occupational stress, coping and strain: the combined/interactive effect of the big five traits

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 719–732

Occupational stress, coping and strain: Thecombined/interactive effect of the Big Five traits

Sharon Grant *, Janice Langan-Fox

Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Mail H25,

Swinburne University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, Vic. 3122, Australia

Received 28 November 2005; received in revised form 14 March 2006; accepted 20 March 2006Available online 9 June 2006

Abstract

Past research on personality and the occupational stressor–strain relationship has examined traits inde-pendently (nomothetic approach) rather than interactively (idiographic approach). The current researchexamined the combined/interactive effect of the Big Five traits in predicting stress, coping, and strainamong 211 managers. Low Neuroticism with high Extraversion and high Conscientiousness predictedlower stressor exposure, physical ill health and job dissatisfaction, whereas high Neuroticism-low Consci-entiousness predicted higher stressor exposure, dysfunctional coping, physical ill health and job dissatisfac-tion, and lower problem-focused coping. In addition, there was some evidence for a high Neuroticism-lowAgreeableness interaction in the prediction of job dissatisfaction. Nomothetic and idiographic approachesshould be integrated in future research to advance a more complete understanding of the role of personalityin occupational stress and strain.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Big Five traits; Occupational stress; Coping; Health; Job satisfaction; Managers

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.008

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9214 4620; fax: +61 3 9214 5336.E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Grant).

mailto:[email protected]

720 S. Grant, J. Langan-Fox / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 719–732

1. Introduction

Occupational stress is a serious issue for the employee, organization and community alike. Themagnitude and subsequent cost of the problem is immense, and its toll on health and well being ison the increase (Makikangas & Kinnunen, 2003). However, a consistent conclusion in the litera-ture is that the relationship between stressor exposure per se and strain typically does not exceed0.30, a moderate association that may conceal a stronger relationship for a certain ‘at risk’ group(Cohen & Edwards, 1989). Accordingly, the role of individual differences has become important,with most research emphasizing personality traits or coping as a vulnerability/resistance factor(Wiebe & Smith, 1997). Personality is perhaps the more pervasive, in that it may influence stressorexposure, cognitive appraisal, coping, physiological reactivity and susceptibility to stress-relatedillness and disease (Code & Langan-Fox, 2001).

The current research investigated the combined/interactive role of traits in the occupationalstressor–strain relationship among managers. Traits were measured based on the Five FactorModel (FFM) and thus focused on higher-level factors (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscien-tiousness, Agreeableness, Openness) as opposed to lower-level sub-traits. The independent roleof the ‘Big Five’ traits in the stressor–strain relationship is reviewed below, followed by a discus-sion of their possible combined/interactive effect.

2. Traits and the stressor–strain relationship: nomothetic and idiographic domains

Personality psychology is defined by two ‘domains’: the nomothetic approach, from the Greekword nomos, meaning ‘the search for lawfulness’, and the idiographic approach, from the Latinword idoma, meaning ‘individuality’, and graph, meaning ‘to write down or record’ (Winter,1996). In the nomothetic approach, personality is studied at a global level, the purpose beingto identify the dimensions along which people differ (Winter, 1996). For example, the FFM isconcerned with the number of traits that can be distinguished, the distribution of traits in thegeneral population, and the extent to which traits are universal cross-culturally (Thorne,1995). Within this approach, personality is defined with reference to a person’s standing on var-ious dimensions, usually compared against general population ‘norms’. In contrast, the idio-graphic approach is concerned with the organization and structure of personality at theindividual level, the purpose being to describe and predict behavior based on the interactionof personality elements within the person, rather than to separate various dimensions fromone another (Epstein, 1994).

Past research on the role of personality in the occupational stressor–strain relationship hasexamined traits independently, precluding consideration of the multi-dimensional, interactive nat-ure of personality championed by the idiographic approach. Most research has been conductedwithin constructs, with little attempt to forge a link between constructs (Elliot & Sheldon,1997). Thus, it is unclear whether particular traits act independently, interactively, or redundantlywith other traits in the occupational stressor–strain relationship (Korotkov & Hannah, 2004). Sin-gle trait models are likely to inflate or mask the true effect of traits on illness (Korotkov & Han-nah, 2004). Thus, it is important to clarify the combined/interactive contribution of traits to the

S. Grant, J. Langan-Fox / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 719–732 721

occupational stressor–strain relationship. Neglect of the idiographic domain may essentially meanthat we only have ‘half the picture’, or perhaps even an inaccurate one, of the role of personality inoccupational stress and strain.

