Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being responsible, careful or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They tend to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. Conscientiousness manifests in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, systematic, careful, thorough, and deliberate (tending to think carefully before acting).[1]

Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of both the Five Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior.[2] People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success, if they also score high on Big Five Agreeableness; otherwise, they are also more likely to engage in anti-social behavior and commit blue-collared crimes and crimes of passion.[3]

Personality models

Conscientiousness is one of the five major dimensions in the Big Five model of personality (also called Five Factor Model or OCEAN), which consists of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Two of many personality tests that assess these traits are Costa and McCrae's NEO PI-R[4] and Goldberg's NEO-IPIP.[5] According to these models, conscientiousness is a continuous dimension of personality, rather than a categorical "type" of person.

In the NEO framework, Conscientiousness has six facets: Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving, Self-Discipline, and Deliberation. Other models suggest a smaller set of two "aspects": orderliness and industriousness form an intermediate level of organization[clarification needed], with orderliness associated with the desire to keep things organized and tidy and industriousness being more associated with productivity and work ethic.[6]

Other Big Five personality traits such as low extraversion, high agreeableness, low openness, and low neuroticism are linked to high conscientiousness. Low conscientiousness is associated with an inability to motivate oneself to perform tasks that one wants to accomplish.[4]

Conscientiousness also appears in other models of personality, such as Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory, in which it is related to both self-directedness and persistence.[7] The traits of rule consciousness and perfectionism are included in Cattell's 16 PF model. It[ambiguous] is negatively associated with impulsive sensation-seeking in Zuckerman's alternative five model.

Traits associated with conscientiousness are frequently assessed by self-report integrity tests given by various corporations to prospective employees.

Origin

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Terms such as "hard-working", "reliable", and "persevering" describe desirable aspects of character. Because conscientiousness was once believed to be a moral evaluation, it was overlooked as a psychological attribute. The reality of individual differences in conscientiousness has now been clearly established by studies of cross-observer agreement. Peer and expert ratings confirm the self-reports that people make about their degrees of conscientiousness. Furthermore, both self-reports and observer ratings of conscientiousness predict real-life outcomes such as academic success.[8]

During most of the 20th century, psychologists believed that personality traits could be divided into two categories: temperament and character. Temperament traits were thought to be biologically based, whereas character traits were thought to be learned either during childhood or throughout life. With the advent of the FFM (Five-Factor Model), behavior geneticists began systematic studies of the full range of personality traits, and it soon became clear that all five factors are substantially heritable. Identical twins showed very similar personality traits even when they had been separated at birth and raised apart, and this was true for both character traits and temperament traits. Parents and communities influence the ways in which conscientiousness is expressed, but they apparently do not influence its level.[9]

Measurement

A person's level of conscientiousness is generally assessed using self-report measures, although peer-reports and third-party observation can also be used. Self-report measures are either lexical[1] or based on statements.[10] Deciding which measure of either type to use in research is determined by an assessment of psychometric properties and the time and space constraints of the study being undertaken.

Lexical

Lexical measures use adjectives that reflect conscientiousness traits, such as "efficient" and "systematic", and are very space- and time-efficient for research purposes. Goldberg[11] developed a 20-word measure as part of his 100-word Big Five markers. Saucier[12] developed a briefer 8-word measure as part of his 40-word mini-markers. Thompson[1] revised these measures to develop the International English Mini-Markers which has superior validity and reliability in populations both within and outside North America. Internal consistency reliability of the International English Mini-Markers for the Conscientiousness measure for native English-speakers is reported as .90, that for non-native English-speakers is .86.[1]

Statement

Statement measures tend to comprise more words than lexical measures, so consume more research instrument space and more respondent time to complete. Respondents are asked the extent to which they, for example, often forget to put things back in their proper place, or are careful to avoid making mistakes.[10] Some statement-based measures of conscientiousness have similarly acceptable psychometric properties in North American populations to lexical measures, but their generally emic development makes them less suited to use in other populations.[13] For instance, statements in colloquial North American English like Often forget to put things back in their proper place or Am careful to avoid making mistakes can be hard for non-native English-speakers to understand, suggesting internationally validated measures might be more appropriate for research conducted with non-North Americans.

Behavior

Development

Currently,[when?] little is known about conscientiousness in young children because the self-report inventories typically used to assess it are not appropriate for that age group. There are likely individual differences in this factor at an early age. It is known, for example, that some children have attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which is characterized in part by problems with concentration, organization, and persistence.[14] Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies suggest that conscientiousness is relatively low among adolescents but increases between 18 and 30 years of age. Conscientiousness generally increases with age from 21 to 60, though the rate of increase is slow.

