The Big Five Personality Factors as Predictors of

Changes Across Time in Burnout and Its Facets

Galit Armon,1 Arie Shirom,2 and Samuel Melamed3

1
Haifa University, Israel
2
Tel Aviv University, Israel
3
Academic College of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel

ABSTRACT We tested the effects of Neuroticism and Conscientious-

ness on burnout across time, controlling for age, gender, work hours, and
depressive symptoms. Our theoretical model included both global burnout
and its physical, emotional, and cognitive facets, consistent with the bifac-
tor approach to modeling second-order constructs in structural equation
modeling. Data were gathered from 1,105 respondents (63% men) who
completed questionnaires at Time 1 (T1) and approximately 24 months
later at Time 2 (T2). Neuroticism positively predicted T1 global burnout
and negatively predicted T1 and T2 emotional exhaustion. Conscientious-
ness negatively predicted T1 global burnout and T1 and T2 cognitive
weariness, and positively predicted T1 and T2 emotional exhaustion. Our
gender-specific exploratory analysis revealed that for each gender, Neuroti-
cism and Conscientiousness predicted different facets of burnout at T1 and
T2. We recommend that future research test the possibility that the asso-
ciations of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness with global burnout and its
facets may be gender specific.

Our major objective in this study was to investigate the across-time

effects of personality traits on burnout and its facets. Burnout
has most frequently been conceptualized as individuals’ affective
responses to the depletion of their energetic resources following
exposure to chronic job stress (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004;
Shirom, 2003). We focused on burnout because it has been found to
be associated with workers’ health impairment (Melamed, Shirom,
Toker, Berliner, & Shapira, 2006) and reduced job performance (e.g.,

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Galit Armon,

Department of Psychology, Haifa University, Haifa 31905, Israel. Email: galitarmon@
gmail.com.

Journal of Personality 80:2, April 2012

© 2011 The Authors
Journal of Personality © 2012, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00731.x
404 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). We tested the influence of personality

traits, based on the Big Five (BF) personality factors (Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to
Experience; McCrae & John, 1992), on burnout, assessed at two time
points about two years apart. We used a longitudinal design following
Fraley and Roberts (2005), who emphasized the importance of exam-
ining the effects of personality traits on affects over time in order to
better understand the processes influencing stability and change in
affects. We argue that for any burnout prevention effort, knowledge
of the individual characteristics implicated in the etiology of burnout
is of considerable importance.
Personality predispositions could explain burnout and changes in
its level over time for several reasons. First, individuals with certain
personality traits may self-select into highly stressful and therefore
burnout-conducive occupations and jobs (Garden, 1989). Second,
certain personality traits may predispose individual employees to
experience stressors more intensely, thus subsequently eliciting
burnout. Watson and Clark (1984) described Neuroticism as the
disposition to interpret events negatively; plausibly, this predispo-
sition could adversely influence levels of burnout over time. Third,
in addition to their influence on the experiencing and appraisal
of stress, personality traits may influence coping with stressors
(Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007), thereby contributing to the
etiology of burnout over time. Thus, for example, past studies have
shown that Conscientiousness predisposes a person to handle stress
more efficiently (e.g., Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne, Musisca, &
Fleeson, 2004); plausibly, this predisposition could act as a buffer
against burnout over time.
In the current study, we conceptualized burnout as a multidi-
mensional construct as assessed by the Shirom-Malamed Burnout
Measure (SMBM; Shirom & Melamed, 2006; see review of Melamed
et al., 2006). The formulation of the burnout construct and its three
facets of physical fatigue (i.e., feeling tiredness and low energy at
work), emotional exhaustion (i.e., feeling lacking of the energy to
display empathy to others at work), and cognitive weariness (i.e.,
feelings of reduced mental agility on the job) is based on the con-
servation of resources (COR) theory. These three facets represent
the depletion and draining of three closely interrelated and individu-
ally possessed energetic resources (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000) and
therefore share a significant amount of their variance. This shared
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 405

variance reflects what we call global burnout, that is, the underlying
latent construction that represents the core meaning of burnout
(see Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & Chermont, 2003). The
content of each domain-specific facet of burnout is interpreted as
an outcome of depletion of energetic resources specific only to that
domain-specific facet and not to the variance shared among all three
facets. In structural equation modeling (SEM) terminology, this
modeling strategy is referred to as bifactor modeling (Chen, West, &
Sousa, 2006).
A meta-analytic study of the relationships between personality
variables and burnout concluded that employee personality is con-
sistently related to burnout (Alarcon, Eschleman, & Bowling, 2009).
With few exceptions (Goddard, O’Brien, & Goddard, 2006; Mills
& Huebner, 1998; Miner, 2007; Piedmont, 1993), past studies of
burnout and the BF model were based on a cross-sectional design
and were, therefore, able to point to a covariation but could not
confirm the BF effects over time. In addition, the few longitudinal
studies only evaluated a single occupational category or employer
using small samples, raising questions about the generalizability of
the findings (Reise, Waller, & Comrey, 2000). No prior study con-
trolled for the effect of depressive symptoms on burnout, which, for
reasons explained below, is necessary in any study on the anteced-
ents or consequences of burnout (see review of Melamed et al.,
2006). Most past studies on the association between the BF and
burnout did not control for age. The present longitudinal study
improves upon the earlier longitudinal studies by using a large rep-
resentative sample of participants, by excluding respondents whose
burnout and depressive symptoms scores were likely to be influenced
by a chronic disease or antidepressive medications, and by using
analytical methods that simultaneously tested all our hypotheses
while controlling for measurement errors. While past studies almost
exclusively used the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach &
Jackson, 1986) to assess burnout, we used an alternative, theoreti-
cally grounded measure of burnout (for conceptual problems and
methodological shortcomings of the MBI, see the review of Kris-
tensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005). To the best of our
knowledge, no prior study has examined the moderating effect of
gender on the relationships among personality traits and burnout;
for the reasons explained below, the current study attempted to fill
this void.
406 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