The nomothetic approach is concerned with how individual differences affect strain directly,indirectly (via stressor exposure) or interactively with stress. For example, Neuroticism is nega-tively related to health and well being and Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness andOpenness are positively related to health and well being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Goodwin &Engstrom, 2002; Hayes & Joseph, 2003; Jerram & Coleman, 1999). Neuroticism is positively re-lated to stressor exposure (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995) and is likely to exacerbate the stressor–strain relationship via negative cognitive appraisal (Hemenover, 2001) and maladaptive coping(McCrae & Costa, 1986), and Extraversion and Conscientiousness are likely to buffer the stres-sor–strain relationship via positive cognitive appraisal (Penley & Tomaka, 2002) and/or adaptivecoping (Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Agreeableness and Openness are weakly related to copingalthough there is preliminary evidence linking Openness to positive cognitive appraisal (Penley& Tomaka, 2002).

Regarding the combined/interactive effect of the Big Five, research on coronary heart disease(CHD), a chronic stress-related condition, has suggested that the combination of low Extraver-sion with high Neuroticism may be important. Denollet (1997) introduced ‘Type D personality’to designate a CHD subgroup characterized by social inhibition and negative affectivity. TypeDs struggle with self-expression and emotional lability and report low social support and highdepressive symptomatology. However, subsequent research has failed to support an Extraver-sion-by-Neuroticism interaction in the prediction of strain (Korotkov & Hannah, 2004). Otherresearch has suggested that the combined/interactive effect of these traits may depend on Con-scientiousness. Vollrath and Torgersen (2000) investigated the relationship of 8 ‘personalitytypes’, each characterized by a different combination of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Consci-entiousness, to stress and problem-focused coping (altering the stressor), emotion-focused cop-ing (regulating emotional distress associated with the stressor) and dysfunctional coping(synonymous with avoidance coping, although coping strategies such as venting may also be‘dysfunctional’ in that the person does not effectively alter or adapt to the stressor; see Begley,1998). Based on a student sample, they found that high Neuroticism-low Conscientiousnesspredicted higher stress and dysfunctional coping and lower problem-focused coping; low Neu-roticism with high Extraversion and/or high Conscientiousness predicted lower stress; highExtraversion-high Conscientiousness predicted higher problem-focused and emotion-focusedcoping; and low Extraversion-low Conscientiousness predicted lower emotion-focused coping.Vollrath and Torgersen concluded that (a) low Neuroticism with high Extraversion and/orhigh Conscientiousness types were less vulnerable to stress, with low Neuroticism-high Extra-version-high Conscientiousness types least at risk; and (b) high Neuroticism with low Extraver-sion and/or low Conscientiousness types were more vulnerable to stress, with highNeuroticism-low Extraversion-low Conscientiousness types most at risk. They reasoned thatthe positive effect of Extraversion and Conscientiousness may attenuate the negative effect ofNeuroticism.

In an attempt to replicate Vollrath and Torgersen’s ‘order of vulnerability’ in an occupationalcontext, the current research investigated the relationship between personality type and stress,


coping, and strain among managers. A range of stressor variables, common in the work environ-ment, were measured along with problem-focused, emotion-focused and dysfunctional coping,and physical and affective strain (physical ill health, job dissatisfaction). Hypotheses are statedbelow.

• (H1) Stressor exposure is (a) higher than average for high Neuroticism-low Conscientiousnesstypes and (b) lower than average for low Neuroticism with high Extraversion and/or high Con-scientiousness types.

• (H2) Problem-focused coping is (a) higher than average for high Extraversion-high Conscien-tiousness types and (b) lower than average for high Neuroticism-low Conscientiousnesstypes.

• (H3) Emotion-focused coping is (a) higher than average for high Extraversion-high Conscien-tiousness types and (b) lower than average for low Extraversion-low Conscientiousness types.

