Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Review

Personality, values, and motivation
Laura Parks a,*, Russell P. Guay b,1 a b

James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, United States
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 12 November 2008
Received in revised form 19 May 2009
Accepted 1 June 2009
Available online 26 June 2009

a b s t r a c t
In this manuscript we review the constructs of personality and values, clarifying how they are related and how they are distinct. We then relate that understanding to motivation, and propose that personality and values have different influences on different motivational processes. We present a model in which personality and values influence motivation via the motivational processes of goal content and goal striving.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Personality
Values
Motivation
Goals

1. Personality, values, and motivation

2. Personality

Since 1937, when Allport recommended the exclusion of evaluative traits when investigating personality, the constructs of personality and values have rarely been studied together. However, both are expected to influence a variety of behavioral outcomes, and so it seems evident that we should consider both in examining the impact of individual differences on behavior. Yet this practice is so infrequent, there is little understanding of how personality and values are related to one another, much less how they might jointly impact behavior. As such, this manuscript considers both personality and values simultaneously as predictors of motivated behavior.
In this paper we review the personality and values literatures in terms of how the constructs are similar and distinct in order to clarify their unique attributes. Because values have received less literary attention in recent years, the values construct is reviewed in greater detail. We then review how each is expected to relate to motivation theoretically, and how they have been linked to motivation empirically. We also propose a model that integrates the two constructs into one motivational framework and discuss how they may differentially predict different motivational processes. The goal of this manuscript is to clarify our understanding of how values and personality are similar, how they are distinct, and how they might collectively influence motivated behavior.

Personality is defined as enduring dispositions that cause characteristic patterns of interaction with one’s environment (Goldberg, 1993; Olver & Mooradian, 2003). Research has demonstrated that personality is related to physiological processes (Olver
& Mooradian, 2003), and there is ‘‘robust evidence that genetic factors substantially influence personality traits” (Caspi, Roberts, &
Shiner, 2005, p. 462), with heritabilities averaging around .40 (Bouchard, 1997). While there is little evidence for a shared environmental effect, there is obviously a significant non-shared environmental component that contributes to an individual’s personality (Bouchard, 2004).
Although personality research has experienced a renaissance in the last 25 years, until the early-1980s most of the research on personality – particularly on workplace outcomes – concluded that personality did not matter (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Goldberg, 1993). That conclusion changed, however, with the emergence of the five-factor model of personality (FFM), which provided a relatively parsimonious taxonomy for grouping and classifying specific traits. Aggregating personality traits into these five broad categories produces several benefits, including greater reliability in measurement and results that are more comparable across studies. As noted by Mount and Barrick (1995, p. 160),
‘‘many personality psychologists have reached a consensus that five personality constructs, referred to as the Big Five, are necessary and sufficient to describe the basic dimensions of normal personality.” Further, McCrae and Costa (1997, p. 509) state that
‘‘many psychologists are now convinced that the best representation of trait structure is provided by the five-factor model.”

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 540 568 5171.
E-mail addresses: parksll@jmu.edu (L. Parks),
(R.P. Guay).
1
Tel.: +1 319 335 1504.

russell-guay@uiowa.edu

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002 676

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

The FFM’s five factors (and examples of traits) are Conscientiousness (responsible, organized, efficient), Emotional Stability
(self-confident, resilient, well-adjusted), Extraversion (talkative, ambitious, assertive), Agreeableness (friendly, cooperative, loyal), and Openness to Experience (curious, imaginative, open-minded)
(Goldberg, 1992; Mount & Barrick, 2002). Although the FFM is now widely accepted as a meaningful way to organize personality traits and has been shown to have cross-cultural generalizability
(McCrae & Costa, 1997), some researchers defend taxonomies with more or fewer factors (see, for example, Ashton et al., 2004; Block,
1995). Nonetheless, the emergence of the FFM led to increased activity in the study of personality, with the conclusion that personality does indeed have meaningful relationships with performance, motivation, job satisfaction, leadership, and other work outcomes. 3. Values
Broadly defined, values are conceptions of the desirable
(Kluckhorn, 1951). More specific definitions have been developed, however, and the proliferation of descriptions has tended to hinder research in the values domain (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). In general, values research has ascribed to one of two basic models
(Ravlin & Meglino, 1987a), which we refer to as ‘‘values as preferences” and ‘‘values as principles.” Values as preferences (work values) are essentially attitudes. They indicate the preferences that individuals have for various environments (Ravlin & Meglino,
1987a). For example, someone who values autonomy would be more satisfied with a job that provides considerable discretion.
Values as preferences have been studied extensively in relation to career choice and, more recently, within the context of fit. Results typically indicate that values as preferences are related to attitudes, such as job satisfaction. They have not, however, typically been found to relate to behavior (except for career choices)
(Dawis, 1991).
Values as principles, often termed individual or personal values, are guiding principles regarding how individuals ought to behave.
For example, an individual who values honesty believes that all people ought to be honest, while an individual who values achievement believes that people ought to have many accomplishments that will be socially recognized. This manuscript focuses on personal values (values as principles), because research and theory suggest that they are more closely linked to motivation. That is, values as preferences are attitudinal, and should primarily impact attitudes, such as satisfaction. Personal values, however, should more directly impact motivation, because they are general beliefs that one ought to behave a certain way. In this paper, therefore, any reference to values will implicitly refer to personal values, which we define as learned beliefs that serve as guiding principles about how individuals ought to behave.
Values are evaluative; they guide individuals’ judgments about appropriate behavior both for oneself and for others. Values are also general – they transcend specific situations, which helps us to distinguish what values are from what they are not. Values are not, for example, attitudes – attitudes are specifically related to a given event, person, behavior, situation, etc. Values are more ingrained, more stable, and more general than attitudes (England
& Lee, 1974). Additionally, values are ordered by importance, such that one will tend to act according to the more important value when two values are in conflict. For example, consider a man who values hedonism (pursuit of pleasure) more than benevolence
(concern for relationships). If forced to choose between golfing and helping his brother move, he would be more likely to golf, because he places greater importance on fulfilling personal desires than on relationships with others.