Individual differences are strongly preserved, meaning that a careful, neat, and scrupulous 30-year-old is likely to become a careful, neat, and scrupulous 80-year-old.[9]

Daily life

People who score high on the trait of conscientiousness tend to be more organized and less cluttered in their homes and offices. For example, their books tend to be neatly shelved in alphabetical order, or categorized by topic, rather than scattered around the room. Their clothes tend to be folded and arranged in drawers or closets instead of lying on the floor. The presence of planners and to-do lists are also signs of conscientiousness. Their homes tend to have better lighting than the homes of people who score low on this trait.[15]

Academic and workplace performance

Conscientiousness correlates with successful academic performance in students and workplace performance among managers and workers.[16] Low levels of conscientiousness are strongly associated with procrastination.[17] Conscientiousness has a moderate to large positive correlation with performance in the workplace,[18] and in contrast, after general mental ability is taken into account, the other four Big Five personality traits do not aid in predicting career success.[19]: 169 [verification needed]

Conscientious employees are generally more reliable, more motivated, and harder working. They have lower rates of absenteeism and counterproductive work behaviors such as stealing and fighting with other employees.[20] Furthermore, conscientiousness is the personality trait that mostly[ambiguous] correlates with performance across all categories of jobs.[21] Agreeableness and emotional stability may also be important, particularly in jobs that involve a significant amount of social interaction.[22] Of all manager/leader types, top executives show the lowest level of rule-following, a conscientious trait.[23] Conscientiousness is not always positively related to job performance; sometimes the opposite is true. Being too conscientious could lead to taking too much time in making urgent decisions and to being too attached to the rules and lacking innovation.[24]

Subjective well-being

Main article: Subjective well-being

A 2008 meta-analysis found that conscientiousness has a positive relationship with subjective well-being, particularly satisfaction with life. Highly conscientious people tend to be happier with their lives than those who score low on this trait.[25] Although conscientiousness is generally seen as a positive trait to possess, research suggests that in some situations it may be harmful for well-being. In a prospective study of 9,570 people over four years, highly conscientious people suffered[how?] more than twice as much if they became unemployed.[26] The authors suggested this may be due to conscientious people making different attributions about why they became unemployed, or through experiencing stronger reactions following failure. This finding is consistent with perspectives which see no trait as inherently positive or negative, but rather the consequences of the trait being dependent on the situation and concomitant goals and motivations.[27]

Problematic life outcomes

Low conscientiousness is linked to anti-social behavior, blue-collared crimes, and crimes of passion,[3] as well as unemployment and homelessness.[20] Low conscientiousness and low agreeableness taken together are also associated with substance use disorders.[28] People low in conscientiousness have difficulty saving money and their risky borrowing practices make them fall prey to subprime and predatory lending more often than conscientious people. High conscientiousness is associated with more careful planning of shopping trips and less impulse buying of unneeded items.[20] While conscientiousness is generally linked to a lower level of anti-social behaviour, it is not always the case, and conscientiousness is not always negatively correlated with criminality. It has been shown that conscientiousness is positively correlated with business, white-collared, and premeditated criminal behavior.[29]

Health and longevity

According to a multi-decade study begun in 1921 by psychologist Lewis Terman on over 1,500 gifted adolescent Californians, "The strongest predictor of long life was conscientiousness."[30] Specific behaviors associated with low conscientiousness may explain its influence on longevity. Nine different behaviors that are among the leading causes of mortality—alcohol use, disordered eating (including obesity), drug use, lack of exercise, risky sexual behavior, risky driving, tobacco use, violence, and suicide—are all predicted by low conscientiousness. Health behaviors are more strongly correlated with the "conventionality" rather than the "impulse-control" aspect of conscientiousness. Apparently, social norms influence many health-relevant behaviors, such as healthy diet, exercise, not smoking, and moderate drinking, and highly conscientious people adhere the most strongly to these norms.[20] Conscientiousness is positively related to health behaviors[31] such as regular visits to a doctor, checking smoke alarms, and adherence to medication regimens. Such behavior may better safeguard health and prevent disease.[20][better source needed] The only known health benefits of low conscientiousness are relaxation and reduced anxiety.