Study Hypotheses
Based on the conceptual meaning of each of the BF factors and
relevant past studies, we formulated specific hypotheses focusing
only on Neuroticism and Conscientiousness for two major reasons.
First, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness have been found to predict
many work-related outcomes, such as career success and deviance,
and represent maladaptive and adaptive coping styles, respectively
(Barrick & Mount, 2000; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick,
2004; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999); therefore, they are
highly likely to influence the availability and utilization of coping
resources (see the meta-analysis of Connor-Smith & Flaschbart,
2007). There is a body of evidence (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998)
supporting the theoretical argument that when individuals have
coping resources to address work-related demands, they are unlikely
to manifest strains such as burnout (Hobfoll, 2002). Second, Neu-
roticism, the tendency to experience negative affect, has been asso-
ciated with negative health outcomes (see the review of Lahey, 2010).
Conscientiousness, the tendency to be organized, thorough, and reli-
able (Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992), has been linked to
positive health outcomes (Kern & Friedman, 2008). The health out-
comes typically associated with Neuroticism (such as depressive
symptoms; see McCrae & John, 1992) and Conscientiousness (such
as physical fitness; see Kern & Friedman, 2008) have been linked to
burnout (Melamed et al., 2006). The linkages of Agreeableness,
Extraversion, and Openness with global burnout and its three facets
will be investigated on an exploratory basis.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism consumes resources and is likely to lead to resource

depletion or burnout because the higher its level, the more pro-
nounced is the tendency to view the world pessimistically and inter-
pret many stimuli as threatening (McCrae & John, 1992). Therefore,
neurotic individuals are likely to invest resources in dwelling on
their internal affective states rather than in addressing work-related
demands (Connor-Smith & Flaschbart, 2007). Many past cross-
sectional studies found Neuroticism to be positively correlated with
all of the MBI’s subscales (see the meta-analysis of Alarcon et al.,
2009; Swider & Zimmerman, 2010). Following this accumulated evi-
dence, we expected Neuroticism to be a positive predictor of the
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 407

baseline and follow-up levels of global burnout. In addition, follow-

ing well-documented effects of Neuroticism on physical (Lahey,
2010), emotional (Judge et al., 1999), and cognitive (Colbert et al.,
2004) symptoms, we also expect it to positively predict the physical,
emotional, and cognitive facets of burnout.

Conscientiousness

Individuals who score high on Conscientiousness are characterized

by careful planning, effective organization, and efficient time man-
agement, allowing them to accomplish more in the time available.
From a COR perspective, Conscientiousness acts as a resource
enabling employees to efficiently deploy their work-related reso-
urces, thus conserving energy and reducing the likelihood
of burnout (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Conscientious indi-
viduals tend to use proactive, rational, problem-focused coping
(Connor-Smith & Flaschbart, 2007), further reducing the likelihood
of depleting their resources in managing work-related stresses (e.g.,
Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Studies
have found Conscientiousness to negatively predict the MBI sub-
scales (Alarcon et al., 2009; Swider & Zimmerman, 2010). There-
fore, we expected that people rated high on Conscientiousness
would experience lower levels of global burnout. Furthermore, as
highly conscientious individuals have been characterized as thought-
ful, planful, organized, and thorough (Goldberg, 1990), we expected
that people who are high on Conscientiousness would experience
lower levels of cognitive weariness, the facet of burnout reflecting
one’s feeling of having reduced thinking ability. Because Conscien-
tiousness is positively associated with customer service quality,
social relationship quality, and positive teamwork (Barrick &
Mount, 2000), Conscientiousness presumably acts as a buffer
against emotional exhaustion, the unique content of the interper-
sonal facet of global burnout.
Below we provide the theoretical rationale and empirical evidence
supporting our decision to use four major control variables to test our
hypotheses: depressive symptoms, age, work hours, and gender. All
approaches to conceptualizing burnout include a component of felt
fatigue or low levels of physical energy, which also appear among the
criteria leading to diagnosis of depressive symptoms or dysthymia,
according to the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
408 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

Therefore, there is a conceptual overlap between burnout and depres-

sive symptoms (Suls & Bunde, 2005). We maintain, however, that
burnout is distinct in that it is dependent on the quality of the
workplace social environment (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998), whereas
depression is a global state that can pervade virtually every aspect
of an individual’s environment (Suls & Bunde, 2005). Empirically,
depression and burnout have been shown in quantitative (Glass &
McKnight, 1996) and qualitative (Melamed et al., 2006; Schaufeli &
Enzmann, 1998) reviews to be distinct from each other and to be
differentially associated with disease endpoints. Still, because of the
conceptual overlap, we control for depressive symptoms in our analy-
sis. Of all biographical characteristics, age has most consistently been
found to be associated with burnout (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). In
addition, studies of adult personality development have suggested
that there are noticeable changes in the mean level of all the BF factors
from adolescence until the age of 30 or so (McCrae & Costa, 2003):
Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness decline, whereas Agree-
ableness and Conscientiousness increase. Work hours are an impor-
tant antecedent of burnout. Many past studies found that employees
experience more burnout when they work more hours per week
(Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). There are indications in the literature
that the number of work hours per week is an indicator of work-
related stress (e.g., Linzer et al., 2001). Given that burnout can be
viewed as a proxy variable reflecting the impact of work-related
stressors on one’s energetic resources (Shirom, 2003), we control for it
in our analysis. Finally, there is evidence that burnout varies as a
function of gender. A recent meta-analysis (Purvanova & Muros,
2010) found that women are somewhat more emotionally exhausted
than men. Rather robust gender differences—persisting across a
diverse array of measures, data sources, ages, and cultures—have also
been found in personality traits (see the recent review of Schmitt,
Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008). In general, when assessed in terms of
the BF model of personality, women report higher levels of Neuroti-
cism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness than men
(Schmitt et al., 2008).
Following the body of evidence presented above on gender differ-
ences in burnout levels and in the levels of the BF, we investigated
gender differences in the across-time association between the BF and
burnout in addition to using gender as a control variable. However,
because no past study has focused on gender differences in the effects
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 409

of the BF on burnout, we tested these gender differences on an

exploratory basis only.