3.1. Where do values come from?
Values develop initially through social interactions with role models such as parents and teachers. Because values are learned, there tend to be similarities in values patterns within cultures, as shared values are passed from generation to generation (Meglino
& Ravlin, 1998). This is supported with research demonstrating relationships between personal values and culturally-shared values; in fact, Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, and Suh (1998) concluded that ‘‘patterns of relation between a particular value and other variables should be investigated at the cultural level”; p. 1186).
Values are initially learned in isolation as absolutes (e.g., ‘‘honesty is always the best policy”) (Maio & Olson, 1998; Rokeach,
1973), and all values are viewed positively. If all values were equally good, however, we would not be able to make choices between them when determining which values should guide behavior. Over time, the values that individuals learn develop into a values structure, through experiences in which two values are placed in conflict, forcing the individual to choose one over the other (Rokeach, 1972). This process may also result from personal introspection (Locke & Henne, 1986). Values tend to change considerably during adolescence and young adulthood (particularly for students attending college); however they are generally quite stable in adulthood (Kapes & Strickler, 1975; Rokeach, 1972).
Nonetheless, because values are learned initially through social interactions, being exposed to a new social environment can facilitate changes in one’s values structure, which is why socialization efforts can sometimes change the values of newcomers to become more like those of the organization (Cable & Parsons, 2001). Not all employees respond equally to socialization, however, suggesting that some individuals are less willing to make changes in their values structures (Weiss, 1978).
3.2. A taxonomy of values
Although other taxonomies of values certainly exist, in the interest of brevity we focus our discussion on the Schwartz Value
Theory, which is the most widely-used and most well-developed value theory. While many prior values researchers, such as Milton
Rokeach, developed models to assess values, Shalom Schwartz and his colleagues made great strides in recent years in improving values measurement by developing a theoretically-based values taxonomy based on a circumplex structure (see Fig. 1). More highly correlated values are situated closer together, while lower correla-

Fig. 1. Schwartz’s value circumplex. Reprinted with permission from Schwartz
(1994).

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

tions create more distance between the points. Values that are across from one another on the circumplex will tend to conflict, such that individuals who endorse one will typically not endorse the other. Those values that are adjacent to one another, however, are more similar and more likely to be endorsed similarly by individuals. Schwartz and his colleagues have tested the circumplex structure extensively and cross-culturally; results from samples in over 40 countries have yielded quite consistent results (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). Based on the placement of the values in the circumplex structure, Schwartz has identified 10 meaningful groupings of values. Although these
10 value domains are essentially ‘‘fuzzy sets” (Schwartz, 1994), conceptually they capture the values that tend to cluster together most closely, and therefore provide a meaningful and relatively simple way to group and organize individual values. The 10 value domains (and sample values for each) are Power (authority, wealth, social recognition); Achievement (ambition, competence, success); Hedonism (pursuit of pleasure, enjoyment, gratification of desires); Stimulation (variety, excitement, novelty); Self-direction (creativity, independence, self-respect); Universalism (social justice, equality, wisdom, environmental concern); Benevolence
(honesty, helpfulness, loyalty); Conformity (politeness, obedience, self-discipline/restraint); Tradition (respect for tradition and the status quo, acceptance of customs); and Security (safety, stability of society).
3.3. Why study values?
Recent organizational research has tended to shy away from studying values (except in terms of fit) in part because values can be prone to social influence – a result of being learned initially through social interactions. In this regard, Bardi and Schwartz comment that ‘‘[p]eople may conform with norms even when the normative behavior opposes their own values” (2003, p. 1217).
Some organizational scholars have therefore concluded that because a strong organizational culture encourages normative behavior, personal values are irrelevant to behavior. Yet culture can be a challenging thing to manage, and although individuals may adjust their behavior somewhat based on external cues, those external cues may not impact their underlying motivation, or the goals they want to pursue. If values impact motivation, then understanding that process may be beneficial to, for example, managers trying to increase goal commitment. Aligning those goals with the individual’s values could yield higher performance.
Another argument against the study of values is that values expression may rely on cognitive control, meaning we may need to rationally consider options within the context of our values for our values to impact decision-making (Conner & Becker, 1994).
Verplanken and Holland (2002) found that individuals made choices consistent with their values, but only when those values were cognitively activated (or made salient). Values might not impact behavior, then, if individuals do not regularly consider their values prior to making decisions about how to behave. However,
Bardi and Schwartz (2003) demonstrated that values also influence behavior through habitual routines, in which case cognitive processing may not be needed for values to influence behavior. They suggested that values impact habitual behavior through affective mechanisms, such that we feel positive emotions when acting consistently with our values and negative emotions otherwise. Human decision-making is widely believed (among cognitive psychologists) to consist of two different information-processing systems, one experiential and intuitive, the other rational and analytical
(Epstein, 1994). The experiential system (System 1) is reactive and quick, relying on cognitive heuristics, or shortcuts built from prior experiences and their outcomes. It is this system that enables humans to act almost instantaneously in the face of danger, with-

