رقابت خصلتی به عنوان یک متغیر ترکیبی: ارتباط با ابعاد پنج عامل بزرگ
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|34219||2008||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 4769 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 45, Issue 4, September 2008, Pages 312–317
We investigated the link between competitiveness and the facets of a comprehensive broad-bandwidth personality inventory. Conceptualizing trait competitiveness as a composite variable identified by two indicators, structural equation modeling was used to identify relationships between the 30 facets of the IPIP scales corresponding to the NEO-PI-R and trait competitiveness. Nine facets were related to trait competitiveness. Four of these nine (excitement-seeking, morality/straightforwardness, modesty, and sympathy/tender-mindedness) were uniquely related to trait competitiveness from a final model. Results suggest that facets within factors need not be related to a composite trait in the same direction, as two affiliative facets of extraversion were negatively related to trait competitiveness while two surgency facets of extraversion were positively associated with trait competitiveness.
The desire to win in interpersonal situations is both a folk concept and a personality trait of interest to scholars. Both parents and managers alike are often torn between fostering “winning” and “cooperating” among individuals. For instance, think of a team of individuals working toward group goals but personally driven by individual rewards. Consider a child who is developing as a competitive athlete but is having difficulty relating to teammates. Both “winning” and “cooperating” are valued traits, but are often at odds with one another. While much of the research on competition has been on situations (Stanne, Johnson, & Johnson, 1999), there is a substantial literature from a trait perspective. Recent research has looked at the moderating effects of trait competitiveness from a person–environment fit perspective with respect to reward systems and perceptions of competitive work environments (Brown et al., 1998 and Fletcher et al., in press) and as an interaction with other traits (Robie, Brown, & Shepherd, 2005). While various streams of research on trait competitiveness have been conducted for several decades (for reviews see Houston et al., 2002, Ryckman et al., 1997 and Spence and Helmreich, 1983), with few exceptions, little is known about how it is related to other personality traits – especially the Big-Five and its many facets (e.g., cooperation, achievement-striving, friendliness, assertiveness). The preponderance of research on competitiveness has been on various operationalizations of the trait, mostly (but not entirely) ignoring other traits. Future research involving trait competitiveness, such as person–environment fit, will advance more quickly with a better understanding of the underlying components of this variable. We posit it is at least partially a composite variable, which includes elements of several facets across several factors of the Big-Five personality structure. Ross, Rausch, and Canada (2003) is one of the few studies to empirically investigate the linkage of competitiveness to facet level traits. Ross et al. (2003) demonstrated that hypercompetitiveness (HCA) is negatively correlated with agreeableness, positively correlated with neuroticism, and not at all correlated with the global factor of conscientiousness. With respect to the facets of the Big-Five as measured with the NEO-PI-R, Ross et al. found HCA to be correlated with one neuroticism facet (angry-hostility), two extraversion facets (warmth and positive emotions), four openness facets (ideas, aesthetics, actions, and values), all six agreeableness facets and one conscientiousness facet (achievement-striving). While Ross et al. assessed three types of competitive-cooperative traits, they did not treat competitiveness as a composite nor a latent variable. Furthermore, the order and choice of inclusion of facets into their regression models is unclear. Thus, the present study contributes to the understanding of competitiveness by (1) using an oft-used measure of a comprehensive broad-bandwidth inventory (i.e., International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) scales corresponding to the NEO-PI-R), (2) treating trait competitiveness simultaneously as a latent trait and a composite variable, and (3) simultaneously (not sequentially) estimating the relationships of the facets within each factor in comprising the composite-latent trait competitiveness. Our discussions of linkages to the Big-Five will be confined here to those facets found in the NEO-PI-R and the IPIP measures. We briefly describe the concept of composite traits followed by a review of the research on trait competitiveness before discussing research on the linkages between the facets of the Big-Five and trait competitiveness. 