METHOD
Participants

Study participants (N = 1,930: 1,221 males, 709 females) were all appar-
ently healthy, employed adults who were sent by their employer to the
Center for Periodic Health Examinations at the Tel Aviv Sourasky
Medical Center for a routine health examination at Time 1 (T1) and
Time 2 (T2), on average about 24 months apart (M = 737.78 days,
SD = 340.69). At T1, they represented 92% of the center’s examinees, and
all were voluntary participants in the study. We systematically checked for
nonresponse bias at T1 and found that nonparticipants did not differ from
participants with regard to any of the sociodemographic or biomedical
variables.1 We also tested for attrition bias from T1 to T2;1 those exam-
ined at T1 who did not return for a follow-up examination (46%) were
more likely to be males, to be older (near retirement age), and to have
self-reported a chronic disease at T1. We controlled for these possible
sources of attrition bias in our data analyses, as explained below.
We excluded 439 respondents (292 males and 147 females) from the
study based on the following criteria: those who self-reported having
been diagnosed at T1 or T2 with cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes,
cancer, or previous stroke or mental crisis. We also excluded participants
who reported regularly taking antidepressants or any lipid-lowering drug
or steroids because the disease or the medication could impact the level of
depression or burnout (see the review of Melamed et al., 2006). We also
excluded 376 respondents (195 males, 181 females) who were not actively
employed at either T1 or T2, as well as those who worked on a part-time
basis (fewer than 3 hours per day), because the assessment of burnout is
contextualized in the work domain. Finally, we excluded a few cases with
missing data on one or more of the study’s variables. Thus, the final
sample consisted of 1,105 apparently healthy employees (799 males, 406
females). In a separate report conducted on the same sample, we found
that the respondents’ physiological parameters were not significantly dif-
ferent from those obtained in other large-scale studies (Shirom, Melamed,
Rogowski, Shapira, & Berliner, in press).
Respondents at T1 had completed a mean of 15.64 (SD = 2.76) years of
education, 16.03 (SD = 2.65) for men and 14.99 (SD = 2.82) for women. On

1. Detailed results of the entire sample analysis and the gender-specific analyses
are available from the authors upon request.
410 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

average, 7.8% (6.4% of men and 10% of women) were single, 84.8% (88.7%
of men and 78% of women) were married or lived with a partner, 1.1% (1%
of men and 1.2% of women) were widowed, and 6.3% (3.9% of men and
10.8% of women) were divorced or separated. They had a mean of 2.44
(SD = 1.22) children: 2.51 (SD = .47) for the men and 2.32 (SD = .09) for
the women. In terms of organizational level, an average of 33% of the
respondents (24.6% of men and 48.5% of women) were rank-and-file
employees, not in charge of other employees; 12% (12% of men and 12.8%
of women) were first-level supervisors or forepersons; 27.4% (28.8% of men
and 24.6% of women) were middle managers; and 27% (34.6% of men and
14% of women) were managers in charge of other managers.
The study protocol was approved by the ethics committees of the
Sourasky Medical Center and the Faculty of Management at Tel Aviv
University. Participants were recruited individually by an interviewer
while waiting for their clinical examination. The interviewer explained the
survey and asked for her or his voluntary participation. In return, partici-
pants were promised detailed feedback of the results. Confidentiality was
assured, and each participant signed a written informed consent form.

Measures

The study questionnaire covered background, occupational, psychologi-

cal, and physical morbidity factors. The multi-item indices constructed for
the study had all been included in previous research in Israel (see the
review of Melamed et al., 2006), which demonstrated high reliability and
construct validity.

Work hours and age. Work hours were represented by the reported
average number of work hours per week (one item). Age was reported by
the subjects.

The Big Five. Individual differences on personality dimensions were

assessed by the Big Five Mini-Marker Scale, Brief Version (Saucier, 1994),
consisting of 40 adjectives (eight for each of the five Big Five: Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscien-
tiousness) that may be worded positively or negatively. The brief version
was chosen to maintain the interest of participants and to minimize
respondent refusal. It has been shown to have adequate reliability and
validity estimates (Saucier, 1994) and has been adopted in other studies on
personality and burnout (e.g., Ghorpade, Lackritz, & Singh, 2007) as well
as on personality and other emotions (e.g., Wong et al., 2007).
Respondents were asked to indicate how accurately or inaccurately the
adjectives describe them. Responses were given on a 9-point Likert scale
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 411

ranging from 1 (extremely inaccurate) to 9 (extremely accurate). We used

the back-translation procedure for testing the reliability of our translation
of this instrument; three independent judges assessed the adequacy of the
translation, with inter-rater reliability of .83. Confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) confirmed the theoretically expected five-factor structure.1 During
the testing of the original 40 items by a CFA, we decided to remove two
items that did not load as expected, primarily because of differences in
the meanings of the original English-language items and the Hebrew-
language translation. Other researchers have reported similar difficulties
that largely expressed cross-cultural differences in the meanings of the
adjectives used in the original version of the Mini-Marker Scale (e.g.,
Garcia, Aluja, & Garcia, 2004). Following the support we found for the
BF factor structure in our final measurement model, we tested each fac-
tor’s measurement model. For the BF multi-item latent factors, we con-
structed parcels using the radial parceling algorithm (Rogers & Schmitt,
2004) and calculated their internal consistency reliability coefficients
(alpha; see Table 1).