677

out rationally considering options and outcomes (Facione & Facione, 2007). Additionally, System 1 is often triggered by our emotions, such that fear triggers an efficient, life-saving response
(though it should be noted that efficient is not necessarily better;
Epstein, 1994). The rational, analytical system (System 2) of decision-making, in contrast, is deliberative and conscious. When this system is in use, the decision-maker considers various options and their possible outcomes logically, reflectively, and systematically; this process is better for unfamiliar situations, abstract concepts, and when there is time to consider all possible options
(Facione & Facione, 2007). Although research is lacking in this domain, values can potentially influence behaviors through either system. This is consistent with research on goal activation, which demonstrates that even unconsciously activated motives impact behavior (Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994). If true, then cognitive support would likely only be necessary for the rational system (System 2).
Finally, researchers have been hesitant to study values because of measurement issues (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). Until recently, values were examined individually (not aggregated into broader domains), making it difficult to discern any pattern across studies.
England’s research on managerial values exemplifies this approach
(England & Lee, 1974). Similar issues were faced with personality prior to the emergence of the FFM – suggesting that Schwartz’s taxonomy could be of great benefit to values research. An additional issue with values measurement is that some researchers contend that values should be measured ipsatively (using a rankorder scale) to control for social desirability and to better approximate the way individuals make choices when considering their values (selecting one over another). This limits the statistical analyses that can be performed, because the scores are not independent. Research is mixed on whether an ipsative scale is really superior to a normative (Likert-type) scale. Ravlin and Meglino
(1987b) administered both and found that the ipsative measure produced results most consistent with theoretical expectations.
Maio, Roese, Seligman, and Katz (1996), however, reached the opposite conclusion in a study that similarly had participants complete both types of measures. Schwartz has also addressed (or perhaps side-stepped) this issue by suggesting that one use a normative scale and control for scale usage by calculating the mean value score and partialling it out of subsequent analyses
(Schwartz, 1992). This has the effect of controlling for social desirability, in that each individual’s response becomes a measure of how important that particular value is to him/her after taking into effect the importance of all the other values they have rated. That is, a person’s absolute score on the value domain of benevolence is less important than knowing their benevolence score relative to the other rated values. One individual might rate all values around
6 on a 7-point scale, while someone else might rate all values around 4. A score of 5 for benevolence values would mean something completely different for these two individuals in terms of predicting how they might behave. Partialling out the mean score controls for this possible confound. Multiple researchers (see, for example, Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) have recently utilized this approach with good results (i.e., results fairly consistent with theoretical expectations).

4. Personality and values
There are several differences between personality and values.
Values include an evaluative component lacking from personality.
Values relate to what we believe we ought to do, while personality relates to what we naturally tend to do. Personality traits do not conflict with one another (i.e., one can simultaneously express the personality traits of Extraversion and Conscientiousness), yet values do conflict, as some are pursued at the expense of others.

678

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

Additionally, personality traits are relatively innate dispositions
(Olver & Mooradian, 2003), while values are learned, socially-endorsed beliefs that reflect an adaptation of one’s needs to what is considered acceptable in society (Rokeach, 1972). That is, an individual behaves in an extraverted fashion (personality) because being extraverted is a part of his/her nature. A person behaves in an honest fashion (value) because he/she has learned that honesty is important. Finally, values structures appear to be somewhat more dynamic (malleable) than personality traits. While a person’s value structure may change somewhat if/when exposed to a new environment (Rokeach, 1973), personality traits are relatively stable over the lifetime (Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, & Barrick, 1999;
McCrae et al., 2000), with an estimated annual stability coefficient of .98 (Conley, 1985).
In spite of these distinctions between the two constructs, it can be difficult to disentangle personality and values in practice. Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, and Knafo (2002) comment that the same term can refer to either a trait or a value; i.e., the term ‘‘competence” can relate to a tendency to be competent (personality) or the belief that it is important to demonstrate competence (value).
However, it is not necessarily the case that someone who is naturally competent believes it is an important value to have, nor is it always true that someone who values competence actually possesses it. The distinction is also complicated by the fact that we often think of personality in terms of behavior (and often measure it through behavioral expression of traits). As a result, behavior tends to be attributed rather automatically to personality, even though not all behavior is an expression of personality. In fact, values may temper the behavioral expression of personality traits. For example, someone who is naturally impulsive and is an excitement-seeking risk-taker may choose to show conscientious tendencies and purposely drive more slowly and carefully when he/ she has children in the car, out of concern for their well-being
(benevolence values). This implies that values and personality may interact in predicting behavior.
Although personality and values are distinct constructs, they are not uncorrelated. While social experiences have a significant impact on the development of one’s value system, personality may also play a role (Olver & Mooradian, 2003). For example, an agreeable individual might decide that the value type of benevolence is more important than that of power – in spite of what he/she has learned from parents and other role models – because this is consistent with his/her personality. Likewise, a naturally curious individual (a component of Openness to Experience) may decide that it is important for individuals to be curious (a component of self-direction values). Because they like to explore and question the status quo, they may believe that this is how individuals ought to behave. Thus although there are clear theoretical dis-

tinctions between the constructs, there are also similarities.
Furthermore, both are expected to impact decision-making, motivation, attitudes, and other behaviors. In fact, Locke (1997) includes both personality and values in the same box in his integrated model of work motivation.
A recent meta-analysis (Parks, 2007) clarifies the relationships between personality and values. Although based on a fairly small sample size (11 studies), it does lead to the conclusion that while there are consistent, theoretically predictable relationships between personality and values, the constructs are distinct. Agreeableness and Openness to Experience had the strongest relationships with values, with Agreeableness relating most strongly to benevolence values (q = .48) and Openness to Experience exhibiting strong correlations with both self-direction
(q = .49) and universalism values (q = .46). These relationships make sense given the constructs – Agreeableness describes the extent to which individuals tend to be friendly, loyal, and cooperative, while the Benevolence value domain captures the belief that individuals ought to be honest, friendly, and helpful. Likewise,
Openness to Experience describes the extent to which individuals tend to be curious, creative, and open to new ideas, which relates both to self-direction values (beliefs that individuals ought to be independent and self-directed) and universalism values (beliefs that individuals ought to be free and seek wisdom). Conscientiousness and Extraversion demonstrated more modest correlations with values; the strongest generalizable relationships for these traits were Conscientiousness with conformity (q = .29) and achievement values (q = .26), and Extraversion with stimulation values (q = .26). Finally, Emotional Stability was not strongly related to any values (the strongest generalizable relationship was with stimulation values; q = .11). These relationships are summarized in Table 1.
These results suggest that there may be room for values to add incrementally to the prediction of motivation (and perhaps job performance and other work-related outcomes), because they are only modestly or weakly correlated with relevant personality factors. For example, Conscientiousness has been shown to relate to motivation using several different motivational frameworks (Judge
& Ilies, 2002). It is also the strongest personality predictor of task performance (Barrick et al., 2001), positively related to citizenship behaviors (Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001), and negatively related to deviance (Cullen & Sackett, 2003). If values were highly correlated with Conscientiousness, they would be unlikely to add incremental validity in predicting motivation (or other outcomes) above and beyond the effects of Conscientiousness.
Achievement values, the domain most likely to relate to performance, correlate only .26 with Conscientiousness and .23 with
Extraversion (Parks, 2007). Likewise, Emotional Stability is related

