Five-Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence

8/8/2019 Five-Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence

1/11

Journal of Applied Psychology1997, Vol. 82, No. 5, 745-755 Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0021-9010/97/$3.00

Five-Factor Model of Personality and Employee AbsenceTimothy A. JudgeUniversity of Iowa Joseph J. MartocchioUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Carl J. ThoresenUniversity of IowaThe present study investigates the degree to which dimensions of the 5-factor model ofpersonality (often termed the Big Five) are related to absence. On the basis of previousdescriptions of the Big Five traits and drawing from prior research, the authors hypothe-sized that neuroticism and extroversion would positively predict absence and conscien-tiousness would negatively predict absence. Also, they hypothesized that absence history(absence proneness), measured by the absence that occurred the year prior to the study,would partly mediate the relationship between the personality characteristics and subse-quent absenteeism. Data were collected from a sample of 89 university employees. Resultssuggest that extraversion and conscientiousness predicted absenteeism and that part, butnot all, of the relationship between these traits and absence was mediated through absencehistory.

A recent trend in organizational research is disposi-tional explanations for the attitudes individuals display atwork and their subsequent effects on employee behavior.This body of research has led to renewed debate over therelative effects ofdispositional versus situational variableson work attitudes, roles, and behaviors. Therefore,whereas some argue that dispositional constructs are rele-vant to understanding human behavior (House, Shane, &Herold, 1996), others suggest that situational variablesare more useful predictors of people's attitudes and be-haviors in organizational settings and that th e search fordispositional effects likely will prove unproductive

Timothy A. Judge and Carl J. Thoresen, Department of Manage-ment and Organizations, College of Business Administration, Uni-versity of Iowa; Joseph J. Martocchio, Institute of Labor andIndustrial Relations, University of Blinois at Urbana-Champaign.We acknowledge Denise Hendricks and Mark Overmier, Per-sonnel Services Office, Universityof Illinois, for granting accessand providing archival absence data.The NEO PI-R was used with special permission of thePublisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the NEO Per-sonality Inventory-Revised, by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae,Copyright 1978, 1985, 1989, & 1992, by PAR, Inc. Reproduc-tion or use of the NEO PI-R is prohibited without permissionof PAR, Inc.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressedto TimothyA. Judge, Department of Management and Organiza-tions, College of Business Administration, University of Iowa,Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1000. Electronic mail may be sent viaInternet to [email protected].

(Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989). However, in spite of thecriticisms issued by the situationalists, considerable evi-dence has accumulated in support of the dispositionalapproach (George, 1992; House et al., 1996).

Porter and Steers (1973) argued that employees withextreme levels of emotional instability, anxiety, low-achievement orientation, aggression, independence, self-confidence, and sociability are more likely to be absentthan employees with more moderate levels of these per-sonality traits. Bernardin (1977) tested this hypothesis onthe basis of a sample of male sales professionals andfound support only for the effects of extreme anxietylevels on absence. Other researchers argued (Ferris, Ber-gin, & Wayne, 1988; Froggatt, 1970a, 1970b) that absencereflects inherent and long-standing personality character-istics that account for the stability of absence over t imeand across situations. Absence proneness emerged as theexplanatory concept. However, unlike most other person-ality characteristics, which are measured through conven-tional psychological scales, absence proneness typicallyhas been inferred through less conventional methods. Forexample, Froggatt (1970c) inferred absence-pronenesseffects by comparing theoretical distributions used tocharacterize absence data, concluding that the negativebinomial distribution represents absence proneness. Fur-thermore, others have inferred absence proneness fromthe relationship between prior absence and subsequentabsence, arguing that those who tend to be absent morein a given period will continue to be absent in later periods(Breaugh, 1981; Garrison & Muchinsky, 1977; Landy,Vasey, & Smith, 1984).

745


2/11

746 JUDGE, MAKTOCCHIO, AND THORESENO n th e basis of past research, th e role of personalityin explaining absence is equivocal at best, particularly inth e case of inferring personality effects that are based onpast absence. However, as most people curious about th ecauses of absence would ask, "What generated the past

absenteeism in the first place?" Whereas prior absencehas been established as an efficient predictor of futureabsence (Breaugh, 1981), th e problem of inferring th epersonological basis of absence rem ains. Past research isof little help here, as there is no research that has investi-gated the relationship between personality traits and ab-sence proneness.Thus, there is only limited research on the dispositionalbasis of absenteeism and on the relationship between per-sonality and the construct of absence proneness. One ofth e factors that m ight explain this lack of research atten-tion is that, until recently, personality research lacked anaccepted framework describing th e structure and natureof personality. There are literally hundreds of dispositionalvariables that have been invented in the history of person-ality research. W hen specific traits have been selected forinclusion in absence research, it generally has been in apiecemeal fashion. When multiple traits have been in -cluded, absence research generally has used a ' broadsideapproach," where "predictors are hurled against criteriain th e hope that some will stick" (Schneider & Hough,1995, p. 87). The ensuing inconsistent results arepredictable.Within th e last decade, howeve r, consensus has emergedthat a five-factor model of personality, often termed th eBig Five (Goldberg, 1990), can be used to describe themost salient aspects of personality. Th e factors the BigFive comprises are Neuroticism, Extraversion, O pennessto Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.These five factors have been recovered from all personal-ity measures in widespread use, and the five-factor modelaccounts for the shared variance in the trait adjectivesof many languages (e.g., Digman & Shmelyov, 1996).Evidence also indicates that the Big Five traits are herita-ble (Costa & McCrae, 1995). Although the five-factormodel has had increasing acceptance among personalitypsychologists, its application to industrial-organizationalpsychology is incipient. One of the areas in which th efive-factor model has not been adequately investigatedis employee withdrawal. Despite several studies linkingisolated dispositions to absence, only limited research hasrelated any of the Big Five traits to absenteeism, and weare aware of no study that has linked th e entire five-factormodel to absence behavior.Thus, th e purpose of our field study was to examineth e relationship between personality and absenteeism.Specifically, w e examined th e degree to which three di -mensions from the five-factor model of personality (Neu-roticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness) were re-lated to em ployee absence. W e did not hypothesize rela-

tionships of Openness and Agreeableness to absence asthere was no theoretical or empirical basis for such link-ages. However, our null expectation with respe ct to thesetw o facets of the five-factor model will be tested. In addi-tion to the personality traits, w e investigated wh ether priorabsence or absence history would me diate the relationshipbetween the personality v ariables and subsequent absence.Justification for the hypothesized linkages between th ethree traits and absenteeism is provided in the Hypothesessection. Hypothese s are grouped by each of the traits. Foreach hypothesized relationship, we begin by describingth e nature of the trait and its conceptual relationship toabsenteeism. W e then review th e limited empirical datasuggestive of such a relationship.