Burnout. Burnout was assessed using the Shirom-Melamed Burnout

Measure2 (SMBM), which asks respondents to report the frequency of
recently experienced loss of energy feelings at work. The SMBM measure
has been validated in several studies (e.g., Shirom & Melamed, 2006). The
dimensional structure of the SMBM was validated in prior research
conducted in several countries (for further details, see Shirom, Nirel, &
Vinokur, 2006; Vinokur, Pierce, & Lewandowski-Romps, 2009). All items
were scored on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to
7 (almost always). A CFA confirmed the theoretically expected SMBM
three-factor structure1 and led to our constructing three subscales, each
representing one facet. The three subscales were a six-item subscale of
physical fatigue (e.g., “I feel physically drained” and “I feel tired at
work”), a five-item subscale of cognitive weariness (e.g., “In my job, I have
difficulty concentrating” and “I have difficulty thinking about complex
things at work”), and a three-item subscale of emotional exhaustion (e.g.,
“I feel I am unable to be sensitive to the needs of coworkers”). A previous
study documented the superior fit to the data of a second-order model of
global burnout as assessed by the SMBM, in which items loaded on the
three first-order factors—physical fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and cog-
nitive weariness—and the first-order factors loaded on a second-order
factor labeled global burnout, relative to one-factor, two-factor, and
three-factor models (Shirom et al., 2006). In our research we adopted the

2. The SMBM, its norms, and instructions concerning its use can be downloaded
from the following sites: www.shirom.org or www.tau.ac.il/~ashirom/.
 Table 1
412

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of All Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Global burnout, T2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2. Global burnout, T1 .69* — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3. Physical fatigue, T2 .91* .63* — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4. Physical fatigue, T1 .63* .90* .67* — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Emotional exhaustion, .70* .44* .70* .32* — — — — — — — — — — — — —
T2
6. Emotional exhaustion, .42* .67* .30* .43* .52* — — — — — — — — — — — —
T1
7. Cognitive weariness, T2 .87* .61* .87* .48* .70* .42* — — — — — — — — — — —
8. Cognitive weariness, T1 .60* .86* .48* .62* .35* .48* .65* — — — — — — — — — —
9. Neuroticism .20* .25* .17* .18* .21* .28* .16* .20* — — — — — — — — —
10. Conscientiousness -.12* -.12* -.10* -.12* -.09* -.05 -.11* -.10* -.13* — — — — — — — —
11. Agreeableness -.05 -.07* -.01 -.02 -.18* -.21* -.02 -.02 -.09* .31* — — — — — — —
12. Extraversion .25* .28* .21* .21* .22* .23* .22* .23* -.44* .09* .03 — — — — — —
13. Openness .05 .05 .06 .05 .07* .08* .01* .01 -.30* .28* .12* .27* — — — — —
14. Depressive symptoms .50* .55* .50* .52* .27* .28* .42* .49* -.15* -.10* -.02 .20* .02 — — — —
15. Age -.11* -.10* -.11* -.15* -.07* -.03 -.07* -.03 -.06 .03 .02 .03 .01 .02 — — —
16. Work hours -.08* -.11* -.09* -.08* -.02 -.01 -.08* -.14* .05 .06 -.05 .03 .11* -.10* -.10* — —
17. Gender .19* .19* .25* .23* .02 -.01 .13* .15* .02 .02 .11* .08* -.13* -.26* .04 -.37* —
Cronbach’s alpha .93 .92 .91 .90 .91 .89 .91 .90 .73 .80 .71 .74 .76 .79 — — —
M 2.03 2.19§ 2.32 2.47§ 1.80 1.92§ 1.82 1.99§ 4.90 5.56 5.74 4.41 5.30 1.24 45.67 49.73 .37
SD .83 .82 1.05 1.03 .94 .92 .95 .94 .91 .54 .64 .99 .78 .32 9.64 10.68 .48
Note. N = 1,105.
Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

§ Significantly different from the corresponding T2 values, at p < .05. A full correlation matrix is available from the authors upon request.
*p < .05.
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 413

bifactor model, which has several major advantages over the standard
second-order factor (see Chen et al., 2006).

Depression. Depression was measured using the Patient Health Ques-

tionnaire (PHQ9), the depression section of a patient-oriented, self-
administered instrument derived from the PRIME-MD (Kroenke et al.,
2009). The PHQ9 includes nine potential symptoms of depression (e.g.,
feeling down, depressed, or hopeless; having little interest or pleasure in
doing things). Respondents were asked to rate the frequency of experienc-
ing each of the nine potential symptoms during the previous 2 weeks on a
scale ranging from never (1) to almost always (4). This measure has been
used in many studies; it has been extensively validated for major depression
and is often used in screening populations (see Kroenke et al., 2009).

Statistical Analyses

We used structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS 18 software

(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) to test our hypotheses. Following widely
accepted SEM practices (Kline, 2004), we allowed the exogenous variables
(the BF factors) to correlate, included them in the model correlations
among the measurement errors of the same indicators at T1 and T2, and
constrained the factor loadings of the same indicators at T1 and T2 to be
equal. To facilitate understanding of the results, we did not include these
correlations in Figure 1.1 The BF latent factors and the latent factor of
depression were each indicated by a single indicator, namely the mean of
the items included in it, and we fixed the error variance of each of these
latent factors using the well-known formula of multiplying variance by
(1 − reliability). We did not include the above single indicators in Figure 1.
In an initial version of our analyses, we also modeled yet another control
variable, representing the exact T1–T2 lag time in days for each respon-
dent. Because it did not have any significant effect on either of our T2
latent factors,1 we removed it from Figure 1. A major advantage of SEM
lies in its ability to estimate a model’s parameters while correcting for
the biasing effects of random measurement error. We report on three
goodness-of-fit indices—the normed fit index (NFI), the non-normed fit
index (NNFI, also known as TLI, which is recommended for large
samples), and the comparative fit index (CFI)—and two misfit indices: the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a 90% confidence interval
(McDonald & Ho, 2002). It has been suggested (Hu & Bentler, 1999) that
fit indices close to or above .95, combined with SRMR and RMSEA
below .06, can be considered indicative of good fit of the tested model to
the data. These threshold values for approximate fit indices have been
 .52* .35* .50*
414

T1 Physical T1 Emotional T1 Cognitive T2 Cognitive T2 Emotional T2 Physical

Fatigue Exhaustion Weariness Weariness Exhaustion Fatigue
R2= .02 R2=.36 R2=.18 R2=.36 R2=.36 R2=.26
n.s n.s
-.17* -.21*
N n.s n.s N
.21* n.s

