Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Big five personality traits as predictors of employee creativity in probation

and formal employment periods
Xiang Yao *, Rui Li
Shool of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study investigate how five factor model (FFM) personality traits predict employee creativity in probation
Creativity and formal employment periods. An examination of two subsamples of employees working in research and
Formal employment period development department shows that: 1) Openness to experience and conscientiousness correlate with creativity
Openness to experience
in both job stages; 2) agreeableness correlates with creativity in probation periods; (3) extraversion correlates
Personality
Probation period
with creativity in formal employment periods. The findings add new knowledge about how personality predicts
creativity at different job stages.

1. Introduction real problem-solving or idea implement behavior.

1.1. Theoretical background
Employees show creativity by generating “new and potentially
valuable ideas concerning new products, services, manufacturing
methods, and administrative processes” (Zhou & George, 2001, p.682)
that promote organizational innovation and effectiveness (Amabile,
1996). Because creativity is so essential in school and at the workplace,
its antecedents have long intrigued researchers (Hunter, Bedell &
Mumford, 2007). The five-factor model of personality (FFM) is
commonly used to study how creativity relates to personality (Puryear,
Kettler & Rinn, 2017). Results have shown that creativity is correlated
with openness to experience (Chamorro-Premuzic & Reichenbacher,
2008; King, McKee Walker & Broyles, 1996) and extraversion (Agui­
lar-Alonso, 1996; King et al., 1996).
Although many studies have investigated the link between FFM
personality and creativity (e.g., De Caroli & Sagone, 2009; King et al.,
1996), the relationship between personality and employee creative
behavior needs to be further enriched in workplace. Organizational
performance, business success and company longer-term survival are
increasingly determined by employee creativity (Anderson, Potočnik &
Zhou, 2014). Most of the studies examining the link between FFM per­
sonality and creativity in work settings restricted their focus to single
trait (e.g., openness to experience, Strickland & Towler, 2011; Williams,
2004), or used ability tests to measure employee creativity (e.g., Furn­
ham, Crump, Batey & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009) that fail to represent
Moreover, several empirical studies of FFM and employee creativity
in work settings were restricted to formal employee samples (Furnham
et al., 2009; Shalley & Zhou, 2008) and overlooked the essential pro­
bation period that precedes formal employment. However, we suggest
that personality traits play different roles during the two job stages.
According to trait activation theory, the distinct characteristics of the
two job stages perceived by employees serve to activate traits in
different ways (Woods, Lievens, De Fruyt & Wille, 2013), resulting in
different associations of personality traits with employee creativity.
Organizations use probation periods to test employee fit, so employees
tend to adjust their behavior to ensure that they will obtain continuation
contracts (Pfeifer, 2010; Riphahn & Thalmaier, 2001). In the formal
employment period, they are fulltime employees, with more job security
and established relationships with coworkers, so their personality traits
will have different relationships with their behavior. For example, ex­
traversion is correlated with performance in formal employment stage
but not in probation stage (Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese & Thoresen, 2004).
Therefore, we need more field evidence from business organizations to
examine how FFM traits affect employee creativity in probation and
formal employment periods.
1.2. Hypotheses
Among FFM factors, openness to experience indicates intellectual
curiosity, imagination, liberal attitudes, and originality (Costa &
McCrae, 1992) typical of imaginative, independent thinking individuals

