.08 À0.09 after Step .18 0.25 À0.6 Careful 0.11 À0.16 0.35 M4 70.2 137 Secure 0.19 À0.19 0.06 0.68 0.15 after Step 1.28 À0.07 0.76 0.8 Image 0.03 0.08 0.18 À0.10 0.36 À0.72 0. in the prediction of sales performance.11 0. The adjusted R2 of the Step 2 model was 0. In Step 2.04 0.71 0.08 À0.27 0.63 0.23 À0.08 0.17 0. LOC.32 0.03 À0.72 0. and one-tailed directional tests are reported for the Step 2 variables.07 0.4 Spend thrift 0.05 À0.C.34 0.42 À0.30 0.18 0.29 0. Final model results are shown in Table 5.11 0.18 À0. In the prediction of the Goal.06 0. ®nancially careful.04 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.19 -0.21 -0.19 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.56 0.32 À0.04 -0.07 0.24 0.00 À0.25 À0.11 0.39 À0.84 0.51 0.12 0.71 0.58 À0.09 0.22 À0.40 0.06 0.15 0.60 0.14 À0.08 0.19 0.16 0.27 0.14 À0.07 0.17 À0.18 À0.17 0. Secure.57 0.13 0.04 0.16 0.04 À0.16 to 0. Spend thrift.33 0. Careful. Image.19 À0.17 À0.74 À0.03 À0.21 0.44 0. ®nancially spend thrift.06 0.74 0.19 0. Impulsivity was a signi®cant predictor and improved the adjusted R2 from 0.

29* 0.03 À0.13 0.03 À0.07 0.14 0. Co-Pos. positive att®butional style across positive situations.16 0.26c 0. Co-Neg.33** 0. Ãà P<0.14 Impulsivity 0.37** À0.09 0.18 0.14 0.01 0. Two-tailed test levels of signi®cance reported. positive attributional style across negative situations.16 0.J.138 C.24* 0.22* 0.15 Co-Pos Co-Neg M1 M4 0. Ãà P<0.25* 0. positive attributional style across negative situations. seniority and years with company are partialled out.04À0.08 One-tailed directional tests were used.10 À0.41** 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.12 À0.16 À0.03 0.08 0. age.01 .34** 0.17 À0.13 a E€ects of gender.01 0. positive attributional style across positive situations.29a 0.16 0.72** 0.05 0. E€ect of gender and age are partialled out (n=60). Co-Pos.06 0.30* 0.19 À0.17 0.08 0.05.26* 0.01 0. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 Table 3 Intercorrelations between the predictor scales and sales performance criteriaa Goal Performance Goal achievement% Eysenck's model of personality Extraversion Neuroticism Psychotism Lie scale Gray's model of personality Impulsivity Anxiety Attributional styleb Co-Pos Co-Neg Money beliefs and behavior M1:Financial locus of control M2:Financially careful M3:Financially spend thrift M4:Financial image M5:Financially secure a b Performance 0.01.09 0.24c 0.06 0.25* 0.91d À0.23* 0.03 0.35** 0.23* Goal achievement % 0. Co-Neg.41** À0.01 À0.15 0. Table 4 Correlations between the most important predictor variablesa P Impulsivity Co-Pos Co-Neg M1: Financial locus of control M4: Financial image M5: Financial security 0.38** 0.19 0.05 0.29* 0. à P<0.26 0.

Although Psychoticism was signi®cantly correlated with sales goals and sales performance.26 139 p 0. Discussion It is not surprising to note the very high correlation between Goals and Performance. attributional style and money scales as shown in Table 3 were entered.34 0. Results of multiple regression using the entry method provided similar results to those provided by the stepwise entry method.24 0. Age and Gender were entered to partial out these e€ects from the rest of the model. In Step 2. Financial image.03 0.J. 4.08 0. In Step 1.44 2. ®nancial locus of control.20 0.01 0.30 0. IMP.C.12 0.26 3.34 0.34 0.25 Variable Gender Age IMP Gender Age Co-Neg IMP Gender Age M1 IMP M4 Beta 0. Note that two tailed levels of signi®cance are reported for the Step 1 variables. The ®rst hypothesis was that Gray's scale of Impulsivity would better predict goal-oriented criteria than scales derived from Eysenck's model of personality.27 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.42 0.35 0.16 0.00 1.78 2. Results supported the hypothesis.09 0. Therefore it seems that sales people with a high need for reward tend to have higher goals set for them by the organization.49 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.98 0.28 a This table shows the ®nal model statistics and Beta regression weights of the three step stepwise multiple regression model used against each of the criteria.96 2.15 Step 2 0. 1. M1.21 0. Impulsivity.59 0.46 1.03 0.47 2.25 t 1. tend to have higher performance and tend to achieve a greater percent of their goal than sales people with a . but one tailed levels are reported for the Step 2 variables.09 0.42 0.43 0.00 0.92 1. the signi®cant personality.43 0.00 0. M4.44 0. the e€ect disappears when the sub-scale of Impulsivity is partialled.96 À2.04 1. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 Table 5 Multiple regression analysesa Step 1 (1) Goals Multiple R R2 Adjusted R2 (2) Performance Multiple R R2 Adjusted R2 (3) Goal achievement % Multiple R R2 Adjusted R2 0.80 3. Impulsivity was the only scale to be signi®cantly correlated with all three of the criteria.02 0. The aim of this study was to test Gray's scales of personality within an occupational context.03 0. positive attributional style in negative situations.55 0.23 À0. since it will usually be easier to obtain higher income generation in geographical areas associated with higher goals. Co-Neg.24 0.