.18*
.33* .2 3* .53* 5 6*.6 0* .75* .69* .68* .44* .4 6* .48* .51* .39* .41* .45* .41* .63* .63* .73* .30* .55* .63* .56*
-.18* C
-.44*
C
.6 9* .68* .7 1* .6 5* .51*
.6 8* .5 1* .66* .80* .8 2* .81* .66* .66* .66* .72* .58* .58* .66* .7 4* .6 9* .75* .7 3* n.s
-.21*

-.83*
-.48*
A A
.16*

T1 Global T2 Global
E Burnout .54* Burnout E
-.16* R2=.57 R2=.58

O
n.s .56* O
.22*

Age n.s
T1 Depression
n.s .27* R2 = .32
Work
hours .50* -.29* .37* -.23*

Gender N C A E O

Figure 1
The Big Five effects on global burnout and its facets across time. N = Neuroticism; C = Conscientiousness;
A = Agreeableness; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; n.s. = not significant. To facilitate understanding of the effects of
the Big Five on the latent factors in the model, we repeat the above five factors on the figure's left and right sides,
and also at the bottom of the figure. Solid and broken arrows represent significant (p < .05) and insignificant effects,
Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

respectively. All coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. The correlations among the exogenous factors
are not represented. Error variances of each indicator of the latent factors will be sent upon request.
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 415

questioned by recent studies (e.g., Yuan, 2005). In the current study, we

used fit indices primarily to screen out unacceptable models; moreover,
we focused on comparing nested models using the chi-square (c2) differ-
ence test (see Yuan, 2005).

Testing the measurement models. We first tested the measurement model

of the SMBM at T1 and T2 and found an acceptable fit, respectively: c2
(33, n = 1,105) = 89.65, 87.82, with normed, non-normed, and compara-
tive fit indices all above .99, .99, RMSEA = .04, .04 (the 90% confidence
interval for RMSEA ranged from .03 to .05, .03 to .05). Next, we tested
the measurement model for all the variables presented in Figure 1 and
found an acceptable fit: c2 (373, n = 1,105) = 1234.35 with normed, non-
normed, and comparative fit indices all above .95, RMSEA = .04 (the 90%
confidence interval for RMSEA ranged from .04 to .05).
Because we conducted exploratory analyses of gender differences in the
structural model, we also tested the measurement model for all the vari-
ables separately for men and women. The results demonstrated an accept-
able fit.1 We tested the equivalence of the male-female models by including
equality constraints across the groups for factor loadings, paths of direct
influence, and the variances of the exogenous factors, (i.e., age, work
hours, and the BF), testing the constrained model against the alternative
model in which these parameters were freely estimated. The results
demonstrated a good approximate fit to our data: c2 (791) = 1699.36
with normed, non-normed, and comparative fit indexes all above .93,
RMSEA = .03 (the 90% confidence interval for RMSEA ranged from .03
to .04). Additionally, when we tested the constrained versus the uncon-
strained model using the c2-difference test, the two models were not
significantly different from one another, thus providing empirical support
for our exploratory analysis of gender differences.

RESULTS
Descriptive Results

The intercorrelation matrix of the variables included in our analysis,1

and their means and standard deviations, are depicted in Table 1.
Global burnout’s consistency coefficient was found to be .69, and the
consistency coefficient of all its facets ranged between .30 and .91.
However, the correlations of each T1 burnout facet with its T2 level
(after controlling for the variance it shared with the other two facets,
represented by global burnout at T1 or T2) ranged between .35 and
.52 (see Figure 1), considerably lower than the coefficients reported
416 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

above. On average, there was a significant decrease in the global

burnout level and also in the levels of each of its facets from baseline
to follow-up. The Cronbach internal consistency reliabilities of
global burnout and its facets at T1 and at T2 were high (a
range = .89–.93), and those of the BF factors (a range = .71–.80)
were largely on par with those reported in a meta-analysis (Viswes-
varan & Ones, 2000). Global burnout and its facets were negatively
associated with age, in congruence with the findings of a meta-
analytic study on correlations between age and facets of burnout
(Brewer & Shapard, 2004). In addition, slightly negative associations
were found between work hours and global burnout and its facets.
Presumably, these associations were a result of the strong correlation
between organizational level and work hours, since organizational
level was negatively associated with burnout. The significant differ-
ence in the percentage of men and women across organizational
levels, c2(1,105) = 87.60, p < .05, that we found provided yet further
justification for the inclusion of gender as a control variable and
analyzing BF-burnout relations separately by gender. In congruence
with a past review (Glass & McKnight, 1996), burnout was found
to be associated with depression. The correlations between the BF
and depression were consistent with those reported in past studies
(Bagby, Quilty, & Ryder, 2008).

Testing the Structural Models

We tested our hypothesized structural model in which burnout is

modeled by the bifactor model as described in Figure 1, where T1
and T2 global burnout account for the commonality of all the
burnout items. Additionally, three domain-specific factors of global
burnout (e.g., physical fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and cognitive
weariness) account for the unique variance in the burnout items they
predict, independently of global burnout. The results demonstrated a
good approximate fit to our data (see Table 2, the bifactor model).
The R-squares (disturbances) of the three facets of burnout at T1 and
T2 indicate that the BF explained, on average, 19% and 33% of the
unique variance of the three facets of burnout at T1 and T2, respec-
tively (see Figure 1). Thus, there was sufficient unique variance
to be accounted for over and above the contribution of global
burnout. We used the c2 difference to test our decision to use the
bifactor model instead of the second-order factor model. The results
 Table 2
Results of the Structural Models (SEM) for the Effects of the Big Five on Global Burnout
and Its Facets at Time 1 and Time 2

Comparison
CI (90%) of Models
for
Model Sample c2 df NFI TLI CFI RMSEA RMSEA SRMR Ddf Dc2

The bifactor model Full sample 1039.57 382 .95 .96 .97 .04 .03–.04 .03 19 523.10*
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout

Women 709.05 359 .92 .95 .96 .05 .04–.05 .04 19 140.68*
Men 703.29 359 .95 .97 .98 .04 .03–.04 .04 19 231.02*
The second-order Full sample 1562.67 401 .93 .94 .95 .05 .05–.06 .04
model Women 849.73 378 .91 .93 .94 .06 .05–.06 .05
Men 934.31 378 .93 .95 .96 .05 .04–.05 .04
Note. N = 1,105. df = degrees of freedom; NFI = normed fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index as non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative
fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual;
D = the amount of change between the two nested models compared.
*p < .05.
417
418 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

indicated that the bifactor model fit the data better than the second-
order model, thus providing strong support for our decision (see
Table 2). Specifically, the second-order model represented a gain of
19 degrees of freedom for an excessive cost of c2 = 523.10. Following
these results, we report below the results of the tests of the specific
predictions linking Neuroticism and Conscientiousness with global
burnout and its facets at T1 and T2 (Hypotheses 1 and 2).