• (H4) Dysfunctional coping is higher than average for high Neuroticism-Low Conscientiousnesstypes.

• (H5) Strain is (a) higher than average for high Neuroticism with low Extraversion and/or lowConscientiousness types and (b) lower than average for low Neuroticism with high Extraver-sion and/or high Conscientiousness types.

• (H6) Strain is (a) highest for high Neuroticism-low Extraversion-low Conscientiousness typesand (b) lowest for low Neuroticism-high Extraversion-high Conscientiousness types.

The ‘typological’ approach has been criticized based on loss of information and reduced sta-tistical power (Irwin & McClelland, 2003). Thus, Vollrath and Torgersen’s order of vulnerabil-ity was also tested using a continuous variable interaction approach.

• (H7) Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness interact in the prediction of strain withhigh Neuroticism with low Extraversion and/or low Conscientiousness predicting higher strainand low Neuroticism with high Extraversion and/or high Conscientiousness predicting lowerstrain.

The interactive effect of Agreeableness and Openness with Extraversion, Neuroticism and Con-scientiousness has received little attention. Korotkov and Hannah (2004) examined the interac-tive effect of Big Five in predicting health status. While there was some evidence of aninteraction effect for morbidity, negative affect and physical symptom reporting, these resultswere labelled as ‘spurious’, given the number of interaction terms tested and the small effect size,and were thus not interpreted. We suggest that the interactive effect of Neuroticism and Agree-ableness may be important. Those who score high on Neuroticism (hot-blooded, ‘neurotic’ hos-tility) express hostility outwardly e.g., rage whereas those who score low on Agreeableness (cold-blooded, ‘antagonistic’ hostility) express hostility inwardly e.g., condescension (Dewe, Cox, &Ferguson, 1993). Neuroticism is linked with a range of symptomatology, and there is a linkbetween low Agreeableness and CHD (Stone & Costa, 1990). The combination of outer- andinner-directed hostility may enhance emotional and physiological reactivity to stress, resultingin higher strain than either characteristic alone. The extent to which these traits interact in predict-ing strain has not been examined, a shortcoming addressed by the current research. The interac-tion of Agreeableness and Openness with the remaining traits, and each other, was also examined.

• (H8) Neuroticism and Agreeableness interact in the prediction of strain with high Neuroticism-low Agreeableness predicting higher strain.


3. Method

3.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 211 middle-managers (88 men, 123 women) in a leading Australiandepartment store. The sample was drawn from 41 stores in a 50-store target group (selected atthe organization’s discretion) in four States predominantly on the Eastern seaboard. Volunteerparticipants were recruited via an in-house advertisement. The average within-store participationrate was 62%, with the sample representing 60% of the total managerial population in the 41 par-ticipating stores. Age ranged from 20 to 61 years (mean = 36 years). Intra-class correlation coef-ficients indicated that there was no ‘store effect’ in the data, confirming that it could be pooledwithout violating the assumption of independence of observations.

3.2. Measures

NEO-Five Factor Inventory Form S (Costa & McCrae, 1992): an abridged, 60-item versionof the Revised NEO Personality Inventory measuring traits identified in the FFM. Costa andMcCrae (1992) provide substantial evidence for the reliability and validity of the measure.

Measures of Subjective Work Environment Stress (Caplan, Cobb, French, van Harrison, & Pin-neau, 1980): four subscales measured Job Future Ambiguity (four items), Role Ambiguity (fouritems), Role Conflict (three items) and Underutilization (three items). Caplan et al. (1980) re-ported cross-sectional reliabilities for the subscales in the range of 0.79–0.85.

Brief COPE Inventory (Carver, 1997): an abbreviated (two items per subscale) version of thewidely used COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). For the purpose of the cur-rent research, coping strategies were classified as ‘problem-focused’ (active coping, instrumentalsocial support seeking, planning), ‘emotion-focused’ (acceptance, emotional social support seek-ing, positive reframing) or ‘dysfunctional’ (behavioral disengagement, denial, substance use, vent-ing). Participants reported how much they usually used each coping strategy when under stress atwork. The Self-distraction subscale demonstrated poor reliability (<0.50) and was thus excludedfrom analysis. The Religion subscale was excluded given its lack of utility in past research (O’Con-nor & O’Connor, 2003).

Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) – Physical Health Scale (Cooper, Sloan, & Williams,1988): a 12-item measure of physical stress-related symptomatology. The scale is widely usedand has sound reliability and good criterion and construct validity (Lyne, Barrett, Williams, &Coaley, 2000).

OSI – Job Satisfaction Scale (Cooper et al., 1988): a 22-item measure of global job satisfaction.Nelson, Cooper, and Jackson (1995) reported an internal consistency reliability of 0.93 for thescale, which has good criterion and construct validity (Lyne et al., 2000). Items were reversedscored with higher scores reflecting higher job dissatisfaction.

3.3. Procedure

Data collection was completed over a two-hour period and was conducted at a centralized loca-tion within each State. Those who were unable to attend a group session were visited at their home


store and completed the measures under the investigators’ supervision. It was emphasized that alldata provided would be anonymous and confidential, and that results would be reported on anaggregate basis.

4. Results

4.1. Overview

As per Vollrath and Torgersen (2000), Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness weresplit at the median to create ‘low–high’ variables for each trait which were then combined to formthe eight personality types (see Table 1). Single-factor MANOVAs, based on personality type,were conducted for stressor exposure and coping, and one-way ANOVAs were conducted forphysical ill health and job dissatisfaction. Planned contrasts were developed a priori to test H1to H6 (see Table 2). The most prevalent type was ‘Entrepreneurs’, which is fitting given the man-agerial sample. Sex and personality type were unrelated, v2(7) = 11.48, p = 0.12.

The interactive effect of the Big Five in predicting strain was examined using hierarchical regres-sion with separate analyses for physical ill health and job dissatisfaction: the Big Five were enteredat Step 1, their two-way interaction terms at Step 2, and the three-way interaction term (Extraver-sion · Neuroticism · Conscientiousness; see H7) at Step 3. Sex was controlled in the analysis forjob dissatisfaction as these variables were correlated. Continuous variables were mean-centredand interaction terms calculated using centred variables to avoid distortion due to multicollinear-ity (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 2003). Means and standard deviations for all study variablesare presented in Table 3.

4.2. Combined effect of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness

Within-cell means for stressor exposure, coping and strain by personality type are provided inTable 4. Results for H1 to H6 are described below.

Table 1Construction of Vollrath and Torgersen’s (2000) typology

Personality type Cell size Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness

Spectator 17 Low Low LowInsecure 29 Low High LowSceptic 21 Low Low HighBrooder 22 Low High HighHedonist 24 High Low LowImpulsive 22 High High LowEntrepreneur 47 High Low HighComplicated 29 High High High

Table 2Planned contrasts: personality type by stressor exposure, coping, and strain

Hypothesis Contrast Criterion variable(s) Significance levelfor contrast

H1(a) High Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness(Insecure, Impulsive) versus all other

Stressor exposure a = 0.025(0.05/2)

H1(b) Low Neuroticism with high Extraversion and/orhigh Conscientiousness (Sceptic, Hedonist,Entrepreneur) versus all other

H2(a) High Extraversion-high Conscientiousness(Entrepreneur, Complicated) versus all other

Problem-focused coping a = 0.025(0.05/2)

H2(b) High Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness(Insecure, Impulsive) versus all other

H3(a) High Extraversion-high Conscientiousness(Entrepreneur, Complicated) versus all other

Emotion-focused coping a = 0.025(0.05/2)

H3(b) Low Extraversion-low Conscientiousness(Spectator, Insecure) versus all other

H4 High Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness(Insecure, Impulsive) versus all other

Dysfunctional coping a = 0.05

H5(a) High Neuroticism with low Extraversion and/orlow Conscientiousness (Insecure, Brooder,Impulsive) versus all other

Physical ill health, jobdissatisfaction

a = 0.0125(0.05/4)

H5(b) Low Neuroticism with high Extraversion and/orhigh Conscientiousness (Sceptic, Hedonist,Entrepreneur) versus all other

H6(a) High Neuroticism-low Extraversion-lowConscientiousness (Insecure) versus all other