Table 1
Relationships between (Big Five) personality traits and (Schwartz Value Theory) personal values (generalizable relationships from Parks (2007) meta-analysis; N = 11).
Conscientiousness
(responsible, dependable)

Emotional Stability
(calm, self-confident)

Achievement (ambition, competence)

.26

Agreeableness
(friendly, loyal)

.19

Power (public image, authority)

Extraversion
(talkative, assertive)

Openness to Experience
(curious, imaginative)

À.34

.23

Hedonism (pursuit of pleasure)
Stimulation (variety, novelty)

.11

.26

.29

Self-direction (independence, self-set goals)

.49

Universalism (justice, equality)

.23

Benevolence (honesty, loyalty)

.48

Conformity (obedience, self-discipline)

.29

.05

Tradition (respect for tradition)
Security (safety, stability)

À.35
.35

.22

À.02

.46

.07

À.27

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

to motivation across several motivational frameworks (Judge &
Ilies, 2002); correlates with task performance for most jobs (Barrick et al., 2001); and predicts citizenship and deviance (Borman et al., 2001; Cullen & Sackett, 2003). Because values are relatively unrelated to Emotional Stability, it is more likely that values could contribute incrementally (above and beyond Emotional Stability) to those outcomes for which relationships could be theoretically predicted. 5. Motivation
Motivation is an energizing force that induces action (Pinder,
1998). It relates to decisions (conscious or unconscious) that involve how, when, and why we allocate effort to a task or activity.
While we try to address motivation in a broad sense, we found it helpful to focus the discussion of motivation around goals (cognitive representations of desired states), the most frequently studied motivational construct (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Goals are fundamental to the human experience (Locke, 1997), and regardless of awareness, goals direct action. There is substantial evidence that setting goals leads to enhanced performance (Locke, 1997).
Mitchell (1997) describes motivation as psychological processes involving ‘‘arousal, direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed” (p. 60). Arousal is essentially the motivational process of being interested in a given goal (such as a student being interested in earning good grades), while direction is the process of actually selecting a goal and choosing to pursue it (i.e., the student setting a goal to earn an A in all his/her classes in a given semester). Intensity relates to the amount of effort that one puts forth in pursuit of the goal (i.e., how much the student chooses to study), and persistence refers to one’s continued pursuit of the goal, even in the face of challenges (for example, continuing to strive for As even after being sick and missing a week of classes). Motivation, therefore, relates to what we choose to pursue (arousal and direction) and how we pursue it (intensity and persistence). These two broader categories have alternately been termed ‘‘goal setting and goal striving,” ‘‘choice motivation and control motivation,” ‘‘goal selection and goal implementation,” and ‘‘goal choice and self regulation” (Mitchell, 1997). We refer to these two categories as goal content and goal striving.
Goal content refers to the decision to pursue a given goal – that is, to the actual content of the goal that is being pursued. The term goal content was chosen specifically because there is an existing literature on the content of goals that individuals pursue. For example, Austin and Vancouver (1996), in their seminal review of the goal construct, include a section that reviews existing taxonomies of goal content. While much of this focuses on goals that individuals set either for learning or for workplace performance, some of the existing taxonomies aspire to be comprehensive and include all the major goals that individuals might pursue. Some of the prevalent goal content theories include Ford and Nichols’
(1987) Taxonomy of Human Goals and Roberts and Robins’
(2000) Major Life Goals. Goal orientation also fits under the broad umbrella of goal content; this stream of research specifically examines two types of achievement goals (performance goals and mastery goals); why individuals tend to pursue one over the other; and what the implications are for their subsequent success (see, for example, Grant & Dweck, 2003).
Goal striving refers to the amount of effort and persistence that goes into goal pursuit after a goal is chosen. It reflects the self-regulatory processes that ensure adequate attention and effort are given to the goal, and are maintained when challenges arise. Goal striving encompasses those activities that individuals engage in to ensure goal attainment, including taking personal initiative, establishing how one will achieve ones goals (implementation