1987. Hypothesis 2 is therefore generally supported as Impulsivity is shown to be a more important predictor of goal-oriented criteria than either attributional style or interest in money. Co-Pos and Co-Neg were generally signi®cantly predictors of the motivational criteria. 1998. 1996. This is unlikely because Impulsivity would not seem to be a positive characteristic within a sales environment. It appears that interest in money predicts performance in an industry that is dominated by money (Amabile et al. Certainly. 1992). 1995a. Thus positive sales people learn to strive harder and apply more e€ort whereas less positive sales people tend to avoid negative judgements and withdraw from the task as might be expected from a performance goal orientation (Dweck & Leggett. Impulsivity appears to be the only consistent and the best overall predictor of the motivational criteria.140 C. An alternative explanation of the link between Impulsivity and the criteria is that personality characteristics of Impulsivity (such as rash thinking) somehow leads to better performance. did not predict any of the criteria. Wright. and added to Co-Neg in the explanation of Performance. Vandewalle & Cummings. the company used in this study is well known for its positive human resource policies and thus the threat of punishment is unlikely to be a relevant motivator. Richins & Rudmin. Although this may not be true for all organizations. although it is not signi®cantly correlated with Co-Neg. 1997). A positive attitude towards money could also be seen as a direct motivator towards success in the sales industry. Correlational results suggest that a positive ®nancial locus of control (i.e. 1988. These results suggest that attitude towards money could be a useful and indirect measure of sales potential. which represented Gray's BIS. Seligman & Schulman. Phillips & Gully.. because it seems that the only reasonable connection between Impulsivity and goal oriented criteria is in terms of the reward characteristics of the BAS. Harmon et al. 1994. These results are best explained in terms of the link between a positive attributional style and a learning goal orientation that generally leads to higher sales goals. Impulsivity therefore appears to be a better predictor than attributional styles with two of the criteria and an additional predictor to Co-Pos with one of the criteria.b. Johns. Results from this study provide reasonably strong evidence in favour of . 1988. 1986. wanting to take control of one's ®nancial situation) and having a positive ®nancial image are signi®cantly related to Goal achievement whereas need for ®nancial security is signi®cantly correlated with goals set and performance. 1986). 1994. future research might include a measure of organizational culture and draw hypotheses in which impulsivity is related to achievement in a reward-oriented culture whereas anxiety is related to achievement in a punishment-oriented culture.J. Such an interpretation. and achievement. provides the ®rst occupational validity evidence in favour of Gray's (1982. Elliott & Dweck. As was expected from previous research (Corr & Gray. performance.. The motivational basis of Impulsivity is further supported by its signi®cant correlation with Co-Pos. With this scale. Overall. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 low need for reward. 1991) predictions about the nature of the BAS and how the system motivates the individual. Multiple regression results indicated that Impulsivity was a better predictor of Goals and Goal achievement than attributional style. 1994. highly anxious people could be expected to be motivated by punishment or threat of punishment. 1997. Anxiety. Multiple regression results suggest that Impulsivity provides a better explanation of Goals and Performance than interest in money and suggest that Impulsivity adds to the variance explained by interest in money with regard to Goal achievement. Sujan.