1.1. Composite traits Hough and Schneider (1996) introduced the concept and utility of compound or emergent personality traits. Hough has described and provided a taxonomy for many of these compound traits (Hough, 2003 and Hough and Ones, 2001). Others have described similar concepts such as composite variables (Jarvis et al., 2003 and Law and Wong, 1999), aggregate variables (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998), and formative models (Edwards & Baggozi, 2000). In short, these are multidimensional traits composed of elements, which span multiple factors from a broad-bandwidth inventory. Examples include but are not limited to: proactive personality (Bateman and Crant, 1993 and Major et al., 2006), integrity (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001), and prosocial personality (Penner & Finkelstein, 1998). McCrae and Costa (1989) linked measures of a circumplex of personality with their NEO-PI-R by crossing broad factors. In their study, being high in extraversion and low in agreeableness was associated with assured-dominant from the Interpersonal Adjective Scales. Likewise, being low in both extraversion and agreeableness was associated with cold-hearted. It is not only plausible, but also highly likely, that trait competitiveness is a composite trait formed by multiple indicators, which span several of the five factors. In this study we will investigate the theoretical and empirical linkages with facets from the Big-Five, which should comprise much of the construct labeled competitiveness in the literature. A uniqueness of this composite approach is that formative indicators need not be correlated (Hough & Schneider, 1996). Therefore, as will be described below, facets within factors need not be related to a composite trait in the same direction – a point missed by simply crossing broad factors as done by McCrae et al. (1989). 1.2. Trait competitiveness A recent review by Houston et al. (2002) summarizes the study of trait competitiveness over the last several decades. Briefly, researchers across various disciplines have developed more than seven instruments to assess competitiveness as a trait. Houston et al., found evidence for two general constructs underlying these scales, which they labeled self-aggrandizement and interpersonal success. The focus of the present study is on the self-aggrandizement component of competitiveness because self-aggrandizement is more akin to the concept of competitiveness (i.e., winning) whereas interpersonal success is more akin to a different but related construct, achievement-strivings (i.e., succeeding without regard to besting others). The two most frequently researched measures of the self-aggrandizement component of competitiveness are hypercompetitive attitude (Ryckman, Hammer, Kaczor, & Gold, 1990) and general competitiveness (Helmreich & Spence, 1978). These are described in more detail below. Studies using both of these scales have demonstrated high correlations among these indices (cf. Burckle et al., 1999 and Houston et al., 2002). There have been numerous studies that have linked various measures of competitiveness to values (Ryckman et al., 1997), traits (Bing, 1999, Houston et al., 2002 and Ross et al., 2003), relationship styles (Ryckman, Thornton, Gold, & Burckle, 2002) and organizational climate perceptions (Fletcher et al., in press) suggesting that trait competitiveness may be related to or comprised of a multidimensional set of underlying traits. To date, little systematic research has been conducted to investigate this hypothesis with respect to a broad structure of personality traits such as the Big-Five. 1.3. Linking competitiveness to the Big-Five Given the history of the study of trait competitiveness, researchers have theoretically and empirically linked the variable to four of the five factors in the Big-Five: neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. With few noted exceptions, research has been limited at the facet level making it difficult to derive explicit hypotheses for the specific composition of trait competitiveness from facets of the Big-Five. 1.3.1. Neuroticism Ryckman et al. (1990) based their development of a measure of hypercompetitive attitude on theoretical work by Horney (1937). They defined hypercompetitive attitude as “an indiscriminate need by individuals to compete and win (and to avoid losing) at any cost as a means of maintaining or enhancing feelings of self-worth, with an attendant orientation of manipulation, aggressiveness, exploitation, and denigration of others across a myriad of situations” (p. 630). They explicitly link competitiveness to neuroticism and negatively to self-esteem. Ryckman and his colleagues have subsequently linked hypercompetitiveness to eating disorders in women (Burckle et al., 1999) and relationship difficulties among heterosexual couples (Ryckman et al., 2002). While previous empirical work has focused on neuroticism at a factor level, theoretical work by Horney and indeed the very definition proffered by Ryckman et al. describe facet level relations. To the extent that the facet anxiety is underlying the need to “compete and win” to enhance feelings of self-worth, we believe anxiety should be positively related to trait competitiveness. Likewise, the “aggression and exploitation of others” aspect is likely accounting for a positive relationship between the facet angry-hostility and trait competitiveness (see also Bing, 1999 and Ross et al., 2003). 