H6(b) Low Neuroticism-high Extraversion-highConscientiousness (Entrepreneur) versus all other


4.3. Stressor exposure

Omnibus F revealed a significant main effect with personality type accounting for 8% of the var-iability in stressor exposure, Wilks’ Lambda F(28,722) = 2.42, p < 0.001. Univariate F indicatedthat the following variables were affected by personality type at a = 0.0125 (0.05/4): role ambigu-ity, F(7,203) = 3.06, p < 0.01 (partial g2 = 0.10); role conflict, F(7,203) = 4.17, p < 0.001 (partialg2 = 0.13); and underutilization, F(7,203) = 3.50, p < 0.01 (partial g2 = 0.11). The next step wasto test the planned contrasts for these variables (see Table 2).

H1(a) and H1(b) were supported for role ambiguity and role conflict, but not underutilization.High Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness predicted higher role ambiguity and role conflict onaverage (difference = 0.25, p < 0.01 and 0.30, p < 0.01 respectively), and low Neuroticism withhigh Extraversion and/or high Conscientiousness predicted lower role ambiguity and role con-flictblank;on average (difference = �0.25, p < 0.01 and �0.31, p < 0.01 respectively). Post hoctesting for underutilization indicated that Entrepreneur types scored lower on average than

Table 3Means and standard deviations

Variable M SD

Extraversion 31.83 5.63Neuroticism 16.10 7.08Conscientiousness 34.68 5.78Agreeableness 33.66 4.75Openness 27.78 6.18Job future ambiguity 2.96 0.82Role ambiguity 2.49 0.54Role conflict 2.47 0.70Underutilization 2.72 0.71ACT 6.42 0.99ISS 5.82 1.29PLAN 6.33 1.10ACC 5.76 1.26ESS 5.29 1.45PR 5.98 1.26BD 2.70 0.96DEN 2.86 1.13SU 2.59 1.09VENT 4.47 1.30Physical ill health 31.63 9.32Job dissatisfaction 67.78 14.18

ACT = active coping, ISS = instrumental social support seeking, PLAN = planning, ACC = acceptance,ESS = emotional social support seeking, PR = positive reframing, BD = behavioral disengagement, DEN = denial,SU = substance use, VENT = venting.


Insecure, Brooder, and Impulsive types (difference = �0.57, p < 0.05, �0.68, p < 0.01 and �0.60,p < 0.05 respectively).

4.4. Coping

Omnibus F revealed a significant main effect with personality type accounting for 11% of thevariability in coping, Wilks’ Lambda F(70,1109) = 2.27, p < 0.001. Univariate F indicated thatthe following variables were affected by personality type at a = 0.006 (0.05/9): active coping,F(7,198) = 3.04, p = 0.005 (partial g2 = 0.10); planning, F(7,198) = 3.26, p = 0.003 (partialg2 = 0.10); positive reframing, F(7,198) = 3.48, p = 0.002 (partial g2 = 0.11); behavioral disen-gagement, F(7,198) = 8.74, p < 0.001 (partial g2 = 0.24); and denial, F (7,198) = 5.27, p < 0.001(partial g2 = 0.16). Accordingly, the planned contrasts for these variables were tested.

In support of H2(a), high Extraversion-high Conscientiousness predicted higher than averageproblem-focused coping: active coping, difference = 0.46, p < 0.01; planning, difference = 0.53,p < 0.01. H2(b) was also supported. High Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness predicted lowerthan average problem-focused coping: active coping, difference = �0.38, p < 0.02; planning, dif-ference = �0.40, p < 0.02.