Testing Specific Predictions

Figure 1 depicts the detailed results of the tests of the specific hypoth-
eses. Hypothesis 1, which expected Neuroticism to positively predict
global burnout and its three facets at baseline and follow-up, was
partially supported. Neuroticism was a positive predictor of global
burnout, but only at T1 (b = .21, p < .05). In addition, Neuroticism
was found to significantly predict emotional exhaustion at both T1
and T2 (b = -.18, -.21, respectively; p < .05). However, contrary to
our expectation, the path coefficient was negative rather than posi-
tive. The expected associations of Neuroticism with cognitive weari-
ness and with physical fatigue at both T1 and T2 were not supported.
The results also partly supported Hypothesis 2, which expected Con-
scientiousness to negatively predict global burnout and its cognitive
and emotional facets at baseline and follow-up. Conscientiousness
was found to negatively predict global burnout, but only at T1
(b = -.21, p < . 05), and to negatively predict T1 and T2 cognitive
weariness (b = -.44, -.18, respectively; p < .05). However, contrary
to our expectation, it was found to positively predict emotional
exhaustion at both T1 and T2 (b = .34, .18, respectively; p < .05).
Some interesting findings emerged in our exploratory analysis on
the other factors of the BF. Agreeableness was found to positively
predict global burnout at T1 (b = .16, p < .05) and to negatively
predict emotional exhaustion at both T1 and T2 (b = -.83, -.48,
respectively; p < .05). Extraversion negatively predicted global
burnout and only at T1 (b = -.16, p < .05).

Gender Differences: Exploratory Analysis

We tested on an exploratory basis whether gender moderated the

hypothesized associations between the study variables. In order to
test whether there were gender differences in the associations
between Neuroticism and burnout and its facets, we used the
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 419

c2-difference test, constraining the relevant paths to be equal for men

and women and comparing this model with one in which these paths
were freely estimated. We found that the unconstrained model fit
the data significantly better; it represented a gain of two degrees of
freedom for an excessive cost of c2 = 13, thus indicating significant
gender differences in the paths between Neuroticism and global
burnout and its facets. Specifically, for women, Neuroticism was
found to negatively predict emotional exhaustion at both T1 and
T2 (b = -.68, -.48, respectively; p < .05). For men, Neuroticism was
found to predict cognitive weariness positively at T1 and negatively
at T2 (b = .16, -.25, respectively; p < .05).
Next, we used the c2 difference to test whether there were
gender differences in the associations between Conscientiousness
and burnout and its facets, constraining the relevant paths to be
equal for men and women and comparing this model with one in
which these paths were freely estimated. We found that the uncon-
strained model fit the data significantly better; it represented a gain
of six degrees of freedom for an excessive cost of c2 = 60, thus point-
ing to significant differences. Specifically, for women, Conscien-
tiousness negatively predicted T1 and T2 global burnout (b = -.35,
-.17, respectively; p < .05) and negatively predicted cognitive weari-
ness at T1 and T2 (b = -.17, -.28, respectively; p < .05), whereas it
positively predicted emotional exhaustion at T1 and T2 (b = .42, .36,
respectively; p < .05). We found the same pattern of association for
men, but only at T1.

DISCUSSION
We investigated the across-time effects of the BF on global burnout
and its facets, controlling for the effects of age, depressive symptoms,
work hours, and gender. We focused on two BF factors, Neuroticism
and Conscientiousness, and tested two hypotheses concerning these
relationships in a large representative sample of apparently healthy
employees. Overall, we did not find any support for our predicted
effects of the BF on T2 level of global burnout. Moreover, most of
the hypothesized associations of the BF with the T2 levels of burn-
out’s facets did not obtain support in our SEM model. All tests of the
hypothesized effects on T2 global burnout and its facets were con-
ducted after controlling for the effect of T1 global burnout and the
control variables.
420 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

Some interesting results emerged with regard to the effects of the

BF on the specific facets of global burnout. Specifically, the emo-
tional facet of burnout was found to be significantly associated with
Neuroticism, at both T1 and at T2, but the path coefficient was
negative rather than positive in sign. Our failure to support the
across-time association of Neuroticism with global burnout and its
cognitive and physical facets could be due to an underrepresentation
in the scale of the measure we used (Saucier, 1994), of items assessing
the affective traits of depression, anger, and hostility, which have
been found to be strong antecedents of physical and cognitive symp-
toms (see, e.g., the reviews of Eckhardt, Norlander, & Deffenbacher,
2004; Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996). In other
popular measures of the BF factors, such as the NEO-PI-R (Costa &
McCrae, 1992), depression, anger, and hostility constitute important
facets of Neuroticism.
With regard to Conscientiousness, as expected, a significant nega-
tive association was found with the cognitive facet of burnout at both
T1 and T2, indicating that Conscientiousness acts as a buffer against
reduced thinking ability. Furthermore, Conscientiousness was sig-
nificantly associated with the emotional facets of burnout at both T1
and T2, but in contrast to our expectation, this path coefficient was
positive rather than negative in sign. It is plausible that for individu-
als high on Conscientiousness, maintaining the effort to work hard
and be efficient may lead in the long run to depletion of their emo-
tional resources and result in emotional exhaustion.
We argue that an additional explanation for our failure to support
most of our hypotheses regarding the associations of Neuroticism
and Conscientiousness with global burnout and its facets across time
could be due to the moderating effect of gender on these associations.
Indeed, when we tested these associations on an exploratory basis
separately for men and women, a different and interesting picture
emerged. For each gender, Neuroticism was found to be associated
across time with different facets of burnout. While for men, Neuroti-
cism predicted the cognitive facet of burnout at both T1 and T2, for
women, Neuroticism predicted the emotional facets of burnout at
both T1 and T2. With regard to Conscientiousness, our gender-
specific exploratory analyses revealed a significant association across
time with both global burnout and its emotional and cognitive facets,
but only for women. We may speculate that different social roles and
challenges for men and women (Wood & Eagly, 2002) may account
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 421