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: xiangyao@pku.edu.cn (X. Yao), sklr@pku.edu.cn (R. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109914
Received 2 April 2018; Received in revised form 10 February 2020; Accepted 11 February 2020
Available online 21 February 2020
0191-8869/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Xiang Yao, Rui Li, Personality and Individual Differences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109914
X. Yao and R. Li
who prefer the variety and depth of experience essential in creative
processes. Openness to experience strongly and positively correlates
with creative self-beliefs and outcomes (Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016;
Puryear et al., 2017). It enhances creative thinking by allowing in­
dividuals to generate novel combinations of ideas and concepts (Med­
nick, 1962) and is correlated with creativity, although the findings were
outside organizational settings (King et al., 1996; Sung & Choi, 2009).
Although probation and formal employment periods differ in job cer­
tainty levels, we predict that openness to experience will be positively
associated with creative behavior in both periods, leading to our first
hypothesis:
H1. : Openness to experience will be positively correlated with crea­
tive behavior in probation (H1a) and formal employment periods (H1b).
Conscientiousness, another FFM characteristic, refers to self-
discipline, goal-setting, and personal reliability (Costa & McCrae,
1992), but previous studies have generated inconsistent findings
regarding its effect on creativity. Highly conscientious individuals tend
to be reliable and self-controlled, to focus on desires to achieve, obey
rules, and conform to norms, and are less likely to show creative be­
haviors (Raja, Johns & Ntalianis, 2004). Individuals who lack consci­
entiousness tend to disregard instructions, avoid order, act impulsively,
and are therefore more likely to identify novel and useful conceptions of
ideas, task approaches, and problem solving (Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic
& Furnham, 2010). However, persistence, a main characteristic of
conscientiousness, has been shown to enhance innovation in workplaces
that encourage or champion ideas (Howell & Higgins, 1990). We argue
that organizations normally consider creative behavior as a performance
indicator reflecting both mental ability and problem-solving skills to
fully implement creative ideas. Conscientiousness strongly and posi­
tively correlates with job performance across various jobs and occupa­
tions (Barrick, Mount & Strauss, 1993; McHenry, Hough, Toquam,
Hanson & Ashworth, 1990). Scientist are higher on conscientiousness
than nonscientist (Kline & Lapham, 1992). Therefore, conscientiousness
should benefit creativity in both probationary and formal employment
job stages.
H2. : Conscientiousness will be positively related to creative behavior
in probation (H2a) and formal employment periods (H2b).
Extraversion indicates tendencies to be active, energetic, exhibi­
tionistic, expressive, and gregarious. Highly extraverted individuals
tend to be active and passionate risk-takers (Costa & McCrae, 1992) who
think divergently to stimulate excitement and sensation, with positive
effects on creativity (Batey et al., 2010). Risk-taking behaviors are the
key mechanism for promoting creativity. Probation and formal job
stages mostly differ in job certainty levels, so we concur that extraver­
sion should correlate with creative behavior, but only in formal
employment stages. In probation periods, extraverts may be over­
whelmed by new information-intensive situations and avoid risk-taking
actions that would compromise job certainty. In formal employment
stages, they have gone beyond the need to adapt and can seek creative,
novel ways to perform in relatively familiar working conditions.
H3. : Extraversion will be positively related to creative behavior in
formal employment periods.
Findings are mixed regarding the relationship between agreeable­
ness and creativity. Agreeableness was found to positively predict
creativity for individuals who lack extrinsic motivation (Sung & Choi,
2009). Agreeableness have weak omnibus correlation with creativity
(Puryear et al., 2017). Agreeable individuals tend to be courteous,
trusting, and cooperative (Costa & McCrae, 1992), so that they are more
likely to resolve interpersonal conflicts and seek information through
intragroup processes. Thus, agreeableness is important during probation
periods that may feature strong process conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).
Agreeableness promotes more harmonious workplaces in probation
periods, so that employees can focus on creative activities rather than on
2
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
interpersonal conflicts. In formal employment, however, individuals
have adapted to their surroundings and confront fewer conflicts, so
agreeableness has less impact on creativity. Accordingly, agreeableness
should correlate with creativity in probation stages:
H4. : Agreeableness will be positively related to creative behavior in
probation periods.
Neuroticism indicates tendencies to be anxious, defensive, insecure,
and emotional (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It includes withdrawal and
volatility subcomponents, and has mixed relationships, sometimes pos­
itive (Martindale, 1999), negative (Chamorro-Premuzic & Reich­
enbacher, 2008), or nonsignificant (King et al., 1996) relationships with
creativity often depending on domains. Emotional instability has been
shown to contribute to creativity in domains requiring intuition,
subjectivity, and emotion expression, but not in domains requiring
logical, objective, and formal forms of expression (Ludwig, 1998).
We studied employees who design and develop new products. Their
work requires dedication, persistent effort, logic, objectivity, and formal
expression. Employees who have high withdrawal and volatility levels
will lack such qualities. Moreover, high neuroticism is associated with
an avoidant approach, in which people select activities, tasks and stra­
tegies to minimize threat of failure (Woods et al., 2013), so they are less
likely to seek novel task approaches. Thus, we expect neuroticism to
negatively affect creativity in both job stages:
H5. : Neuroticism will be negatively related to creative behaviors in
probation (H5a) and formal employment periods (H5b).
3. Methods
3.1. Samples and procedures
We collected responses from 507 employees who design and develop
new products in four Chinese mobile communication companies. The
employees need to turn creative ideas into products and apply for pat­
ents to complete their work, so creativity is crucial to their work per­
formance, and the companies are ideal sites for our study. Our data
included a subsample of 202 employees in probation periods and 305
employees in formal employment periods. Participants voluntarily
agreed to participate.
The first subsample included 305 formal employees (223 male) from
403 initially sampled respondents, a response rate of 75.7%. Partici­
pants averaged 28.7 years-old (SD = 3.91). They had worked for an
average of 33.4 months (SD = 29.35) in their current positions and an
average of 61.9 months (SD = 47.93) in their organizations. The second
subsample included 202 probationary employees (116 male) from 366
initially sampled respondents. They averaged 26.52 years-old (SD =
2.98) and had held their jobs for an average of 4.47 months (SD = 1.95).
The sampling procedure consisted of two time waves to alleviate
potential common method biases caused by transient mood states and
memory accessibility. At time 1, one month before the annual perfor­
mance review, participants in the formal employment subsample
assessed their creative ability and personality. At time 2, one month
after time 1, supervisors rated participants’ creative behavior. For job
candidates in the probation period subsample, time wave 1 occurred
after they passed their job interview. At that time, they assessed their
personality. Time 2 occurred about three months later for those who
were recruited for formal employment by their companies. At that time,
their supervisors rated their creative behavior. Probation periods
commonly last three months in China.
3.2. Measures
Creative ability. In the subsample of employees in formal employ­
ment stages, we used two three-minute tasks that are widely-used
divergent thinking tests to measure creative ability. In the “just
X. Yao and R. Li Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx

suppose” task, participants are asked to imagine walking on air or flying
and then to list as many problems that they can imagine confronting as
possible. In the “unusual uses” task, participants list as many unusual
uses as possible they can imagine for a cardboard box. Following advised
procedure (Torrance, 1966), the tasks were scored for fluency, flexi­
bility, and originality. Fluency was calculated by counting the number of
responses. Flexibility was scored by classifying responses into categories
and then counting them. Originality was scored by assessing the rarity of
responses: answers that appear in fewer than 5% of overall answers were
coded 2; answers in fewer than 5% to 10% were coded 1; other ranges
were coded 0. Two trained coders first worked independently on 20% of
the data. They reached 0.91 and 0.98 agreement regarding flexibility for
the two tasks and 0.85 and 0.88 regarding originality. They resolved
disagreements through discussion before further coding. The
inter-correlations were significant (rfluency-flexibility=0.88;
rfluency-originality=0.61; rflexibility-originality =0.53; p <0.01 for all correla­
tions). Finally, we transformed the three scores into z-scores to stan­
dardize them and obtain a summarized measure of creative ability.
Personality. We used the 40-item FFM personality marker from
Saucier (1994) to measure extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious­
ness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Participants rated how
accurately they were described by each item on a seven-point Likert
scale (1 = extremely inaccurate, 7 = extremely accurate). Sample items
for each of the dimensions are as follows: “Talkative” (for extraversion),
“Sympathetic” (for agreeableness), “Organized” (for conscientiousness),
“Moddy” (for neuroticism), “Imaginative” (for openness). Scores on each
scale were averaged to create indexes of the five personality traits.
Cronbach’s alpha for extraversion was 0.75; for agreeableness was 0.72;
for conscientiousness was 0.77; for neuroticism was 0.75; and for
openness to experience was 0.76.
Creative behavior. Supervisors assessed employees’ creative
behavior on a 13-item scale from Zhou and George (2001). A sample
item states, “Suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives.” Re­
sponses were made on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all char­
acteristic, 7 = very characteristic). The average score of the 13 items was
the measure of creative behavior. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was
0.92.
4. Results
We predicted that openness to experience, conscientiousness, and
extraversion would be positively correlated with creative behavior for
employees in formal employment stages. In contrast, we predicted that
openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness would be
positively correlated with creative behavior for employees in probation
periods. To test the hypotheses, we separated the two subsamples. We
examined H1b, H2b, H3, and H5b with the first subsample and exam­
ined H1a, H2a, H4, and H5a with the second subsample.
4.1. Employees in formal employment
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and partial
correlation results for the subsample of formal employment. Creative
ability was correlated with creative behavior (r = 0.17, p <0.01). As
predicted, openness to experience (H1b), conscientiousness (H2b), and
extraversion (H3) were positively related to creative behavior (r = 0.21,
p <0.01; r = 0.16, p <0.01; r = 0.13, p <0.05, sequentially). Even when
we controlled for creative ability, we found openness to experience
(H1b), conscientiousness (H2b), and extraversion (H3) to be positively
related to creative behavior (rpartial = 0.20, p <0.01; rpartial = 0.14, p
<0.01; rpartial = 0.11, p <0.05, respectively). Agreeableness and
neuroticism were not significantly correlated with creative behavior,
which contradicts H5b.
Table 2 shows results of hierarchical regression analysis to formally
test H1b, H2b, H3, and H5b. As control variables, we entered de­
mographics in the first step and creative ability in the second step. In the
third step, we added each of the hypothesized five personality traits
respectively. We excluded one outlier by the criteria of 3 standard de­
viations. Table 2 shows that when we controlled for age, sex, educa­
tional level, and creative ability, openness to experience had a
significant main effect on creative behavior (β = 0.20, p <0.01),
explaining an additional 3.9% of variance (H1b). Conscientiousness had
a significant main effect on creative behavior (β = 0.15, p <0.05) and
explained an additional 2.1% of the variance (H2b). Extraversion had a
significant main effect on creative behavior (β = 0.12, p <0.05) and
explained an additional 1.3% of the variance (H3b). Therefore, H1b,
H2b, and H3b were supported. In addition, neuroticism had a nonsig­
nificant main effect.
4.2. Employees in probation periods
Table 3 shows descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and partial
correlation results for the subsample of probationary employees.
Openness to experience (H1a), conscientiousness (H2a), and agree­
ableness (H4) were positively correlated with creative behavior (r =
0.33, p <0.01; r = 0.18, p <0.05; r = 0.17, p <0.05, respectively), but
extraversion was not significantly correlated with creative behavior.
Neuroticism was negatively but not significantly correlated with crea­
tive behavior, contradicting H5a. After controlling for age, sex, and
education levels, the partial correlations showed that openness to
experience (H1a), conscientiousness (H2a), and agreeableness (H4)
were positively correlated with creative behavior (rpartial = 0.31, p
<0.01; rpartial = 0.17, p <0.05; rpartial = 0.18, p <0.05, respectively).
Table 2 shows results of the formal tests supporting H1a, H2a, and
H4. As before, in Step 1, we entered demographics as control variables.
The subsample had no measure of creative ability. In Step 2, we added
each of the hypothesized five personality traits. Table 2 shows