Relationships

Relationship quality is positively associated with partners' levels of conscientiousness. Highly conscientious people are less likely to get divorced due to their own fault. Conscientiousness is associated with lower rates of behavior associated with at-fault divorce, such as extramarital affairs, spousal abuse, and alcohol use disorder. Conscientious behaviors may have a direct influence on relationship quality, as people low in conscientiousness are less responsible, less responsive to their partners, more condescending, and less likely to hold back offensive comments. More conscientious people are better at managing conflict and tend to provoke fewer disagreements, perhaps because they elicit less criticism due to their well-controlled and responsible behavior.[20][better source needed]

Intelligence

Conscientiousness has distinct sub-components, including two major branches (i.e., orderliness and industriousness). The largest set of meta-analyses found that these branches of conscientiousness have disparate connections with cognitive abilities. Orderliness has negative correlations with some cognitive abilities (e.g., fluid reasoning abilities, math knowledge, lexical knowledge, and science knowledge) whereas industriousness has strikingly positive correlations with multiple abilities (e.g., general mental ability, memory, processing speed, and knowledge).[32]

Some previous studies in selected samples (e.g., job candidates,[33] university students) have found negative correlations between conscientiousness and intelligence. One potential explanation is that these negative correlations may be artificially created by the selection of the sample. For example, with students who are low on one trait and high on the other (negative relationship) using the strong one to compensate and pass the selection, while students who are low on both (positive relationship) are removed by the selection.[34]

Political attitudes

Conscientiousness correlates with conservative political attitudes.[35]

Because conscientiousness is positively related to job performance,[36] conservative service workers have been shown to earn higher ratings, evaluations, and tips than their liberal counterparts.[37]

Although right-wing authoritarianism is one of the most powerful predictors of prejudice, a large scale meta-analysis found that conscientiousness itself is uncorrelated with general prejudice.[38] Rebellion against control is significantly negatively correlated with conscientiousness.[39]

Hence, conscientiousness is associated only with rule compliance, obedience, and integrity, not necessarily with right-wing authoritarianism, which requires reduced Big Five Agreeableness and potentially Openness as well.[40]

Creativity

The orderliness/dependability subfactors (order, dutifulness, and deliberation) of conscientiousness correlate negatively with creativity while the industriousness/achievement subfactors (competence, achievement striving, and self-discipline) correlate positively.[41] People who score high on the order subfactor of conscientiousness show less innovative behavior, especially if coupled with a low score on the industrious subfactor.[42] Group conscientiousness[definition needed] has a negative effect on group performance during creative tasks.[43] Groups with only conscientious members have difficulty solving open-ended problems.[44]

Adaptability

A study from 2006 found that those scoring low on conscientiousness make better decisions after unanticipated changes in the context of a task. Specifically, the subfactors order, dutifulness, and deliberation negatively correlated with decision-making quality, but not[ambiguous] competence, achievement striving, and self-discipline.[45]

Religiosity

General religiosity was mainly correlated with high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness among the Big Five traits.[46]

Conscience

Conscientiousness in psychology is defined, as noted above, by notions such as "orderliness and industriousness", not by reference to the ordinary language notion of conscience, or such as is referred to in the legal doctrine of equity, by concern with preventing unconscionable actions.

Geography

United States

Average levels of conscientiousness vary by state in the United States. People living in the central part, including the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri, on average have higher scores than people living in other regions. People in the southwestern states of New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona also have relatively high average scores on conscientiousness. Among the eastern states, Florida is the only one that scores in the top ten for this personality trait. The four states with the lowest scores on conscientiousness on average were, in descending order, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, and Alaska.[47]