679

intentions), overcoming barriers to goal attainment, and engaging in positive self-talk to increase self-efficacy following setbacks
(Latham & Pinder, 2005).
Is it worthwhile to make a distinction between goal content and goal striving? In a study of learning goals, Volet (1997) examined both and found that they had independent and significant effects on academic performance in the course. Likewise, VandeWalle,
Brown, Cron, and Slocum (1999) found support for their hypothesis that goal striving (effort) and goal content functioned differently in their process model predicting performance. Additionally, Sheldon,
Ryan, Deci, and Kasser (2004) found that both the content of one’s goals and one’s success at pursuing them had independent effects of well-being.
5.1. Current research on personality, motivation, and behavior
Although personality has been considered in many motivation studies, there is an incomplete understanding of how personality relates to motivation. Barrick et al. (2001) comment that although personality is believed to impact job performance largely through motivational processes, ‘‘research is hindered because an accepted framework does not exist for studying motivational constructs”
(2001, p. 25). Nonetheless, there is strong evidence that personality
– especially Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability – has an impact on motivational constructs, which in turn relate to performance. For example, Barrick, Mount, and Strauss (1993) found that
Conscientiousness was related to the tendency to set and be committed to goals, and that these constructs partially mediated the relationship between Conscientiousness and performance (sales volume and performance ratings). In a lab study, Gellatly (1996) found that Conscientiousness was related to expectancy (for success), which was related to the goals set by participants and to performance. Emotional Stability has also been shown to relate to motivation, though in many cases the evidence is indirect, coming from closely related constructs. For example, Kanfer and Heggestad (1999) postulated that trait anxiety (similar to low Emotional Stability) prevents individuals from effectively controlling the negative emotions that cause distractions, inhibiting the self-regulatory processes involved in goal striving motivation. Likewise, Emotional
Stability has been shown to relate to self-efficacy motivation, believing that one is capable of successfully performing a given activity (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). There is substantial evidence that self-efficacy is related to effort, persistence, and performance
(see Gist & Mitchell, 1992, for a review), and that it is particularly beneficial when individuals are faced with obstacles in their goal pursuit (Bandura, 1986). While this is a somewhat recursive process (successful past performance leads to higher self-efficacy, which leads to more successful future performance), some researchers have found that self-efficacy leads to overconfidence that actually decreases performance (Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002). Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that self-efficacy contributes to future effort; in a review Bandura and
Locke (2003, p. 87) discuss nine meta-analyses that are ‘‘consistent in showing that efficacy beliefs contribute significantly to the level of motivation and performance.”
Judge and Ilies (2002) meta-analytically reviewed articles evaluating the relationships between personality and motivation using three dominant motivational theories – goal-setting, expectancy, and self-efficacy. Results indicated that Conscientiousness and
Neuroticism were consistently related to motivation regardless of the motivational theory being studied (other FFM traits exhibited weaker and less consistent relationships). Specifically, relationships between Conscientiousness and motivation were q = .28 for goal-setting, .23 for expectancy, and .22 for self-efficacy. Relationships between Neuroticism and those motivational constructs

680

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

were q = À.29, À.29, and À.35, respectively. In sum, these two traits are remarkably consistent in predicting motivation – even when motivation is measured in very different ways. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism are also the two personality traits that are most consistently predictive of job performance (Hurtz &
Donovan, 2000).
Based on the above findings, one can conclude that Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are important predictors of motivational processes. The majority of these studies have focused on goal striving processes rather than on goal content. This is particularly true of studies using goal-setting and self-efficacy frameworks.
Even in studies of expectancy motivation, which includes the concept of valence (how valued the outcomes/goals are for participants), the focus is typically on the impact of valence on goal striving.
5.2. Current research on values, motivation, and behavior
Although empirical research linking values and motivation is limited, many theorists have proposed that this link should exist.
Rokeach portrayed values as having an inherent motivational component, and even described them as ‘‘supergoals” (1973, p. 14).
Schwartz (1992) similarly describes values as fundamentally motivational; both theorists state that values are a link between the more general motivational construct of needs and the more specific motivational construct of goals.
Similarly, several motivation experts have described the expected link between values and goals. Locke and Henne (1986) describe goals as ‘‘a means of actualizing values. . .the mechanism by which values are translated into action” (p. 3). Similarly, Lewin
(1952) describes values as ‘‘guiding” behavior by inducing goals, which are more concrete and which serve as a ‘‘force field,” giving the individual something specific to ‘‘reach” for. That is, goals act as a mediator in the relationship between values and behavior. Values elicit goals, which drive action. Likewise, Mitchell (1997) expects values to impact the motivational processes of attention and direction (goals that individuals are attentive to and choose to pursue).
Yet few studies have attempted to empirically link values with motivational theories. The closest is the self-concordance model of motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), which proposes that individuals are more likely to persist at goals consistent with their values. However, values are not measured in self-concordance research (intrinsic motivation is measured, assuming we are intrinsically motivated by goals consistent with our values). Likewise, in expectancy theory values are implicit in the concept of valence – the extent to which an outcome or goal is perceived to be important or attractive. However, the values systems of individuals are rarely considered in expectancy research.
At least two studies have examined the relationships between values and valences (the attractiveness or desirability of possible outcomes or of goal attainment). Feather (1995) administered a lab study in which respondents read hypothetical scenarios and indicated the attractiveness (valence) of alternative courses of action. The alternate courses of action were designed to tap different values. For example, in one scenario the student was asked whether it would be more attractive to take a job that offered more freedom, independence, and creativity but less job security, or if it would be more attractive to take a job offering the opposite. Feather found that the values of the respondents were related in theoretically predictable ways to the attractiveness of the options. Self-direction values were positively correlated with the valence of the job with more freedom (r = .30) and negatively correlated with the job with more security (À.27). Likewise, security values were positively correlated with the job with more security (.18) and negatively correlated with the job with more freedom (À.27). Feather also found that the valences were highly predictive of their choice behavior when participants were asked to choose their preferred option.