the signi®cant correlations between predictor scales and criteria are not large (in fact. That motivational scales are also related to Goals set by the organisation and Performance supports the possibility that motivated sales sta€ are likely to be awarded the better geographical areas with consequent higher goals set and likely higher performance. 1997). The results should be seen in the context of other evidence such as that collected from EEG studies.. by reference to the di€erent criteria used in studies or by reference to the di€erent jobs that have been used in di€erent studies. This is surprising since Impulsivity and Conscientiousness are the opposite ends of similar scales. Whereas the positive results reported in this study should be seen as a validation of these scales for use in this context. 1963) which presently seems to dominate trait theory. and of Gray's model in which Impulsivity is seen as a measure of response to reward. 1999). attention and vigilance (Matthews & Gilliland. electrodermal and cardiovascular activity. 1986). However such an interpretation does not lessen the importance of the demonstrated link between impulsivity and occupational success. 10 and 19% of variance in Goals set by organisations. 1991). Norman. First. .. A third limitation might be that Gray's model was compared to Eysenck's model. 1982. Performance and Goal achievement respectively. Finally. by reference to the di€erent cultures that exist in organizations. it should also be noted that the causal direction of the relationships reported in this study was not tested. An additional 4. Such a comparison would be a very useful extension to this study. and yet both are outside the framework of the `big-®ve' model (Goldberg. 1989). event-related potentials.C. scales of Impulsivity and Anxiety from the EPP were used to represent Gray's BAS and BIS. 1997). It may be that this apparent con¯ict can be resolved by better understanding the di€erences between Impulsivity and Conscientiousness. further work needs to be conducted to support this view. was explained by one or more of the predictor scales used in this study. This suggests that the individual usefulness of the predictor scales is relatively modest. which is the opposite to high Impulsivity as reported in this study. Goal achievement is much more likely to be within the sphere of control of sales people than their goals set by the organization and their performance. 1987. it is Goal achievement which is most related to the predictor variables. conditioning. because Conscientiousness is the closest `big-®ve' scale to Impulsiveness (Zuckerman et al. Result of this study could be interpreted as suggesting that good sales performance etc. Consequently. These results suggest that individual di€erences can explain a signi®cant amount of variance in goal-oriented behaviour and add to the research already conducted in the contribution of individual di€erences to the self-setting of goals (Campbell. Scales of personality representing a biological basis therefore seem to have utility in predicting occupational criteria (as emphasised by Eysenck. 1999) and results of meta-analyses suggest that high Conscientiousness predicts performance in the work-place (Barrick & Mount. Phillips & Gully. may lead to higher sensitivity to reward. Hollenbeck & Brief. at a similar level to those reported by Seligman & Schulman. The di€erences between the criteria in the amount of extra variance explained are explainable in terms of the nature of the criteria. Second. Several limitations need to be noted with regard to this study. 1990.J. 1991. Wilson et al. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 141 Impulsivity as being a measure of motivation to succeed within the work place. This could be done in conjunction with other scales already developed for this purpose but which so far have been unconvincingly validated (MacAndrew & Steele. This study is the ®rst comparison between Eysenck's and Gray's models of personality with regard to prediction of behaviour in the workplace. The results also suggest that motivational scales can explain a reasonable percentage of variance in goal-oriented criteria.

D. Journal of Occupational Psychology.. Dweck. 8. (1995b). Primary trait measurement of the 21 components of the P-E-N System. C. T. M. (1982). Cutrona. Two cheers for the big 5!. Costa. (1994). J. Personality and Individual Differences.J.. Attributional style as a personality factor in insurance sales performance in the UK. G. (1985). interpersonal and situational factors. M. (1998a). & Tighe. Primary traits of Eysenck's P-E-N system: three and ®ve factor solutions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Eysenck. A. R. Attributional style.. 289±308.. A. A. S. E. Psychological Inquiry. (1998). & Leggett. NEO-PI-R: revised personality inventory. M. 79±95. T. The big ®ve personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Di€erences. & Cotter.142 C. Seligman. 308±317. Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. 1±27. P. Many sides of the coin: the psychology of money usage. 1224±1237... K.. 130. 