Great Britain

A large scale survey of residents of Great Britain found that average levels of all the Big Five, including conscientiousness, vary across regional districts in England, Wales, and Scotland. High levels of conscientiousness were found throughout much of Southern England, scattered areas of the Midlands, and most of the Scottish Highlands. Low levels of conscientiousness were observed in London, Wales, and parts of the North of England. Higher mean levels of regional conscientiousness were positively correlated with voting for Toryism and the Conservative Party, and negatively correlated with voting for the Labour Party, in the 2005 and 2010 elections, and also correlated with a higher proportion of married residents, with higher life expectancy for men and women, fewer long-term health problems, and with lower rates of mortality from stroke, cancer, and heart disease. Higher regional conscientiousness was also correlated with lower median annual income in 2011.[48]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d Thompson, E.R. (October 2008). "Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers". Personality and Individual Differences. 45 (6): 542–548. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013.
  2. ^ Carter, Nathan L.; Guan, Li; Maples, Jessica L.; Williamson, Rachel L.; Miller, Joshua D. (2015). "The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological wellbeing: The role of obsessive compulsive tendencies". Journal of Personality. 84 (4): 510–522. doi:10.1111/jopy.12177. PMID 25858019.
  3. ^ a b Ozer, D. J.; Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). "Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes". Annual Review of Psychology. 57: 401–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127. PMID 16318601. S2CID 20451934.
  4. ^ a b Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO personality Inventory professional manual. Odessa, Fla.: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  5. ^ "International Personality Item Pool". ipip.ori.org.
  6. ^ DeYoung, C.G.; Quilty, L. C.; Peterson, J.B. (2007). "Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (5): 880–896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880. PMID 17983306. S2CID 8261816.
  7. ^ De Fruyt, F.; Van De Wiele, L.; Van Heeringen, C. (2000). "Cloninger's Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character and the Five-Factor Model of Personality". Personality and Individual Differences. 29 (3): 441–452. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00204-4.
  8. ^ Kim, Lisa E.; Poropat, Arthur E.; MacCann, Carolyn (2016), "Conscientiousness in Education: Its Conceptualization, Assessment, and Utility", The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 155–185, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_7, ISBN 978-3-319-28604-4, retrieved 2024-01-26
  9. ^ a b McCrae, Robert (2004). "Conscientiousness". Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Academic Press. p. 470.[volume & issue needed]
  10. ^ a b Goldberg, L.R.; Johnson, J.A.; Eber, H.W.; et al. (2006). "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures". Journal of Research in Personality. 40 (1): 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007. S2CID 13274640.
  11. ^ Goldberg, L.R. (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure". Psychological Assessment. 4 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26. S2CID 144709415.
  12. ^ Saucier, G (1994). "Mini-Markers – a brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers". Journal of Personality Assessment. 63 (3): 506–516. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8. PMID 7844738.
  13. ^ Piedmont, R.L.; Chae, J.H. (1997). "Cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality – Development and validation of the NEO PI-R for Koreans". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 28 (2): 131–155. doi:10.1177/0022022197282001. S2CID 145053137.
  14. ^ "Neurodevelopmental Disorders". NeuronUP. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  15. ^ Gosling, S. (2008). Snoop: What your stuff says about you?. New York: Basic Books.
  16. ^ Higgins, D.M.; Peterson, J.B.; Lee, A.; Pihl, R.O. (2007). "Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality and the prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (2): 298–319. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.298. PMID 17645401.
  17. ^ Dewitt, S.; Schouwenburg, H. C. (2002). "Procrastination, temptations, and incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators and the punctual". European Journal of Personality. 16 (6): 469–489. doi:10.1002/per.461. S2CID 7065818.
  18. ^
  19. ^ Schmidt, Frank L.; Hunter, John (2004). "General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (1): 162–173. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.394.8878. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162. PMID 14717634. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-10-28. Retrieved 2010-07-12.
  20. ^ a b c d e f Roberts, B.W.; Jackson, J.J.; Fayard, J.V.; Edmonds, G.; Meints, J. (2009). "25. Conscientiousness". In Leary, Mark R.; Hoyle, Rick H. (eds.). Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York/London: The Guildford Press. pp. 257–273. ISBN 978-1-59385-647-2.
  21. ^ "Which Personality Traits Are Most Important to Employers?". Association for Psychological Science - APS. 2014-09-25. Retrieved 2021-03-16.
  22. ^ Mount, M.K.; Barrick, M.R.; Stewart, G.L. (1998). "Five-factor model of personality and Performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions". Human Performance. 11 (2): 145–165. doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029.
  23. ^ MacNab, Donald. "New research shows leaders are persuasive rule-breakers" (PDF). Psychometrics Canada.[dead link]