for these results. As indicated above, the two BF factors of Neuroti-

cism and Conscientiousness have consistently been found to be sig-
nificant predictors of burnout, but almost no past study has tested
the possibility that these effects differ by gender. Future research
might address this issue.
An additional contribution of our study is that we were able to
support the suggestion (Brouwer, Meijer, Weekers, & Baneke, 2008)
that the bifactor model allows researchers modeling multidimen-
sional constructs, such as burnout, to investigate the pathways
leading to or from domain-specific factors while controlling for the
general factor, represented in our study by global burnout. For
example, the use of the bifactor model enabled us to find effects
of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness on emotional exhaustion
(representing the unique variance of the interpersonal dimension of
burnout) that were qualitatively different from their effects on global
burnout and the facet of cognitive weariness. This finding may have
practical implications for occupations in which the interpersonal
dimension of burnout is important in determining employee effec-
tiveness, such as the caring professions.

Strengths, Limitations, and Implications

The present study has several strengths. First, it investigated the

across-time relations between personality and burnout in a large
sample and explored gender differences in these relationships.
Second, we carefully excluded individuals who self-reported chronic
illness or taking medications that could influence their burnout
scores. No past study has applied these strict exclusion criteria. A
third strength comes from using T1 global burnout, depressive symp-
toms, age, and work hours as controls in our analyses of the effects
of the BF on T2 global burnout and its facets. It is often argued that
findings of studies that interrelate self-reported attitudes or affects to
the BF are biased because of their failure to consider the influence of
“third variables” on these relationships. Examples of these third
variables are occupation-specific environmental conditions and life
circumstances such as educational attainment. Presumably, these
third variables, to the extent that they predate the T1 global burnout
levels, had already influenced them before our T1 wave of measure-
ment. Finally, all T1 and T2 variables were assessed using the same
standard questionnaire at a single center.
422 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

Our study has certain limitations. First, our findings could be

biased because of the well-known “healthy worker effect,” which
refers to the possibility that employees with elevated levels of
burnout decided to change their place of work or stopped working,
leaving their healthier colleagues to participate in our research. We
assume that this had probably already occurred before our T1 (Gold-
berg, 1990). Yet another limitation is that we did not test the possi-
bility that the factors of the BF may interact in affecting burnout
levels (Richardson, Wing, Steenland, & McKelvey, 2004), primarily
because of insufficient evidence that such interactions could add
significantly to the prediction of burnout. Third, in the current study,
for reasons described above, we used the Mini-Marker Scale, which
allows only a total score for each of the BF factors. We recommend
that future studies consider using personality scales that allow an
assessment of different facets of each of the BF factors, such as the
NEO-PI-R.
Additionally, our design was based on only two waves of measure-
ment. It has obvious advantages over testing cross-sectional relations
because it controls for the confounding influence of time-invariant
common causes (Grant & Langan-Fox, 2006). However, because the
BF were not assessed during our T2 wave of measurement, we could
not test and disconfirm the possibility of reverse causation. A design
based on only two waves of measurement cannot provide information
on the precise nature of intra-individual change over time (Dormann,
2001). For plotting individual growth curves, which may include
linear as well as curvilinear terms, at least three waves of data mea-
surement are needed. We recommend that future research in this area
use multiwave repeated measurement within a longitudinal design to
allow for the assessment of the unfolding of individual change over
time. As noted, men and women were found to significantly differ
in their distribution across organizational levels. Because of the sta-
tistical difficulty of including a multinomial predictor violating the
assumption of multivariate normality in our SEM analysis, we did not
use organizational level as a control variable. Future research may
investigate the possibility that gender, organizational level, and per-
sonality traits interact in the prediction of burnout across time.
Finally, although T1 and T2 burnout scores are moderately highly
correlated, we still found a slight but significant decline in the mean
levels of global burnout and its facets across time. The decline in
burnout level across time that is often found in longitudinal studies
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 423

(e.g., Houkes, Winants, & Twellaar, 2008) could possibly be partly

due to employees adopting more effective strategies to cope with
chronic stresses across time, to their acquiring additional coping
resources with the passage of time such as ties of friendship and
social support from others, and to age-related processes. Future
research might investigate potential predictors of these decreases
over time.
If our findings are corroborated by future studies, researchers
testing structural equation models that include burnout should con-
sider the first-order factors representing the construct, in addition
to the higher-order representation of burnout, since these domain-
specific factors could make a unique contribution to explaining
outcome variables and they could be differentially related to anteced-
ent variables. Our results suggest that personality traits are involved
in the etiology of burnout over time in gender-specific ways. It follows
that researchers testing the association between personality traits and
burnout should formulate gender-specific hypotheses. An important
next step in this field of research is to examine possible mechanisms
underlying the longitudinal effects uncovered by our study.