In contrast H3(a), which predicted higher than average emotion-focused coping for high Extra-version-high Conscientiousness types, was unsupported. While Entrepreneur types (high Extra-

Table 4Within-cell means by personality type

Personalitytype

Job futureambiguity

Roleambiguity

Roleconflict

Under-utilization

ACT ISS PLAN ACC ESS PR BDa DENa SUa VENT Physicalill health

Jobdissatisfaction

Spectator 3.18 2.57 2.20 2.61 6.13 5.38 6.31 5.88 5.13 6.19 0.37 0.31 0.37 3.81 28.76 74.90Insecure 3.17 2.62 2.49 2.91 6.00 5.68 5.96 5.54 5.39 5.36 0.50 0.52 0.45 4.89 36.68 74.05Sceptic 2.80 2.40 2.32 2.86 6.43 5.43 6.05 5.57 5.05 5.95 0.37 0.40 0.36 4.10 27.86 66.29Brooder 3.23 2.63 2.62 3.02 6.27 5.55 6.27 5.95 4.73 5.36 0.48 0.46 0.36 4.68 37.59 71.25Hedonist 2.93 2.44 2.31 2.74 6.52 5.48 6.22 5.70 5.52 6.39 0.34 0.40 0.33 4.52 27.33 61.60Impulsive 3.22 2.80 2.92 2.94 6.18 6.00 5.95 5.23 5.41 6.00 0.46 0.50 0.44 4.68 37.24 70.00Entrepreneur 2.62 2.26 2.23 2.34 6.89 6.09 6.93 6.18 5.42 6.47 0.33 0.38 0.35 4.56 26.95 61.31Complicated 2.94 2.47 2.77 2.70 6.55 6.34 6.38 5.72 5.55 5.79 0.42 0.43 0.41 4.24 33.39 69.72

Outliers deleted for ACT, BD, DEN and SU.a Logarithmically transformed.

S.

Gra

nt,

J.

La

ng

an

-Fo

x/

Perso

na

litya

nd

Ind

ividu

al

Diff

erences

41

(2

00

6)

71

9–

73

2727


version-low Neuroticism-high Conscientiousness) recorded the highest average for positive refra-ming, Complicated types (high for all three traits) recorded the third lowest average for this var-iable. H3(b), which predicted lower than average emotion-focused coping for low Extraversion-low Conscientiousness types, was also unsupported. While Insecure types (low Extraversion-highNeuroticism-low Conscientiousness) recorded the lowest average for positive reframing, Spectatortypes (low for all three traits) scored in the middle range for this variable. Post hoc testing forpositive reframing revealed that Entrepreneur and Hedonist types (high Extraversion-low Neurot-icism) scored higher on average than Insecure types (low Extraversion-high Neuroticism): differ-ence = 1.11, p < 0.01 and 1.03, p < 0.05 respectively.

H4 was supported. High Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness predicted higher than averagedysfunctional coping: behavioral disengagement, difference = 0.10, p < 0.001; denial, differ-ence = 0.11, p < 0.001.

4.5. Strain

Univariate F revealed a significant main effect for personality type in the prediction of physicalill health, F(7,203) = 8.70, p < 0.001 (partial g2 = 0.23), and job dissatisfaction, F(7,203) = 4.27,p < 0.001 (partial g2 = 0.13). The next step was to test the planned contrasts for these variables(see Table 2).

In support of H5(a), high Neuroticism with low Extraversion and/or low Conscientiousnesspredicted higher physical ill health and job dissatisfaction on average (difference = 8.31,p < 0.001 and 5.01, p < 0.01 respectively). H5(b) was also supported; low Neuroticism with highExtraversion and/or high Conscientiousness predicted lower physical ill health and job dissatisfac-tion on average (difference = �7.35, p < 0.001 and �8.92, p < 0.001 respectively).

In contrast, H6(a) was unsupported; Impulsive types (high Extraversion-high Neuroticism-lowConscientiousness), not Insecure types (low Extraversion-high Neuroticism-low Conscientious-ness), recorded the highest average for physical ill health, and Spectator types (low for all threetraits), rather than Insecure types, recorded the highest average for job dissatisfaction. In supportof H6(b), Entrepreneur types recorded the lowest average for both physical ill health and job dis-satisfaction and scored significantly lower than the other types combined (difference = �5.74,p < 0.001 and �8.38, p < 0.001 respectively).