55. E. (1988). E. Personality and Individual Di€erences. B.. M. 69. Amabile. A. Frei. Personality and intelligence. Psychological Inquiry. D.. T. Corr. (1978).. J. socialisation and cognitive ability as predictors of sales success: a predictive validity study. 58. & Jackson. J. Eysenck. 44.. Personality scores and test taking style.. C. (1967). (1978). (1984). C. Eysenck. 1043±1058. R. (1988). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: a review of criterion and construct evidence. Personality and experimental psychology: the uni®cation of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Bagozzi. Barrett. & Mount. (1994). T. A. 47. Costa. (1995a). Journal of Occupational Psychology. The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational correlations. L. (1995). FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 24. Attributional correlates and demographic predictors of monetary beliefs and behaviours. T.. Psychological Review. Journal of Organizational Behavior. & Jones. & Dweck. Fiske. M. 15. Hennessey. The biological basis of personality. 1±26. & McDaniel.. S. L. Hill. 83±87. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. C. 17. Furnham. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95. Explaining traits.. Corr. R. 69.. L. Personality and Individual Di€erences. P. R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Structure and validity of the attributional style questionnaire: a cross-sample comparison. P. The European Journal of Psychological Assessment. J. W. J. R. 73. K. P. Russell. D. IL: Charles C. Forde. 123±124. 5. R. J. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. 24. Goals: an approach to motivation and personality. Spring®eld. 87. & Gray. Wilson. A. T. 5. Elliot. Furnham. 11. 109±117. D. P. H. & Teasdale. J. (1997). Campbell. D. 66. G. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. J. Cross-situational consistency in causal attributions: does attributional style exist. (1996).. (1991). R. (1984). 950±967. A. & Gray. 517±531. 645±657. & Gray. 125±127. M. L. A. & Bobko. J. 18. C. H. 256±273. 19±23. P. (1992). E. P. Barrick. . Thompson. Odessa. The Journal of Psychology. E.. 5. Forde. Determinates of choice of goal diculty level: a review of situational and personality in¯uences. (1994). Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 Acknowledgement Thanks to Emma Overton for data collection References Abramson. Furnham. Funder. 241±252. Personnel Psychology. Furnham. & McCrae. 501±509. J.. (1996). Human Performance.. (1998b). 187±192. & McCrae. Journal of Marketing Research. 95. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. J.. Goal setting theory: unexplored areas and future research needs. R. Sales force performance and satisfaction as a function of individual di€erence. Corr. 375±388. Psychological Review. J. D. 49±74.. A. 256±273. & Cotter. L. H. Y.. Austin. P. S. (1992).

792±802. (1994b). (1994a). 13. R. Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: theory and evidence. Validation of a sales representative selection inventory. 157±171. Lord. 347±374. C. The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the function of the septo-hippocampal system. F. K. J. Group obsessiveness as a moderator of dissimulation on neuroticism scales. C. R. P. G. Iverson. (1994). P. A functionalist agenda for trait psychology. (1990). London: Plenum Press. J. Pervin. T. Journal of Applied Psychology. Personality and Individual Di€erences. & Perry.. & Robins. P. Matthews. bad or sad? The personality of bikers. & Gully.C.. 5. Gray: a comparative review. P. D. & Seligman. J. Role of goal orientation.. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. E. S. 815±820. D.. R. Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 143 Furnham. Goals and intentions as mediators of the e€ects of monetary incentives on behavior. Jackson. Harlow. & Hanges. D. G. R. 40. & Hammond... (1977). G. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. (1999). J. 574±583. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1991). (1994). Goodman. 103±113. In J. L. NJ: Prentice Hall. . The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. Traits and types. V. Kernan. L. Psychological Inquiry. A. C.. Explorations in temperament: international perspectives on theory and measurement. E.. E. C. ability. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 598±603. Gray's behavioural inhibition system: a psychometric examination. A. Oxford: Oxford University Press. G.. C. 104±121. J. K. Behavioural Science. A. (1987). (1987). & Steele. 66. (1991). G. (1994). New York: Oxford University Press. Strelau. Psychological Inquiry. The Development of an Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire. In S. Jackson.. The Journal of Social Psychology. Jackson. C. J. 27. Locke. (1998). 130±134. A. A. 27±39.. dynamics and development: no doors should be closed in the study of personality. MacAndrew. Relationship between indecisiveness and neuroticism: the moderating e€ect of a tough-minded culture. & Wilson. Personality and Individual Di€erences. A. E. 161±171. A. 82. 14. R. 91. 