REFERENCES
Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between
personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work and Stress, 23, 244–
263.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Small-
waters.
Bagby, R. M., Quilty, L. C., & Ryder, A. C. (2008). Personality and depression.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry/Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 53, 14–25.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2000). Select on conscientiousness and emo-
tional stability. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational
behavior (pp. 15–28). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Brewer, E. W., & Shapard, L. (2004). Employee burnout: A meta-analysis of the
relationship between age or years of experience. Human Resource Development
Review, 3, 102–123.
Brouwer, D., Meijer, R. R., Weekers, A. M., & Baneke, J. J. (2008). On the
dimensionality of the Dispositional Hope Scale. Psychological Assessment, 20,
310–315.
Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between Big Five personality
traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work-family conflict. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457–472.
424 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and
second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41,
189–225.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004).
Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and
coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
1080–1107.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dormann, C. (2001). Modeling unmeasured third variables in longitudinal
studies. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 575–598.
Eckhardt, C., Norlander, B., & Deffenbacher, J. (2004). The assessment of anger
and hostility: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 17–43.
Fraley, R. C., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model
for conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological con-
structs across the life course. Psychological Review, 112, 60–74.
Garcia, O., Aluja, A., & Garcia, L. F. (2004). Psychometric properties of Gold-
berg’s 50 personality markers for the Big Five model: A study in the Spanish
language. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 310–319.
Garden, A. M. (1989). Burnout: The effect of psychological type on research
findings. Journal of Occupational Psychology (Vol. 62, pp. 223). British Psy-
chological Society.
Ghorpade, J., Lackritz, J., & Singh, G. (2007). Burnout and personality. Journal
of Career Assessment, 15, 240–256.
Glass, D. C., & McKnight, J. D. (1996). Perceived control, depressive symptoma-
tology, and professional burnout: A review of the evidence. Psychology and
Health, 11, 23–48.
Goddard, R., O’Brien, P., & Goddard, M. (2006). Work environment predictors
of beginning teacher burnout. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 857–
874.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big
Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–
1229.
Grant, S., & Langan-Fox, J. (2006). Occupational stress, coping and strain: The
combined/interactive effect of the Big Five traits. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 719–732.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job
performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 93–106.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life.
Journal of Management, 30, 859–879.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review
of General Psychology, 6, 307–324.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2000). Conservation of resources theory: Applica-
tions to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.),
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 425

Handbook of organization behavior (2nd revised ed., pp. 57–81). New York:
Dekker.
Houkes, I., Winants, Y., & Twellaar, M. (2008). Specific determinants of
burnout among male and female general practitioners: A cross-lagged panel
analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 249–
276.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit in covariance structure
analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big
Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life
span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.
Kern, M. L., & Friedman, H. S. (2008). Do conscientious individuals live longer?
A quantitative review. Health Psychology, 27, 505–512.
Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd
ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The
Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout.
Work & Stress, 19, 192–208.
Kroenke, K., Strine, T. W., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Berry, J. T., &
Mokdad, A. H. (2009). The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the
general population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 114(1–3), 163–173.
Lahey, B. B. (2010). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psycholo-
gist, 64, 241–256.
Linzer, M., Visser, M. R. M., Oort, F. J., Smets, E. M. A., McMurray, J. E., & de
Haes, H. C. J. M. (2001). Predicting and preventing physician burnout: Results
from the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Medicine,
111, 170–175.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). The Maslach burnout inventory. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor
theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. D. (1992). An introduction to the five factor model and
its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practices in reporting
structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.
Melamed, S., Shirom, A., Toker, S., Berliner, S., & Shapira, I. (2006). Burnout
and risk of cardiovascular disease: Evidence, possible causal paths, and prom-
ising research directions. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 327–353.
Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro, M. L., & Hallet, A. J. (1996).
A meta-analytic review of research on hostility and physical health. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 119, 322–348.
Mills, L. B., & Huebner, E. S. (1998). A prospective study of personality charac-
teristics, occupational stressors, and burnout among school psychology
practitioners. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 103–120.
Miner, M. H. (2007). Burnout in the first year of ministry: Personality and
belief style as important predictors. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 10,
17–29.
426 Armon, Shirom, & Melamed

Piedmont, R. L. (1993). A longitudinal analysis of burnout in the health-care

setting—The role of personal dispositions. Journal of Personality Assessment,
61, 457–473.
Purvanova, R. K., & Muros, J. P. (2010). Gender differences in burnout: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 168–185.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale
revision. Psychological Assessment, 12, 287–297.
Richardson, D., Wing, S., Steenland, K., & McKelvey, W. (2004). Time-related
aspects of the healthy worker survivor effect. Annals of Epidemiology, 14,
633–639.
Rogers, W. M., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using
multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algo-
rithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 379–412.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five
Markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Sex differences in Big
Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 168–182.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and
practice: A critical analysis. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Shirom, A. (2003). Job-related burnout. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.),
Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 245–265). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the construct validity of two
burnout measures in two groups of professionals. International Journal of
Stress Management, 13, 176–200.
Shirom, A., Melamed, S., Rogowski, O., Shapira, I., & Berliner, S. (2009). Work-
load, control, and social support effects on blood lipids: A longitudinal study
among apparently healthy employed adults. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology.
Shirom, A., Nirel, N., & Vinokur, A. D. (2006). Overload, autonomy, and
burnout as predictors of physicians’ quality of care. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11, 328–342.
Suls, J., & Bunde, J. (2005). Anger, anxiety, and depression as risk factors for
cardiovascular disease: The problems and implications of overlapping affective
dispositions. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 260–300.
Swider, B. W., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic
path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 76, 487–506.
Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend bio behavioral bases of affiliation under
stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 273–277.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & Chermont, D. K.
(2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-
analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945.
Vinokur, A. D., Pierce, P. F., & Lewandowski-Romps, L. (2009). Disentangling
the relationships between job burnout and perceived health in a military
sample. Stress & Health, 25, 355–363.
The Big Five and Facets of Burnout 427

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in “Big Five Factors”
personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studies and measures.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 224–235.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience negative emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N. & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of person-
ality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to work-
family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.
Wong, S. S., Oei, T. S. P., Ang, R. P., Lee, B. O., Ng, A. K., & Leng, V. (2007).
Personality, meta-mood experience, life satisfaction, and anxiety in Australian
versus Singaporean students. Current Psychology, 26, 109–120.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of men
and women: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bul-
letin, 128, 699–727.
Yuan, K. H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 40, 115–148.