1.3.2. Extraversion A number of proprietary instruments assessing the Big-Five include a facet labeled competitiveness as part of their “extraversion” factor (e.g., GPI, Schmit, Kihm, & Robie, 2000; HPI, Hogan and Hogan, 1995 and Hogan and Hogan, 2002). Evidence from several studies (Bing, 1999, Ross et al., 2003, Ryckman et al., 1997 and Ryckman et al., 2002) would lead one to conclude that competitiveness should be positively related to the surgency facets of extraversion (e.g., dominance or assertiveness, activity, and excitement-seeking) and to a lesser extent, negatively related to the affiliative facets of extraversion (e.g., friendliness and cheerfulness). This latter point is evident in individual reports of the use of the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae, 1992, McCrae et al., 1989 and Psychological Assessment Resources, 2007). The interaction style involving individuals low in extraversion and agreeableness is labeled competitors. A point of note here is that composite variables may be comprised of facets from broader factors operating in opposite directions (e.g., surgency vs. affiliation). 1.3.3. Agreeableness To the extent that competitiveness is construed as the inverse of cooperation (Martin & Larsen, 1976), competitiveness should be negatively related to the cooperation facet. Paulhus and Williams (2002) have linked Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy to agreeableness. Extant research has shown diverse measures of competitiveness to be related to dogmatism, hedonism, Machiavellianism, mistrust of others, and social concern (Bing, 1999, Martin and Larsen, 1976, Ryckman et al., 1990, Ryckman et al., 1997 and Ryckman et al., 2002). The morality/straightforwardness facet is likely the polar opposite of Machiavellianism and therefore negatively related to competitiveness. The modesty facet is likely related competitiveness through its association with hedonism and narcissism. The trust and sympathy/tender-mindedness facets are also likely related to competitiveness given the empirical linkages with mistrust of others, social concern and psychopathy respectively. 1.3.4. Conscientiousness In the 1970s, Spence and Helmreich (1983) began a program of research aimed at developing a measure of achievement motivation (Helmreich & Spence, 1978) that would detect (or substantiate the absence of) gender differences. This trait perspective included three facets of achievement motivation: mastery, work, and competitiveness. They defined competitiveness as “the enjoyment of interpersonal competition and the desire to win and be better than others” ( Spence & Helmreich, 1983, p. 41). Their measure of competitiveness has been used often in subsequent research (see Burckle et al., 1999 and Houston et al., 2002). According to Spence and Helmreich (1983), competitiveness is separate from but related to aspects of achievement-strivings and therefore should be positively related to the achievement aspects of conscientiousness: achievement-striving and competence (or self-efficacy) (see Bing, 1999, Burckle et al., 1999 and Houston et al., 2002 for empirical evidence). Because trait competitiveness may be viewed as “success at the expense of others” ( Martin & Larsen, 1976), it is also logical to think that competitiveness is negatively related to the dependability facets: dutifulness and deliberation (or cautiousness).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
By distinguishing trait competitiveness as a composite variable and identifying the variable’s relationships with broadband personality facets, the current study clarifies the trait competitiveness construct. In particular, the current research highlights the notion that facets within factors of a broadband personality inventory need not be related to the composite trait of competitiveness in the same direction. This clarification should prompt researchers to examine trait competitiveness at the narrow, rather than broad, bandwidth, and will thereby expedite the advancement of future research involving trait competitiveness, in particular research investigating person–environment fit.