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis in the formal employment subsample (n1=305).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Age 28.67 3.91

2 Sex 0.27 0.44 .02
3 Education 3.29 0.58 − 0.04 − 0.03
4 Extraversion 4.59 0.85 − 0.05 .09 .01 .27** .24** − 0.24** .28** .11*
5 Agreeableness 5.75 0.64 .07 .14* .05 .32** .48** − 0.47** .30** .08
6 Conscientiousness 5.43 0.75 .21** − 0.07 .02 .28** .50** − 0.43** .38** .14**
7 Neuroticism 2.93 0.85 − 0.13* − 0.02 − 0.12* − 0.30** − 0.51** − 0.49** − 0.27** − 0.05
8 Openness 5.17 0.74 − 0.02 − 0.08 .05 .39** .36** .45** − 0.38** .20**
9 Creative behavior 3.23 0.69 .01 − 0.01 .06 .13* .11 .16** − 0.08 .21**
10 Creative ability − 0.01 2.47 .08 − 0.06 .05 .10 .03 .04 − 0.05 .12* .17**

Note: Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female; Education: 1 = middle school, 2 = college, 3 = bachelor, 4 = above bachelor.
The lower triangular correlation matrix (below the diagonal) is the normal Pearson correlation coefficients. The upper triangular correlation matrix (above the di­
agonal) is the partial correlation analysis, controlling for age, sex, educational level, and creative ability,.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01 (two-tailed).

3
X. Yao and R. Li Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Hierarchical regressions results for personality traits on creative behavior.
Openness to experience → Conscientiousness → Creative Agreeableness → Creative Extroversion → Creative Neuroticism → Creative
Creative behavior behavior behavior behavior behavior