Dubinsky, Kotabe, Lim, and Wagner (1997) examined the extent to which values were related to the valence of various rewards for salespeople in the US and Japan. Not surprisingly, they found that security values were related to the desirability of increased job security as a reward in both samples. Achievement values were related to the desirability of promotions and the desirability of increased opportunities for personal growth in both samples. This study also found that achievement values were related to selfrated job performance, though the (standardized) beta coefficients achieved significance in the US sample only (b = .25 for the US sample, .18 for the Japanese sample). Interestingly, self-direction was related to job performance in the US sample only, while conformity was related to job performance only in the Japanese sample.
Although few studies have directly considered the impact of values on motivation, there is substantial empirical evidence that values impact the types of decisions that individuals make, and evidence that they impact behavior. Several researchers, for example, have demonstrated relationships between values and political party affiliation (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1994). Values also relate to decisions to join a civil rights organization and to participate in civil rights demonstrations (Rokeach, 1973). Universalism values have been linked to making environmentally–friendly decisions
(Verplanken & Holland, 2002), while tradition and conformity values are associated with religiosity across various denominations
(Saroglou, Delpierre, & Dernelle, 2004). Illies, Reiter-Palmon, Nies, and Merriam (2005) examined the relationship between values and leadership styles, and found that different values were associated with task-oriented vs. relationship-oriented leadership emergence among college students. In a lab study, Garling (1999) found that universalism values were related to cooperative decisionmaking in a social dilemma. In another lab study, Ravlin and
Meglino (1987b) had individuals complete managerial in-basket exercises, and found that participants made decisions consistently with their personal values.
Beyond decision-making studies, Bardi and Schwartz (2003) examined whether values were related to habitual, day-to-day behaviors (rated by self and others). Examples included such items as ‘‘take it easy and relax” (hedonism), ‘‘observe traditional customs on holidays” (tradition), ‘‘watch thrillers” (stimulation), and
‘‘choose friends and relationships based on how much money they have” (power). Behaviors were rated based on their frequency, and the findings strongly supported the hypothesis that values relate to habitual behaviors: value–behavior relationships ranged from a low of .03 for security to a high of .46 for stimulation (peer-rated behaviors), with 6 of the 10 relationships yielding correlations above .20.
We can conclude therefore that values are related to decisionmaking, and as such they may be related to decisions about what goals to pursue. Further, there is evidence that values impact behavior, though our understanding of how and when values influence behavior is not well-understood.

6. Propositions
As discussed, we propose that both personality (especially Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) and values (mainly through goals, valences, and decision-making) are antecedents to motivational processes. This proposal is consistent with past research and theory in the fields of personality, values, and motivation. However, past theories have not simultaneously considered personality and values, thus have not explicated the unique effects that personality and values might have on motivation. We expect personality and values to each make unique contributions to motivational processes. In particular, we focus on the two broad motivational processes encompassed by goal content and goal striving.

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

From a theoretical perspective, needs, values, and goals are believed to be arranged hierarchically, with needs influencing the development of values systems, and values influencing the decision to pursue various goals (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Locke,
2000; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). The fulfillment of longterm goals leads to the attainment of values, which leads to the satisfaction of needs (Locke, 2000). Consistent with these theoretical expectations, we propose that values will be related to the content of goals individuals choose to pursue. For example, we would expect that a college student who values achievement would choose to set goals related to earning good grades in his/her classes. Support for this proposition comes from the demonstrated link between values and decision-making. Goal content reflects a decision to pursue a particular goal. That decision may be made after considerable cognitive processing, by rationally considering how important it is to pursue the goal given ones values. As mentioned, multiple studies have shown that values are related to decisions that individuals make. This suggests that individuals will be more likely to make decisions to pursue goals that are consistent with their values.
Values may also relate to goal content via experiential processing. Self-concordance research has found that individuals are more satisfied when they pursue goals consistent with their values and interests (see, for example, Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon et al.,
2004). Likewise, Bardi and Schwartz (2003) found that individuals engaged in habitual activities consistent with their values, and proposed that an affective mechanism was at work, because value-congruent behavior yields positive emotional outcomes. This implies that some goals may be selected rather automatically, without analytical processing, because their pursuit is pleasurable or satisfying. Whether via cognitive or affective/experiential mechanisms, therefore, values should relate to goal content.
Proposition 1: Values will be systematically related to goal content. While values may be more closely related to goal content, we expect personality traits – especially Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability – to be more closely related to goal striving, which refers to the amount of intensity, effort, and persistence individuals engage in when pursuing their goals across time (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1999; Mitchell, 1997). In their research on personal projects
(similar to goals), Little, Lecci, and Watkinson (1992) commented that personality was ‘‘likely to influence both the ease with which personal projects can be accomplished and the alternate routes through which they are carried out” (p. 507). Thus, once a goal is set, personality determines if and how the goal will be attained.
Likewise, we expect that once a goal is chosen, personality will
‘‘take over” in determining how the goal is pursued because personality affects how we behave across situations and over time.
Past studies demonstrate that Conscientiousness and Emotional
Stability are related to goal striving processes (Judge & Ilies, 2002).
Conscientiousness describes the extent to which individuals tend to be organized, responsible, dependable, achievement-oriented, etc. These traits are instrumental to someone pursuing a difficult goal, in part because individuals with these traits tend to develop good strategies for goal pursuit, and also because they tend to persevere and carry out their plans. Conscientiousness is related to the tendency to set goals and engage in effortful goal pursuit (Barrick et al., 1993; Judge & Ilies, 2002). Individuals low on Conscientiousness, however, will tend to be irresponsible and disorganized, making it difficult to develop good strategies or stick with them.
Emotional Stability describes the extent to which individuals tend to be self-confident, resilient, and well-adjusted. These traits are believed to be beneficial because individuals will not be distracted by emotional fears, such as fear of failure. Judge et al.