4.6. Interactive effect of the Big Five in predicting strain

H7 and H8 were unsupported with the interactive effect of the Big Five failing to contribute toprediction over and above their main effect. For physical ill health, no interactions reached signif-icance at the 0.05 level. For job dissatisfaction, only Neuroticism · Agreeableness was significant(B = 3.28, p < 0.05). Although the set as a whole was non-significant, given that it was hypothe-sized (H8), the interaction effect was plotted to explore whether it was in the predicted direction.Consistent with H8, as Neuroticism increased, the regression line for low Agreeableness increasedwhile the regression line for high Agreeableness showed little change. Simple slope analysis(Cohen et al., 2003) confirmed that there was a positive relationship between Neuroticism andjob dissatisfaction for those who scored low on Agreeableness, t(205) = �3.34, p < 0.01 (seeFig. 1).

45.00

55.00

65.00

75.00

85.00

-3.05 2.28Neuroticism

Job

diss

atis

fact

ion

Low AgreeablenessHigh Agreeableness

Fig. 1. Interaction between Neuroticism and Agreeableness in Predicting Job Dissatisfaction (high and low values forAgreeableness correspond to values one standard deviation above and below the mean respectively).


5. Discussion

Past research on personality and the occupational stressor–strain relationship has been vari-able-centred rather than person-centred, considering traits independently rather than interac-tively. The current research investigated the combined/interactive role of the Big Five traits inthe occupational stressor–strain relationship among managers. In addition, we sought to replicateVollrath and Torgersen’s (2000) tentative order of vulnerability for personality types combiningExtraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness in an occupational context.

On the whole, our findings were consistent with Vollrath and Torgersen (2000). As expected,high Neuroticism-high Conscientiousness predicted higher stressor exposure and low Neuroticismwith high Extraversion and/or high Conscientiousness predicted lower stressor exposure. Notablyhowever, these results only applied to role ambiguity and role conflict; job future ambiguity didnot significantly differ among the types and, for underutilization, Entrepreneur types scored sig-nificantly lower than Insecure, Brooder and Impulsive types, suggesting that only low Neuroti-cism with high Extraversion and high Conscientiousness reduced this stressor.

Consistent with Vollrath and Torgersen (2000), high Extraversion-high Conscientiousness gen-erally predicted higher problem-focused coping and high Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness gen-erally predicted lower problem-focused coping (instrumental social support seeking did notsignificantly differ among the types). Contrary to prediction, high Extraversion-high Conscien-tiousness and low Extraversion-low Conscientiousness were not associated with higher and loweremotion-focused coping respectively. Acceptance and emotional social support seeking did notsignificantly differ between the types and, for positive reframing, Entrepreneur and Hedonist types(high Extraversion-low Neuroticism) scored higher than Insecure types (low Extraversion-highNeuroticism), suggesting that the combination of Extraversion with Neuroticism (not Conscien-tiousness) determined utilization of this coping strategy. As expected, high Neuroticism-low Con-scientiousness predicted higher dysfunctional coping, however these findings were restricted tocognitive/behavioral strategies (i.e., behavioral disengagement, denial); affective strategies (i.e.,substance use, venting) did not significantly differ among the types.


In support of Vollrath and Torgersen’s (2000) vulnerability hypothesis, high Neuroticism withlow Extraversion and/or low Conscientiousness predicted higher strain and low Neuroticism withhigh Extraversion and/or high Conscientiousness predicted lower strain. As expected, Entrepre-neur types (low Neuroticism-high Extraversion-high Conscientiousness) were the most resilient.However, contrary to prediction, Insecure types (low Extraversion-high Neuroticism-low Consci-entiousness) were not the most vulnerable. Impulsive types (high Extraversion-high Neuroticism-low Conscientiousness) scored highest for physical ill health and Spectator types (low for all threetraits) scored highest for job dissatisfaction. Thus, while low strain was consistently associatedwith low Neuroticism-high Extraversion-high Conscientiousness, high strain was differentially re-lated to personality type, depending on the outcome variable.