In the formal employment subsample, with control for creative ability (n1=304)
Control variables
Age − 0.006 − 0.032 − 0.011 − 0.001 − 0.012
Sex − 0.001 − 0.004 − 0.027 − 0.026 − 0.016
Education .032 .039 .037 .042 .035
△ R2 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003
Creative ability .138* .162** .161** .150* .161**
△ R2 .026** .026** .026** .026** .026**
Personality traits
2
△R .200** .147* .086 .115* .054
.039** .021* .007 .013* .003
In the probation period subsample (n2=202)
Control variables
Age .070 .067 .087 .092 .079
Sex − 0.077 − 0.130 − 0.141* − 0.118 − 0.123
Education − 0.021 .015 .011 .022 .015
2
△R .029 .029 .029 .029 .029
Personality traits
.314** .170* .179* .064 .101
△ R2 .094** .028* .032* .001 .010

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis in the probation period subsample (n2=202).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Age 27.27 4.02

2 Sex 0.42 0.50 − 0.19**
3 Education 2.82 0.49 − 0.04 − 0.03
4 Extraversion 4.91 0.67 .17* − 0.07 .02 .27** .24** − 0.24** .28** .03
5 Agreeableness 5.81 0.60 .03 .11 .06 .30** .48** − 0.47** .30** .18*
6 Conscientiousness 5.56 0.67 .17* .03 .04 .30** .59** − 0.43** .38** .17*
7 Openness 5.34 0.71 .11 − 0.15* .14* .41** .47** .40** − 0.27** .31**
8 Neuroticism 2.72 0.75 − 0.17* .00 − 0.07 − 0.31** − 0.36** − 0.51** − 0.20** − 0.10
9 Creative behavior 4.35 0.78 .12 − 0.14* .02 .05 .17* .18* .33** − 0.12

Note: Sex: 0 = male, 1= female; Education: 1 = middle school, 2 = college, 3 = bachelor, 4 = above bachelor.
The lower triangular correlation matrix (below the diagonal) is the normal Pearson correlation coefficients. The upper triangular correlation matrix (above the di­
agonal) is the partial correlation analysis controlling for age, sex, educational level, and creative ability,.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01 (two-tailed).

significant effects on creative behavior: openness to experience (β =
0.31, p <0.01) explaining an additional 9.4% of the variance; consci­
entiousness (β = 0.17, p <0.05) explaining an additional 2.8% of vari­
ance; and agreeableness (β = 0.18, p <0.05) explaining an additional
3.2% of variance. Extroversion and neuroticism had nonsignificant main
effects.
formal stages; M = 2.72 for employees in probation periods), perhaps
because the organization had excluded highly neurotic individuals from
employment. However, an undergraduate sample from King et al.
(1996) also found neuroticism to have a nonsignificant relationship with
creativity (e.g. M = 3.86 on a 7-point scale). Thus, we recommend future
investigations for the neuroticism-creative behavior relationship.

5. General discussion
Organizational researchers have long used laboratory studies to
empirically examine relationships between personality and creative
behavior (e.g., Feist, 1998; Sung & Choi, 2009), but have provided
inadequate field evidence. In this study, we use supervisor-rated creative
behavior to build a model of FFM personality and creativity in probation
and formal employment stages. We find that in probation stages,
openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are posi­
tively related to creative behavior. In formal employment stages,
openness to experience, conscientiousness, and extraversion are posi­
tively related to creative behavior. Our data add new knowledge about
how personality predicts creativity at different job stages.
Our results suggest that neuroticism is not significantly related to
creative behavior, but Puryear et al. (2017); Table 7) indicated that
emotional stability is also unrelated to creativity. Our finding of a
nonsignificant relationship may have occurred because the individuals
in our sample had relatively low neuroticism (M = 2.93 for employees in
5.1. Theoretical contributions
We contribute to the creativity literature by showing that personality
traits may have different relationships with creative behavior at
different job stages. Puryear et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis showed a
positive omnibus correlation between extraversion and creativity (r =
0.14), but we showed that extraversion is nonsignificantly correlated
with creativity in probation stages.
Our organizational samples replicate studies showing that openness
to experience is positively correlated with creative ability (Feist, 1998).
We studied employees working in high-technology organizations, where
creative behavior is essential for job performance, accordingly our re­
sults support Thoresen et al. (2004)) finding that conscientiousness is
strongly correlated with job performance. Thus, we can assert that
openness to experience and conscientiousness are positively associated
with creative behaviors, at least in organizations requiring high
creativity.
Third, we provide new insights into the role of personality at