681

(1998) reviewed research on the impact of core self-evaluations
(closely related to Emotional Stability) on motivation, and concluded that one benefit of higher core self-evaluations was that when faced with a discrepancy between their performance and their goal, individuals with higher core self-evaluations were more likely to exert additional effort to achieve the goal. They also proposed that individuals with lower core self-evaluations are more likely to believe that situations are beyond their ability to control, and therefore reduce their level of effort in difficult times. In support of this concept, Little et al. (1992) found that Emotional Stability was related to the amount of control that individuals felt they had over personal projects, as well as their confidence in successfully completing those projects. Kanfer and Heggestad (1999) further propose that trait anxiety (also closely related to Emotional
Stability) relates to one’s ability to control negative emotions, while emotion control impacts one’s ability to maintain effort in goal pursuit. Shrauger and Sorman (1977) found that individuals with high self-esteem tend to persist longer after initial failure than those with low self-esteem. Similarly, McFarlin, Baumeister, and Blaskovich (1984) found that high self-esteem individuals were more likely to persist in a futile endeavor (trying to solve an unsolvable problem) than those with low self-esteem. We therefore expect Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability to be related to goal striving. Furthermore, we expect these personality traits to be more predictive of goal striving than values. Personality defines how we actually behave in general and across time (Goldberg, 1993); it is therefore more likely that a behavioral measure that requires persistence across time will be related more closely to personality than to values.
While we expect Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability to relate to goal striving, we do not expect the remaining personality factors to be relevant to goal striving. The Judge and Ilies (2002) meta-analysis of the relationships between personality and motivation found that only Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability were consistently related to motivation, while the remaining personality traits had weaker and less consistent relationships.
Proposition 2: Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability will be related to goal striving.
Greater levels of goal striving should lead to greater goal attainment. Past research indicates generally robust findings for greater effort and persistence leading to higher performance (Austin &
Vancouver, 1996; Latham & Pinder, 2005), though moderators exist
(for a review, see Locke, 1997). We therefore expect goal striving to be related to goal accomplishment, and to mediate the relationships between personality traits and goal accomplishment. This is consistent with previous studies in which motivation has been found to mediate the relationship between personality traits and performance. For example, Barrick et al. (1993) found that goalsetting motivational constructs mediated the relationship between
Conscientiousness and performance. Likewise, Gellatly (1996) found that expectancy motivational constructs mediated the relationship between Conscientiousness and performance. Motivation may not fully mediate these relationships, however, because personality traits may be beneficial to goal accomplishment in other ways besides through goal striving. Individuals who are emotionally stable, for example, may get more assistance from others because they are pleasant to be around. The greater levels of assistance could promote goal accomplishment above and beyond the effect of goal striving. Likewise, individuals who are highly conscientious may have better time management skills, enabling them to accomplish more with seemingly less effort. This is consistent with previous findings in which motivational constructs partially mediate the relationship between personality and performance.
For example, Barrick, Stewart, and Pietrowski (2002) found that

682

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

Fig. 2. Proposed model.

the motivational constructs of accomplishment striving and status striving partially mediated the relationship between Conscientiousness and performance (by about 35%). We therefore expect that goal striving will only partially mediate the relationship between personality traits and goal accomplishment.
Proposition 3: Goal striving will be related to goal accomplishment, and will partially mediate the relationship between relevant personality traits and goal accomplishment.
Logically, the decision to pursue a goal should lead to goal striving, which should relate to goal accomplishment. If we set a goal, we should also put forth effort in pursuing that goal. Goal content, then, should be related to goal striving, and goal striving should mediate the relationship between goal content and goal accomplishment. This approach is consistent with Locke’s (1997) integrated model of work motivation in which goal content is related to effort and persistence, which are related to performance.
Proposition 4: Goal striving will mediate the relationship between goal content and goal accomplishment.
The propositions presented up to this point assume that personality and values impact goal accomplishment through multiple mediating processes – suggesting that the direct relationships of personality to goal accomplishment, and values to goal accomplishment, are likely to be rather weak. Because the effects of personality and values on goal accomplishment are mediated by goal content and goal striving processes, the direct relationships between the individual differences constructs and goal accomplishment are not likely to be very strong, and the mediated model should better fit the data than simply relying on direct effects. This is consistent with past studies that have examined motivation as a mediating mechanism between personality (especially Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) and performance (Barrick et al., 1993; Barrick et al., 2001; Gellatly, 1996) and with findings that values influence valence (Dubinsky et al., 1997; Feather,
1995), which, as a component of expectancy theory, is a motivational construct known to influence performance (Van Eerde &
Theirry, 1996). Although a full process model has not been tested with values, the theory that values impact motivation is supported by numerous researchers (see, for example, Locke, 1997; Rokeach,
1973; Schwartz, 1994). We therefore expect that a model including the motivational constructs of goal content and goal striving will provide a better fit to research data than will a model with only direct effects from individual differences to goal accomplishment.
This mediated process model is presented in Fig. 2.
Proposition 5: The relationships between relevant individual differences (personality and values) and goal accomplishment will be mediated by the motivational processes of goal content and goal striving.
7. Summary
A greater understanding of how both personality and values relate to motivation is important because it can lead to more comprehensive theories of human behavior, and assist managers, team leaders, teachers, and anyone else working through (or with)

others. In proposing this model, we do not suggest that we can deterministically predict how individuals will behave in every situation based on their personality traits and values; we recognize, rather, that these are dynamic structures that are continuously influencing one another while simultaneously being influenced by the environment in which one is acting (Fischer & Bidell,
2006). However, evidence does demonstrate that these structures are sufficiently stable (Conley, 1985; Rokeach, 1972) to permit some generalizations about how they are likely to impact behavior in general (other things being equal).
The ideas presented here provide several arenas for future research and theoretical development. We do not make propositions here regarding which values domains are likely to be predictive of which goal content domains, though such predictions could readily be made and tested. For example, it seems plausible to expect that benevolence values would be predictive of goal content in relationship to ‘‘belongingness,” which Ford and Nichols (1987) describe as including goals related to social attachments, intimacy, friendship, community, and social identity.
Another area that seems worthy of additional research is the domain of goal commitment. Research has demonstrated that commitment to assigned goals is often lower than commitment to self-set goals (Locke, 1997). If values are related to the goals that individuals choose to pursue independently, they may also be related to commitment to goals set by others. An understanding of how values relate to goal content may therefore enhance our understanding of how to increase commitment to assigned goals.
Likewise, future researchers should consider the outcomes of motivation that are likely to be relevant in the workplace, such as task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive behavior (deviance). Although task performance is often constrained by situational strength, cultural norms, and role expectations, discretionary behaviors are typically less constrained and are more likely to be influenced by individual attributes such as personality and values. Additionally, we expect that the impact of individual attributes on motivation is likely to be expressed most obviously among individuals with considerable autonomy and discretion, such as senior managers or entrepreneurs who have substantial freedom in deciding how to perform their jobs. For those individuals, personality and values may be more predictive of motivated behavior than for those whose behavior is constrained. A more comprehensive understanding of how personality and values impact motivation might therefore lend greater understanding to the behavior of entrepreneurs and top management teams, who generally experience high levels of autonomy. Finally, there are some potential extensions to this theory that should be considered, especially in the arena of decision-making.
Prior research has demonstrated a link between values and decision-making; however, personality has not been simultaneously considered. These relationships should be explored, as should the potential influence of personality and values on ethical decisionmaking and on the strategic decision-making of top management teams. This paper presents several testable propositions regarding how personality and values may differentially impact motivation. Specifically, values should relate to the goals that individuals choose

