The aim of this study was to further shed light on the relationship between neuroticism and performance by taking into account the situation-specific experience of neuroticism when undertaking cognitive tasks. A total of 121 high-performing professionals completed a state measure of neuroticism before solving a complex cognitive task. Indicators of trait neuroticism and fluid intelligence were also collected. Analyses revealed a curvilinear effect of state neuroticism on task performance suggesting that moderate levels of neuroticism experienced in a given situation are most effective for cognitive performance. This effect remained unchanged when controlled for trait neuroticism and fluid intelligence. Findings support the importance of better understanding experiential effects of personality on task performance.
Research on the effect of personality on performance in cognitive tasks has typically been undertaken from a trait perspective. Within this perspective, personality dimensions are conceptualised in terms of structural differences between individuals that are assumed to remain stable across situations and that are related to behaviour, including performance on cognitive tasks (e.g., Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997, Austin et al., 1997, Austin et al., 2002 and Reeve et al., 2006). In this paper we make a distinction between personality as structure and personality as a state that is experienced in a given situation, and we argue for differences in the structural and experiential effects of personality. Specifically, we focus on one personality dimension, neuroticism, and investigate its effect on task performance, both from a trait and a state perspective.
2. Neuroticism and cognitive performance
Neuroticism is the Big Five personality dimension that is most closely linked to the experience of negative emotions. Individuals who score high on this dimension are more likely than low scorers to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, depression and anger. They also tend to evaluate themselves more critically (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Such characteristics could be expected to negatively influence performance on cognitive tasks. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that trait neuroticism is negatively related to cognitive performance; however, the effect is small (Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997, Austin et al., 1997 and Reeve et al., 2006). Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) report a meta-analytic correlation coefficient of −.15 between trait neuroticism and performance in cognitive ability tests.
We discuss two potential reasons for the relatively weak link that has been observed between neuroticism and performance: (1) Contrary to the more or less implicit assumption of linearity (Brand, Egan, & Deary, 1994) the neuroticism-performance link might, in fact, not be linear. (2) Trait neuroticism might not be as relevant as state neuroticism for performance on a given task to be performed in a given situation.