  24. ^ Tett, Robert P. (1 July 1998). "Is Conscientiousness Always Positively Related to Job Performance?". Wright State University.
  25. ^ Steel, Piers; Schmidt, Joseph; Shultz, Jonas (2008). "Refining the relationship between personality and Subjective well-being" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 134 (1): 138–161. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138. hdl:1880/47915. PMID 18193998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-02-14. Retrieved 2012-07-11.
  26. ^ Boyce, Christopher J.; Wood, Alex M.; Brown, Gordon D.A. (2010). "The dark side of conscientiousness: Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following unemployment" (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality. 44 (4). Elsevier BV: 535–539. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.001. ISSN 0092-6566. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-02-24.
  27. ^ Wood, Alex M.; Tarrier, Nicholas (2010). "Positive Clinical Psychology: A new vision and strategy for integrated research and practice" (PDF). Clinical Psychology Review. 30 (7). Elsevier BV: 819–829. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.003. ISSN 0272-7358. PMID 20655136. S2CID 11952756. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17.
  28. ^ Walton, K.E.; Roberts, B.W. (2004). "On the relationship between substance use and personality traits: abstainers are not maladjusted". J. Res. Personal. 38 (6): 515–35. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.002.
  29. ^ Blickle, G.; Schlegel, A. (2006). "Some Personality Correlates of Business White-Collar Crime". Applied Psychology. 55 (2): 220–233. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00226.x.
  30. ^
  31. ^ Kern, Margaret L.; Friedman, Howard S. (2008–2009). "Do conscientious individuals live longer? A quantitative review". Health Psychology. 27 (5): 505–512. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.505. ISSN 1930-7810. PMID 18823176.
  32. ^ Stanek, Kevin C.; Ones, Deniz S. (2023-06-06). "Meta-analytic relations between personality and cognitive ability". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 120 (23): e2212794120. Bibcode:2023PNAS..12012794S. doi:10.1073/pnas.2212794120. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 10266031. PMID 37252971.
  33. ^ Moutafi, Joanna; Furnham, Adrian; Crump, John (January 2003). "Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: a study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator". European Journal of Personality. 17 (1): 79–94. doi:10.1002/per.471. ISSN 0890-2070. S2CID 143599504.
  34. ^ Murray, A.L.; Johnson, W.; McGue, M.; Iacono, W.G. (2014). "How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis". Personality and Individual Differences. 70: 17–22. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.014.
  35. ^
  36. ^
    • Brown, Tom J.; Mowen, John C.; Donavan, D. Todd; Licata, Jane W. (2002). "The Customer Orientation of Service Workers: Personality Trait Effects on Self-and Supervisor Performance Ratings". Journal of Marketing Research. 39 (1). SAGE Publications: 110–119. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.110.18928. ISSN 0022-2437. S2CID 144095642.
    • Neal, Andrew; Yeo, Gillian; Koy, Annette; Xiao, Tania (2011-01-26). "Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 33 (2). Wiley: 175–192. doi:10.1002/job.742. ISSN 0894-3796.
  37. ^ Davidson, Alexander; Theriault, Derek A. (2021-03-25). "How Consumer Experience Is Shaped by the Political Orientation of Service Providers". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 31 (4). Wiley: 792–800. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1233. ISSN 1057-7408. S2CID 233791649.
  38. ^
  39. ^ Watson, David (2001). "Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis". Personality and Individual Differences. 30: 149–158. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00019-2.
  40. ^ Hogan, Robert; Johnson, John; Briggs, Stephen (1997). Handbook of Personality Psychology. Academic Press. p. 856. ISBN 978-0-12-134645-4.
  41. ^ Reiter-Palmon, Roni; Illies, Jody; Kobe-Cross, Lisa (2009). "Conscientiousness Is Not Always a Good Predictor of Performance: The Case of Creativity". The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving. 19: 27–45.
  42. ^ Bakx, Nina. "Which personality traits do innovative people possess?". Universiteit van Amsterdam. Archived from the original on 2016-01-31. Retrieved 2015-04-12.
  43. ^ Robert, Christopher; Cheung, Yu Ha (April 2010). "An examination of the relationship between conscientiousness and group performance on a creative task". Journal of Research in Personality. 44 (2): 222–231. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.01.005.
  44. ^ Colarelli, Stephen (2003). No best way: an evolutionary perspective on human resource management. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-275-95739-1.
  45. ^ Lepine, Jeffrey; Colquitt, Jason; Erez, Amir (2000). "Adaptability to changing task context: effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience". Personnel Psychology. 53 (3): 563–593. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00214.x.
  46. ^ Saroglou, Vassilis (2002). "Religion and the five-factors of personality: A meta-analytic review". Personality and Individual Differences. 32: 15–25. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00233-6.
  47. ^
  48. ^ Rentfrow, Peter J.; Jokela, Markus; Lamb, Michael E. (March 24, 2015). "Regional Personality Differences in Great Britain". PLOS ONE. 10 (3): e0122245. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1022245R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122245. PMC 4372610. PMID 25803819. S2CID 14827579.