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

to pursue. Personality, in contrast, should relate to goal striving, or the amount of effort and persistence that individuals put forth in their goal pursuit. We hope that the ideas and model presented here will serve as a useful framework for the continued study of individual attributes that relate to motivation.
Acknowledgements
This manuscript stemmed, in large part, from the dissertation of the first author. As such, we would like to gratefully acknowledge the dissertation committee for their contributions to the ideas presented here: Murray Barrick, Amy Colbert, Amy Kristof-Brown,
Mick Mount, and Walter Vispoel. We would additionally like to thank Terry Mitchell and Joyce Bono for their contributions.

References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., deVries, R. E., DiBlas, L., et al. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 356–366.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338–375.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207–1220.
Bargh, J. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control of goal-directed action: Automatic and strategic contingencies between situations and behavior.
In Spaulding (Ed.), Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion. The
Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 41). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Personality and Performance, 9, 9–30.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance among sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Pietrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance. Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, 52–69.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., (1997). Genetic influence on mental abilities, personality, vocational interests and work attitudes. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.).
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 373–395). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148–151.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person–organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.
Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait– multimethod–multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1266–1282.
Conner, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1994). Personal values and management: What do we know and why don’t we know more? Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 67–
73.
Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In Barrick & Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work:
Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 150–182). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences (chapter). In
Dunnette & Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 833–871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Dubinsky, A. J., Kotabe, M., Lim, C. U., & Wagner, W. (1997). The impact of values on salespeople’s job responses: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Business
Research, 39, 195–208.
England, G. W., & Lee, R. (1974). The relationship between managerial values and managerial success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59, 411–419.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious.
American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.

683

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2007). Thinking and reasoning in human decision making: The method of argument and heuristic analysis. Millbrae, CA: The
California Academic Press.
Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 1135–1151.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought.
In Damon, W., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development.
Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313–399). New York:
Wiley.
Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible application. In M. E. Ford & D. H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as selfconstructing living systems: Putting the framework to work (pp. 289–311).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garling, T. (1999). Value priorities, social value orientations and cooperation in social dilemmas. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 397–408.
Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 474–482.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy – A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five Factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553.
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.
Illies, J. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., Nies, J. A., & Merriam, J. M. (2005). Personal values and task-oriented versus relationship-oriented leader emergence. Paper presented at the 20th annual conference of the society for industrial and organizational psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11,
167–187.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoreson, 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.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–
807.
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1999). Individual differences in motivation: Traits and self-regulatory skills. In Ackerman & Kyllonen, et al. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 293–309).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kapes, J. T., & Strickler, R. E. (1975). A longitudinal study of change in work values between 9th and 12th grades. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 81–93.
Kluckhorn, C. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In
Parsons & Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.
Lewin, K. (1952). Constructs in field theory [1944]. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin (pp. 30–42).
London: Tavistock.
Little, B. R., Lecci, L., & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and personal projects:
Linking Big Five and PAC units of analysis. Journal of Personality, 60, 501–
525.
Locke, E. A. (1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In M. L. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrick (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 375–412).
JAI Press Inc.
Locke, E. A. (2000). Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 408–429.
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In Robertson Cooper
(Ed.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–34).
Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (1998). Values as truisms: Evidence and implications.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 294–311.
Maio, G. R., Roese, N. J., Seligman, C., & Katz, A. (1996). Rankings, ratings, and the measurement of values: Evidence of the superior validity of ratings. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 171–181.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.
McFarlin, D. B., Baumeister, R. F., & Blaskovich, J. (1984). On knowing when to quit – task failure, self-esteem, advice, and nonproductive persistence. Journal of
Personality, 52, 138–155.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389.
Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 57–149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

684

L. Parks, R.P. Guay / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 675–684

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management,
13, 153–200.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (2002). The personal characteristics inventory manual.
Libertyville, IL: The Wonderlic Corporation.
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism–collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
1177–1189.
Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,
109–125.
Parks, L. (2007). Personality and values: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual conference for the society of industrial and organizational psychology,
New York, New York.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987a). Issues in work values measurement. In L.
Preston (Ed.). Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 9, pp. 153–183). JAI Press Inc.
Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987b). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 666–673.
Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1284–1296.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
789–801.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A metaanalysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37, 721–734.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 482–497.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475–486.
Shrauger, J. S., & Sorman, P. B. (1977). Self-evaluations, initial success and failure, and improvement as determinants of persistence. Journal of Counseling and
Clinical Psychology, 45, 784–795.
Van Eerde, W., & Theirry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575–586.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 506–516.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. Jr., (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision-making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434–447.
Volet, S. E. (1997). Cognitive and affective variables in academic learning: The significance of direction and effort in students’ goals. Learning and Instruction, 7,
235–254.
Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63, 711–718.