The interactive effect of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness in the prediction ofstrain was also examined in the form of a continuous variable interaction. In contrast to the typo-logical analysis, there was no interactive effect of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientious-ness, suggesting that the joint effect of these traits may be non-linear. The interactive effect ofthe remaining Big Five traits in predicting strain was also investigated. As expected, low Agree-ableness exacerbated the effect of high Neuroticism on job dissatisfaction, however there was nointeractive effect for physical ill health. As mentioned earlier, Neuroticism has been consistentlyimplicated in the stressor–strain relationship, and past research has linked low Agreeableness withCHD. Our findings suggest that the combination of these traits may enhance emotional (ratherthan physiological) reactivity to stress. Consistent with Korotkov and Hannah (2004), therewas no support for an Extraversion-by-Neuroticism interaction [Denollet’s (1997) ‘Type D per-sonality’], and no interaction between any of the other traits. However, small sample size andhomogeneous sampling may have hampered the detection of interaction effects (e.g., low statisti-cal power, range of predictor variables not adequately represented).

In summary, the current research suggested that an idiographic approach, incorporating theinterplay of traits at the individual level, may provide a more complete picture of the role of traitsin the occupational stressor–strain relationship. While a nomothetic/dimensional approach is cer-tainly valuable, given the greater specificity of an idiographic approach, it may be possible to tar-get intervention to ‘at risk’ personality types. For instance, Insecure and Impulsive types maybenefit from assistance in the development of alternative coping strategies for dealing with stress.Examination of the combined/interactive effect of traits in the occupational stress literature is anexciting undertaking for future research and should contribute to current understanding of therole of personality in stress-related illness and disease.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, atdoi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.008.

References

Begley, T. M. (1998). Coping strategies as predictors of employee distress and turnover after an organizationalconsolidation: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 305–329.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.008


Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 69, 890–902.Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. (1980). Job demands and worker health:

main effects and occupational differences. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. International

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100.Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.Code, S., & Langan-Fox, J. (2001). Motivation, cognitions and traits as predictors of occupational health, well being

and performance. Stress and Health, 17, 159–174.Cohen, J., Cohen, P., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (2003). Applied multiple regression: correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. R. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the relationship between stress and

disorder. In R. W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the investigation of psychological stress (pp. 235–283). New York:Wiley.

Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S. J., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational Stress Indicator Management Guide. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factor inventory: professional

manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective

well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.Denollet, J. (1997). Personality, emotional distress and coronary heart disease. European Journal of Personality, 11,

343–357.Dewe, P., Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. (1993). Individual strategies for coping with stress at work: a review. Work and

Stress, 7, 5–15.Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: a personal goals analysis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171–185.Epstein, S. (1994). Trait theory as personality theory: can a part be as great as the whole? Psychological Inquiry, 5,

120–122.Goodwin, R., & Engstrom, G. (2002). Personality and the perception of health in the general population. Psychological

Medicine, 32, 325–332.Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual

Differences, 34, 723–727.Hemenover, S. H. (2001). Self-reported processing bias and naturally occurring mood: mediators between personality

and stress appraisals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 387–394.Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables.

Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 366–371.Jerram, K. L., & Coleman, P. G. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and reporting of health problems and health

behavior in old age. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 181–192.Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (2004). The five-factor model of personality: strengths and limitations in predicting

health status, sick-role, and illness behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 187–199.Lyne, K. D., Barrett, P. T., Williams, C., & Coaley, K. (2000). A psychometric evaluation of the occupational stress

indicator. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 195–220.Makikangas, A., & Kinnunen, U. (2003). Psychosocial work stressors and well-being: self-esteem and optimism as

moderators in a one-year longitudinal sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 537–557.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of

Personality, 54, 385–405.Nelson, A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: the impact of privatization on

employee job satisfaction and well being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 57–71.O’Connor, R. C., & O’Connor, D. B. (2003). Predicting hopelessness and psychological distress: the role of

perfectionism and coping. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 337–362.


Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the big five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress.Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228.

Stone, S. V., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Disease prone personality or distress prone personality? The role of neuroticism incoronary heart disease. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Personality and disease (pp. 178–200). New York: Wiley.

Thorne, A. (1995). Juxtaposed scripts, traits, and the dynamics of personality. Journal of Personality, 63, 593–615.Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 367–378.Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: coping in the context of the five-

factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737–774.Wiebe, D. J., & Smith, T. W. (1997). Personality and health: progress and problems in psychosomatics. In R. Hogan, J.

Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 891–918). San Diego: Academic Press.Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: analysis and interpretation of lives. New York: McGraw-Hill.

occupational stress, coping and strain: the combined/interactive effect of the big five traits

Documents