HypothesesNeuroticism

Neuroticism refers generally to a lack of positive psy-chological adjustment and emotional stability. Personsscoring high on measures of neuroticism are frequentlycharacterized as fearful, anxious, and depressed. It seemslikely that such tendencies m ay make em ployees who arehigh on neuroticism more likely to engage in withdrawalbehaviors, such as failing to come to work on a frequentbasis. Furthermore, some definitions of neuroticism ad-vance the idea of an impulsivity com ponent. In an earlyreview of the absenteeism literature, Porter and Steers(1973) suggested that employee absenteeism be viewedas an impulsive, spontaneous form of behavior.There is some disagreement among personality re-searchers as to the proper placement of impulsivity withinthe five-factor model. On the basis of results from factoranalytic studies, impulsivity is alternatively classified un-der Neuroticism, Extraversion, or (low) Conscientious-ness. For example, Costa and McCrae (1992a) reportedthat the impulsiveness subfacet of the NEO PersonalityInventoryRevised (NEO PI-R) Neuroticism scaleloaded approximately equally (factor loadings of .48 and.47, respe ctively) on Neuroticism and Extraversion fac-tors. On the other hand, using a different measure of per-sonality, these same authors found that im pulsivity loadedequally on Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors(loadings of .43 and -.43, respectively). A full investiga-tion as to the appropriate location of impulsivi ty w ithinth e five-factor framework is beyond th e scope of this arti-cle. As did Costa and McCrae (1992b), we treat imp ulsiv-ity as a specific manifestation of Neuroticism but ac-knowledge that it could also be used to justify links be-tween Conscientiousness and Extraversion and absence.Beyond impulsivity, a few researchers have attemptedto relate neuroticism to absence behaviors. Cooper andPayne (1966) found positive correlations (Kendall 's TS= .19 and .16, respectively) between ne uroticism and two


3/11

PERSONALITY AND ABSENCE 747

measures of absence (frequency and total days absent)among a sample of 113 female tobacco packers. Otherresearchers have attempted to predict absence behaviorsusing a strong component of neuroticism, anxiety. Sinha(1963) noted a strong, positive correlation (r = .39) be-tween manifest anxiety and absence behavior in a sampleof industrial w orkers in India. Likewise, Be rnardin (1977)found that th e Anxiety factor from the 16PF predictedabsence in two samples of salesmen (rs = .25 and .21 inthe two samples). As a result of the conceptual founda-tions of the neuroticism c onstruct and the limited e m piri-cal evidence linking this construct to undesirable work-related behaviors, we expected that Neuroticism wouldbe positively related to absenteeism.

Hypothesis 1: Neuroticism w ill be positively related toabsence.Extroversion

Extraversion, a construct originally advanced byEysenck (1990), can broadly construed as sociability.Extroverts are more talkative, active, and assertive thantheir introverted counterparts. Furthermore, extraversionis typically characterized by gregariousness and excite-me nt-seeking behavior. Extroverts are highly social. Theyfrequently display a great deal of commitment to socialgroups and activities. Although extroverts m ay view th eworkplace as m erely another place to socialize, they mayalso see work in general as an obstacle to spending timewith family and friends and to their involvem ent in otherleisure activities. Similarly, extraversion frequently im-plies th e seeking out of exciting ne w situations and activi-ties (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). To the extent that workis often repetitive, extroverts m ay characterize work asdull and routine. Thus, we expected a positive correlationbetween extraversion and absenteeism.Previous empirical research provides some limited sup-port for the existence of a positive relationship betweenextraversion and absence behavior. We are aware of onlyone published study that has directly linked extraversionto absenteeism, reporting a positive relationship betweenth e two constructs (Cooper & Payne, 1966). Though notassessing extraversion per se, another study found thatsociability w as negatively associated with an index ofemployee re liability in a study reanalyzing previous data(Hogan & Hogan, 1989). Thus, although there are limitedempirical data, this evidence and the nature of extraver-sion caused us to suggest a positive re lationship betwe enExtraversion and absence behavior.

Hypothesis 2: Extraversion will be positively related toabsence.Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is characterized by personal compe-tence, dutifulness, self-discipline, and deliberation. Con-

scientious individuals are frequently described as purp ose-ful, strong w illed, determ ined, punctual, and reliable. Fur-thermore, there is evidence that the Conscientiousnessconstruct is closely related to achievement orientation andhas been labeled by some researchers as the will to achieve(Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Finally, the notionof self-control is regarded as a key component of Consci-entiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Because of theirachievement orientation, conscientious persons are moti-vated to perform on the job. It is likely that frequentabsences at work w ould hinder effective job performance.In addition, research suggests that conscientiousness isclosely linked to honesty and integrity (Murphy & Lee,1994). Workers scoring high on integrity tests have beenfound less likely to engage in a host of counterproductivebehaviors on the job, including frequent absenteeism(Ones , Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993).Although past research has not examined the relation-ship between specific measures of conscientiousness andabsenteeism, several studies are suggestive. For examp le,Bernardin (1977) noted a strong correlation between ' 'su-perego strength" (closely related to self-discipline) andabsence be haviors in two samples of salesmen (rs = -.40and -.21). Some research has focused on the aspects ofconscientiousness linked to employee responsibility andintegrity in attempting to predict a variety of counterpro-ductive employee behaviors (including absence fromwork) . Hogan and Hogan (1989) found a positive rela-tionship betwe en responsibility and a composite of em-ployee dependability (r = .29). Frost and Rafilson (1989)noted that scores on the Personnel Reaction Blank(Gough, 1972), a measure of integrity and dependability,predicted levels of a composite of counterproductiveworkplace behaviors (r = .26; reverse scored). Theachievem ent-orientation com ponent of conscientiousnesshas also received some attention in the absence literature.Mowday and Spencer (1981) found that self-reportedneed for achievement correlated negatively with personalabsence, whe reas Hogan and Hogan (1989) found a posi-tive relationship between achievement striving and em-ployee dependability. Thus, no research has directly inves-tigated the relationship between Conscientiousness andabsence. However, th e nature of the construct, and severalsuggestive studies, support the expectation of a negativerelationship between Conscientiousness and absence.

Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness will be negatively relatedto absence.

Individual Absence HistoryTo isolate th e effects of the personality variables de -scribed in this study on employee absenteeism, researchsuggests the need to control for reliable individual differ-ences in absence behavior. Previous research pointed to


4/11

748 JUDGE, MARTOCCHIO, AND THORESEN

th e conclusion that absence proneness within individualsshows significant stability over time. In general, th e relia-bility of individual absence b ehavior increases as absencemeasures are aggregated over a longer time span. Breaugh(1981) found strong evidence for test-retest consistencywithin individuals in absenteeism in terms of various m ea-sures of absence. Likewise, H amm er and Landau (1981)noted test-retest correlations of absenteeism rangingfrom r = .14 (1-month interval) to r = .58 (15-monthinterval). Furthermore, another study (Keller, 1983)found a positive correlation betwe en prior and recent ab-sences, even after controlling for a number of demo-graphic and personal variables known to influence workattendance. Thus, past research has clearly established alink between absence proneness and subsequent absence.What are the implications of this relationship for the hy-pothesized relations betw een personality and absence? Al-though absence proneness has been described as a disposi-tional variable-(Froggatt, 1970c; Garrison & Muchinsky,1977), it is much m ore likely a dispositional state, subjectto both dispositional and situational influences, than aninherent trait. As such, the state properties of absenceproneness might be similar in meaning to George's(1989) distinction'between dispositional trait affect (af-fective disposition) and affective states (mood at work) .Like mood at w ork, absence proneness is likely influencedby dispositions yet represents a more proximal influenceon subsequent behavior than th e traits that influence it .In other words, absence proneness is a behavioral mani-festation of personality and therefore sh ould have th e mostproximal influence on subsequent absence. Thus,Hypothesis 4: Absence history will partly mediate th e rela-tionship between personality and subsequent absence.Relative Merits of Specific Versus General Facets

Although the five-factor model ha s widespread accep-tance among personality psychologists, there have beenimportant criticisms (see Block, 1995). One of the mostprominent criticisms of the five-factor model is that itprovides too coarse a description of personality (Hough,1992). When predicting specific behaviors, it has beenargued, the Big Five are too broad and may mask im -portant linkages between specific personality traits andspecific behaviors (Schneider & Hough, 1995). A com-prehensive review of this debate is well beyond the scopeof this article. However, because absence is a relativelyspecific behavior, it is important to compare th e relativepredictive power of specific traits as opposed to the gener-alized five factors. Accordingly, in addition to testing thehypotheses, we provide an analysis of this issue.

Control VariablesIn addition to investigating the relationships betweenspecific personality traits and absence, we took into ac-

count several additional variables on the basis of theirdemonstrated relationships with absence in past research.First, w e controlled for subjective health, which is anindividual's self-report of his or her present overall phy si-cal condition. Personal illness has been found to be amongthe m ost salient reasons for absence advanced by e mp loy-ees (Morgan & Herman, 1976). Furthermore, researchindicates that both subjective estimates of health problem sand objective indicators of health, such as doctor visits,are positively related to absence (Manning, Osland, &Osland, 1989; Spector & Jex, 1991). Thus, we expectedthat subjective health would be negatively related to ab-sence. Second, we controlled for employee age becauseMartocchio's (1989) meta-analysis of the age-absencerelationship demonstrated that older employees were ab-sent less than younger employees. Accordingly, we ex-pected that ag e would be negatively related to absence.Third, past research has indicated that kinship responsibil-ities are positively related to absence (Morgan & Herman,1976; Primoff, 1997; Rhodes & Steers, 1990). Thus, w eexpected that the number of dependent children would bepositively related to absenteeism. Finally, we controlledfor hours worked. Fichman (1989) argued that th e rewardvalue of attendance decreases over time, m aking absencemore likely. In addition, it seems reasonable to expectthat employees who generally work longer hours mightbe absent more because there are more hours during whichthey have the potential to be absent. Thus, we predictedthat the number of hours worked would be positively re-lated to absence.

MethodSetting, Participants, and Procedure

W e administered surveys to a random sample of nonacademicemployees of a large university located in the Midwest. (Be-cause absence is virtually impossible to track for faculty, theywere excluded from the sampling frame.) Participants occupieda wide range of service p ositions in the university, ranging fromclerical w orkers to construction workers to administrators. Aver-age age of respondents was 43.4 years (SD = 12.6). Seventy-eight percent of respondents were women, and 71% were mar-ried. Thirty-nine percent of respondents had one or more chil-dren under 18 years of age. Eighty-four percent of the respon-dents were white. Twenty-one percent of respondents had a highschool diploma, 55% had an associate's degree or had com-pleted some college work, and 24% had at least an undergradu-ate degree.We mailed surveys to employees through campus mail inMay 1995. W e told participants in a cover letter that individualresponses were completely confidential, and we promised asmall honorarium in return for completing the survey by May23,1995. W e also asked participants to sign an informed consentform, permit t ing th e researchers to retrieve information aboutemployees' absenteeism from the university's records.We sampled participants from all departments w ithin the uni-


5/11

PERSONALITY AND ABSENCE 749versity. Initially, th e sample w as limited to employees who hadbeen employed at least since January 1, 1994.W e expected thatbeing employed for at least 3 months prior to the start of thepresurvey absence data collection period would allow employ-ees to become sufficiently familiar with the university's absencepolicy and informal norms about absenteeism in the workplace.We included only those employees from th e initial sample w horeturned questionnaires by the deadline, w ho provided informedconsent, and who were employed at least through November30. We chose this cutoff date to define a 6-month span forpostsurvey absence assessment. Our choice of 6 months wasdeliberate. Traditionally, researchers called for 1-year aggrega-tion periods; however, more recently, researchers have arguedfor shorter aggregation periods to minimize potential threats tointernal validity (Harrison & Hulin, 1989). Weused both timeintervals: a 6-month interval to measure absence and a 12-monthinterval to measure absence history. Given the quasi-disposi-tional nature of absence history (Garrison & Muchinsky, 1977)and the desirability of temporally aggregating behavioral-dis-positional measures (Epstein, 1977), we decided that a 12-month aggregation period for absence history w as appropriate.From a pool of 320 potential respondents, 89 useable surveyswere returned, representing a response rate of 28%. Eighty-sixpercent held clerical positions, 8%held administrative jobs, and6% held skilled or unskilled labor jobs. To determine if respon-dents were representative of the larger population of employees,w e compared the demographic characteristics (age, race, andsex) of respondents with a sample of 500 employees drawnfrom university records. Th e respondent and population statisticswere not significantly different (average age of respondents w as43 compared with 45 for the population, 84% of respondentswere White compared with 87% for the population, and 78%of respondents were women compared with 80% for the popula-tion). Furthermore, respondents were compared with a randomsample of nonrespondents from th e same employee populationwith reference to the number of hours absent from work. Th e95% confidence interval for the difference in means betweenthese tw o groups included zero for hours missed in the periodof interest prior to the survey, hours missed postsurvey, andtotal hours missed during th e time period of interest (pre- pluspostsurvey). This suggests that respondents were representativeof th e larger population of employees, at least with respect tothese variables.Measures

Absenteeism. W e collected absence data from archival re -cords that were matched to employees' identification numbers.Absence w as operationalized as the number of hours missedfrom work pe r 2-week pay period over th e course of the study,excluding scheduled holidays, vacation, bereavement leave, juryduty, and military leave. Th e university does not attempt todistinguish types of absences, except that the absence measureexcludes scheduled time off. Presurvey absence spanned a 12-month period between May 1994 and April 1995. Postsurveyabsence spanned a 6-month period from June through November1995. Because absence measures are highly skewed (Hammer &Landau, 1981; Harrison & Hulin, 1989 ), we computed thenatu-ral log of the absence measures prior to using them in theanalyses.

Personality. W e measured the five dimensions of personalitywith the240-item NEOPI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Forty-eight items measured each personality dimension; eight itemsmeasured the six subfacets comprising each of the Big Fivetraits. Participants responded on 5-point scales ranging from 1{strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Coefficient alphasfor the personality scales were as follows: Neuroticism, a =.91; Extraversion, a = .87; Openness to Experience, a = .92;Agreeableness, a = .82; andConscientiousness, a = .88.Subjective health. W e measured subjective health with th ehealth ladder (Suchman, Phillips, & Strieb, 1978). The itemconsists of a description of a ladder; the top of the seven-stepladder represents perfect health (coded 7), and the bdttom ofthe ladder represents total and permanent disability (coded 1).The respondents indicatewhich step is most descriptive of theirpresent overall health. Th e mean for this item w as 5.85 (SD= 1.02).Demographic and biographic variables. W e assessed ag eand number of dependent children through specific items on thequestionnaire. Hours worked were taken from employee records,wher e th e number of hours each employee worked w as recordedon a biweekly basis. W e summed th e hours contained in theserecords over the 6-month period during which we also collectedpostsurvey absence measures from archival records.

ResultsTable 1 provides the descriptive statistics and intercor-

relations of the factors and variables used in the analyses.Table 1 reveals that most of the Big Five traits were onlymoderately correlated (the mean absolute value of thecorrelation among the five factors was .24). Specifically,Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were negativelycorrelated with Neuroticism, Extraversion was positivelycorrelated with Openness to Experience and Conscien-tiousness, and Agreeableness was positively correlatedwith Conscientiousness. These intercorrelations closelyresemble those that have been found in past research(Costa & McCrae, 1992b). The Big Five are related butdistinct factorsthey are no more wholly independentthan they are redundant (Costa & McCrae, 1995). Severalother noteworthy correlations can be found in Table 1,including negative correlations of age with number ofdependent children and postsurvey absence. Openness toExperience was negatively correlated with number of chil-dren. Extraversion was moderately positively correlatedwith both pre- and postsurvey absence, whereas conscien-tiousness was moderately negatively correlated with bothforms of absence. Finally, consistent with past research,prior (presurvey) absence and postsurvey absence weremoderate to strongly correlated.

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis (Co-hen & Cohen, 1983) to investigate the degree to whichthe Big Five dimensions in combination predict absence.We tested the individual hypotheses concerning Neuroti-cism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness by examiningthe regression coefficients in the model. In the hierarchical


6/11

750 JUDGE, MAKTOCCHIO, AND THORESENTable 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Variable1. Hours worked2. Subjective health3. Age4. Number of dependent children5. Neuroticism6. Extraversion7. Openness to Experience8. Agreeableness9. Conscientiousness10. Prior absence (log)11. Postsurvey absence (log)

M1,174.445.85

43.380.62122.29158.20154.15172.93171.556.515.32

SD1,072.911.02

12.620.8820.6716.7020.6612.9715.340.831.21

1

.00-.15-.11-.21.04.22.09.16-.09.08

2

-.06-.07-.01.15.12.00.10-.20-.15

3

-.23-.02-.07-.13.11.01.08-.29

4

-.19.02-.23.12.02.22.11

5

-.20-.12-.46-.33.03-.01

6

.34.13.26.31.26

7

.11.05.17.01

8 9 10

.38 .20 -.24 -.13 -.23 .41

Note. N = 73.

regression, th e control variables (hours worked, subjectivehealth, age, and number of dependent children) were en -tered on the first step of the equation. The Big Five traitsthen were entered on the second step of the equation. Ateach step, w e computed th e incremental variance ex-plained by each block of variables. Following th e recom-mendations of Cohen (1994) and Schmidt (1996), w edrew confidence intervals around regression coefficientsto avoid some of the problems inherent in statistical sig-nificance testing. Accordingly, 95 % confidence intervalswere drawn around th e estimated effects of the indepen-dent variables on absence. Also reported are the lowerand upper limits of the confidence intervals.Estimates from th e regression equation predictingpostsurvey absence are provided in Table 2. Of the controlvariables, only th e confidence interval around age ex-cluded zero. However, cumulatively, th e control variablesexplained 12% of the variance in absence. Of the BigFive traits, Neuroticism did not predict absence, indicatingthat our first hypothesis was not supported by the data.However, Extraversion positively predicted absence,whereas Conscientiousness negatively predicted absence.Thus, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported. As a set, theBig Five traits explained 18% of the variance in postsur-vey absence beyond th e variance attributable to the con-trol variables. Overall, the control variables and Big Fivetraits explained 30% of the variance in absence (adjustedR2 = 20%).These results indicate that extraversion and conscien-tiousness display moderate relations with absence. Al-though th e standardized regression coefficients displayedin Table 2 provide information on the relative importanceof th e predictors in the equation, w e also considered th eunstandardized ( r a w ) regression coefficients to estimatehow th e predictor variables translated into actual numbersof hours absent. Accordingly, w e estimated predicted ab -sence levels for relevant values of the two traits. Specifi-cally, we used the raw regression coefficients to estimatechanges in predicted absence for individuals one standard

deviation above th e mean on Extraversion and one stan-dard deviation below th e mean on Conscientiousness. Re-sults from this analysis predict that an employee who isone standard deviation above th e mean on Extraversionwould be absent 9.9 hr more than the average employeeover the 6-month study period. Considering the 6-montht ime frame, an employee who is one standard deviationabove th e mean on Conscientiousness would be absent8.0 hr less than the average employee. If one considersboth traits together, being one standard deviation aboveth e mean on Extraversion and one standard deviation be-low th e mean on Conscientiousness (possible becausethese tw o factors are not strongly correlated), th e resultswould predict that this employee would be absent an addi-tional 18 hr beyond th e average employee.To investigate our fourth hypothesis, that absenceproneness will partly mediate the relationship betweenth e personality variables and subsequent absence, w e esti-

Table 2Regression Estimates Predicting Postsurvey Absence

Independent variableStep 1: Control variablesHours workedSubjective healthAg eNumber of dependent childrenAtf 2R 2Step 2: Big Five traitsNeuroticismExtraversionOpenness to ExperienceAgreeablenessConscientiousnessA/? 2R 2

(3 R 2

.04-.17-.29".03 .12.12-.07

.38"-.14-.05-.32" .18.30

Lower95% CI

-.20-.39-.52-.21

-.32.15-.38-.30-.56

Upper95% CI

-.28.05-.05.27

.18.61.10.20-.08

Note. R 2 values are unadjusted. CI = confidence interval; lower =lower bound of 95% CI; upper = upper bound of 95% CI.* Coefficients wi th CIs excluding zero.


7/11


mated another hierarchical regression. After entry of thesame control variables as in the earlier equation in Table2, prior absence was entered on the second step. On thethird step, we entered into the equation the two nonzeropersonality effects found in the earlier analysis, Extrover-sion and Conscientiousness. Table 3 provides the resultsfrom this regression. As the table reveals, prior absenceexplained 17% of the incremental variance in postsurveyabsence. When entered into the equation on the third step,Extraversion and Conscientiousness continued to displaynonzero effects on postsurvey absence. However, theireffects were weakerthe tw o factors explained only 5%of th e incremental variance in absence when th e controlvariables and prior absence were taken into account. Ifone compares th e coefficient estimates for Extraversionand Conscientiousness in Table 3 with those in Table 2,the results show that 45% of the relationship betweenExtraversion and absence was mediated by absence his-tory (presurvey absence), whereas 34% of the relation-ship between Conscientiousness and absence was medi-ated by absence history. Thus, prior absence mediated asubstantial amount, but not a majority, of the relationshipbetween these personality traits and absence. Overall, 34%of the variance in postsurvey absence was explained byth e regression equation (adjusted R2 = 27%).Although not hypothesized, it is possible that the spe-cific subfactors of the five-factor model (as measured inth e NEO inventory) displayed stronger relations with ab-sence than the composite five factors. Totest this possibil-ity, w e undertook several analyses. W e confined theseanalyses to Extraversion and Conscientiousness becausethese were the Big Five traits, at the composite level, that

Table 3Regression Estimates Predicting Postsurvey AbsenceIncluding Prior AbsenceIndependent variable

Step 1: Control variablesHours workedSubjective healthAg eNumber of dependent childrenArt 2rt2Step 2: Prior absencePrior absenceA r t 2rt2Step 3: Big Five traitExtraversionConscientiousnessA rt 2rt2

0

.04-.17-.29".03

.43"

.21"-.21'

rt2

.12.12

.17.29

.05.34

Lower95% CI

-.20-.39-.52-.21

.21

.01-.01

Upper95% CI

.28.05-.05.27

.65

.42-.43

Note. R 2 values ar e unadjusted. C I = confidence interval; lower =lower bound of 95% CI; upper = upper bound of 95% CI.* Coefficients with confidence intervals excluding zero.

were related to absence. First, we computed the varianceexplained by the general composite measures of Extraver-sion and Conscientiousness in two separate regressions.We then computed th e variance explained by the six NEOsubscales that comprise Extraversion and Conscientious-ness by entering the six subscales into two separate regres-sions. Comparisons of the variance explained by the sin-gle composite with the variance explained by the six sub-scales of the composite provide useful information aboutth e relative merits of general versus specific trait measuresof Extraversion and Conscientiousness in predicting ab-sence. We also computed the simple correlations betweeneach of the six Extraversion and Conscientiousness sub-scales and absence. The results of these analyses are pro-vided in Table 4. The table shows that the general andspecific measures explain roughly equivalent amounts ofvariance in absence. For Extraversion, the general com-posite explains somewhat more variance in absence thanth e specific facets, whereas for Conscientiousness, thispattern is reversed. In both cases, though, the varianceexplained is comparable. It should be noted that whenestimates are corrected for shrinkage, theadjusted R2 val-ues representing the variance explained by the specificfacets are much smaller than th e incremental unadjustedR2 values reported in Table 4 (i.e., the adjusted R2 valuefor th e Extraversion facets is 0.04%, and for the conscien-tiousness facets, adjusted R2 = 2.4%). Thus, althoughth e unadjusted incremental variance estimates for the tw ogeneral factors and the specific facets are similar, if cor-rections for shrinkage are considered, the adjusted R2values for the general factors are much higher than forth e specific facets. This makes sense in light of the factthat using th e specific facets in predicting absence requiresusing six predictor variables compared with a single pre-dictor for each of the general factors.Table 4 also shows the correlations between the specificfacets and absence. Of the Extraversion facets, excitementseeking and gregariousness positively correlated with ab-sence. For the Conscientiousness facets, deliberation, duti-fulness, and self-discipline negatively correlated with ab -sence. Thus, it appears both general and specific aspectsof Extraversion and Conscientiousnessare associated withabsence.

DiscussionOur results generally supported the proposition that ab-

senteeism can successfully be predicted by employees'personalities as described by the five-factor model. Extra-version and Conscientiousness were moderately strongpredictors of absence. It appears, at least within the con-fines of this sample, that the carefree, excitement-seeking,hedonistic nature of extroverts, and the dutiful, rule-bound, and reliable nature of conscientious employees led


8/11

75 2 JUDGE, MAKTOCCHIO, AND THORESENTable 4Comparison of General Versus Specific Facets of Extroversion and Conscientiousness inPredicting Postsurvey Absence

% variance in absenceexplained by eachtype of trait

FactorExtraversion

Conscientiousness

Generalconstruct10.8

8.8

Specificfacets9.5

10.2

Specific facetActivityAssertivenessExcitement seekingGregariousnessPositive emotionsWarmthAchievement strivingCompetenceDeliberationDutifulnessOrderSelf-discipline

Correlation ofspecific facetwith absence.12.00.21".28".13.17-.10-.11

-.24'-.21"-.17-.18

Note. R 2 values are unadjusted. Variance explained by general construct = incremental variance eachcomposite measure explains beyond the variance explained by the other four composite measures. Varianceby specific facets = the total variance explained by the six specific facets combined." Correlations whose 95% confidence intervals exclude zero.

th e former to be absent more and the latter to be absentless. Furthermore, analysis of the raw regression coeffi-cients suggests that these personality factors deserve animportant role in future models and investigations of ab-sence behavior.Although individual differences have long been consid-ered in absence research, typically these have been attitu-dinal variables (Martocchio & Harrison, 1993). Further-more, when personality variables have been considered,it often has been in an exploratory manner where th evariables have played an ancillary role in the study. Al-though personality research has benefited from the five-factor model, it s application to organizational research isstill incipient. In fact, ou r study is the first that has linkedth e entire five-factor model to absence. Given th e efficacyof Extraversion and Conscientiousness in predicting ab -sence behavior and the relative neglect of dispositionalvariables in past absence research, further research in -vestigating linkages between the Big Five and absenceappears warranted.It is not clear w hy Neuroticism was not related to ab-sence. Perhaps one reason is that neurotic individuals,although impulsive, are more realistic in evaluating con-tingencies and consequences of their actions (Alloy &Abramson, 1979). Thus, because of their tendencies toworry about negative outcomes, neurotic individuals m aybe more attuned to the potentially negative consequencesof absence. Furthermore, as was noted when discussingimpulsivity in the Hypotheses section, neuroticism is nota homogeneous construct, and its specific properties aredisputed. Given th e potential idiosyncrasies of any spe-

cific measure of neuroticism, it seems possible a differentmeasure could have produced a different result. Thus,more research on this relationship is warranted.Results also suggested that absence history (measuredby th e previous year's level of absence) partly mediatedth e relationship between the personality variables and ab-sence. The most logical interpretation of this relationshipis that absence history is a quasi-dispositional characteris-ti c that represents th e more proximal influence on absencerelative to personality. On the other hand, absence historymediated only a minority of the relationship between Ex -traversion and Conscientiousness and absence. Th e media-tion w as only partial because th e relations of Extraversionand Conscientiousness with pre- and postsurvey absencewere comparable (see Table 1). This places constraintson the degree to which prior absence could have mediatedth e influence of personality on subsequent absence. It alsoshould be noted that ou r measure of absence history w ascollected prior to measurement of the Big Five traits. Thepostdictive nature of this relationship limits th e ecologicalvalidity of this result. Furthermore, when entered on thelast step of the hierarchical regression, absence historyexplained only slightly more incremental variance beyondth e personality traits (A /? 2 = 6.3%) than th e traits ex-plained beyond proneness (A/? 2 = 4.9%). Thus, the re-sults provide about as much evidence that personality m e-diates th e effect of absence history as the hypothesis thatproneness mediates th e effects of personality. More re -search investigating th e possible personological basis ofabsence proneness is warranted.Results also showed that absence history was related to


9/11

PERSONALITY AND ABSENCE 753absence. This is consistent with past research that showedsignificant relations of absence history with absence (Gar-rison & Muchinsky, 1977; Landy et al., 1984). Given thecorrelations between absence history and the personalityvariables, part of absence history seems to be disposition-ally based. Ofcourse, because Extraversion and Conscien-tiousness predicted postsurvey absence, the linkage be-tween these factors and prior absence is not surprising.

Recently, Mount and Barrick (1995) found that specificfacets of Conscientiousness (achievement and dependabil-ity) generally were poorer predictors of performance thanthe overall measure. The only exception was when thespecific facets were conceptually relevant to specific crite-ria (e.g., dependability and employee reliability). The re-sults of this study are consistent with respect to absentee-ism. Th e average validity of the specific facets constitutingConscientiousness and Extraversion was considerablylower than the validity of the general composites. How-ever, when th e specific facets were conceptually relatedto absence (e.g., excitement seeking, dutifulness), theirvalidity equaled that of the general traits. Furthermore,when comparing the variance explained by the overallcomposite trait with th e specific facets constituting th ecomposite, the figures were comparable (although itshould be noted that adjusted R2 values for the specificfacets were considerably smaller). Thus, with respect tothe relationship of Conscientiousness and Extraversionwith absence, it appears that both general and theoreticallyrelevant specific traits are applicable. Given the impor-tance of achieving the proper correspondence betweenpredictors and criteria in both personality and absenceresearch, more attention to this issue is warranted.Limitations

The most obvious limitation of our study is the smallsample size. This raises concerns over generalizability ofth e results to other populations. However, that th e confi-dence intervals for Extraversion and Conscientiousnessexcluded zero increases confidence that the results ob-served were not due to sampling error. Nevertheless, therelatively small sample size makes replication of the re-sults particularly important.Another potential limitation of the study relates to thenature and measurement of absenteeism. In this study, w emade no distinction between voluntary and involuntaryabsence, although such a distinction is an important onein the literature (Hackett & Guion, 1985). Two reasonsjustify this decision. First, for the purposes of this study,the distinction is not a productive one because it was notclear that the personality variables would display muchdifference in terms of predicting voluntary versus involun-tary absence. In fact, research suggests that Conscien-tiousness predicts voluntary and involuntary turnoverequally well (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, &

Strauss, 1994). Second, the voluntariness of absence is acontinuum that is difficult, if not impossible, for othersto evaluate (Latham & Pursell, 1977). Thus, there weregood reasons, given the purpose and context of this study,to focus our absence measure on overall absenteeism.However, because our control variables were related moreto involuntary than voluntary absence (e.g., health prob-lems, kinship responsibilities), the personality variablesmay ref lect greater relations with voluntary than involun-tary absence.Implications

Our findings suggest a number of implications for re-search and practice. Past research indicates that conscien-tiousness is negatively related to withdrawal behaviorssuch as turnover (Barrick et al., 1994). Results from ourstudy suggest it is negatively associated with absence aswell. Thus, conscientious individuals appear less likely tovent their dissatisfactions and frustrations in withdrawalbehaviors, perhaps because of their dutifulness and rule-oriented nature (Goldberg, 1990). Or are conscientiousemployees less likely to be dissatisfied and frustrated tobegin with? Similarly, are extroverts absent more becausethey are generally less satisfied, or because their assertiveand impulsive nature makes them more likely to act ontheir frustration? Given th e nature of conscientiousnessand extraversion, it appears likely that conscientious em-ployees are relatively less likely to withdraw when dissat-isfied, whereas extroverted employees are relatively morelikely to withdraw in this circumstance. However, giventhe limited knowledge about the relationship betweenthese personality traits and job satisfaction, we can onlypoint to these questions as important ones for future re -search to answer.

These results have implications for selection researchand practice as well. Conscientiousness is a positive pre-dictor of performance across different jobs (Barrick &Mount, 1991). It appears the positive attributes of consci-entiousness extend to attendance as well. Thus, resultsfrom this study further attest to the utility of using mea-sures of conscientiousness in selection decisions. The re-sults for extraversion are less clear. It appears that extra-version is a positive predictor of performance in certainjobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991). However, extraversion,like all traits, has a negative aspect as well. For example,biological research has shown a link between extraversionand aggressive behavior (Eysenck, 1990). Thus, the posi-tive link between extraversion and absence adds to theunderstanding of the construct in organizational settings.Clearly, it is beneficial to be extroverted in certain situa-tions, but it also can be a hindrance to organizations if itleads to absence and other counterproductive behaviors.

The nature of employees' jobs may moderate the rela-tionship between extraversion and absence. Specifically,


10/11

754 JUDGE, MAKTOCCHIO, AND THORESEN

it is possible that extroverted individuals are more likelyto be absent while performing routine tasks, as in low-level clerical jobs, because extroverts may find routinework to be more dull than introverts. Future researchshould investigate the moderating role of job type on therelationship between extraversion and absence. More gen-erally, there is some evidence that personality-job perfor-mance relations depend on the type of job (Barrick &Mount, 1991). Given that personality also may vary byjob type, it would be interesting to determine if the associ-ation of extraversion and conscientiousness with absencevaries by job type as well. Because of our small samplesize, we cannot investigate these issues here. However,they are quite relevant for future research when one con-siders the selection implications of our findings.

As did past research (Mount & Barrick, 1995), wefound that conceptually relevant subfacets of personalitywere better predictors of absence than less relevant subfa-cets. In addition, the predictive power of the subfacetswas similar to the predictive power demonstrated by theirrespective general personality factors. On the basis ofthese findings, we advocate that practitioners who includepersonality as a selection tool use either the general factorsor conceptually relevant subfacets to better substantiatethe criterion-related validity of these measures.Conclusion

In sum, our findings suggest that the five-factor modelis a fruitful basis from which to examine the dispositionalbasis of absenteeism. In particular, results indicated thatintroverted and conscientious employees are less likely tobe absent. The considerable stability, and probable geneticorigins of these traits (Bergeman, Chipuer, Plomin, &Pedersen, 1993), make it unlikely that organizations cancontrol absenteeism by changing these traits. However,selecting relatively less extroverted and relatively moreconscientious employees could be a beneficial strategy toreduce absence. Furthermore, as was noted earlier, it ispossible that these dispositions cause employees to re-spond differently to absence-control policies. Exploringthe practical applications of these results, as well as in-vestigating the processes by which these dispositions in-fluence absence, appears to be the next logical step in thisline of research.

ReferencesAlloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contin-gency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder butwiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108,441-485.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personal-ity dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.Person-nel Psychology, 44, 1-26.Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Anteced-

ents of involuntary turnover due to a reduction in force. Per-sonnel Psychology, 47, 515-535.Bergeman, C. S., Chipuer, H. M., Plomin, R., & Pedersen, N. L.(1993). Genetic and environmental effects on openness toexperience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness: An adop-tion/twin study. Journal of Personality, 61 , 159-179.

Bernardin, H. J. (1977). The relationship of personality vari-ables to organizational withdrawal. Personnel Psychology,30, 17-27.Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approachto personality description. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 117,187-215.Breaugh, J. A. (1981). Predicting absenteeism from prior ab-

senteeism and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,66, 555-560.Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). AmericanPsychologist, 49, 997-1003.Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.Cooper, R., & Payne, R. (1966). Extraversion and some aspectsof work behavior. Personnel Psychology, 29, 45-57.Costa, P . T, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four waysfive fac-

tors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13 ,653-665.Costa, P. T, Jr.,& McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Professional manualfor the NEO PI-R an d NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources, Inc.Costa, P. T, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in thewetlands: A reply to Block. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 117, 216-220.Davis-B lake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search

for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academyof Management Review, 14 , 385-400.Digman, J. M., & Shmelyov, A. G. (1996). Th e structure oftemperament and personality in Russian children. Journal ofPersonality an d Social Psychology, 71 , 341-351.Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors inth e natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison,and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behav-ioral Research, 16 , 149-170.Epstein, S. (1977). Traits are alive and well. In D. Magnusson&N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Currentissues in interactional psychology (pp. 83-98). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributionsto individual differences: Th e three major dimensions of per-

sonality. Journal of Personality, 58 , 245-261.Ferris, G. R., Bergin, T.G., & Wayne, S. J. (1988). Personal

characteristics, job performance, and absenteeism of publicschool teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,552-563.

Fichman, M. (1989). Attendance makes th e heart grow fonder:A hazard rate approach to modeling attendance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74 , 325-335.Froggatt, P. (1970a). Short-term absence from industry: I. Liter-

ature, definitions, data, and the effect of age and length ofservice. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 27, 199210.Froggatt, P. (1970b). Short-term absence from industry: II.


11/11


Temporal variation and inter-association with other recordedfactors. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 27, 211-224.

Froggatt, P . (1970c). Short-term absence from industry. HI.The inference of 'proneness' and a search for causes. BritishJournal of Industrial Medicine, 27, 297-312.

Frost, A. G., & Rafilson, F. M. (1989). Overt integrity tests versuspersonality-based measures of delinquency: An empiricalcom-parison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3, 269-277.

Garrison, K. R., & Muchinsky, P.M. (1977). Evaluating theconcept of absence proneness. Personnel Psychology, 30,389-393.

George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74, 317-324.George, J. M. (1992). Therole ofpersonality inorganizational life:

Issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18, 185-213.Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of person-

ality": Th e Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 59 , 1216-1229.Gough, H. G. (1972). Manual for the personnel reaction blank.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Hackett, R. D., & Guion, R. M. (1985). A re-evaluation of the

absenteeism-job satisfaction relationship. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 340-381.Hammer, T. H., & Landau, J. (1981). Methodological issues inthe use of absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 ,574-581.Harrison, D. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1989). Investigations ofabsen-teeism: Using event history models to study the absence-taking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 , 300-316.Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee

reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 , 273-279.Hough, L. (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables-con-

struct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Per-formance, 5, 139-155.House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumorsof the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated.Academy of Management Review,21, 203-224.Keller, R. T. (1983). Predicting absenteeism from prior absen-teeism, attitudinal factors, and nonattitudinal factors. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 68 , 536-540.Landy, F. J., Vasey, J. J., & Smith, F. D. (1984). Methodologicalproblems and strategies in predicting absence. In P. S. Good-man & R. S. Atkin (Eds.), Absenteeism: New approaches tounderstanding, measuring,an d managing employee absence(pp. 110-157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Latham, G. P., & Pursell, E. D. (1977). Measuring attendance: Areply to Ilgen. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 , 234-236.Manning, M. R., Osland, J. S., & Osland, A. (1989). Work-related consequences of smoking cessation. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 32 , 606621.

Martocchio, J. J. (1989). Age-related differences in employeeabsenteeism: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging,4, 409-414.

Martocchio, J. J., & Harrison, D. A. (1993). To be there or notto be there? Questions, theories, and methods in absenteeismresearch. Research in Personnelan d Human Resources Man-agement, 11, 259-328.

Morgan, L. G., & Herman, J. B. (1976). Perceived conse-quences of absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,738-742.Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personal-ity dimensions: Implications for research and practice in hu-m an resources management. Research in Personneland Hu-man Resources Management, 13, 153-200.Mowday, R. T, & Spencer, D. G. (1981). The influence of taskand personality characteristics on employee turnover and ab-senteeism incidents. Academy of Management Journal, 24,634-642.Murphy, K. R. , & Lee, S. L. (1994). Personality variables re-lated to integrity test scores: The role of conscientiousness.Journal of Business an d Psychology, 9, 413-424.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Com-prehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findingsand implications for personnel selection and theories of jobperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531-537.

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work,and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism.Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.Primoff, V. J. (1997). Gender differences in days lost from workdue to illness. Industrial an d Labor Relations Review, 50 ,304-323.Rhodes, S., & Steers, R. M. (1990). Managing employee absen-

teeism. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumu-lative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training ofresearchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129.Schneider, R. J., & Hough,L. M. (1995). Personality andindus-trial/organizational psychology. International Review of In-dustrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 75-129.Sinha, A. K. P. (1963). Manifest anxiety affecting industrialabsenteeism. Psychological Reports, 13 , 258.

Specter, P.E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteris-tics from multiple data sourceswith employee affect, absence,turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 76 , 46-53.Suchman, E., Phillips, B., & Strieb, G. (1978). An analysis of thevalidity of health questionnaires. Social Forces, 36, 223-232.

Received October 25, 1996Revision received April 23, 1997Accepted April 28,1997

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hany-waseem
View:	228 times
Download:	0 times

Five-Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence

Documents