4
X. Yao and R. Li
different job stages. That is, agreeableness relates to creative behavior,
but only in probation periods; extraversion relates to creative behavior
only in formal employment periods. We argue that the difference occurs
partially because the two stages have different levels of job certainty and
conflict management preferences. The findings have implications for
personnel recruitment and training. For example, organizations might
promote creativity by encouraging employees to display FFM person­
ality aspects at appropriate job stages.
5.2. Limitations and future directions
A major limitation of our study is that it lacks a longitudinal design to
observe within-subject changes from probation to formal employment
periods. We purposely chose the between-subject design to prevent su­
pervisor participants from ascertaining our research purposes when they
completed the same assessment questionnaire twice. The design is
inevitably limited, because variances between the two subsamples are
intertwined with other factors. However, we tried to alleviate concerns
about confounding factors by collecting our data in identical settings.
Therefore, despite the limited study design, we are confident that the
samples and measures provided reliable results.
Another limitation is that personality may be more related to
production-based and self-reported creativity measures than to ideation
and externally rated measures (Puryear et al., 2017). The creative
behavior scale we used was externally rated and mainly assessed crea­
tive ideation. Thus, the method effect needs further research.
We have two recommendations for future research. First, our study
shows that the pattern of the relationship between personality and
employees’ creative behavior differs between probation stage and
formal employment stage. We recommend future research investigate
the moderation effect of job tenure on the relationship between FFM
personality and creativity. Considering the possible information loss by
using categorical variables, continuous measurement for job tenure,
such as month of employment is recommend. Second, we also recom­
mend future investigations for the relationship between neuroticism and
creative behavior, the findings for this relationship are still mixed. We
suggest future research using a sample of workers who perform
emotional labor, such as online call center servers.
Funding
This Paper was funded by The National Natural Science Foundation
of China (no: 31671121, 31200792).
References
Aguilar-Alonso, A. (1996). Personality and creativity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21, 959–969.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations:
A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework.
Journal of management, 40, 1297–1333.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance
of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of
applied psychology, 78, 715–722.
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual differences in
ideational behavior: Can the big five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity
scores. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 90–97.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Reichenbacher, L. (2008). Effects of personality and threat of
evaluation on divergent and convergent thinking. Journal of Research in Personality,
42, 1095–1101.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised neo personality inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and neo five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa FL Psychological
Assessment Resources.
De Caroli, M., & Sagone, E. (2009). Creative thinking and big five factors of personality
measured in italian schoolchildren. Psychological Reports, 105, 791–803.
Feist, G. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.
Furnham, A., Crump, J., Batey, M., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality and
ability predictors of the “consequences” test of divergent thinking in a large non-
student sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 536–540.
Howell, J., & Higgins, C. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 317–341.
Hunter, S., Bedell, K., & Mumford, M. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69–90.
Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
238–251.
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The big five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs:
A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 214.
King, L., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model.
Journal of Research in Personality, 203, 189–203.
Kline, P., & Lapham, S. L. (1992). Personality and faculty in british universities.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 855–857.
Ludwig, A. (1998). Method and madness in the arts and sciences. Creativity Research
Journal, 11, 93–101.
Martindale, C. (1999). Biological bases of creativity. In Handbook of creativity, 137–152.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990).
Project a validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains.
Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354.
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review,
69, 220–232.
Pfeifer, C. (2010). Work effort during and after employment probation: Evidence from
German personnel data. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 230, 77–91.
Puryear, J., Kettler, T., & Rinn, A. (2017). Relationships of personality to differential
conceptions of creativity: A systematic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 11, 59–68.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological
contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367.
Riphahn, R., & Thalmaier, A. (2001). Behavioral effects of probation periods: An analysis
of worker absenteeism. Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik, 221, 179–201.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five
markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.
Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: A historical
overview. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp.
95–123). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Strickland, S., & Towler, A. (2011). Correlates of creative behaviour: The role of
leadership and personal factors. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28,
41–51.
Sung, S., & Choi, J. (2009). Do big five personality factors affect individual creativity?
the moderating role of extrinsic motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 37,
941–956.
Thoresen, C., Bradley, J., Bliese, P., & Thoresen, J. (2004). The big five personality traits
and individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional
job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 835–853.
Torrance, E. (1966). The torrance tests of creative thinking. norms, technical manual.
research edition. Verbal and Figural Tests (Forms A and B).
Williams, D. (2004). Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking
and creativity in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7,
187–204.
Woods, A., Lievens, F., De Fruyt, F., & Wille, B. (2013). Personality across working life:
The longitudinal and reciprocal influences of personality on work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34, 7–25.
Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging
the expression of voice. Academy of Management journal, 44, 682–696.