103. Psychological Reports. G. 161±178. (1981). J. 194±203. A. The personality theories of H.. J. Sadka.J. (1987). J. W. Personality and Individual Di€erences. & A. John. Traits and performance of automobile salesmen... L. 7. J. 583±626. Pervin. J. Psychological Inquiry. (1999).. 24. C.. E€ects of valence. (1982). A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. D. M.. L. & Luther.. R. H. Gray. McAdams. 5. Psychological Inquiry. Stahl. P. & Lawty-Jones.. M. 1105±1117. & Brewin. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 224±228. Personality-performance correlations at work: individual and aggregate levels of analyses. Phillips. Bryan. D. 137±142. A. Jackson. (1992). M. (1994). 26. J. O. & Gregory. Personality and Individual Di€erences. The neurophysiology of temperament. M. M. Middlemist.. P. A control systems model of organizational motivation: theoretical development and applied implications. (1984). T. Gray. G. Angleitner. Peterson. (1992).. (1968). 47. Mowen. Further re¯ections on current trait theory. W.. Towards an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure. C. T. & Cantor. Joint e€ects of assigned goal level and incentive structure on task performance: a laboratory study. A psychology of the stranger. Eysenck and J. M. An alternative description of personality: the big ®ve structure. 75. Replication of Sujan's attributional analysis of salespeople's motivation to work smarter versus harder. & Wilson. Locke. 241±242. A. C. Gray. J. 32. & E. 145±148. D. Mad. A critical analysis of current trait theory. R. & Corr. R. C.. Englewood Cli€s. 789±800. 75. & Kendall. (1990). J. 163±164. Hogan. L. Goldberg. P. Norman. 12. R. (1990). Cognitive neurochemistry. 52. S. 5. need for achievement and locus of control in the self-ecacy and goal setting process. A theory of goal setting and task performance.. Hogan. C. Brown. & Latham. The e€ects of individual di€erences and goal origin on goal setting and performance. 169±178. & Gilliland. J. 5.. 10. 392±414. Personality and Individual Di€erences. J. Psychological Inquiry. Milford. N. 5. Psychological Review.. Hollenbeck. (1993). 66. & Brief. Furnham. R. C. & Lord. Journal of Applied Psychology. A. (1994). M. Journal of Applied Psychology. 987±992. (1963). expectancies and goal performance discrepancies in single and multiple goal environments. Harmon. (1997).

Jackson / Personality and Individual Di€erences 31 (2001) 129±144 Pickering. M. 357±365. N. 10. I. & Gray. (1994).. 15. (1993). 156±168. D. Pritchard. 613±621. 162±166. C. Journal of Management. 63. Psychological Inquiry. Motivation and performance in industrial selling: present knowledge and needed research. 44. The motivational components of goal setting. P. Journal of Applied Psychology. A. J. Journal of Marketing Research. 80.144 C. (1994). Zuckerman. P. (1977). L. & Fitzpatrick. & Gray. Barrett. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. E. 187± 189. 26. (1997). & Kuhlman. M. D.. 10. A. & Curtis.. 218±226. D. Churchill.. goal commitment and performance.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terborg. Terborg. J. 487±504. 56. E. . 82. 5. (1986). 23. The in¯uence of goal setting and ®nancial incentives on task performance. R. & Cummings. British Journal of Psychology.. L. Seligman. P. Joireman. J. & Ford. J. A test of the in¯uence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Psychobiology of personality. Materialism and economic psychology. Richins. Zuckerman. (1972). W. 509±515. 677±693. R. A. M. VandeWalle. O. Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a metaanalytic review. N. (1978). 217±231. D. Traits and motives in the study of personality. 61.. Where do motivational and emotional traits ®t within three factor models of personality. & Schulman. Journal of Economic Psychology. F.. S. (1973)..J. M. Human reactions to reward and punishment: a questionnaire examination of Gray's personality theory. P. Verbeke. Explanatory style as a predictor of productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. Sujan. Interactions and reinforcement sensitivity theory: a theoretical analysis of Rusting and Larsen (1997).. Scandinavian Journal of Management. Personality and Individual Di€erences. (1976).. Corr.. Personnel Psychology. (1991). W. G. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. behavior and performance: a closer examination of goal setting and monetary incentives. Jackson. Journal of Applied Psychology. M. goal level. C. Wernimont.. Wilson. 26. 18. G. M. G. Motivation. An examination of the relationships among monetary incentives. P. T. 14. Personality and Individual Di€erences. (1986). (1989).. M. M. (1999). Wright. H. 16. (1992). Smarter versus harder: an exploratory attributional analysis of salespeople's motivation. 832±838. M. & Jackson. (1994).. Kraft. R. 50.. J. 41±49. D. & Miller. & Rothstein. Journal of Applied Psychology. 703±742. & Rudmin. J. The personality of physicists. J. M. 175±183. 29±39. (1991). H. Tett. A. Personality characteristics that predict e€ective performance of sales people. M. Personality and Individual Di€erences. D. R. The meaning of money. (1999). 49±57. Journal of Marketing Research. Wilson. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Snyder. P. 390±400. Walker..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful