1 Personality and Cognitions Underlying Entrepreneurial Intentions Benjamin R. Walker a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment O

Home , Hans Eysenck, Implicit learning, Transactive memory

Personality and Cognitions underlying Entrepreneurial Intentions

Benjamin R. Walker

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Management

UNSW Business School

March 30, 2015

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 6

Originality statement ...... 7

Publications and conference presentations arising from this thesis ...... 8

List of abbreviations ...... 9

Thesis Abstract...... 10

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 11

Chapter 2: Assessing the impact of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ...... 20

Table 1: Articles with original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST) and revised

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) measures ...... 26

Table 2: Categorization of original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST) and revised

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) studies in the five years from 2010-2014 ...... 29

Chapter 3: How process models of personality based on revised Reinforcement Sensitivity

Theory suggest a way to organize personality structure ...... 42

Figure 1: A general process model of personality in which behavior is distally predicted by

temperament and proximally predicted by socio-cognitive mechanisms ...... 47

Table 1: Comparison of personality models based on o-RST and r-RST that are process

models or could be process models ...... 53

Figure 2: Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al., 1993)

...... 55

Figure 3: Model of how the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character

(Cloninger et al., 1993) could be operationalized as a process model ...... 58

Figure 4: The Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) where

disinhibition is defined as the lack of response modulation ...... 61

Figure 5: The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002,

2010) ...... 64

Figure 6: The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008) ...... 67

Figure 7: Conceptualization of personality theories (adapted from Jackson, 2008) ...... 69

Chapter 4: How the Five Factor Model and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict divergent thinking ...... 75

Table 1: Means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations between variables ...... 82

Table 2: Multiple regression results of FFM predicting fluency and originality ...... 83

Table 3: Multiple regression results of r-RST predicting fluency and originality ...... 84

Table 4: Multiple regression results of r-FFFS and openness to experience predicting

fluency and originality ...... 86

Figure 1: Path model of an indirect effect of r-BAS on fluency through mastery ...... 87

Chapter 5: Disinhibition positively predicts psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions ...... 92

Figure 1: Disinhibition positively predicts the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy and

the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions ...... 94

Figure 2: The response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) where

disinhibition is defined as the lack of response modulation ...... 96

Table 1: The BART is modified to become a disinhibition task using the response

modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) ...... 104

Table 2: Study 1 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of psychopathy,

entrepreneurial intentions, and disinhibition condition and control condition Block 3 BART

pumps ...... 109

Table 3: Study 1 BART block 3 pumps predicting psychopathy and entrepreneurial

intentions moderated by condition (disinhibition or control condition) ...... 110

Table 4: Study 2 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of psychopathy,

entrepreneurial intentions, and disinhibition condition and control condition Block 3 BART

pumps ...... 114

Table 5: Study 2 BART block 3 pumps predicting psychopathy and entrepreneurial

intentions moderated by condition (disinhibition or control condition) ...... 115

Chapter 6: Are global thinkers higher in entrepreneurial intentions? ...... 121

Table 1: Study 1 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of Entrepreneurial

Intentions, Mastery, and Global Processing ...... 137

Table 2: Study 1 mediation paths of the effect of Global Processing predicting

Entrepreneurial Intentions mediated by Mastery ...... 138

Figure 1: Study 1 effect of Global Processing predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions

mediated by Mastery ...... 139

Table 3: Study 2 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of the Entrepreneurial

Intentions, Job Performance, and Organizational Performance statistics ...... 144

Table 4: Study 2 mediation paths of the effect of Organizational Performance predicting

Entrepreneurial Intentions mediated by Mastery ...... 145

Figure 2: Study 2 effect of Entrepreneurial Intentions on Organizational Performance

mediated by Mastery ...... 146

Chapter 7: General discussion ...... 155

References ...... 162

Appendix A: Balloon bursting probabilities for Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) ...... 246

Appendix B: A comparison of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory with other contemporary personality Task ...... 247

Appendix C: Moral emotions and corporate psychopathy: A review ...... 263

Table 1: Rudolph and colleagues (2013) 23 moral emotions integrated into Haidt’s (2003)

typology of moral emotions ...... 267

Table 2: Summary of results and literature relating to Rudolph and colleagues (2013) 23

moral emotions integrated into Haidt’s (2003) typology ...... 270

Appendix D: The dark side of mindfulness in the workplace: A Review ...... 298

Table 1: Findings of the literature review on trait mindfulness in the workplace...... 303

Table 2: Studies that found negative aspects to mindfulness ...... 309

Appendix E: How the Five Factor Model and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict divergent thinking; published version in Personality and Individual Differences .... 316

Acknowledgements

My primary thanks goes to my supervisor, Chris Jackson. When I first started with him he was about to become Head of School, so I was expecting I may only see him once a month or something. To my surprise, he has been extremely available with meetings most weeks and availability at other times via email and telephone. I also thank my co-supervisor, Peter

Heslin, who gave feedback on my PhD and has been supportive and available whenever needed. I thank my parents, Chris and Dell Walker, who were always interested to hear the latest on my research and encouraging me whenever they could. Growing up, my dad described his PhD experience as one of the best experiences of his life, so I am glad that I also have had this opportunity. My PhD experience has also transformed me and I have got everything I wanted: The feeling that I am an expert in a particular area, broad knowledge of a few areas and the ability to enter into deep academic knowledge of any area I want if I so desire.

Originality Statement

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

Signed:

Date: March 30, 2015

Publications and Conference Presentations Arising from the Thesis

Walker, B.R., & Jackson, C.J. (2014). How the Five Factor Model and Revised

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict divergent thinking. Personality and

Individual Differences, 57, 54-58. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.011 (see Appendix E

for published version)

Walker, B.R., & Jackson, C.J. (2013). Managerial implications for the impact of revised

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory on creativity. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual

Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Walker, B.R, & Jackson, C.J. (2013). Risk-taking persistence predicts entrepreneurial

intentions and the Dark Triad traits of psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Paper

presented at the 27th Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management

Conference, Hobart, Australia.

Walker, B.R, & Jackson, C.J. (2013). The Dexter Effect: Disinhibition predicts the Dark

Triad and entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the 13th Australian

Conference for Personality and Individual Differences, Brisbane, Australia.

List of Abbreviations

Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)

Behavioral Approach System (BAS)

original Behavioral Approach System (o-BAS)

revised Behavioral Approach System (r-BAS)

Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS)

original Behavioral Inhibition System (o-BIS)

revised Behavioral Inhibition System (r-BIS)

Fight/Flight System (FFS)

Fight/Flight/Freeze System (FFFS)

Five Factor Model (FFM)

Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ)

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST)

original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST)

revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST)

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ)

Response Modulation Model (RMM)

Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ)

Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire – Children’s caregiver

report (SPSRQ-C)

Thesis Abstract

Entrepreneurs drive economic growth and contribute to employment, income, and innovation, yet entrepreneurial intentions has not been examined using Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

(RST), which is important because RST is the key biologically-based theory of personality. I address this issue in a literature review, conceptual chapter, and five empirical studies using

839 participants. Chapter one is an overview of the thesis. Chapter two is a literature review of RST. Chapter three is a conceptual chapter on process models based on RST. Process models can assist understanding of personality because behavior can be distally predicted by biology and proximally predicted through socio-cognitive mechanisms. Chapter four sought to understand how RST can predict divergent thinking creativity. Using 130 business students, I found that an approach orientation personality positively predicted divergent thinking creativity through mastery, openness to experience positively predicted divergent thinking creativity, and fear negatively predicted divergent thinking creativity. Chapter five sought to understand whether disinhibition, which is related to RST, can predict psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions. Using 157 full-time workers in study one and 143 university staff and students in study two, I found that disinhibition positively predicted the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy and the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions. Chapter six sought to understand whether the cognitive process of attentional bias to global processing would predict entrepreneurial intentions through mastery. Global and local processing is related to lateral hemispheric functions as is approach and avoidance in

RST. Using 216 full-time workers in a laboratory study and 193 full-time workers in a field study, I found that global processing predicted entrepreneurial intentions through mastery.

Chapter seven is a general discussion that integrates these studies into a broader understanding of RST and entrepreneurial intentions. This thesis contributes to understanding of RST and applications such as identifying potential entrepreneurs.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Entrepreneurs are the drivers of economic growth (Schumpeter, 1934). They are alert to discover business prospects (Kirzner, 1979, 1997) and evaluate whether or not to exploit the opportunities (Choi & Shepherd, 2004; Wood & Williams, 2014). Imperfect competition in the market allows for opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Venkataraman, 1997), because perfect competition in the market is a situation with no opportunities (Alvarez,

Barney, & Anderson, 2013; Casson, 1982). Entrepreneurs solve customer problems through innovation (Schumpeter, 1952; Shepherd & DeTienne, 2005) and entrepreneurs have been credited with inventions such as contact lenses, airplanes, and computers (Baumol, 2004). I define entrepreneurs as individuals who start, manage, and grow businesses (Carland, Hoy,

Boulton, & Carland, 1984). While scholars generally believe in the importance of entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics, the psychology of entrepreneurs remains understudied

(Baum, Frese, Baron, & Katz, 2007). In this thesis, I examine entrepreneurial intentions using

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST), which is the key biologically-based personality theory. This thesis heeds the “call to action” (Hisrich, Langan-Fox, & Grant, 2007, p. 575) for psychology researchers to advance theory in entrepreneurship in five key areas: personality, cognition, psychopathology, education, and international entrepreneurship. I explore personality, cognition, and psychopathology. This research can assist with understanding the psychological processes underlying entrepreneurial intentions and the results are relevant for entrepreneurial education.

Within this thesis, I examine entrepreneurial intentions in samples of full-time workers, university staff, and students. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen

& Fishbein, 1980) suggests that intentions has an important role in the prediction of behavior

(Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014). I examine entrepreneurial intentions in full-time workers, university staff, and students rather than current entrepreneurs

12 because current entrepreneurs would have a restricted range of entrepreneurial intentions. By examining entrepreneurial intentions in full-time workers, university staff, and students, the range of entrepreneurial intentions is likely to be broad. Some participants will be current entrepreneurs, others will be considering entrepreneurial possibilities, and others will prefer to remain in employment.

Research on entrepreneurial intentions gained momentum 30 years ago when Shapero identified that entrepreneurial intentions preceded entrepreneurial activity (Shapero, 1984;

Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Entrepreneurial intentions is the crucial first step in a multi-stage process (Gartner, 1985, 1989; Shaver & Scott, 1991) of entrepreneurial intentions, searching for opportunities, discovery of opportunities, evaluation, and exploitation (Eckhardt & Shane,

2003; Shook, Priem, & McGee, 2003). Entrepreneurial ventures are the outcome of intentions to create and maintain a business (Bird, 1988, 1989). Entrepreneurial intentions predict the employment status choice of becoming an entrepreneur better than demographic variables

(Katz, 1992; Kolvereid, 1996). I examine entrepreneurial intentions in full-time workers, university staff, and students rather than current entrepreneurs to increase understanding of the differences between individuals with varied levels of entrepreneurial intentions.

Entrepreneurial researchers have examined entrepreneurs’ personality since

Schumpeter’s (1934) identification of entrepreneurs as the drivers of economic growth. Early research found that need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), locus of control (Mescon &

Montanari, 1981), and risk-taking propensity (Brockhaus, 1980) predicted entrepreneurship.

Critics suggested personality has only modest success in predicting entrepreneurship, the amount of personality variables assessed was confusing, and that researchers examined personality variables without theory (e.g., Chandler & Lyon, 2001; Gartner, 1988, 1989).

More recently, personality has gained a resurgence in the field of entrepreneurship, possibly because of the acceptance of the Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992)

13 and meta-analyses that found consistent effects beyond individual studies. A meta-analysis discovered consistent differences between entrepreneurs and managers on four of the five

FFM traits (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Another meta-analysis found that specific traits related to entrepreneurship predicted entrepreneurial success better than broad FFM traits (Rauch &

Frese, 2007). A synthesis of five meta-analyses found personality predicted several outcomes including entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial performance. Narrow personality traits such as need for autonomy and self-efficacy predicted business creation and success

(Brandstätter, 2011). Other studies have found narrow traits predict outcomes better than broad traits. For example, the Measure of Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Abilities

(Ahmetoglu, Leutner, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011) of vision, proactivity, creativity, and opportunism predicted entrepreneurial success (Leutner, Ahmetoglu, Akhtar, & Chamorro-

Premuzic, 2014).

While personality has once again become important in studying entrepreneurship, biologically-based personality theories such as RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000) have not been examined, which are arguably a more accurate understanding of the person. Each of the studies in this thesis incorporates RST. Chapters two is a literature review of RST. Chapter three is a conceptual article on process models that is based on RST. Chapter four examines how RST predict divergent thinking creativity. Chapter five examines entrepreneurial intentions from the perspective of disinhibition, which arose from RST according to the response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993). Chapter six examines entrepreneurial intentions from the perspective of global and local processing. This also related to RST because both RST and global and local processing are lateralized brain functions. In RST, approach is related to the right hemisphere and withdrawal is related to the left hemisphere (Davidson, Ekman, Saron, Senulis, & Friesen, 1990). In global and local

14 processing, the right hemisphere is related to global processing and the left hemisphere is related to local processing (MacNeilage, Rogers, & Vallortigara, 2009).

Entrepreneurial cognition has recently become a prominent area of study (Baron,

2004). Entrepreneurial cognition is information processing regarding business opportunities, creation, and growth (Mitchell et al., 2002). While individuals may have biological predispositions, cognitions are important for entrepreneurial education, because entrepreneurs can improve and learn effective strategies (Palich & Bagby, 1995). Economists emphasize the demand side of entrepreneurship, where customers demand goods and services that entrepreneurs provide. Psychology researchers in contrast emphasize the supply side of entrepreneurship regarding personality characteristics and cognitions (Shaver, 1995;

Venkataraman, 1997). Cognitive strategies are necessary to exploit supply-side business opportunities even if demand exists (Gregoire & Shepherd, 2012; Lafuente & Salas, 1989). In this thesis, I examine several cognitive constructs: entrepreneurial intentions, divergent thinking creativity, attentional bias toward global processing and local processing, and mastery. I also examine supervisor rated organizational performance and supervisor rated job performance, which I interpret as a cognitive attentional bias toward global processing and local processing. Apart from chapter two, each of the chapters in this thesis incorporates cognition.

Chapter two is a review of original and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory in the five years from 2010 to 2014. The review is titled “Assessing the impact of revised

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory” and is under review at a psychology journal. While original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST; Gray, 1970, 1982a) is established in the literature, the authors revised the theory in the year 2000 to create revised Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). We assess the impact of the revision by examining the two primary self-report measures of o-RST and the three measures

15 designed to assess r-RST. We find that despite the revision undertaken 15 years ago, most studies continue to utilize o-RST constructs. We make recommendations based on these findings that we hope will assist future r-RST research. Original and revised RST are the primary biological personality systems and are relevant for examining entrepreneurship because entrepreneurs are individuals with a particular biology that may predispose them toward entrepreneurial intentions.

Chapter three is a conceptual chapter titled “How process models of personality based on revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory suggest a way to organize personality structure”. This chapter will be submitted to a psychology journal. I examine process models as the best basis for understanding personality. The type of process model I examine is where behavior is distally predicted by biology and proximally by socio-cognitive mechanisms such as goals (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010; Jackson, 2008). I also discuss how process models require a suitable foundation. RST is arguably the best foundation for process models because it is biologically based and well-established in the literature. While chapter three does not discuss entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial intentions are a key potential outcome for process models of personality.

Chapter four is an empirical chapter titled “How the Five Factor Model and revised

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict divergent thinking” (Walker & Jackson, 2014).

This chapter has been published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences (see

Appendix E for the published version of this chapter that has been reproduced with permission). The chapter examines personality and divergent thinking creativity. Divergent thinking laboratory tasks are open-ended idea tasks where participants generate multiple solutions to a problem (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Batey & Furnham, 2006; Furnham,

Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008; McCrae, 1987). Several studies have examined divergent thinking creativity with entrepreneurs (Behrens, Ernst, & Shepherd, 2014; Bierly,

Kolodinsky, & Charette, 2009; Gielnik, Frese, Graf, & Kampschulte, 2012; Gielnik, Kramer,

Kappel, & Frese, 2014; Lipper, 1987), but none in the context of personality.

In the divergent thinking creativity study, I compare two models of personality: the

FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Gray &

McNaughton, 2000). The FFM includes five description of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (McCrae &

Costa, 1997). Neuroticism is the tendency toward negative emotions; openness to experience is characterized by an interest in art, imagination, and intellectual ideas; extraversion is characterized by sociability and excitation; agreeableness is concern for social harmony; and conscientiousness is a tendency to be disciplined and achievement oriented (Costa &

McCrae, 1995). The FFM was developed through generating lexical descriptions of traits and conducting factor analysis on these traits. While the FFM has become the dominant personality model, some researchers criticize the FFM as having insufficient biological and theoretical foundations (e.g., Block, 1995, 2010).

In contrast to the FFM, r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000; Smillie, Pickering, &

Jackson, 2006) is based on neuroscience and animal learning research. Three building blocks are included in r-RST: the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), the Behavioral Inhibition

System (BIS), and the Fight/Flight/Freezing System. BAS is an approach orientation that is reward sensitive. BIS is an anxiety construct and acts as a comparator that evaluates conflicts between approach and avoidance. The Fight/Flight/Freezing System is a fear construct that is avoidance orientated and punishment sensitive (Corr, 2004; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). We also examine mastery, which is an approach goal focused on gaining skills and competence within a domain (Elliot & Sheldon, 1997; Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Mastery is a cognitive self- regulation mechanism to develop task-based skills without concern for the skills for others.

Mastery and r-RST are part of a process model where behavior is distally predicted by biology and proximally predicted by cognitions.

Using 130 business students, I found that both r-RST and FFM predict divergent thinking creativity. BAS positively predicted divergent thinking creativity through mastery, openness to experience positively predicted divergent thinking creativity, and fear negatively predicted divergent thinking creativity. I interpret these results as relevant for entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurs are likely to have an approach orientation that is sensitive to reward.

Entrepreneurs exert cognitive effort into tasks to gain intrapersonal skills and competencies, which is mastery. Entrepreneurs are also creative. They are innovators who engage in

“creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1952). Opportunity identification is arguably even a creative and imaginative process of combining new elements (Shepherd & DeTienne, 2005;

Ward, 2004). With experience, individuals may improve creative combinations through faster information processing (Lord & Maher, 1990). Divergent thinking is similar to the process of

“thinking outside the box” and discerning uses for objects that are unusual.

Chapter five includes two empirical studies. The chapter is titled “Disinhibition positively predicts psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions” and is under review at an applied psychology journal. In this chapter, I heed the recommendation to examine entrepreneurship and psychopathology (Hisrich et al., 2007). An entrepreneurship study found that entrepreneurs are moral, but less concerned with social conventions (Teal &

Carroll, 1999). Entrepreneurs can be obsessive about their pursuits (Kets de Vries, 1985) and have been described as mildly sociopathic (Winslow & Solomon, 1988). These potentially psychopathological characteristics may be due to entrepreneurs’ need for achievement

(McClelland, 1961). Entrepreneurs’ desire to succeed may override social and other constraints.

I examine entrepreneurs in the context of disinhibition. Disinhibition is reward sensitivity with low concern for consequences (Avila & Parcet, 2000; Vitaro, Brendgen, &

Tremblay, 1999). Disinhibition studies have found disinhibition is central to dysfunctional outcomes including psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and substance abuse (Krueger et al.,

2002; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Nigg, 2000). Researchers generally conclude that disinhibition leads to dysfunctional outcomes (Zuckerman, 1994). In contrast to the general negativity toward disinhibition, several researchers suggest that the disinhibition cluster of traits, including sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking, can be either dysfunctional or functional (Dickman, 1990; Jackson, 2011).

A field of research has developed examining corporate psychopathy (Babiak & Hare,

2006; Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). In contrast to research that investigates the relationship between psychopathy and the corporate sphere, I examined whether disinhibition can lead to either dysfunctional or functional outcomes. I examine the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy and the potentially functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions. I found that disinhibition positively predicted psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions in two studies. These studies develop a new model for understanding dysfunctional corporate behaviors by suggesting a shared underlying variable of disinhibition rather than a direct relationship. Decisions to persist with a venture may be influenced by personality (Holland &

Shepherd, 2013) and disinhibition may influence persistence.

Chapter five is an empirical chapter that includes two studies. The chapter is titled

“Are global thinkers higher in entrepreneurial intentions?” and is under review at a management journal. Attentional bias is a major research topic within visual perception and cognitive psychology (Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van

Ijzendoorn, 2007; Rogers, Andrews, Grasby, Brooks, & Robbins, 2000; Tsotsos et al., 1995;

Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996). While cognitive psychology is widely researched

19 within entrepreneurship (Baron, 1998; Shane, 2000) and attentional bias is widely researched within psychology, entrepreneurship scholars have yet to examine attentional bias. Research into attentional bias is important to understand the cognitive underpinning of venture creation and growth because these may relate to global processing. I examine attentional bias toward either global processing or local processing. I also examine the mediator of mastery to develop and self-regulate attentional biases into functional outcomes because attentional biases alone may not produce outcomes.

In study one, I used a laboratory task to discern that attentional bias toward global processing, defined as orientation toward the “big picture”, predicted entrepreneurial intentions through mastery. This suggests that individuals higher in global processing are more likely to develop cognitions of starting and maintaining a business. Global processing is developed into entrepreneurial intentions through the self-regulation mechanism of mastery.

In study two, I included organizational performance and job performance as organization indices of global processing and local processing. Organizational performance is a cognitive orientation toward tasks and behaviors that benefit the organization as a whole

(global processing), whereas job performance is an orientation toward individual tasks (local processing). I found that organizational performance predicted entrepreneurial intentions greater than job performance predicted entrepreneurial intentions, which indicates that individuals who orient toward the organizational as a whole are more likely to have entrepreneurial cognitions than individuals focused on their individual tasks. I also found that organizational performance predicted entrepreneurial intentions through mastery, which suggests that a global orientation predicts entrepreneurial cognition through the self- regulation and learning orientation of mastery. These two studies within chapter six are the first studies to examine attentional bias of global processing verses local processing within an entrepreneurship context.

In the appendix, I have also included three other articles that I have undertaken as side projects during my thesis. These articles are “A comparison of revised Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory with other contemporary personality theories” (Appendix B), “Moral emotions and corporate psychopathy: A review” (Appendix C) and “The dark side of mindfulness in the workplace: A Review” (Appendix D). These articles are outside the central themes of my PhD and so not included in the body of my thesis, but provide evidence of the depth and breadth of scholarship undertaken during my PhD.

In the five chapters within the body of this thesis, I use the term “we” rather than “I” because these chapters are written in the format of journal articles. In each of the five chapters, I am the first author and my supervisor, Professor Chris Jackson, is the primary coauthor. Similar to a normal Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, this thesis is my own work with the feedback of my supervisor. As such, I have included him as a coauthor for the publications. The chapter “Assessing the impact of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity

Theory” also includes a doctoral student and two other academics, but I am lead author and primary researcher. I have written assurance from the postgraduate coordinator within my school that I can include this chapter within my thesis.

Chapter 2: Assessing the Impact of Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Abstract

Gray and McNaughton revised Gray’s original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory in 2000, yet revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) has not been well integrated into the empirical literature. To address this problem, we review articles that use new measures of r-

RST and the two most widely used original RST (o-RST) measures in the five years from

2010 through 2014 inclusive. In 827 articles, we found few articles fully incorporate r-RST (n

= 31) or partially incorporate r-RST (n = 96), and most articles (n = 700) continue to use o-

RST. Our review reveals that between 10 and 15 years after Gray and McNaughton outlined evidence in favor of r-RST the majority of articles continue to use o-RST. We call for a moratorium on using o-RST measures now that good measures of r-RST are available. We advocate that the best current measure of r-RST is Jackson’s J5.

Assessing the Impact of Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

“At the time of writing (2006), most empirical studies continue to test the unrevised

(pre-2000) version of RST. But, in many crucial respects, the revised (2000) theory is very different”

Philip Corr (2008, p. 1)

Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) is a major reformulation of Gray’s (1982a) original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST).

While 15 years have passed since the revision, however, the impact of this revision on the empirical literature appears to be poor. To address this problem, we review articles that use the three new published measures of r-RST and the two most widely used measures of o-RST in the five years from 2010 through 2014. The three new published measures of r-RST are the

J5 (Jackson, 2009), the r-RST version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to

Reward Questionnaire for children (SPSRQ-C; Colder et al., 2011) and the Reinforcement

Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Smederevac, Mitrović, Čolović, & Nikolašević, 2014). The two main o-RST measures are the Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation

System scales (BIS/BAS scales; Carver & White, 1994) and Sensitivity to Punishment and

Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ; Torrubia, Avila, Moltó, & Caseras, 2001). The aim of this review is to assist researchers in determining the current state of r-RST research in comparison to o-RST research and map a way forward for the literature. Corr (2008) suggested that researchers continue to test o-RST despite the major differences in r-RST because of the lack of knowledge of the revision and lack of appropriate measures. This review examines the extent to which r-RST has been integrated into the literature in a more recent time period.

This review is timely because several developments have arisen within r-RST research. Fifteen years have passed since Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revision, which is

23 sufficient time to assess the effect of the revision on the literature. If we had conducted a review sooner, researchers would have been unable to integrate r-RST into their research.

The five years from 2010 through 2014 fall between 10 years and 15 years since the revision.

The year 2010 is one year after the J5 (Jackson, 2009) was published, which is the first published scale assessing r-RST. In 2011, the children’s measure of r-RST, the SPSRQ-C

(Colder et al., 2011), became available. In 2014, the RSQ (Smederevac et al., 2014) became available. Two years prior to 2010, a study advocated splitting the BIS in the BIS/BAS scales

(Carver & White, 1994) into a revised conception of the BIS and the Fight/Flight/Freezing

System (Heym, Ferguson, & Lawrence, 2008). The authors emphasized that the split BIS was a temporary measure before measures designed for r-RST became available (Heym et al.,

2008). The effect of these new developments can be examined in a literature review of o-RST and r-RST in the five years from 2010 through 2014 inclusive.

The British psychology researcher Jeffrey Gray (1934-2004) first outlined o-RST.

Gray’s o-RST improved and systematized Hans Eysenck’s (1957, 1967) previous theories

(for a review see Corr, 2008). The seminal texts are two books and three articles (Gray, 1970,

1982a, 1982b, 1987a, 1987c). Most personality models begin with a descriptive model and then investigate the underlying causes of the descriptive traits (Briggs & Myers, 1980; Costa

& McCrae, 1992; Eysenck, 1967; Goldberg, 1992; Zuckerman, 1979). Instead, o-RST begins with animal learning (Gray, 1987c) and from this basis outlines a neuropsychology of motivation, learning and emotion. The Behavioral Approach System (BAS) controls responses to conditioned reward and is related to impulsivity. The Behavioral Inhibition

System (BIS) controls responses to conditioned punishment and results in anxiety. Gray also outlined a third system called the Fight/Flight System (FFS), which controls responses to unconditioned stimuli. The FFS results in immediate responses of either rapid escape or defensive aggression. Because the FFS is a secondary punishment system, it was never

24 clearly implicated in the personality literature. The primary scales that assessed o-RST focused on the BIS and BAS without reference to the FFS (Carver & White, 1994; Torrubia et al., 2001).

Gray’s o-RST was revised based on neurobiological evidence that the motivational brain system should be divided into three systems. The seminal text is Gray and

McNaughton’s (2000) original text for the revision. Three other articles have also become seminal in the r-RST literature (Corr, 2004, 2008; Smillie et al., 2006). In the new model, the

BAS is relatively unchanged except that it controls responses to all rewarding stimuli rather than just conditioned stimuli. Moreover, the BAS was argued to more closely relate to extraversion than impulsivity (Smillie et al., 2006). The BIS no longer controls responses to punishment, but rather acts as a conflict detection system. The BIS evaluates approach- avoidance conflict, but there can also be approach-approach conflict and avoidance- avoidance conflict. The BIS assesses and resolves the conflict, which results in defensive approach and greater sensitivity to threat (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Instead of the BIS, the Fight/Flight/Freezing Systems (FFFS) is now the system that controls responses to all aversive stimuli, rather just conditioned aversive stimuli outlined in o-BIS. Based on animal learning, Freezing has also been added to the FFS. Similar to o-RST, these revisions are based on developments in animal learning and neuroscience (Gray & McNaughton, 2000;

Smillie et al., 2006), which makes r-RST unique among the personality systems.

The aim of the current study is to examine how r-RST has been integrated into the literature. We are especially interested in examining the impact of the J5 (Jackson, 2009),

SPSRQ-C (Colder et al., 2011), the RSQ (Smederevac et al., 2014), and split of the BIS scale into r-BIS and FFFS (Heym et al., 2008). This literature review of the five years from 2010 through 2014 inclusive details the current state of r-RST research. We will make recommendations based on this review that we hope will inform future r-RST research.

Literature Review Inclusion Criteria

We conducted a search of the Web of Science database using the search term

“reinforcement sensitivity theory” from 2010 through 2014. This search term captures both o-

RST and r-RST articles. We also searched citations of the five measures examined, the J5

(Jackson, 2009), SPSRQ-C (Colder et al., 2011), the RSQ (Smederevac et al., 2014), the

BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994), and the SPSRQ (Torrubia et al., 2001). We also examined citations of the article that recommended splitting the BIS scale of the BIS/BAS scales into r-BIS and FFFS (Heym et al., 2008). While some o-RST and r-RST articles may not be captured by this Web of Science search, such as non-English articles, this search includes most of the key articles. We do not believe the general direction of the results would be altered even if more articles were captured. We examined empirical articles published in journals that used measures of o-RST and r-RST. We excluded books, book chapters and conference proceedings. There are several other o-RST measures or measures related to o-

RST, but for simplicity we have excluded these measures. We also excluded theoretical articles and studies that used behavioral measures because the aim of the study is to assess the state of r-RST based on empirical research using self-report measures.

Results of Literature Review

The new measures of r-RST and two measures of o-RST were incorporated into 827 articles in the five years from 2010 through 2014 (see Table 1). Some articles included more than one measure. We found that the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) were still the dominant measure, being used in 708 articles (e.g., Roose, Bijttebier, Claes, & Lilienfeld,

2011; Skatova & Ferguson, 2011; Winterheld & Simpson, 2011; Yanagisawa et al., 2011).

We found that SPSRQ (Torrubia et al., 2001) was the second dominant measure with use in

Table 1

Articles with original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST) and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) measures o-RST or r-RST Scale Number of articles o-RST Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation System scales (BIS/BAS scales) 708

Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) 144 r-RST J5 12

Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire for Children (SPSRQ-C) 4

Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) 2

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ) 1

Note. Some articles used more than one measure. Non-English versions and children’s versions are presented together except for the r-RST version of the SPSRQ-C.

144 of the articles (e.g., Hundt et al., 2013; Soler et al., 2014; Williams, Hundt, & Nelson-

Gray, 2014).

We also examined studies that used scales designed for r-RST and found that these had some impact, but were used far less than the measures assessing o-RST. The J5 (Jackson,

2009) was the dominant r-RST measure, being used in 12 articles (Clark & Loxton, 2012;

Gardiner & Jackson, 2012; Hannan & Orcutt, 2013; Harnett, Loxton, & Jackson, 2013;

Hennegan, Loxton, & Mattar, 2013; Ivory & Kambouropoulos, 2012; Jackson, Loxton,

Harnett, Ciarrochi, & Gullo, 2014; Kambouropoulos, Egan, O'Connor, & Staiger, 2014;

Morton & White, 2013; Nob, 2013; Thompson, Hannan, & Miron, 2014; Walker & Jackson,

2014). Including the initial validation, the r-RST version of the SPSRQ-C was used in four articles (Becker et al., 2013; Colder et al., 2011; Lopez-Vergara et al., 2012; Vergara-Lopez,

Lopez-Vergara, & Colder, 2013). Including the initial validation, the RSQ (Smederevac et al.,

2014) was used in two articles (Mitrović, Smederevac, Čolović, Kodžopeljić, & Dinić, 2014;

Smederevac et al., 2014). The unpublished Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality

Questionnaire (RST-PQ; Corr & Cooper, 2015) was used in one study (Corr, Hargreaves-

Heap, Tsutsui, Russell, & Seger, 2013). This review discerns that the o-RST measures of the

BIS/BAS scales and SPSRQ are still used more extensively than the new measures of r-RST.

Using the Web of Science search term “reinforcement sensitivity theory”, we also found some r-RST studies using specific measures for fear and anxiety. The State-Trait

Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) was used as a measure of r-BIS in five studies (Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014; McNaughton, Swart, Neo,

Bates, & Glue, 2013; Neo, Thurlow, & McNaughton, 2011; Perkins, Cooper, Abdelall,

Smillie, & Corr, 2010; Wright & Hardie, 2011). The Fear Survey Scale (Wolpe & Lang,

1977) was used as a measure of FFFS in three studies (De Pascalis, Cozzuto, & Russo, 2013;

Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014; Perkins et al., 2010). The stress reaction scale in the

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Brief (MPQ-B; Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen,

2002) and the Welsh Anxiety Scale (WAS; Welsh, 1956) were both used in a study on anxiety in the context of r-RST (Lake, Baskin-Sommers, Li, Curtin, & Newman, 2011). We are pleased that these researchers have attempted to integrate r-RST into their research by using specific well known scales that attempt to uniquely measure fear or anxiety. We understand the desire to use established measures, but these measures were not specifically designed to measure r-RST. For future studies, we believe that using measures specifically designed for r-RST would improve the research. A benefit of measures designed for r-RST is that they distinguish between separate reactions associated with Fight, Flight, and Freezing.

We now turn to an analysis of the literature review. We have categorized the RST literature into three categories, because this will assist in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the RST research.

Categorization of the RST Literature

We have categorized the literature according to three areas: full r-RST, partial r-RST and full o-RST. Full r-RST is defined as studies that fully integrate r-RST. Three types of studies include full r-RST: studies using measures designed for r-RST, studies using alternative measures for fear and anxiety within an r-RST context, and studies that focus on

BAS within the context of r-RST. In terms of the BAS, the main difference in the change from o-RST to r-RST is that r-BAS concerns reward sensitivity to all stimuli and not just conditioned stimuli. Measures for o-BAS are thought to be generally suitable for r-RST since they do not provide much focus on conditioned stimuli (Smillie et al., 2006). Researchers examining the BAS using o-BAS measures should still interpret the results according to r-RST and acknowledge that the BAS is now reward sensitivity to all stimuli. Partial r-RST

Table 2

Categorization of original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST) and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) studies in the five years from 2010-2014

Type of study r-RST Partial r-RST o-RST r-RST designed measures 19

Alternative measures for r-RST 7

Behavioral Approach System study within an r-RST framework 5 o-BIS or Sensitivity to Punishment incorporates r-BIS and 62

FFFS o-BIS split into r-BIS and FFFS 34 o-RST only 700

Total 31 96 700

Note. o-BIS = original Behavioral Inhibition System, r-BIS = revised Behavioral Inhibition System, FFFS = Fight/Flight/Freezing System.

30 is defined as when r-RST is discussed but the authors still use scales designed for o-RST.

Two types of studies include partial r-RST: the authors either discuss that o-BIS incorporates r-BIS and FFFS or that o-BIS has been split into r-BIS and FFFS (Heym et al., 2008). Full o-

RST is defined as when o-RST measures are used. Most of these studies make no reference to r-RST. Some articles mention the lack of r-RST as a limitation. Table 2 displays the results for our categorization of scales in the RST literature in the five years from 2010 through

2014.

Full r-RST articles

We rated 31 articles being within the full r-RST category (see Table 2). These studies used one of the three measures designed for r-RST, alternative measures for r-RST, or were a

BAS study in the context of r-RST. They included the 12 articles that used the J5 (Clark &

Loxton, 2012; Gardiner & Jackson, 2012; Hannan & Orcutt, 2013; Harnett et al., 2013;

Hennegan et al., 2013; Ivory & Kambouropoulos, 2012; Jackson et al., 2014;

Kambouropoulos et al., 2014; Morton & White, 2013; Nob, 2013; Thompson, Hannan, et al.,

2014; Walker & Jackson, 2014), the four studies that used the r-RST version of the SPSRQ-C

(Becker et al., 2013; Colder et al., 2011; Lopez-Vergara et al., 2012; Vergara-Lopez et al.,

2013), and the two studies that used the RSQ (Mitrović et al., 2014; Smederevac et al., 2014), and one study (Corr, Hargreaves-Heap, et al., 2013) that used the unpublished RST-PQ (Corr

& Cooper, 2015). Seven studies used an alternative measure to separate fear and anxiety within the context of an r-RST study (De Pascalis et al., 2013; Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014;

Lake et al., 2011; McNaughton et al., 2013; Neo et al., 2011; Perkins et al., 2010; Wright &

Hardie, 2011). This included the Fear Survey Scale (Wolpe & Lang, 1977) as a measure of fear and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1983) as a measure of anxiety in an attempt to differentiate fear and anxiety. 31

Some studies explicitly mentioned that o-BAS measures are suitable for r-RST or interpreted their study within an r-RST framework. Most o-BAS studies made no reference to r-RST and we identified only five studies that appropriately integrated r-RST because they focused on the BAS within a context of r-RST (Avila et al., 2012; Barros-Loscertales et al.,

2010; Izadikhah & Jackson, 2010; Leone, Maricchiolo, & Presaghi, 2011; Svaldi, Naumann,

Trentowska, & Schmitz, 2014).

Partial r-RST articles

We identified 96 articles as belonging to the partial r-RST category because they used measures designed for o-RST, but attempted to integrate them into an r-RST framework.

We designated two types of studies to be included as partial r-RST: those acknowledged that o-BIS was a combination of r-BIS and FFFS, or those that split the o-BIS scale into r-BIS and

FFFS based on a study that used factor analysis and item content analysis (Heym et al.,

2008). Most of the studies acknowledged the limitations of using measures designed for r-RST and commented that validated scales assessing r-RST were required.

Sixty-two articles used measures that were designed for o-RST but acknowledged that o-BIS was a combination of r-BIS and FFFS (e.g., Ashby & Stritzke, 2013; Harrison,

Treasure, & Smillie, 2011; Rasmussen, Elliott, & O’Connor, 2012). Some even called the measure BIS-FFFS (e.g., Park et al., 2013). These studies sought to interpret the results to the best of their ability within the context of r-RST.

Thirty-four studies divided o-BIS in the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) into r-BIS and FFFS. Heym and colleagues (2008) recommended dividing the seven items of the o-BIS scale into four r-BIS items and three FFFS items based on the findings of their factor analysis and item content analysis. Some researchers conducted their own factor analysis prior to following the recommendation and found a similar two-factor solution with four r-BIS items and three FFFS items (e.g., Dissabandara, Loxton, Dias, Daglish, & Stadlin,

2012; Keough & O'Connor, 2014; Segarra, Poy, Lopez, & Molto, 2014; Vervoort et al.,

2010), but the majority of studies simply followed Heym and colleagues’ recommendation

(e.g., Broerman, Ross, & Corr, 2014; He, Cassaday, Bonardi, & Bibby, 2013; Heym &

Lawrence, 2010; Kaye, White, & Lewis, 2013; Keiser & Ross, 2011).

Others conducted another division of o-BIS into five r-BIS items and two FFFS items based on either item content analysis (Corr & McNaughton, 2008) or factor analysis (Beck,

Smits, Claes, Vandereycken, & Bijttebier, 2009; Cogswell, Alloy, van Dulmen, & Fresco,

2006; Johnson, Turner, & Iwata, 2003). Studies followed this division without their own factor analysis (Hardie & Wright, 2013; Wytykowska & Lewicka, 2011). The Corr and

McNaughton (2008) division may have been used less than the Heym and colleagues’ (2008) division because using two items to assess fear is less reliable than using three items.

While there appears to be conflict over some of the items being designated r-BIS or

FFFS, such as “If I think something unpleasant is going to happen I usually get pretty worked up” (Corr & McNaughton, 2008; Heym et al., 2008), we consider that splitting the BIS is an inappropriate use of the BIS scale (Carver & White, 1994) because it was not designed for r-RST. Moreover, the BIS in the BIS/BAS Scales was not designed to be split and the division has not been properly validated. The split BIS scale also fails to distinguish between

Fight, Flight and Freezing, which we believe is an important new direction for r-RST research.

Most of the researchers that split the BIS acknowledge these limitations themselves.

Even Heym and Colleagues (2008) who advocated the split o-BIS scale suggested this was a temporary measure whilst awaiting measures specifically designed for r-RST. Now that measures have been designed for r-RST, researchers can cease using measures designed for o-RST including the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) and SPSRQ (Torrubia et al.,

2001).

Full o-RST articles

We rated 700 articles as meeting the criteria for being in the full o-RST category (e.g.,

Aguinis, 1995; Aluja & Blanch, 2011; Bjørnebekk & Howard, 2012; Harbeck & Glendon,

2013; Kim & Lee, 2011; Monteleone, Scognamiglio, Monteleone, Perillo, & Maj, 2014;

Robertson, Miskey, Mitchell, & Nelson-Gray, 2013; Vega et al., 2013). These studies either made no reference to r-RST or briefly mentioned they awaited scales that assess r-RST. We note that o-RST scales were not the full focus in many of the studies. For example, many studies included the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) or SPSRQ (Torrubia et al.,

2001) as part of a battery of tests. For other studies, physiological measures were central to the design and several measures, including o-RST measures, were included for supplementary analysis. While we note that o-RST was not central to many of these studies, we still believe that the results would be improved with measures designed to assess r-RST.

We also note that some studies fully use o-RST measures, but define BIS in terms of the r-RST definition, which is BIS as a mechanism for detecting and resolving conflict between stimuli (e.g., Hahn et al., 2013; Lange, Leue, & Beauducel, 2012; Novovic, Misic-

Pavkov, Smederevac, Drakic, & Lukic, 2013; Slobodskaya, 2011). This confusion is warranted because the o-RST and r-RST literature includes well-cited theory articles espousing r-RST and well-cited empirical articles using o-RST measures. The optimal outcome is for all future articles to use scales designed to assess r-RST to reduce this confusion.

Corr (2008) suggested most studies continue to use o-RST. In the five years from

2010 through 2014, we similarly found that most studies continue to use o-RST. Some studies have full or partial integration of r-RST, but most make no reference to r-RST. Our hope is that this review alerts researchers to the need to use measures designed for r-RST, which will improve the quality of their clinical, educational and organizational research.

Unnecessary BAS Subscales

A further issue hindering r-RST research is the three unnecessary BAS subscales in the BIS/BAS Scales (Carver & White, 1994). The three subscales consist of Drive, defined as goal-directed motivation, Reward Responsiveness, defined as the experience of reward upon receipt, and Fun Seeking, defined as the desire for novelty. This division is widely used: 324 of the articles using the BIS/BAS scales from 2010 through 2014 inclusive analyzed results at the subscale level. The personality systems of o-RST and r-RST have a stronger foundation than most personality systems because o-RST and r-RST are based on animal learning and neuropsychology rather than a descriptive model with subsequent causal explanations. We agree with the authors of the SPSRQ (Torrubia et al., 2001), who suggest that the reasons for creating the BAS subscales were not clear. Gray extensively detailed the neurobiology of the

BAS (Gray, 1981, 1995; Gray & McNaughton, 1996) and it would not appear that the subscales align with neurobiology. We advocate that these three subscales are not justified from the research literature in animal learning or neuropsychology and the creation of them unnecessarily splits measurement from theory.

Using confirmatory factor analysis, some studies suggest that improved results are obtained through analysis at the subscale level than global level (Cooper, Gomez, & Aucote,

2007; Jorm et al., 1999; Leone, Perugini, Bagozzi, Pierro, & Mannetti, 2001; Ross, Millis,

Bonebright, & Bailley, 2002; Sava & Sperneac, 2006; Voigt et al., 2009). We suggest that confirmatory factor analysis is not the appropriate benchmark for making recommendations based on the principle that the underlying biological theory has never advocated three subscales of the BAS (Gray, 1982a, 1987b, 1990). Consistency with underlying biology and theory should be the determinant of the appropriateness of a scale. The SPSRQ (Torrubia et al., 2001) appropriately only has a measure of sensitivity to reward without any subscales.

Our hope is that researchers discontinue use of the BIS/BAS scales and that future r-RST scales do not include BAS subscales.

Moratorium on the BIS/BAS Scales and SPSRQ

In our investigation into r-RST in the five years from 2010 through 2014, we found that most studies continued to use the BIS/BAS Scales (Carver & White, 1994) or the SPSRQ

(Torrubia et al., 2001) and most interpreted their results according to o-RST. Fifteen years has passed since Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revision and the J5 (Jackson, 2009),

SPSRQ-C (Colder et al., 2011) and RSQ (Smederevac et al., 2014) have since been published. It is thus appropriate to call for a moratorium on the use of the BIS/BAS scales and SPSRQ. Poythress and colleagues (2008) called for a moratorium on the use of the BIS scale in the BIS/BAS scales for examining primary psychopathy. We agree and extend this call by suggesting a moratorium on the use of all measures designed for o-RST.

We now turn to an assessment of the three published r-RST measures that are currently in use.

The J5 (Jackson, 2009)

The J5 (Jackson, 2009) provides five scales measuring the BAS, BIS, Fight, Flight and Freezing. It is the first published r-RST measure and includes several improvements over o-RST measures. The BAS is now positively and appropriately correlated with the BIS as the

BIS in r-RST is defensive approach, which is approaching with care. The BAS did not need to associate with o-BIS in o-RST, because o-BIS mediated passive avoidance and extinction rather than defensive approach (Wilson, Barrett, & Gray, 1989). The BIS in the J5 is narrowly defined as social anxiety, following the suggestions of White and Depue (1999).

This provides the possibility of disentangling the BIS from the fear associated with Fight,

Flight and Freezing, but in so doing also defines the BIS much more narrowly than more widely understood conceptualizations of anxiety. While J5 partially succeeds in separating

36 the constructs of anxiety and fear, some positive correlation remains. This correlation may be because anxiety and fear are conflated constructs. For example, imagining a fear inducing stimulus will likely cause anxiety as well as fear. Fight is also related to the BAS in the J5, which suggests that Fight is not only driven by fear but is also correlated with predatory forms of aggression (as foreseen by Smillie et al., 2006).

Several studies use the J5 (Jackson, 2009), providing initial evidence for its utility.

The BAS positively predicted divergent thinking creativity, whereas fear negatively predicted divergent thinking creativity (Walker & Jackson, 2014). The J5 provided convergent and discriminant validity for a measure of maverickism (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012). Emotion dysregulation partially mediated the relationship between fear and posttraumatic stress symptoms (Hannan & Orcutt, 2013). Anxiety was predicted by r-BIS, stress was predicted by r-FFFS, depression was predicted by r-BIS when r-BAS was low, and psychological well- being was predicted by r-BAS and low r-Freezing (Harnett et al., 2013). Fear rather than anxiety reduced psychological acceptance and this result was correlated with reduced work engagement when workers found the job demanding (Clark & Loxton, 2012). Fear predicted alcohol use mediated by emotion-focused coping and avoidance-focused coping (Ivory &

Kambouropoulos, 2012). Fear predicted social anxiety through the ability to escape

(Kambouropoulos et al., 2014). Flight negatively predicted executive functioning (Jackson et al., 2014). Fear sensitivity predicted worse driving performance when driving in stressful conditions (Morton & White, 2013). The BAS predicted greater externally driven eating and one of the two studies found fear and anxiety predicted emotional eating (Hennegan et al.,

2013). Individuals with chronic childhood mistreatment displayed higher FFFS sensitivity

(Thompson, Hannan, et al., 2014). The BIS and FFFS but not the BAS predicted test anxiety, and Freeze was the stronger predictor of the subscales (Nob, 2013). Three studies compared o-RST with r-RST (Harnett et al., 2013; Hennegan et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2014) and

37 found improved results for r-RST. Some studies separated Fight, Flight and Freezing and found unique effects (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012; Harnett et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2014;

Morton & White, 2013; Nob, 2013). While two of these studies found low reliability for

Flight and Freezing (Harnett et al., 2013; Morton & White, 2013), in general these studies suggest that the J5 is a successful measure of r-RST.

Sensitivity to Punishment Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire for Children (Colder et

al., 2011)

The SPSRQ-C (Colder et al., 2011) is a validated measure that updates the SPSRQ

(Torrubia et al., 2001) as a caregiver report for children that incorporates r-RST. The measure separates fear and anxiety. The domains are Fear/Shyness, Anxiety, Drive, Responsiveness to

Social Approval and Impulsivity/Fun Seeking. Fear/Shyness is a measure of the FFFS and anxiety is a measure of r-BIS. The other three scales are measures of the BAS subscales in the BIS/BAS Scales (Carver & White, 1994): Drive is the same in both scales,

Responsiveness to Social Approval is Reward Responsiveness, and Impulsivity/Fun Seeking is Fun Seeking. As previously discussed, we do not believe that the BAS subscales in the

BIS/BAS scale accurately represent BAS physiology in o-RST (Gray, 1982a) or r-RST (Gray

& McNaughton, 2000), so we are just as critical of the split of BAS into three subscales in this questionnaire. As such, we recommend combining the BAS subscales to create a unidimensional BAS. Our hope is that future revisions of this scale will discontinue use of the subscales to reduce confusion among researchers that subscale analysis is providing detailed analysis even when underlying theory does not support it.

After the initial validation, three studies have used the SPSRQ-C. One study found that both the BAS and FFFS predicted alcohol outcome expectancy and increased alcohol intake (Lopez-Vergara et al., 2012). Another study found planning ability moderated the

FFFS and depression (Vergara-Lopez et al., 2013). BAS predicted Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder and FFFS predicted slow cognitive tempo (Becker et al., 2013). These studies differentiate between fear and anxiety, but all three use subscales and would be improved by combining the subscales in the analysis. In a future revision of SPSRQ-C, we would also prefer a separation of fear into Fight, Flight and Freezing, which is designed in the

J5 and RSQ. In short, we think subscales for the FFFS are appropriate given their theoretical meaningfulness in r-RST in contrast to subscales for the BAS which are not theoretically meaningful (Gray & McNaughton, 2000).

Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (Smederevac et al., 2014)

A newly published measure of r-RST is the Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire

(RSQ; Smederevac et al., 2014). We welcome this measure as a validated r-RST scale that separates Fight, Flight and Freezing. Apart from the validation study, the first study using the

RSQ found that “approaching” type prisoners were high on the BAS and Fight, “avoidant” prisoners were high on the BIS, Flight and Freezing, and “controlled” prisoners were low on all dimensions (Mitrović et al., 2014). This study provides initial evidence for the RSQ’s utility.

While we welcome the RSQ and suggest the scale has many similarities to the J5, we outline the following differences. In r-RST, BIS is defined as defensive approach (Gray &

McNaughton, 2000), which indicates that the BIS should positively correlate with the BAS.

In RSQ-BIS, the BIS is negatively correlated with the BAS, which suggests, together with the anxiety items, that the RSQ-BIS does not conceptually capture the role of the BIS as defensive approach as well as the J5. RSQ-BAS and RSQ-Fight are also strongly correlated

(r = .43), whereas the BAS and Fight are only weakly correlated in the J5 (e.g., r = .15 in

Jackson, 2009, study 1). Moreover, RSQ-BIS is strongly correlated with RSQ-Flight (r = .56) and RSQ-Freeze (r = .65), whereas r-BIS has a smaller correlation with r-Flight and r-Freezing in the J5. This suggests the J5 has better separation between the scales of fear and

39 anxiety as suggested by r-RST theory (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). RSQ-Fight is negatively correlated with RSQ-Flight (r = -.13) and RSQ-Freeze (r = -.25), whereas r-Fight is uncorrelated with r-Flight and r-Freezing in the J5 and positively correlated when the effects of sex are included (Jackson, 2009). Again, this suggests that the J5 more fully captures r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000) than the RSQ. The article introducing the J5 is a two study paper with exploratory factor analysis of the items in study one and confirmatory factor analysis in study two, whereas exploratory factor analysis was not conducted for the RSQ items (Smederevac et al., 2014). The J5 identified both a higher order FFFS and three subscales, whereas the RSQ only identified the three individual fear scales. The J5 sometimes has low reliability for the Flight and Freeze scales (Harnett et al., 2013; Morton & White,

2013), but we designate the J5 as slightly superior to the RSQ. We suggest that the current best measure of r-RST is the J5.

Unresolved r-RST Issues

Several issues remain unsolved regarding r-RST theory and measurement. From a theoretical perspective, r-RST suggests that anxiety and fear should be generally uncorrelated

(Gray & McNaughton, 2000). In practice though, studies using the J5 (Jackson, 2009) have found correlations between anxiety and fear. These correlations may be explainable in terms of the overlap in their expression as opposed to physiology. Another issue is that Fight should mostly relate to the other fear scales of Flight and Freezing, but studies have found that Fight also relates to the BAS (e.g., Jackson et al., 2014) and much less than expected with Flight and Freezing. These measurement issues suggest that anxiety and fear may overlap and that

Fight is different to Flight and Freezing even though they should all relate to fear. For example, individuals high in defensive Fight back may also be high in predatory aggression, which may distorts the correlations between approach and fear variables (see Jackson, 2009;

Smillie et al., 2006).

The difference between predatory aggression and defensive Fight appears unclear in the limited literature addressing this issue. Humans, for example, may have evolved predatory aggression as a long-term defensive reaction against potential predators (Leakey,

1967). Similarly, male baboons have been observed to organize assaults on predatory cheetahs to disrupt their hunt (Cloudsley-Thompson, 1965). Moreover, while behavioral expressions of high Fight, high Flight and high Freezing are relatively clear, behavioral expressions of low Fight, low Flight and low Freezing are less clear. Low FFFS may be one behavioral expression or low FFFS could be three separate behavioral expressions. We are unclear whether low fear is similar to or differs from behavioral expressions of fearlessness.

The FFFS may also need to include sex differences. While Jackson (2009) found that men are higher in Fight and women are higher in Flight and Freezing, sex differences are generally unexplored as yet. For example, we think it possible that male humans threatened by very serious assault by other males outside of modern society’s rules and regulations are likely to Fight or attempt Flight, whereas female humans may be more likely to Freeze. The gender differences in FFFS may be related to evolutionary psychology survival mechanisms.

Bracha (2004) suggests that women may be better able to escape death in a violent confrontation with very aggressive males through Freezing and submitting to rape. As a result, Freezing may enable survival, whereas defensive Fight or Flight may lead to death as men are usually larger, stronger and faster than women. In contrast, Freezing may not enable survival in men as they have no reproductive value to other men. When attacked by other men, the best chance of survival by men could be defensive Fight or Flight rather than

Freezing. In general, Fight or Flight strategies may enhance survival when more evenly matched in terms of size, strength and speed or when they favor the victim. Given that these variables are sex related, we think it important to take this variable into account.

Another issue is that at this stage research is insufficient to consider r-RST the basic model of temperament. The model has progressed considerably and aspires to be a general model encapsulating personality, motivation, emotion and psychopathology (Corr, 2009). It incorporates clinical research, basic non-human laboratory research, applied research and neuroscience and it has the capacity to continually develop with research as research develops. Nevertheless, substantial research is necessary before r-RST can be understood as the basic model of personality and in specific instances r-RST may be inadequate as an overarching model. These are just some examples of unresolved issues for r-RST that can be determined through research using modern measures of r-RST.

Conclusions

Our analysis of the use of r-RS in the five years from 2010 through 2014 inclusive suggests many strengths as well as areas for improvement. Despite Gray and McNaughton’s

(2000) introduction of r-RST in 2000, the overwhelming majority of studies still use measures designed for o-RST. We call for a moratorium on measures designed for o-RST including the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) and the SPSRQ (Torrubia et al., 2001) now that three scales designed for r-RST have been published. We suggest that the best scale currently available is the J5 (Jackson, 2009). Scales designed for r-RST distinguish between r-BIS as a comparator that detects and resolves conflict and the FFFS as a system that controls sensitivity to punishment. New measures such as the J5 also eliminate the unnecessary BAS subscales that hamper research because BAS physiology and theory suggest that the BAS is a unidimensional domain. We also anticipate researchers showing much more interest in the FFFS and in the differences between Fight, Flight and Freezing.

This review provides an overview of the previous five years of r-RST research; we hope this review inspires further clinical, basic and applied research that has closer proximity to current biology and theory.

Chapter 3: How Process Models of Personality Based on Revised Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory Suggest a Way to Organize Personality Structure

Abstract

We distinguish within-person, process models of personality from the more widely researched between-person models of personality. The primary difference between these two model types is that process models provide an understanding of the dynamic processes at the individual level, whereas between-person models only advance knowledge of differences between people. We argue that revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory provides an excellent building block for process models of personality in which temperament is re- expressed through socio-cognitive mechanisms. We review four personality process models based on revised or original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and demonstrate how such process models address research questions beyond the scope of between-person models. We advocate that process models of personality improve theoretical knowledge compared to between-person personality models and deserve greater attention.

How Process Models of Personality Based on Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity

Theory Suggest a Way to Organize Personality Structure

In theory and practice, researchers rarely differentiate among between-person models of personality and within-person models of personality. Between-person constructs cannot be assumed to generalize to psychological processes operating within individuals (Beal, Weiss,

Barros, & MacDermid, 2005; Borsboom, Mellenbergh, & van Heerden, 2003). In this article, we argue that conceptual and empirical confusion among between-person constructs and within-person processes limits theoretical understanding of personality and behavior. We suggest that within-person theoretical advancement in personality research could arise from process models of personality in which temperament is re-expressed through socio-cognitive processes. Such models are mostly associated with Elliot and Thrash (2002, 2010) and

Jackson (2008). We argue that revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Gray &

McNaughton, 2000) represents an established foundation for the development of more complex within-person process models of personality. The aim of this conceptual article is to suggest that process models of personality can enhance understanding of personality processes at the individual level and that r-RST provides an excellent foundation for such process models of personality.

This article is structured as follows. First, we describe the limitations of between- person personality models and discuss why within-person process models are essential for the development of personality theory. Second, we provide a rationale for the suitability of r-RST as the basis for process models of personality. Third, we review four personality models based on revised or original RST that can be considered process models, or precursors to such models. Finally, we conclude with several implications for the advancement of personality theory, as well as for the measurement of personality using process models.

Between-Person and Within-Person Personality

Researchers typically define personality traits as stable propensities, dispositional precursors, or latent potentials that reside within the individual (see Hoffman, Woehr,

Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011; Tett & Burnett, 2003). Hence, a personality variable describes an abstract construct. Researchers have traditionally sought knowledge of personality by determining a taxonomy of these abstract constructs that describe how individuals differ in terms of stable, surface-level dimensions of behavior (Revelle, 1995).

The problem with this approach is that a taxonomy of personality only provides an understanding of how individuals differ on these abstract constructs relative to each other and consequently cannot be used to understand how personality operates at the individual level.

Current between-person personality models were largely derived from the objectives and methods of early trait personality researchers. These researchers theorized that underlying dimensions of personality could be initially identified by analyzing adjectives in human language (i.e., the lexical hypothesis) and that such dimensions could be further refined through the use of exploratory factor analysis (see O'Connor & Jackson, 2010).

Importantly, because the goal of exploratory factor analysis is to maximize the extent to which a reduced variable-set can explain original, between-person variance, traits identified using exploratory factor analysis can be regarded as dimensions that maximally discriminate between people, based on responses to a wide range of self-report personality questions.

Traits identified by factor analytical methods are therefore useful because they can discriminate between people on the major surface-level dimensions. A widely researched between-person model is the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992), which identifies individual differences in Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience (McCrae & Costa, 1987).

While between-person models provide a framework for classifying and describing differences between people, they contribute little to understanding the causes of personality at the individual level. Between-person models such as the FFM do not explain within-person cognitive and affective dynamics (Cervone, Shadel, Smith, & Fiori, 2006). Such models merely summarize overt dispositional tendencies relative to other individuals. They can be thought of as “static” models, because trait profiles are based on average behavior and are thought to exert direct effects on outcome variables. This static nature of contemporary personality models means that they cannot explain the behavioral variation, experienced by individuals interacting within a complex system of social structures, norms and interpersonal relationships (Cervone et al., 2006; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). They also cannot explain the potentially unique set of processes underlying the behavioral averages (traits) for any one individual (see O'Connor & Jackson, 2010).

Some scholars propose post hoc remedies, such as Trait Activation Theory (Tett &

Guterman, 2000), to address the failure of between-person personality models to capture the dynamics of personality. According to Trait Activation Theory, trait-relevant cues arouse the behavioral expression of that trait. Individuals are expected to exhibit trait-like behavior only when a particular trait is activated by a situation relevant to that trait (Tett & Burnett, 2003).

For example, situational cues relevant to aggression activate aggressive behavior in individuals high in trait aggression.

The problem with Trait Activation Theory is that it neglects to explain the within-person processes responsible for unique patterns of trait expression at the individual level. It neglects higher order cognitive processes such as goals, which can be used to direct behavior (Sheldon, 2014). Additionally, Trait Activation Theory is not consistent with the well documented within-person variability in trait activation (Fleeson, 2001). Most importantly, Trait Activation Theory does not describe the mechanism through which

46 situational factors influence within-person processes and consequent behavior. For example,

Trait Activation Theory is unable to determine why similar aggression-inducing stimuli produce different types of aggressive behavior in different people; the same cue may evoke a slap in one individual and a fatal punch in another individual. Contemporary personality models then, are best conceptualized as between-person classifications of inter-individual differences rather than sets of theorized within-person processes responsible for individual behavior (see also Saucier, Hampson, & Goldberg, 2000).

In contrast to between-person models of personality, within-person models of personality advance understanding of the processes underlying behavioral tendencies at the individual level. For the purpose of the current article, we are interested in process models that are consistent with biologically-based models of personality but which are built upon this basis by incorporating socio-cognitive mechanisms as shown in Figure 1. The dichotomy between mainly biologically-based personality models of temperament and mainly socio- cognitively-based personality models of character is readily discernible in the literature as described by Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson and Martin (2009). Indeed, some of the most important contributions to the personality literature can be placed as being principally related to being mainly biological such as Gray and McNaughton (2000) and Eysenck (1967), whereas others are mainly socio-cognitive such as Bandura (1999). Attempting to define what is meant by biological or temperament and socio-cognitive or character is difficult because it seems unlikely that personality can be understood as purely biological or socio- cognitive in origin. Nevertheless, some have tried. Cloninger and colleagues (Cloninger,

1987; Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993) suggest that temperament is heritable and largely influenced by genetics, whereas character is related to insight learning and is shaped both by temperament and environmental factors (Cloninger et al., 1993). Cloninger and colleagues’ understanding of temperament and character is supported by research indicating

Socio -

Temperament cognitive Behavior mechanisms

Figure 1. A general process model of personality in which behavior is distally predicted by temperament and proximally predicted by socio-cognitive mechanisms.

48 that the perceptual and conceptual memory systems are distinct both functionally (Parkin,

Reid, & Russo, 1990) and anatomically (Bachevalier, 1990; Phillips, Malamut, Bachevalier,

& Mishkin, 1988). Elliot and Thrash (2002) refer to biological constructs as networks of sensitivities present in early childhood, heritable and stable across the life span that mediate immediate affective, cognitive and behavioral responses to stimuli. In contrast, socio- cognitive variables are involved in self-regulation and provide a strategic component of behavior not available in lower animals. Since some research has questioned Cloninger and colleagues’ (1993) dichotomy of personality into genetic and environmental traits (Ando et al., 2002; Ando et al., 2004; Gillespie, Cloninger, Heath, & Martin, 2003), we adopt a more cautious view, which is that personality constructs can be construed as varying along a continuum that stretches from the “mainly biological” to the “mainly socio-cognitive”. For ease of use and because we are unable to determine such specificities, we refer to variables as biological or socio-cognitive in origin whilst noting that this is a simplification.

Figure 1 also claims that biological factors are distal to the socio-cognitive factors.

This perspective is consistent with Elliot and Thrash (2002, 2010) who briefly refer to self- regulation processes as channels through which temperament operates. From the perspective of goals mediating RST, they provide non-causal evidence in favor of the general relationship proposed in Figure 1 (see Elliot & Thrash, 2002, Figure 2, p. 813). Self-regulation processes re-expressing temperament are also briefly described by Humphreys and Revelle (1984) and

Jackson (2008, 2011). One the most recent examples of this kind of model is used by

Hasking, Boyes and Mullan (2015). An example is how the intensity of a flight reaction might be reduced by the degree of self-control exercised when confronted by threatening stimuli such that more considered behavior is displayed.

A further advantage of within-person models over between-person models is the scope to explore causal relationships between processes underlying behavioral tendencies.

Within-person approaches seek to determine why and how personality processes operate and develop within individuals. Such approaches start with the well supported assumption that individual tendencies initially stem from individual differences in underlying sensitivities to external stimuli (such as reward and punishment), and that ultimate, surface-level personality is the product of complex interactions (such as between the environment and individual sensitivities to the environment). Between-person approaches on the other hand seek to determine average differences between people based on self-reported differences in personality. Since they are static, they can only compare individuals at a single point in time and consequently cannot generally take into account the complex effects of gene-environment interactions over time. Causal relationships between personality variables are therefore beyond the scope of between-person models. Process models provide insight into within-person dynamics that extend beyond between-person differences.

How to organize constructs into a theoretical framework that is widely acceptable remains a major problem for the field of personality research (Emmons, 1995), and we think it is timely to highlight the idea that socio-cognitive variables may generally mediate biological variables in the prediction of behavior. We believe it offers an important theoretical view of the structure of personality that has been insufficiently explored since both Elliot and Thrash (2002) and Humphreys and Revelle (1984) pay little attention to this model. In this paper, we present models and review evidence that follow the general perspective of Figure 1. We advocate that this way of organizing personality variables offers an important theoretical step forward for personality research that to date has not had the broad exposure it deserves.

This review concerns process models of personality that are theory-driven rather than primarily factor-analytically derived from existing trait-adjective measures. We propose that the building block of personality process models should be the temperament foundations of

50 motivation, emotion and behavior as proposed by r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000).

Consistent with other researchers, we consider r-RST to be the best temperament model of the foundations of personality (e.g., Bijttebier, Beck, Claes, & Vandereycken, 2009; Elliot &

Thrash, 2002; Smillie et al., 2006). We will restrict our review to personality models based on revised or original RST that are conceptualized as process models or have the potential to be understood as process models. In the next section, we advocate that r-RST currently represents “the best available” building block for a temperament-based process model of personality. Corr, DeYoung and McNaughton (2013) also focus on r-RST as a central personality model.

Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) r-RST is a model of individual differences in behavior, based on a set of within person systems related to reward, punishment and motivation. According to r-RST, predictable behavior at the individual level is due to underlying biases in systems that cause individuals to approach reward (Behavioral Approach

System; BAS), avoid punishment (Flight/Fright/Freeze System; FFFS) and resolve dilemmas between approach and avoidance (Behavioral Inhibition System; BIS).

According to r-RST, the BAS is activated through exposure to rewarding stimuli and the termination of punishment. The BAS mediates reactions to rewarding stimuli (i.e., approach) via the hopeful emotion of “anticipatory pleasure” (Corr, 2008, p. 10). The BAS is associated with positive emotions, both before and after contact with the appetitive stimuli.

The BAS is also associated with non-rewarding stimuli and emotional responses such as frustration in response to the omission of anticipated reward (Smillie et al., 2006). Sensitivity to the BAS has been linked to trait Extraversion and trait Novelty Seeking (Smillie, Pickering

& Jackson, 2008; Cloninger et al., 1993).

In contrast to the BAS, the FFFS mediates reactions to threatening stimuli (i.e., Fight,

Flight and Freeze) via the escape oriented emotion “fear”. Accordingly, threatening stimuli result in Flight or Freeze in situations where the threat can be avoided; it will result in defensive aggression when a threat-stimuli cannot be avoided (Carver & Harmon-Jones,

2009; Corr, 2004; Gray & McNaughton, 2000; Smillie et al., 2006). Anger is a motivation for approach-related aggression, whereas fear is a motivation for defensive aggression (Harmon-

Jones & Sigelman, 2001).

The BIS in r-RST is a conflict detection and resolution system activated when conflicts occur (e.g., approach–avoidance, approach-approach and avoidance-avoidance)

Approach-avoidance conflicts arise when attaining a goal requires approaching a source of punishment or threat (Perkins, Kemp, & Corr, 2007). BIS activation inhibits behavior because it directs attention and arousal resources to the cause of the conflicting stimuli

(Smillie et al., 2006), which results in anxiety, heightened risk assessment and cautious approach behavior.

A substantial literature concerns o-RST, while a more recent literature has emerged using r-RST. Compared to other personality models, o-RST and r-RST are distinctive because they are based on a solid foundation of theory (e.g., Gray & McNaughton, 2000) and ultimately view traits as consequences of individual differences in underlying within-person processes. In contrast, between-person personality models arose from factor-analytical techniques with post-hoc theory development (Block, 1995, 2001; Costa & McCrae, 1992;

Eysenck, 1967). For these reasons, we advocate that r-RST is suitable as the temperament building block for process models of personality as recently argued by Hasking, Boyes and

Mullan (2015). While o-RST measures, such as the BIS/BAS Scales (Carver & White, 1994), are established self-report measures, we believe that measures incorporating r-RST are most suitable because they are contemporary with current understandings of biology and theory

(Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The J5 (Jackson, 2009) measure of r-RST has several articles attesting to its utility (Clark & Loxton, 2012; Donahue & Caraballo, 2015; Gardiner &

Jackson, 2012; Hannan & Orcutt, 2013; Harnett et al., 2013; Hennegan et al., 2013; Ivory &

Kambouropoulos, 2012; Jackson et al., 2014; Kambouropoulos et al., 2014; Morton & White,

2013; Nob, 2013; Thompson, Hannan, et al., 2014; Walker & Jackson, 2014) although other published measures are emerging, such as the Sensitivity to Reward and Sensitivity to

Punishment Scale caregiver report for children (Becker et al., 2013; Colder et al., 2011;

Lopez-Vergara et al., 2012; Vergara-Lopez et al., 2013) and the Reinforcement Sensitivity

Questionnaire (Mitrović et al., 2014; Smederevac et al., 2014).

Process Models of Personality Based on Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

We propose that r-RST is an appropriate building block for process models of personality, because as described above, r-RST is currently the most well developed, internally consistent and empirically supported, within-person model of motivation and behavior. We also propose that adequate process models of personality should consider psychological processes beyond those described by r-RST, because characteristic human behavior is known to reflect a broad set of psychological processes. In this paper, we use the term process model to refer to a model where behavior is distally predicted by temperament and proximally predicted by socio-cognitive mechanisms. Consistent with extensive research in the area, we regard the r-RST temperaments (i.e., underlying sensitivities to punishment and reward) as being primarily influenced by genetics, and we regard the socio-cognitive components of personality as being influenced by both genetics and the environment (see

Elliot & Thrash, 2010). Cloninger and colleagues (1993) refer to these distinctions as temperament and character respectively.

Several researchers have developed models associated with o-RST and r-RST that are process models or have the potential to be process models of personality. These process

Table 1 Comparison of personality models based on o-RST and r-RST that are process models or could be process models Personality Model Amount of Derivation Strength Weakness research Original and Substantial o-RST Theory then measurement Biological base for r-RST is No major theoretical or measurement weakness. revised research, some current and suitable as a process Substantial o-RST research and emerging r-RST research Reinforcement r-RST research model Sensitivity Theory Psychobiological Substantial Theory then measurement Incorporates biology Biology (temperament) and socio-cognitive mechanisms Model of (temperament) and socio-cognitive (character) are both direct predictors of behavior. Could Temperament and mechanisms (character) be a process model where behavior is predicted by Character Temperament through Character Response Some Theory then measurement Incorporates biological approach Does not include self-report measurement. Only specific Modulation behavior with socio-cognitive types of socio-cognitive mechanisms (attention and Model mechanisms to predict response reflection regarding associations between behavior and modulation or lack of response outcome) modulation (disinhibition) Approach and Limited Theory then measurement Conceptualized as a process model Limited empirical research supporting the model Avoidance where approach and avoidance Temperament predict behavior through goals Model Hybrid Model of Limited Simultaneous theory Conceptualized as a process model Does not include a measure of punishment sensitivity Learning in and measurement where Sensation Seeking (similar Personality to BAS) predicts behavior through socio-cognitive mechanisms

Five Factor Substantial Measurement then (some) Successful at predicting outcomes Conceptualized through factor analysis with a weak basis Model theory in biology and theory. Domains could either be biological or socio-cognitive so not suitable as process model

54 models are causal because temperament precedes and influences the socio-cognitive mechanisms that predict behavior. The Psychobiological Model of Temperament and

Character (Cloninger et al., 1993) is a comprehensive model that includes biological and socio-cognitive dimensions. Biological dimensions are understood to manifest in early childhood and are largely based on o-RST, whereas dimensions of character are said to mature across the lifetime and are influenced by temperament and episodic learning. The

Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) is based on animal learning and accounts for cognitions such as attention and reflection. The Response Modulation Model is supported by substantial research. The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot

& Thrash, 2002, 2010) has also been subjected to limited research, but is a process model based on theory where approach and avoidance temperament predict behavior through goals.

Finally, the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008) includes the biological base of Sensation Seeking and integrates socio-cognitive mechanisms and experiential mechanisms. The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality has so far has gained limited attention in the psychological literature. We have not considered the Five Factor Model

(Costa & McCrae, 1992), because the Five Factor Model was derived through measurement and cannot, on its own, be operationalized as a process model. Table 1 outlines the amount of research, derivation, strengths and weakness of each model. We now analyze each of these personality models in turn.

The Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al., 1993)

Cloninger, Svrakic and Przybeck (1987) were among the first to propose a model of personality incorporating components related to underlying neurobiological systems as well as higher-order socio-cognitive mechanisms. According to the model, individual differences in neurobiological systems manifest as dimensions of “temperament”, whereas individual differences in socio-cognitive mechanisms (i.e., schemas) manifest as dimensions of

Novelty Seeking Temperament

Harm Avoidance Temperament

Reward Dependence Temperament

Persistence Outcomes Temperament

Self-Directedness Character

Cooperativeness Character

Self-Transcendence

Character

Figure 2. Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al., 1993).

“character”. Cloninger argued that surface-level personality, (i.e., observable characteristic behaviors that make up traits), could be reduced to variation along four dimensions of temperament (Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance, Reward Dependence and Persistence) and three dimensions of character (Self Directedness, Cooperativeness and Self-Transcendence).

Novelty Seeking was defined as impulsive, reward-seeking behavior and thought to reflect

BAS activity; Harm Avoidance was defined as avoidant, fearful behavior and was proposed to reflect (original) BIS activity; Reward Dependence was characterized by the development of warm social relationships and Persistence was defined as the tendency to persist in the face of non-reward (see Figure 2).

In contrast to dimensions of temperament, individual differences in character were understood to theoretically reflect the maturity of “schemas”, which were defined as perceptual biases in conscious information processing based on experientially learnt cognitions (Cloninger et al., 1993). Self-Directedness was proposed to reflect schemas related to the “self”, and thus Self-Directedness was characterized by responsible, purposeful and goal directed behavior. Cooperativeness was thought to reflect schemas about “others”, and thus Cooperativeness was characterized by empathic, helpful and team oriented behavior.

Finally, Self-Transcendence was suggested to reflect schemas about nature in general, and thus Self-Transcendence was characterized by transpersonal and spiritual behavior.

According to Cloninger (1998), character matures across the lifespan and is dependent on insight learning and reflection. Character, as opposed to temperament, was thought to influence individuals’ overall level of functioning. For example, Cloninger (1998) asserts that

“the adventurous temperament (i.e., low Harm Avoidance, high Novelty Seeking and low

Reward Dependence) may lead to either Antisocial Personality Disorder (when character is immature) or imaginative exploration and objective independence in scientific research

(when character is mature)” (p.4). Cloninger regards character as a significant component

57 of personality related to individuals’ overall level of success at adapting to society.

Overall, the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al.,

1993) was appealing. The model was comprehensive; it was based on extensive psychometric, longitudinal and neuropsychological research, and consisted of several convincing, relatively straightforward and testable tenets. Cloninger and colleagues’ fundamental contribution was arguably an attempt to incorporate socio-cognitive models of learning into a model of personality. Indeed, while most traits reflect approximately 50% environmental factors (Heath, Cloninger, & Martin, 1994), few researchers have attempted to incorporate these environmental factors.

However, a major limitation of the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and

Character (Cloninger et al., 1993) relates to the lack of clarity about the relationship between temperament and character, and consequently whether the model can strictly be regarded as a process model. Initially, when outlining the theoretical basis of the model, it was implied that linear relationships should exist between dimensions of temperament and character

(Cloninger et al., 1993). For example, Cloninger and colleagues’ (1993) stated, “heritable temperament factors initially motivate insight learning of self-concepts [i.e. character]” and that “both temperament and character development influence one another and motivate behavior [italics added]” (p. 978). However, when discussing the empirical development of character dimensions, Cloninger and colleagues (1993) stated that dimensions reflecting the two personality sub-systems should be uncorrelated. Overall then, despite its appeal, the

Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al., 1993) cannot be considered a process model.

We believe the inability for the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and

Character (Cloninger et al., 1993) to be a process model is unfortunate, because the inclusion of a specified temperament-character relationship would not only transform the

Temperament Character Outcomes

Figure 3. Model of how the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character

(Cloninger et al., 1993) could be operationalized as a process model.

Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character into a process model, but also nullify several currently valid criticisms of the model. In particular, such an association is consistent with psychometric work showing that temperament and character are not independent but correlated (Duijsens, Spinhoven, Goekoop, Spermon, & Eurelings-Bontekoe, 2000;

Hansenne, Delhez, & Cloninger, 2005; Jylha & Isometsa, 2006; Pelissolo et al., 2005) as well as genetic research indicating that temperament and character dimensions have a common genetic basis (e.g., Ando et al., 2002; Ando et al., 2004). Such an indirect effect is also consistent with broader personality research showing relationships between temperament and character-like dimensions (e.g., approach and avoidance and goal setting; Elliot & Thrash,

2002; O'Connor & Jackson, 2008).

We believe a substantial revision to the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and

Character (Cloninger et al., 1993), with r-RST incorporated as the temperament basis to correlate temperament and character traits, would substantially improve the model (for an in depth discussion about the relationship between temperament and character see O'Connor &

Jackson, 2010). We think that a revised model, in which temperament predicts behavior through character (see Figure 3), is important, because the Psychobiological Model of

Temperament and Character continues to be highly cited in both the personality and clinical literature (overall the original paper has been cited over 3500 times, with over 1000 citations since 2010).

The Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993)

The Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) is a model that explains the processes underlying trait disinhibition. Response modulation is defined as the automatic shifting of attention and momentary halting of goal-directed behavior in response to external feedback (Newman, Schmitt, & Voss, 1997; Patterson & Newman, 1993). Deficits in response modulation underscore failures of self-regulation and disinhibition (e.g.,

Gorenstein & Newman, 1980; Newman & Lorenz, 2003). Disinhibition is a failure to inhibit an already initiated and previously reinforced approach-motivated behavior, even when such behavior ceases to lead to reward. The Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman,

1993) is arguably the best known framework of disinhibition. The Response Modulation

Model conceptualizes disinhibition as occurring from a cognitive-attention deficit that impairs the ability to inhibit behaviors and to reflect upon and learn from the consequences of these behaviors. Disinhibited individuals are described as being overly focused on rewards, having working memory and executive functioning deficits and being insensitive to future consequences (Bogg & Finn, 2010; Gorenstein & Newman, 1980; Patterson & Newman,

1993). The Response Modulation Model conceptualizes disinhibition as resulting from four consecutive stages that are distinct yet temporally overlap (Patterson & Newman, 1993;

Wallace & Newman, 2008). The Response Modulation Model can therefore be considered a within-person process model of personality because it provides a clear multi-stage sequence of how and when within-person and situational factors interact to produce disinhibition.

The four stages of the Response Modulation Model are shown in Figure 4. In stage one, individuals establish a dominant approach response to reward. In stage two, an aversive event of punishment, omission of reward or delayed reward is experienced which may or may not produce emotional arousal. In stage three, individuals who experience emotional arousal from the aversive event in stage two exert an effortful, adaptive switch to halt their behavior in response to the interruption. Individuals who experience less emotional arousal from the aversive event in stage two do not modulate their response, but rather persist with their dominant response. Individuals who are overly focused on primary reward-goals rather than secondary cues have higher levels of disinhibition. In stage four, individuals have the opportunity for retrospective reflection, whereby individuals can form causal associations

Stage 3 Stage 2 Stage 4 Stage 1 Response Aversive event may Retrospective Establishment of a modulation or non- or may not produce reflection or lack of dominant response response modulation emotional arousal retrospective depending on reflection emotional arousal

Figure 4. The Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) where disinhibition is defined as the lack of response modulation.

62 between behaviors and their consequences. Individuals unable to retrospectively reflect are likely to persist with their disinhibition in the future.

The Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) is founded on two primary sources of data: animal septo-hippocampal system lesion studies (e.g., Gorenstein &

Newman, 1980) and experiments with psychopathic individuals (e.g., Newman, Patterson,

Howland, & Nichols, 1990; Newman, Patterson, & Kosson, 1987; Newman & Wallace,

1993). Based on similar neurobiological systems, o-RST (Gray, 1971, 1975, 1987c; Gray &

Smith, 1969) informed and complemented the early development of the Response

Modulation Model (Newman & Wallace, 1993; Patterson & Newman, 1993; Wallace,

Newman, & Bachorowski, 1991). The behavioral and attentional processes of the septo- hippocampal system are central to response modulation (Gray, 1971, 1982a).

In stage one, the o-BAS becomes activated because the BAS modulates sensitivity to reward. When provided with reward in the absence of punishment, the o-BAS facilitates focus of attention on relevant cues and supports the initiation of goal-directed behavior. In stage two, the o-BIS becomes activated. The o-BIS detects the aversive experience in stage two of the model, causes emotional arousal and discerns the appropriate course of action.

Individuals with a strong or overactive o-BIS will be better equipped to detect aversive information, whereas individuals with an underactive or weak o-BIS will be less able to attend to negative stimuli in the environment. In stage three, the relative strength of the BAS compared to the BIS will determine whether an individual will stop and cognitively appraise the situational stimuli (BIS activity) or persist with goal-directed activity (BAS activity and disinhibition). In stage four, individuals engage in or do not engage in retrospective reflection. Failure to retrospectively reflect indicates a diminished capacity to alter future actions. Retrospective reflection is fundamental to support associative learning (Gray &

McNaughton, 2000).

The Response Modulation Model can be considered a process model of personality.

Behavior is distally predicted by biology through the approach behavior to reward in stage one of the model. The o-BIS is also implicated in the model from stage two and beyond.

Behavior is proximally predicted by socio-cognitive mechanisms because individuals reflect in stage four on the approach behavior to reward, aversive event, emotional arousal and response modulation. Response modulation of non-disinhibited individuals involves shifting from automatic processing to controlled processing of attentional resources (Patterson &

Newman, 1993). Reflection influences future behavior because it causes associations between stimuli and behavior. The Response Modulation Model is a process model based on o-RST, but the breadth as a process model is limited. The Response Modulation Model includes the biological systems of approach and avoidance, but the only socio-cognitive mechanism is reflection on the association between stimuli and responses, rather than a broader range of socio-cognitive constructs such as goals. Although each discrete stage of the Response

Modulation Model has been examined in various laboratory studies, there is no self-report questionnaire or other method for direct measurement of the complete Response Modulation

Model, which makes it difficult to study (see Table 1). Moreover, Response Modulation

Model has yet to be integrated into r-RST.

The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010)

The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) is a process model of personality built on distal o-RST processes. The Approach and Avoidance

Temperament Model theorizes that individuals self-regulate with regard to their approach and avoidance predispositions (see Figure 5). Self-regulation mechanisms such as goals can express propensities in the same direction as their dispositional valence. For example, goals can self-regulate an approach temperament to achieve work performance. Goals can also override approach and avoidance proclivities and redirect behavior toward the opposite

Approach Approach Temperament Goals

Outcomes

Avoidance Avoidance

Temperament Goals

Figure 5. The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010).

valence (Elliot & Thrash, 2010). For example, goals can override a fear of public speaking to engage in rather than avoid public speaking. The two types of goals included are approach goals and avoidance goals. Approach goals include mastery goals to exert cognitive effort into a task to achieve skills without concern for the skills of others, as well as performance- approach goals to achieve better outcomes in a task relative to other individuals. Avoidance goals are performance-avoidance goals to reduce incompetence relative to others (Elliot &

Thrash, 2002). Approach and avoidance temperaments are distal predictors of observable behavior and goals are proximal predictors of behavior (Elliot & Sheldon, 1997).

The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) has yet to incorporate r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), in which the function of the BIS is revised and the FFFS is added. Researchers are therefore unclear on how to conceptualize the

Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model in the context of r-RST. Approach may be the same in both models, but avoidance in the Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model may be accompanied by either anxiety (BIS) or fear (FFFS) or both anxiety and fear (BIS and

FFFS). Apart from the original studies (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010), few researchers have tested or developed this model. One study found approach predicted work performance through mastery (Izadikhah, Jackson, & Loxton, 2010). Another study discerned that Flight from r-RST could predict higher-order cognitions of executive functioning from this perspective (Jackson et al., 2014). Despite these shortcomings, the Approach and Avoidance

Temperament Model is a process model of personality that describes within-person dynamics. Similar to the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008), the

Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model seems to focus on some important mechanisms as opposed to providing a complete description of personality. We think the

Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model offers promise for parsimoniously understanding the functioning of underlying personality processes.

The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008)

The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008) is a process model with

Sensation Seeking as the distal predictor and socio-cognitive mechanisms as proximal predictors of behavior (see Figure 6). We include the Hybrid Model of Learning in

Personality in this article because Sensation Seeking is defined by Jackson (2011) as similar to the BAS in r-RST and the two scales share some items (Jackson, 2009). In the Hybrid

Model of Learning in Personality, outcomes are derived from proximal socio-cognitive mediators of distal temperament. Theoretically, individual differences on these socio-cognitive dimensions reflect different strategies individuals use to develop sophisticated behaviors associated with high performance and adaption to society (see

O'Connor & Jackson, 2008). The key tenet of the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality is that Sensation Seeking positively predicts functional behavior through socio-cognitive mechanisms, whereas Sensation Seeking predicts dysfunctional behavior when directly expressed.

Sensation Seeking predicts functional behavior in the Hybrid Model of Learning in

Personality through four different types of socio-cognitive mechanisms. Mastery is defined as cognitive effort to gain mastery of skills and competencies (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Deep learning is inspired by the experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984) and is defined as deep thinking regarding the direction and theory behind the goals. Conscientiousness is similar to consciousness in the Five Factor Model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman,

1990) and is defined as allocating effort toward goal achievement. Rationality is defined as a concern for emotional independence, logic and objectivity. The Hybrid Model of Learning in

Personality is a process model generally influenced by the Approach and Avoidance

Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) in which temperament

Functional

Outcomes

Rationality

Mastery

Conscientious ness

Deep Learning Sensation Dysfunctional

Seeking Outcomes

Figure 6. The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008).

68 underpins distally predicted outcomes through socio-cognitive mechanisms. The Hybrid

Model of Learning in Personality is also similar to Rational Emotive Behavior Theory (Ellis,

2004; Ellis & Dryden, 1997) because both are related to the development and maintenance of rationality (Jackson, Izadikhah, & Oei, 2012).

The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008) includes several benefits over other personality models. The model suggests that Sensation Seeking can lead to dysfunctional and functional outcomes, whereas Sensation Seeking is usually believed to lead to dysfunctional outcomes (Zuckerman, 1994). The model simultaneously integrates measurement with theory as both are dependent upon each other. Simultaneous measurement with theory contrasts with the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which provides measurement with minimal theory and r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), which provides post-hoc measurement after theory. The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality has practical and clinical applications because the model operationalizes Sensation Seeking as a relatively stable biological predisposition, whereas the socio-cognitive components are malleable and susceptible to intervention.

The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008) integrates features of existing models including biological, socio-cognitive and experiential models (see Figure 7).

Most personality models only incorporate one basis, which reduces their explanatory power.

Original and revised RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000) and the Big Three (Eysenck, 1967) are biologically-based. Socio-Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1999) and Goal Orientation theories (Grant & Dweck, 2003) are socio-cognitive based. The Experiential Learning Model

(Kolb, 1984) is an experiential personality model. Some personality models include aspects of biology and socio-cognitive mechanisms, including the Response Modulation Model

(Patterson & Newman, 1993), which includes biology similar to o-RST combined with attention and reflection. The Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character

Biological Socio-cognitive

Reinforcement Response Modulation Social Cognitive Theory Sensitivity Model Theory Goal Orientation

Approach and Avoidance Big Three Temperament Model Psychobiological Model of

Temperament and Character

Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality

Experiential Learning Model

Experiential

Figure 7. Conceptualization of personality theories (adapted from Jackson, 2008).

(Cloninger et al., 1993) includes the biology of temperament and socio-cognitive mechanisms of character. The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002,

2010) includes the biology of temperament and socio-cognitive mechanisms of goals. The

Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality is the only personality model that incorporates all three foundations of biological mechanisms, socio-cognitive mechanisms and experiential learning, which gives it greater depth.

Several studies provide evidence to support the Hybrid Model of Learning in

Personality (Jackson, 2008). A study using full-time workers found that Sensation Seeking,

Mastery, Rationality and Deep Learning predicted maverickism (Gardiner & Jackson, in press). In a sample of depressed patients, Sensation Seeking positively predicted lower depression when including the indirect effect of socio-cognitive mediators (Jackson,

Izadikhah, et al., 2012). Sensation Seeking through socio-cognitive mediators predicted higher grade point average in Australian and Ugandan students (Jackson, Baguma, &

Furnham, 2009). Sensation Seeking predicted work, leadership and university outcomes through mastery and directly expressed sensation seeking predicted counterproductive work behavior (Jackson, Hobman, et al., 2009). Sensation Seeking predicted functional laboratory task behavior and functional work behavior when mediated through Mastery (O'Connor &

Jackson, 2008). Sensation Seeking predicted dysfunctional behavior when directly expressed, but Sensation Seeking predicted work outcomes when expressed through Mastery (Jackson,

2011). Mastery partially suppressed the effect of Sensation Seeking on antisocial behavior and Sensation Seeking predicted functional work outcomes when expressed through Mastery

(Jackson, 2011).

These studies support the efficacy of the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality

(Jackson, 2008) as an effective personality process model in predicting various forms of performance. The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality focuses on the simple concept

71 that curiosity and exploratory behavior derived from Sensation Seeking can predict high performance, low performance and even dysfunctional performance. Similar to the Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010), the Hybrid Model of

Learning in Personality has not been widely utilized despite its appeal as a within-person process model of personality. The main weakness of the Hybrid Model of Learning in

Personality is that it does not seek to provide a complete description of personality but instead focuses on what the author would claim is one of the fundamental processes underlying personality. As such, the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality does not include a measure of negative emotion and punishment sensitivity as a temperament based distal variable advocated by r-RST (see Table 1). Moreover, the model only captures some of the most important socio-cognitive mediators, while others such as locus of control, for example, may be equally important. Nevertheless, initial research by Jackson and colleagues lead us to advocate that the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality is a personality process model that can be applied to many settings including work, community and clinical contexts.

Discussion

This conceptual article outlines the strengths of r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000) as the foundation for general within-person process models of personality. We advocate that r-RST represents “the best available” model of temperament whilst accepting that it must be subject to more scrutiny and further development. One important consequence of better understanding the biology of personality from the perspective of r-RST (Gray &

McNaughton, 2000) is that we must move on from idea of avoidance (Elliot & Thrash, 2002) and instead understand negative emotionality in terms of anxiety and fear (also suggested by

Elliot & Thrash, 2010).

Several models support the utility of r-RST as a stable foundation for personality process models. These include the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character

(Cloninger et al., 1993), the Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993), the

Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) and the Hybrid

Model of Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008). We are pleased that researchers have extensively used the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character, but think the model has more potential as a process model in which temperament is the distal predictor of behavior and character is the proximal predictor of behavior. The Response Modulation

Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) is also widely used to understand psychopathy and disinhibition, but the four causal stages are not identifiable as a readily available assessment, and the breadth of socio-cognitive mechanisms incorporated is narrow. The Approach and

Avoidance Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) and the Hybrid Model of

Learning in Personality (Jackson, 2008) have been under-utilized in the literature for unknown reasons, yet we think they hold considerable promise as a way to better understand some of the most important within-person processes that capture the general dynamics of personality. Each of these process models represents the socio-cognitive perspective of personality in different ways which leads to the important question of which one is best? We think that each process model provides an understanding of the ways in which temperament can be channeled against a specific set of criteria and therefore that none of the process models are better or worse in this respect. Instead, we advocate that each of these process models are useful for the criteria they aim to predict, with only the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al., 1993) and Hybrid Model of Learning in

Personality (Jackson, 2008) likely having broader appeal.

At least three major issues arise for personality process models associated with r-RST.

First, personality process models are necessarily causal, yet empirical evidence supporting causality is limited because most personality process studies use cross-sectional methods.

While such studies often report that temperament distally predicts behavior and socio-

73 cognitive mechanisms proximally predict behavior (e.g., Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010;

Jackson, 2008), cross-sectional studies provide poor evidence that temperament temporally precedes socio-cognitive mechanisms. To determine causality, longitudinal experimental design (Maxwell & Cole, 2007) or a causal chain of events is necessary, for example, a sequence of linked experiments with randomized controls (Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005).

Twin studies can also determine the causal mechanisms that predict behavior (Kendler,

Karkowski, & Prescott, 1999). Evidence for process model causality would substantially contribute to the personality process literature.

Second, none of the process models reviewed in our paper exactly match r-RST, since the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al., 1993), the

Response Modulation Model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) and the Approach and Avoidance

Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) accommodate o-RST. Jackson’s (2008)

Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality aligns with BAS in r-RST because it contains similar items, but does not include BIS or the FFFS.

Third, all the models, with the exception of Response Modulation Model (Patterson &

Newman, 1993), are trait models. An alternative conception is to examine process models of personality at a temporal or episodic level (e.g., a demanding task), in which state-like constructs such as emotions are conceptually linked to within-person self-regulatory processes (Beal et al., 2005). Such event-based models provide a method to reconceptualize the trait structure of the self as a dynamic entity (see Dinh & Lord, 2012). We think state- level research will add much to the r-RST literature and to the understanding of personality process models. At least one researcher has begun to develop state-level r-RST measures

(Rosalky, 2013) and we believe that both state-level and trait-level r-RST measures can enhance understanding of personality processes.

In conclusion, we believe this article highlights the value of r-RST as a building block for process models of personality. While research has advanced substantially regarding r-RST, few researchers as yet use measures of r-RST such as the J5 (Jackson, 2009) and process models drawing upon RST (e.g., Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010; Jackson, 2008). We hope our review will elicit broader interest in these models which aim to answer the basic question of “what is personality?”

Chapter 4: How the Five Factor Model and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Predict Divergent Thinking

Abstract

From the Five Factor Model (FFM), we hypothesized openness to experience would positively predict divergent thinking. From revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-

RST), we hypothesized revised Behavioural Approach System (r-BAS) would positively predict divergent thinking and revised Fight/Flight/Freezing System (r-FFFS) would negatively predict divergent thinking. Moreover, we hypothesized that r-FFFS would incrementally predict divergent thinking after controlling for significant FFM traits.

Consistent with Elliot and Thrash (2010), we also hypothesized an indirect effects model with r-BAS predicting divergent thinking through mastery. Using 130 participants, we found support or partial support for all hypotheses. Our results indicate that biological factors of personality associated with r-RST as well as openness to experience predict divergent thinking. The distinction between fear and anxiety in r-RST was also supported with fear and not anxiety negatively predicting divergent thinking.

How the Five Factor Model and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Predict

Divergent Thinking

Creative thinking concerns the cognitive processes associated with novel and useful ideas (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). It is the basis for generating originality in a range of endeavours including science, art, philosophy, technology and business. In the current volatile economic climate, businesses need creativity to attain competitive advantage and continued viability (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, &

Waterson, 2000). Creative personality studies associate it with brilliance and adaptive behaviour as well mental and affective disorders (Belli, 2009; Fisher, Heller, & Miller, 2013).

Our study on how personality predicts divergent thinking, a key critical feature of creativity, contributes therefore to several applied fields and advances theoretical models of creativity.

Researchers commonly use divergent thinking tasks to measure creativity, as these tasks may best assess the construct (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999; Runco, 2007). In divergent thinking tasks, participants list creative uses for everyday objects. The two most common scoring methods are fluency and originality. Fluency is the raw number of creative items

(Torrance, 2008). It assesses ability to spontaneously create a flow of ideas (Rubinstein,

2008). Fluency is consistent with Eysenck’s (1996) definition of creativity as the ability to produce inventions, insights and ideas that experts assess as valuable in domains ranging from science, aesthetics, society and technology. Originality is the uniqueness of the item compared to other items in the dataset (Wallach & Kogan, 1965). The statistical infrequency of an idea is an index of creativity because individuals must temporarily abandon conventional thinking and build new associations between stimuli that no other person has perceived (Rossman & Fink, 2010). Mednick’s (1962) theory posits that differences in creativity are variations in cognitive association abilities. Eysenck (1993) suggests that increased originality arises from high levels of dopamine, which reduces latent inhibition.

Individuals with fewer constraints and inhibitions in their thinking use a wider array of information with which to make associations (Chermahini & Hommel, 2010).

Divergent thinking tasks using the Five Factor Model (FFM: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) have consistently identified that openness to experience predicted divergent thinking (e.g. Feist, 1998; King, Walker, &

Broyles, 1996; McCrae, 1987; Silvia et al., 2008; Wuthrich & Bates, 2001). Openness to experience also predicted other aspects of creativity, such as self-assessed creative ability

(Kaufman & Baer, 2004) and creative accomplishments (Feist, 1998, 2006). We predict:

Hypothesis 1: Openness to experience will positively predict (a) fluency and (b) originality in divergent thinking.

Researchers devised the FFM with a focus on producing a model with good psychometric design, yet some scholars are sceptical of the FFM because of its poor integration with theory and biology (e.g., Block, 2010). One attempt to develop a biopsychological personality theory is Gray’s (1970) Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

(RST). This provides a biological basis for approach and avoidance motivations. Response to reward is mediated by the Behavioural Approach System (BAS), which is associated with extraversion (Gray, 1987c; Smillie et al., 2006). Gray (1987c) designated avoidance as the

Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). This is associated with punishment sensitivity and the personality trait of anxiety. BIS has some overlap with neuroticism. Research has supported the BAS and BIS biopsychological model of personality (e.g. Boksema, Topsa, Westera,

Meijmana, & Lorist, 2006; Clark & Loxton, 2012; Gray, 1987c; Lang, 1995).

RST underwent a major revision that separates anxiety and fear into two systems

(Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Animal data, psychology and neuroscience support this revision (De Pascalis, Strippoli, Riccardi, & Vergari, 2004; Dissabandara et al., 2012). The

78 new model is termed revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and comprises three building blocks of personality: r-BAS, r-BIS and r-FFFS (Perkins et al., 2007).

Several studies support the distinction between fear and anxiety in r-RST. Perkins and colleagues (2007) found anxiety and fear separately predicted performance in a military training setting. Jackson (2009) found that r-Fight and r-Flight predicted delinquency and everyday psychopathy in students, whereas r-BIS results were non-significant. A study of workers found that r-FFFS rather than r-BIS predicted lower psychological acceptance and was correlated with lower work engagement when participants considered the job demanding

(Clark & Loxton, 2012). Another study found r-BIS predicted depression when r-BAS was low, and r-BAS, low o-BIS and low r-Freeze predicted psychological well-being (Harnett et al., 2013). A study found that r-flight negatively predicted executive functioning (Jackson et al., 2014). The authors advocated that fear restricts higher order cognitive functioning so cognitive resources can be channeled into a single minded flight response. Similarly, we think fear rather than anxiety will negatively impact divergent thinking, because divergent thinking consumes higher order cognitive resources and generates multiple cognitions which the fear response would usually restrict. This view adds depth to our current understanding that the role of r-BIS is to resolve conflicting demands, whereas the role of FFFS is to quickly respond to aversive stimuli (Morton & White, 2013). While the divergent thinking task includes time pressure, we do not believe this will trigger the approach-avoidance conflict detector role of the r-BIS, because the task does not associate producing ideas with reward or punishment. We predict:

Hypothesis 2: r-FFFS will negatively predict (a) fluency and (b) originality in divergent thinking

This study compares FFM with r-RST in the prediction of divergent thinking. FFM and r-RST differ in many aspects but one principal way is the inclusion of r-FFFS and its

79 separation from anxiety in r-RST, whereas the FFM more broadly measures emotionality in terms of neuroticism. Given our expectation that r-FFFS will predict divergent thinking, we expect r-FFFS to predict divergent thinking incrementally over and above significant predictors from the FFM:

Hypothesis 3: r-FFFS will incrementally negatively predict (a) fluency and (b) originality in divergent thinking with openness to experience controlled.

Dual systems theory by Elliot and Thrash (2010) and Jackson (2008) suggests r-BAS indirectly predicts functional outcomes through mastery. Elliot and Thrash (2010) suggest that observable behaviour arises from self-regulation as well as personality. Individuals use self-regulation such as mastery to gain momentum toward positive outcomes (Elliot &

Sheldon, 1997). Individuals high in mastery work hard to achieve goals. They accept mistakes and difficulties as learning experiences (Nicholls, 1992).

Several studies suggest r-BAS and mastery predict functional outcomes. A study found r-BAS positively impacted supervisor ratings of work performance, mediated by mastery and moderated by psychological climate (Izadikhah et al., 2010). Jackson (2011) found sensation seeking (related to r-BAS) through mastery predicted work performance.

Grant and Dweck (2003) found a goal-driven approach orientation to learning predicted educational achievement. We expect a similar impact for r-BAS on divergent thinking given that reward seeking concerns curiosity, exploration and novelty seeking, and r-BAS on divergent thinking through mastery given that mastery hones energizing drives (see Elliot &

Thrash, 2010; Jackson, 2011). We predict:

Hypothesis 4: r-BAS will positively predict (a) fluency and (b) originality in divergent thinking.

Hypothesis 5: r-BAS will positively predict (a) fluency and (b) originality in divergent thinking through mastery, which is an indirect effects model.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 130 management students who participated in return for course credit (mean age = 19.29 years, SD age = 1.98 years, age range 17 to 30 years; female

60%, male 40%). An a priori power analysis using G*Power suggested 107 participants would enable 95% power to detect a medium sized effect at the .05 level of significance

(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).

Measures

Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992). FFM is the primary personality assessment tool. We used the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006).

Openness to experience is associated with appreciation for art, curiosity and variety of experience. Conscientiousness is associated with self-discipline, duty and need for achievement. Extraversion is associated with positive emotions, energy and sociability.

Agreeableness is associated with compassion and cooperativeness. Each measure included

10-items rated on a five-point scale.

The neuroticism scale from FFM has some association with the r-BIS and r-FFFS. It appears to be a conflation of depression, anxiety and fear items. The scale includes five depression items, four anxiety items and one fear item. Because neuroticism includes four anxiety items, we expect neuroticism to associate with r-BIS more than r-FFFS.

revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Jackson, 2009). The Jackson 5 is the only published measure of r-RST. It is rated on a five-point scale and has three biological “building blocks” of personality with r-BAS, r-BIS (anxiety) and r-FFFS (fear).

Revised FFFS is an 18-item measure of fear spanning r-fight, r-flight and r-freeze. Because we theorise fear will predict creativity, we analyse our data at the r-FFFS level of analysis as opposed to the underlying sub-scales of r-FFFS.

Mastery (Jackson, 2008). Mastery is a competence and learning subcategory of goal orientation associated with exerting effort into tasks. Participants rate the 15 items on a three- point scale. Several studies have validated this scale (Jackson, 2011; Jackson, Baguma, et al.,

2009; Jackson, Izadikhah, et al., 2012). Theoretically, researchers propose mastery as a mediator that re-expresses undirected energy toward functional outcomes (Elliot & Thrash,

2010; Jackson, 2008).

Brick Divergent Thinking Task (Guilford, 1967). The “brick” divergent thinking task is an established measure where participants list alternate uses for a brick. Three minutes was allocated as a standard time-frame that studies have shown to discern variance between participants (e.g. Furnham et al., 2008). We scored answers in terms of “fluency” and

“originality”. For fluency, we calculated the raw number of ideas produced (Furnham &

Nederstrom, 2010). For originality, we used the Wallach and Kogan (1965) method. We awarded one point for each response that occurred once only in the dataset. While researchers score originality using several methods, Silvia and colleagues (2008) suggest researchers most commonly use the Wallach and Kogan (1965) method.

Procedure

Participants used the YWeDo online cognitive laboratory (Jackson, 2010). YWeDo is available at www.ywedo.com/lab.asp. Fraser and Boag (2010) compared YWeDo to paper- and-pencil data collection methods and found few differences. The second author created

YWeDo as a resource for the research community.

Results

As Table 1 suggests, the measures showed at least adequate reliability. We removed the item “I avoid work that makes me look bad” from r-BIS to improve reliability. Several correlations were significant. We found a significant positive correlation between r-BAS and both fluency and originality. There were no significant correlations between r-BIS and either

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations between variables

M SD α C E A N r-BAS r-BIS r-FFFS Mastery Fluency Originality

O 34.10 5.48 .79 .25* .33* .30* -.06 .39* .11 -.21* .46* .27* .18*

C 32.82 4.77 .68 .02 .09 -.09 .06 .07 -.17 .21* .09 -.001

E 31.66 6.93 .86 .34* -.14 .53* .19* -.24* .51* .15 .07

A 37.83 4.87 .76 -.12 .15 .03 -.13 .12 -.01 -.03

N 30.54 5.94 .80 -.01 .17 .39* -.22* .01 -.07

r-BAS 22.12 3.48 .78 .30* -.19* .52* .19* .21*

r-BIS 19.74 2.84 .71 .28* .28* -.01 -.11

r-FFFS 55.28 7.56 .70 -.25* -.25* -.31*

Mastery 20.49 5.65 .76 .20* .09

Fluency 8.96 5.48 .55*

Originality 1.01 1.57

Note: O = Openness to experience, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism.

* p < .05.

Table 2

Multiple regression results of FFM predicting fluency and originality

DV IV Β T p R2

Fluency Openness to experience .26 2.71 .01

Conscientiousness .03 .38 .71

Extraversion .11 1.13 .26

Agreeableness -.13 -1.35 .18

Neuroticism .03 .28 .78 .09

Originality Openness to experience .21 2.08 .04

Conscientiousness -.05 -.54 .59

Extraversion -.03 .28 .78

Agreeableness -.10 -1.05 .30

Neuroticism -.07 -.80 .46 .05

Table 3

Multiple regression results of r-RST predicting fluency and originality

DV IV Β T p R2

Fluency r-BAS .14 1.52 .13

r-BIS .01 .13 .90

r-FFFS -.22 -.2.38 .02 .08

Originality r-BAS .20 2.17 .03

r-BIS -.10 -1.11 .27

r-FFFS -.25 -2.73 .007 .13

85 fluency or originality. We found a significant negative correlation between r-FFFS and both fluency and originality. Openness to experience had a significant positive correlation with both fluency and originality. Mastery correlated with r-RST measures, FFM measures and fluency.

We performed a series of multiple regression analyses to examine the impact of FFM and r-RST on divergent thinking. In each analysis, we used all personality scales from FFM or r-RST to predict either fluency or originality. We found Openness to experience positively predicted both fluency and originality (see Table 2). Originality was positively predicted by r-

BAS; fluency and originality were negatively predicted by r-FFFS (see Table 4). The proportion of variance accounted for was similar for both FFM (R2 = .09) and r-RST (R2 =

.08) on fluency. For originality, the proportion of variance accounted for was substantially higher in r-RST (R2 = .13) than FFM (R2 = .05).

Results suggest r-FFFS is a unique construct separate from r-BIS regarding their intercorrelation (r = .28, p < .05) and that only r-FFFS predicted creativity. Our results support developing evidence that fear differs from anxiety (Jackson, 2009; White & Depue,

1999).

We completed further multiple regression analysis with r-FFFS and openness to experience to determine if r-FFFS uniquely predicted creativity incrementally beyond the

FFM. As Table 4 suggests, r-FFFS negatively predicted originality, whereas openness to experience was non-significant. Openness to experience positively predicted fluency, whereas r-FFFS was non-significant.

In support of dual systems theory by Elliot and Thrash (2010), we tested an indirect effects model of the impact of r-BAS on fluency through mastery (see Figure 1.). The model had good fit of the data (CMIN = 1.244, p = .265, CMIN/DF = 1.244, GFI = .994, AGFI =

Table 4

Multiple regression results of r-FFFS and openness to experience predicting fluency and originality

DV IV Β T p R2

Fluency Openness to experience .24 2.68 .008

r-FFFS -.15 -1.72 .088 .09

Originality Openness to experience .13 1.45 .15

r-FFFS -.23 -2.65 .009 .08

.52* .20* r-BAS Mastery Fluency

Figure 1. Path model of an indirect effect of r-BAS on fluency through mastery.

* p < .05.

.962, NFI = .974, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .043). The significant pathways and the good model fit suggest an indirect effects model of r-BAS predicting fluency through mastery. We found no evidence that r-BAS predicted originality through mastery.

Discussion

The results support or partially support all five hypotheses. Concerning the first hypothesis, we found openness to experience positively predicted divergent thinking regarding both fluency and originality. This is consistent with established meta-analytic research (Feist, 1998). It suggests imagination, art appreciation, and desire for intellectual conversation impact idea generation and the ability to make unique associations between stimuli.

The second hypothesis was supported with fear but not anxiety predicting fluency and originality. This strengthens previous research suggesting fear and anxiety are different constructs. Fear appears to negatively predict several outcomes not impacted by anxiety

(Clark & Loxton, 2012; Jackson et al., 2014). Personality appears to include three “building blocks” of personality rather than just approach and avoidance (e.g. Elliot & Thrash, 2010).

This research also supports the r-RST model of personality given the prominence of r-FFFS.

We think fear may restrict cognitive capacity for higher order cognitions such as divergent thinking and channel them into primal responses such as flight, freeze and defensive fight, which are more specific fear responses oriented to survival behaviour.

The third hypothesis was partially supported as fear uniquely predicted originality after accounting for the variance explained by openness to experience. We also found that openness to experience predicted fluency rather than fear. We think fear might be more of a primal system depleting cognitive resources from divergent thinking, whereas openness to experience is likely to be more of a higher order cognitive system. From this perspective, we are not surprised they correlate (r = -.21, p < .05) and yet are potentially separate antagonistic

89 systems influencing cognitions. Our research suggests that fear is more important than openness to experience in restricting cognitions associated with unique divergent thinking.

Fear may restrict higher order cognitions and therefore the quality of the cognition. Our research also suggests that openness to experience is more important than fear in providing a broad range of divergent thinking cognitions. This view provides insight into openness to experience which is broadly defined and therefore more oriented towards fluency. Overall, we think openness to experience and fear both play a role in divergent thinking.

The fourth hypothesis was supported with r-BAS positively predicting originality.

We did not find r-BAS predicted fluency. This suggests that r-BAS is an energiser that impacts the uniqueness of ideas, but not the number of ideas produced. We think this provides an interesting theoretical understanding of r-BAS, because it appears that reward- seeking is related to the pursuit of idea quality (i.e., novelty) more than quantity. The finding supports the idea that r-BAS concerns reward seeking activity, since originality is likely to provide more stimulation than fluency.

The fifth hypothesis was supported with an indirect effects model for the impact of r-BAS on fluency through mastery. Elliot and Thrash (2010) suggest that r-BAS is a distal driver of reward oriented behaviour, and learning goals re-express this energy toward effort oriented outcomes. Our research supports this dual systems perspective, since fluency is likely to be an effort oriented outcome requiring the expenditure of much cognitive resources over a relatively long period of time, whereas originality may require less cognitive effort.

Previous studies show mastery directs the drive toward functional outcomes (Clark &

Loxton, 2012; Izadikhah et al., 2010) and our research provides further evidence to give weight to the models of Elliot and Thrash (2010) and more broadly Jackson (2008).

This study provides several important contributions to the literature. Our results sustain the view that anxiety and fear are separate systems which uniquely predict outcomes

(Gray & McNaughton, 2000), as we found fear but not anxiety reduced divergent thinking.

Elliot and Thrash (2010) advocate personality is best understood in terms of “approach temperament” and “avoidance temperament”. They noted that they were waiting for further evidence regarding r-RST and the distinction between anxiety and fear. This study reinforces a three domain approach to biological personality with two distinct avoidance motivations.

This study incorporated both the FFM and r-RST and found fear uniquely predicted originality in addition to openness to experience. Our research suggests that FFM does not adequately measure fear and that neuroticism does not properly capture r-FFFS. Our research suggests that biologically based models of personality have promise over the FFM.

Our results add depth to applied research on divergent thinking. Gong, Cheung,

Wang, and Jia-Chi (2012) found that proactive employees engaged in greater information exchange and this increased creativity in an environment of psychological safety. We think proactivity may derive from r-BAS and openness to experience. Information exchange may be similar to mastery goals. Increased psychological safety indicates an environment designed to reduce fear. Another study found abusive supervision reduced creativity (Liu,

Liao, & Loi, 2012), which again suggests that negative effects of abusive supervision may derive from fear rather than anxiety. Many studies found positive mood enhances creativity

(e.g. Forgeard, 2011) and positive mood is likely associated with high safety and low fear.

Overall, our research suggests that individual differences plays an important role in lateral thinking and may partially explain some macro findings in the area.

Our cross-sectional methodology is an important limitation of our research, but the objective divergent thinking measure strengthens the research design as it likely reduces the influence of common method variance.

In conclusion, our research found evidence that openness to experience and fear predict divergent thinking. Moreover, the effect of r-BAS on divergent thinking may be

91 through mastery such that the energizing effect of r-BAS is honed by mastery to achieve functional outcomes. Fear appears to be an additional variable to the FFM with the potential to better explain some applied findings of earlier research.

Chapter 5: Disinhibition Positively Predicts Psychopathy and Entrepreneurial

Intentions

Abstract

Most research has suggested that disinhibition, defined as persistence despite negative feedback, leads to dysfunctional outcomes and yet some traits related to disinhibition have predicted functional outcomes. We investigate this conflict in the literature and hypothesize that disinhibition will positively predict the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy and the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions. Study 1 examined 157 full-time workers and found that disinhibition positively predicted psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions.

Study 2 extended this research by financially incentivizing the disinhibition task. Using 143 university staff and students, we similarly found that disinhibition positively predicted psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions. This research is the first to discern dysfunctional and functional outcomes for disinhibition and theoretically extends the response modulation model of disinhibition. Previous studies have found dysfunctional and functional outcomes for sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking, but not for disinhibition. One potential implication future researchers might explore is that individuals high in disinhibition may be trained to redirect their disinhibition toward functional outcomes such as running a business.

Disinhibition Positively Predicts Psychopathy and Entrepreneurial Intentions

“After coaching highly successful entrepreneurs for 30 years, I’ve identified persistence as the one crucial characteristic that they all share. Regardless of challenges, obstacles or setbacks, they keep going.”

Dan Sullivan, founder of Strategic Coach (as cited in Symanowitz, 2013, p. 46)

Disinhibition is defined as the act of persisting with a dominant response despite feedback that suggests that the optimal response is to change the course of action (Gorenstein

& Newman, 1980; Newman et al., 2007). Disinhibited individuals are highly reward sensitive

(Avila & Parcet, 2000) with low sensitivity to future consequences (Vitaro et al., 1999).

Much research has suggested that disinhibition leads to dysfunctional outcomes such as problem gambling, risky sexual behavior, aggression, substance abuse, and psychopathological behavior (Greil, Horvath, Sassim, Erazo, & Grohmann, 2001; Latzman &

Vaidya, 2013; Nigg, 2000; Shibata, 2013; Van Holst et al., 2012). These behaviors are also associated with psychopathy (Dindo & Fowles, 2011; Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006) and most researchers conclude that disinhibition is dysfunctional (Zuckerman, 1994). An alternative stream of research has suggested that traits related to disinhibition, such as sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking, predict both dysfunctional and functional outcomes (Dickman,

1990; Jackson, 2011; Stewart & Roth, 2001). This research is the first to examine whether the related but distinct trait of disinhibition also leads to functional outcomes, which would theoretically extend the response modulation model of disinhibition (Patterson & Newman,

1993). The aim of this research is to investigate our model that suggests that disinhibition may positively predict either the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy or the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions (see Figure 1). One implication of this model is that individuals high in disinhibition may be trained to redirect their disinhibition toward functional outcomes such as running a business.

Psychopathy Entrepreneurial

Intentions

Disinhibi tion

Figure 1. Disinhibition positively predicts the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy and the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions.

The response modulation model (Arnett, Smith, & Newman, 1997; Patterson, Kosson,

& Newman, 1987; Patterson & Newman, 1993) is defined as a four-stage model of poor adaptive responding for reward and is based on psychopathy, alcoholism, and hyperactivity studies (see Figure 2). Stage one is the establishment of a dominant response toward approaching rewarding stimuli, stage two is disruption of the dominant response that requires processing (Öhman, 1979) and causes an emotional reaction to the violation of expectation because the reward is no longer available (Epstein, 1972), stage three is either behavioral adaptation to the changed circumstances or lack of behavioral adaptation, and stage four is reflection on the new circumstances in non-disinhibited individuals or lack of reflection in disinhibited individuals. Individuals high in disinhibition successfully establish a dominant response to reward, but fail to emotionally react when circumstances change and the reward is no longer available. Without the processing and emotional reaction to changed circumstances, disinhibited individuals persevere with the dominant response and fail to behaviorally adapt or reflect on the changed situation (Newman et al., 1987).

The response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) explains the high recidivism rates of individuals high in psychopathy (Asscher et al., 2011). Meta-analytic research finds that individuals high in psychopathy commit offences, spend time in prison, then recommit offenses at higher rates than individuals low in psychopathy (Hemphill, Hare,

& Wong, 1998; Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008; Walters, 2003). Individuals high in psychopathy are less able to inhibit their response to reward even after they experience the punishment of prison. According to the response modulation model, individuals high in psychopathy persist with their established response to rewarding behavior because their experience of prison is less emotionally detrimental than individuals low in psychopathy. Released from prison, they continue offending because the lack of emotional response causes reduced reflection on the experience. In turn, individuals high in

Figure 2. The response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) where disinhibition is defined as the lack of response modulation. 97

psychopathy fail to change their dominant behavior to avoid future prison sentences. While psychopathy is often examined in the psychopathological population, recent studies have discerned associations within the general population (Lilienfeld, Latzman, Watts, Smith, &

Dutton, 2014).

Disinhibition is within the same constellation of traits as sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking, but disinhibition also differs: disinhibition is the establishment of a dominant response to reward that persists even when circumstances change to punishment (Newman et al., 1993), whereas sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking are unrelated to reward. Sensation seeking is defined as thrill-seeking and exploration with minimal concern for the risks involved (Jackson, 2011; Zuckerman & Kuhlman, 2000).

Impulsivity is defined as action without forethought regarding the consequences of the behavior (Barratt, 1994). Risk-taking is defined as behavior with the potential for harm as well as reward (Leigh, 1999). Research on disinhibition as both dysfunctional and functional would uniquely contribute to the literature because disinhibition is related to, but distinct from, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking.

Several studies have examined the alternative perspective that traits related to disinhibition can be functional (e.g., Gerbing, Ahadi, & Patton, 1987; Miller, Joseph, &

Tudway, 2004; Raine, Reynolds, Venables, & Mednick, 2002; Vigil-Colet & Morales-Vives,

2005). Two studies have found that functional impulsivity predicted improved overall scores on laboratory tasks despite higher error rates (Dickman, 1990; Dickman & Meyer, 1988).

Another study found sensation seeking predicted either self-reported dysfunctional behavior on a dysfunctional behavior scale or self-reported and supervisor-rated work outcomes

(Jackson, 2011). A study of part-time workers and school children found sensation seeking predicted several dysfunctional and functional outcomes including self-reported delinquency,

98 times in school detention, performance on a functional learning laboratory task, and work performance (O'Connor & Jackson, 2008). Sensation seeking also predicted higher or lower levels of depression depending on cognitive mediators (Jackson, Izadikhah, et al., 2012). In a rare example of a functional disinhibition study, disinhibition reduced the bystander effect

(Latané & Darley, 1968) of inertia in responding to distress when other individuals are present (Van den Bos, Müller, & van Bussel, 2009), although this study did not define disinhibition according to the response modulation model of disinhibition (Patterson &

Newman, 1993). These studies examine traits related to disinhibition, but none examine whether disinhibition according to the response modulation model may be dysfunctional or functional.

The current study utilizes psychopathy as a dysfunctional outcomes of disinhibition and entrepreneurial intentions as a functional outcome of disinhibition. While some entrepreneurs create dysfunctional outcomes for society (e.g., Bernie Madoff, Marc Stuart

Drier, Pablo Escobar), many entrepreneurs contribute functional outcomes for society (e.g.,

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson). Entrepreneurs build new institutions and are the drivers of economic growth (Schumpeter, 1934). They serve customers’ needs and create employment opportunities (Bruton, Ketchen, & Ireland, 2013; Dencker, Gruber, & Shah,

2009). Entrepreneurs have produced inventions such as airplanes, contact lenses, and computers (Baumol, 2004). Research into functional outcomes for disinhibition is unique because disinhibited behavior is generally discouraged (Zuckerman, 1978). The implications of this research may include training disinhibited individuals to redirect their disinhibition toward functional outcomes such as establishing a business.

Psychopathy and Entrepreneurial Intentions

We examined disinhibition as an underlying mechanism that can lead to persistence in either dysfunctional or functional outcomes. As discussed previously, disinhibition has an

99 extensive literature within psychopathy (e.g., Levenson et al., 1995; Lynam, 1996).

Psychopathy is defined as a personality disorder with reduced moral and behavioral control, but with intact intellectual abilities (Baysinger, Scherer, & LeBreton, 2014; Ermer & Kiehl,

2010). Individuals high in psychopathy appear normal but conceal a mental disorder

(Cleckley, 1941). While psychopathy has associations with Antisocial Personality Disorder

(Lynam & Vachon, 2012), personality disorders are situated along a spectrum in the normal population (Vachon et al., 2013). Studies using community samples have found correlations with psychopathy (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2014).

The behavioral measure typically used to assess disinhibition in individuals high in psychopathy is the go/no-go discrimination task. This task requires participants to behaviorally inhibit an established response (Newman, Widom, & Nathan, 1985). The task requires participants to discriminate between “good” stimuli and “bad” stimuli. When good stimuli are presented, participants press a key on a computer keyboard. Passive avoidance is defined as appropriately withholding a response that produces punishment. Commission errors are defined as failure to appropriately withhold responses when bad stimuli are presented. Research has found that participants high in psychopathy are disinhibited because they display less aptitude toward passive avoidance. Participants high in psychopathy perform more commission errors than participants low in psychopathy in the go/no-go discrimination task (e.g., Newman, 1987; Newman & Kosson, 1986; Newman et al., 1990;

Newman et al., 1985).

The problem in the literature regarding disinhibition and psychopathy is that the go/no-go task exhibits poor external validity. Pressing or not pressing a key on a computer keyboard in response to presented stimuli is unrelated to experience. To overcome this problem, we adapted the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002) to function as a disinhibition task rather than a risk-taking task. Pumping up a balloon with the

100 possibility that the balloon may burst is more related to general life experience than the abstract go/no-go task. Similar to the go/no-go task, we also adapted the BART to include an experimental condition and control condition. Using the adapted BART as a disinhibition task rather than a risk-taking task, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1. Disinhibition will positively predict psychopathy.

To the best of our knowledge, no studies have directly examined disinhibition in the prediction of functional outcomes, which highlights the importance of the current study.

Functional outcomes have been discerned for the related traits of sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking, but not disinhibition. We use entrepreneurial intentions as an index of a functional outcome. Entrepreneurial intentions are defined as the desire to begin or own a business (Bae et al., 2014). Entrepreneurship is a multi-stage process including entrepreneurial intentions, searching for opportunities, discovery of opportunities, evaluation, and exploitation (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Shook et al., 2003). Research into entrepreneurial intentions are important because entrepreneurial intentions are the crucial first stage toward the establishment of a business (Bird, 1988).

Several studies have examined entrepreneurs with issues related to psychopathy.

Entrepreneurs have been described as obsessive about their pursuits (Kets de Vries, 1985), which is similar to the inability to veer from a dominant response in the response modulation model of disinhibition (Patterson & Newman, 1993). Entrepreneurs have also been described as mildly sociopathic and not just non-conformists because of their obsession with their business (Winslow & Solomon, 1988). A study of full-time workers examined how entrepreneurial tendencies predicted psychopathy characteristics: entrepreneurial tendencies predicted shallow affect and superficial interpersonal relationships (Akhtar, Ahmetoglu, &

Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Studies and meta-analyses have found that entrepreneurs are higher in risk-taking than managers and the general population (Nieß & Biemann, 2014;

101

Stewart & Roth, 2001). Another relevant study is the meta-analysis of psychopathy with job performance and counterproductive work behavior, but the authors state that the results are not meaningful because the effect sizes are small with low variance explained (O'Boyle,

Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Research has yet to examine whether disinhibition may positively predict the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy and the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions.

Disinhibition arises from the lack of emotional arousal to a stimulus, which produces less learning from aversive events. In the case of psychopathy, disinhibition could produce persistence of socially undesirable behaviors such as criminality (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1970).

The experience of prison will be less aversive for individuals high in psychopathy, which leads them to continue their dominant response of socially undesirable behavior upon release from prison. Regarding entrepreneurs, we predict that aversive experiences such as failing businesses and a difficult business climate will be less aversive for disinhibited individuals.

Individuals high in disinhibition will continue with their dominant response of running the business rather than abandoning the business even though passive avoidance of the difficult circumstances appears optimal. Persistence is sometimes rewarded in the long term, because the market cycles change between recession and economic growth. We expect the response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) of disinhibition will positively predict both psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions based on research that disinhibition related traits can lead to dysfunctional and functional outcomes (e.g., Dickman, 1990; Jackson, 2011). We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. Disinhibition will positively predict entrepreneurial intentions.

The aim of the current study is to test the assumption of our model that disinhibition can lead to either the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy or the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions (see Figure 1). While previous research has found that disinhibition

102 predicts psychopathy, the design of this study is stronger because we test whether disinhibition predicts dysfunctional and functional outcomes all within the same sample of participants. We adapt the BART to function as a measure of disinhibition rather than risk- taking, because pumping a balloon is more related to general life experience than the abstract go/no-go task. The task includes an experimental condition and control condition. In the first study, the modified BART is not financially incentivized. In the second study, we expand the research by financially incentivizing the modified BART. We examine psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions using a general sample as opposed to a clinical sample who have psychopathological symptoms of psychopathy or a sample of current entrepreneurs.

Individuals with psychopathological levels of psychopathy or current entrepreneurs are less useful because their trajectory is already established in dysfunctional or functional directions.

A general sample is best because they could progress in either dysfunctional or functional directions. This research heeds the call to action for psychology researchers to examine entrepreneurship and psychopathology (Hisrich et al., 2007).

Study 1

Method

Participants.

The sample consisted of 157 full-time workers (57% men, 43% women, Mage = 30.44 years, SDage = 9.00 years, age range: 18-62 years). The full-time workers were recruited online and participated in return for payment. No additional financial incentives were provided for BART performance. The full-time workers were from the United States, United

Kingdom or had not specified their nationality. An a priori power analysis using G*Power suggested 89 participants would enable 95% power to detect a medium sized effect at the .05 level of significance (Faul et al., 2007).

103

Full-time workers are an important sample because the range of entrepreneurial intentions is likely to be broad. Some full-time workers may be simultaneously pursuing entrepreneurial activity alongside their full-time work, others may be considering entrepreneurial activity, and others may prefer employment and have no entrepreneurial intentions. Full-time workers are a better sample than current entrepreneurs because current entrepreneurs have already established their trajectory, which restricts the range of responses.

Full-time workers are the best sample to gain the broadest range of entrepreneurial intentions.

Measures.

Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002). The BART is generally designated as a risk-taking task (Biggs, Stey, Davoli, Lapsley, & Brockmole, 2014; Crysel,

Crosier, & Webster, 2013; Hunt, Hopko, Bare, Lejuez, & Robinson, 2005; Lejuez et al.,

2002). We modified the BART to create a disinhibition task using the response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993). Disinhibition differs from risk-taking because disinhibition is the establishment of a dominant response to reward and individuals persist with this dominant response even when the circumstances change to punishment, whereas risk-taking is unrelated to reward (Leigh, 1999). The independent variable is either the disinhibition condition or the control condition. The disinhibition condition instills a dominant response to pump, whereas the control condition does not instill a dominant response to pump.

The design of the BART is that participants pump a computerized balloon in return for simulated money. Participants receive money with each pump and can press Collect $$ to place the money in the Total Accrued section. If the balloon explodes before the participant presses Collect $$, then the participant does not receive any simulated money for that balloon.

104

Table 1

The BART is modified to become a disinhibition task using the response modulation model

(Patterson & Newman, 1993).

Condition Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

Disinhibition Condition Reward Punish Random

Control Condition Punish Reward Random

Note. Reward is low probability of the balloon bursting. Punish is high probability of the balloon bursting. Random is random probability of the balloon bursting. The disinhibition condition establishes a dominant response through reward in Block 1. Punish in Block 2 is an aversive experience. Low disinhibition participants will modulate their response because of the aversive experience. High disinhibition participants will experience less emotional arousal from the aversive experience and not modulate their response. Random in Block 3 evaluates participants’ level of disinhibition after reward then punishment. The control condition differs from the disinhibition condition because the dominant response of reward in

Block 1 is not established.

105

The computer screen consisted of six components: (a) the image of the balloon in the center of the screen; (b) the Pump button underneath the balloon; (c) the Collect $$ button underneath the balloon; (d) Total Accrued and associated number on the left of the screen; (e)

Bursts and associated number underneath Total Accrued on the left of the screen; and (f)

Amount Earned on the left of the screen underneath the Bursts amount.

The BART task follows a specific sequence. When participants press Pump, the circumference of the balloon increases and a simulated amount of $0.01 increases in the

Amount Earned section. At any time, the participant can press Collect $$ and the amount in the Amount Earned section is transferred to the Total Accrued section. After a certain number of pumps, the screen displays an image of a burst balloon. The participant loses the simulated money for that trial if a balloon bursts. For example, if a participant pumps seven times without the balloon bursting, the participant receives $0.07 as recorded in the Amount Earned section. If the participant presses Collect $$, then the participant keeps that simulated money.

The $0.07 is transferred to the Total Accrued section and the next trial begins. If instead the participant pumped again and this time the balloon burst, then the participant loses the $0.07 and no simulated money is transferred to the Total Accrued section. The burst is also recorded in the Bursts section, which displays the number of bursts accrued in the experiment. The next trial begins when either a balloon bursts or the participant presses

Collect $$ to transfer the amount to the Total Accrued section.

We modified the BART to function as a measure of disinhibition using the response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) and not just a measure of risk-taking by creating a sequence of trials (see Table 1). Participants completed a sequence of 70 trials with different probabilities of the balloon bursting (see Appendix A for specific balloon bursting probabilities). The first block of trials was a practice block of 10 trials where the balloon had a random probability of bursting. After the practice block, the experiment contained three

106 blocks of 20 trials each. In the disinhibition condition, Block 1 rewarded the participant with low probability of the balloon bursting. This instilled a dominant response of pumping the balloon. Block 2 punished the participant with high probability of the balloon bursting. Block

3 included a random probability of the balloon bursting. The independent variable is the number of pumps in the final Block 3. This sequence of events modifies the BART from a risk-taking task to a disinhibition task using the response modulation model (Patterson &

Newman, 1993), because we discern whether participants learnt from the aversive feedback in Block 2 and reduced the established dominant response of pumping. In the disinhibition condition, participants established a dominant response to pump because their initial experience of the task is rewarding with low probability of the balloon bursting. If the participants were disinhibited, then they persisted in their dominant response of pumping despite the aversive feedback in Block 2 in the disinhibition condition.

After the practice trials, the control condition has the opposite first two blocks as the disinhibition condition (see Table 1). Block 1 gave participants a punishing experience with high probability of the balloon bursting. Block 2 rewarded the participant with low probability of the balloon bursting. Similar to the disinhibition condition, the final Block 3 had a random probability of the balloon bursting. Punishment in Block 1 and reward in Block

2 function as a control condition because this sequence does not establish a dominant response to reward. In the disinhibition condition, participants establish a dominant response to pump, whereas in the control condition participants do not establish a dominant response to pump.

We operationalized disinhibition as the number of pumps in the disinhibition condition of Block 3 in the BART. A higher number of pumps in the disinhibition condition of Block 3 in the BART indicates higher disinhibition. The number of pumps in the control condition in Block 3 of the BART does not indicate disinhibition because these participants

107 have not first been rewarded. The control condition is used as a comparison to the disinhibition condition to ascertain that the manipulation has been effective. In the disinhibition condition, we expect participants to establish a dominant response to pump, because they are rewarded with low probability of the balloon bursting in Block 1. In contrast, we do not expect participants to establish a dominant response to pump in the control condition, because they are punished with high probability of the balloon bursting in

Block 1. Previous research has used the adapted BART design (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012;

Gardiner, Jackson, & Loxton, 2015). The act of pumping is an indication of enthusiasm to potentially gain rewards. The pumping is within a context of danger, because participants may lose all the simulated money for that balloon with too many pumps. Using this methodology, we adapt the BART to become a disinhibition task rather than a risk-taking task.

Psychopathy (Jonason & Webster, 2010). The dependent variable is psychopathy from the

12-item Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Participants rated their agreement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). While psychopathy is a personality disorder at a certain threshold, these traits are dimensional and found in the general population

(Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Individuals high in psychopathy are dishonest, disagreeable, impulsive, callous, and superficially charming. Example items are “I tend to lack remorse” and “I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions”. No items were removed to improve reliability. The Cronbach alpha for psychopathy in the current sample is acceptable

(α = .78).

Entrepreneurial intentions (Jackson, 2011). The dependent variable entrepreneurial intentions is a published 8-item measure of business aspirations. Participants rated their agreement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Entrepreneurial intentions measures pro-social and functional plans to achieve business

108 success and has previously been published in the psychological literature (Gardiner &

Jackson, 2012; Jackson, 2011). Example items are “I have great ideas for starting a business” and “I want to manage sales, see growth and lead a team”. No items were removed to improve reliability. The Cronbach alpha for entrepreneurial intentions in the current sample is good (α = .83).

Procedure

Participants completed the BART laboratory task, psychopathy self-report measure, and entrepreneurial intentions self-report measure using YWeDo (www.ywedo.com/lab.asp), which is an online cognitive laboratory (Jackson, 2010). A study compared YWeDo with paper-and-pencil methods of data collection and found few differences (Fraser & Boag,

2010).

Results

We analyzed the results using regression. The independent variable was the number of pumps in Block 3 of the BART in both conditions, the dependent variable was either psychopathy or entrepreneurial intentions in both conditions, and condition (disinhibition condition versus control condition) was used as a binary moderator to differentiate the conditions. Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations.

Psychopathy was not significantly correlated with entrepreneurial intentions (r = -.05, p = ns). Psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions were associated with Block 3 pumps in the disinhibition condition, whereas psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions were not associated with Block 3 pumps in the control condition. Block 3 pumps in the disinhibition condition was weakly to moderately correlated with psychopathy (r = .21, p = .04) and weakly to moderately correlated with entrepreneurial intentions (r = .24, p = .02). Block 3 pumps in the control condition was not associated with psychopathy (r = .16, p = ns) or entrepreneurial intentions (r = -.09, p = ns).

109

Table 2

Study 1 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of psychopathy, entrepreneurial intentions, and disinhibition condition and control condition Block 3 BART pumps

Variable M SD α Psychopathy Entrpreneurial Intentions

Psychopathy 8.81 3.57 .78

Entrepreneurial Intentions 9.57 4.91 .83 -.05

Disinhibition Condition BART Block 3 Pumps 84.16 39.13 - .21* .23*

Control Condition BART Block 3 Pumps 70.48 41.69 - -.16 -.09

* p < .05.

110

Table 3

Study 1 BART block 3 pumps predicting psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions moderated by condition (disinhibition or control condition)

IV DV β t p R2

BART pumps Psychopathy .09 2.40 .02 .04

Condition 2.88 2.33 .02

BART pumps x condition -.03 -2.31 .02

BART pumps Entrepreneurial Intentions .11 2.23 .03 .04

Condition 3.48 2.05 .04

BART pumps x condition -.04 -2.03 .04

111

Hypothesis 1 was that disinhibition would positively predict psychopathy. The response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) of disinhibition suggests persistence in pumping in Block 3 of the disinhibition condition, where participants were first rewarded then punished, would positively predict psychopathy. As Table 3 suggests, we found a significant interaction between disinhibition and condition in the prediction of psychopathy (β = -.03, t = -2.31, p = .02). We also analyzed the simple slopes in each condition (Aiken & West, 1991). In the disinhibition condition, high disinhibition predicted high psychopathy significantly greater than low disinhibition predicted low psychopathy (β =

.01, t = 2.04, p = .04). Block 3 pumps in the control condition, where participants were first punished then rewarded, did not significantly predict psychopathy (β = -.01, t = -1.29, p = ns). The difference between the conditions indicates the BART manipulation was successful and disinhibition was found in the disinhibition condition, but not the control condition, in the prediction of psychopathy. These results support Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 was that disinhibition would positively predict entrepreneurial intentions. The response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) of disinhibition suggests that persistence in pumping in Block 3 of the disinhibition condition, where participants were first rewarded then punished, would positively predict entrepreneurial intentions. As Table 2 suggests, we found a significant interaction between disinhibition and condition in the prediction of entrepreneurial intentions (β = -.04, t = -2.03, p = .04). We also analyzed the simple slopes in each condition (Aiken & West, 1991). In the disinhibition condition, high disinhibition predicted high entrepreneurial intentions significantly greater than low disinhibition predicted low entrepreneurial intentions (β = .03, t = 2.26, p = .03).

Block 3 pumps in the control condition, where participants were first punished then rewarded, did not significantly predict entrepreneurial intentions (β = -.01, t = -.72, p = ns).

The difference between the conditions indicates the BART manipulation was successful and

112 disinhibition was found in the disinhibition condition, but not the control condition, in the prediction of entrepreneurial intentions. These results support Hypothesis 2.

In Study 1, we found evidence supporting both hypotheses, which conforms to our model’s prediction that disinhibition may lead to either dysfunctional or functional outcomes.

In Study 2, we progress the research by financially incentivizing the adapted BART.

Financial incentives may increase motivation to engage with the task. This second study aims to triangulate the research by replicating and providing more information about the effect.

Replication is necessary for verifying effects and ensuring the effects are robust (Eden, 2002;

Funder et al., 2014; Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). This second study aims to provide stronger evidence that disinhibition predicts the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy and the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions.

Study 2

Method

Participants.

The sample consisted of 143 university staff and students (52% women, 48% men, Mage =

22.04 years, SDage = 3.18 years, age range: 17-36 years). The university staff and students were recruited through an Australian university and participated in return for payment.

Additional financial incentives were provided for BART performance. Participants were randomly allocated to conditions. An a priori power analysis using G*Power suggested 89 participants would enable 95% power to detect a medium sized effect at the .05 level of significance (Faul et al., 2007).

Measures.

Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002). The task features are the same as described in Study 1. The progression in Study 2 is that the participants were financially incentivized to achieve a high score on the BART. In the recruitment material, we

113 advertised that the top ten scorers in the BART would receive a prize of $50. After all participants completed the task, the top ten scorers were awarded the prize. In Study 1, we discerned that disinhibition predicted psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions when the disinhibition task was not financially incentivized. In Study 2, we examine whether disinhibition predicts psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions when the disinhibition task is financially incentivized, which may increase motivation in the participants.

Psychopathy (Jonason & Webster, 2010). This study similarly used psychopathy in the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen as described in Study 1. No items were removed to improve reliability. The Cronbach alpha for psychopathy in the current sample is acceptable (α = .77).

Entrepreneurial intentions (Jackson, 2011). This measure is the same as described in Study 1. No items were removed to improve reliability. The Cronbach alpha for entrepreneurial intentions in the current sample is good (α = .85).

Procedure.

We used the same procedure as in Study 1.

Results

We analyzed the results using regression. The independent variable was the number of pumps in Block 3 of the BART in both conditions, the dependent variable was either psychopathy or entrepreneurial intentions in both conditions, and condition (disinhibition condition versus control condition) was used as a binary moderator to differentiate the conditions. Table 4 displays the means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations. Using

Cohen’s (1988) criteria for interpreting correlations, psychopathy was not significantly correlated with entrepreneurial intentions (r = .14, p = ns). Psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions were associated with Block 3 pumps in the disinhibition condition, whereas psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions were not associated with Block 3 pumps in the

114

Table 4

Study 2 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of psychopathy, entrepreneurial intentions, and disinhibition condition and control condition Block 3 BART pumps

Variable M SD α Psychopathy Entrepreneurial Intentions

Psychopathy 8.24 2.89 .77

Entrepreneurial Intentions 9.71 4.91 .85 .16

Disinhibition Condition BART Block 3 Pumps 90.84 32.36 - .29* .31*

Control Condition BART Block 3 Pumps 99.78 34.49 - -.06 -.02

* p < .05.

115

Table 5

Study 2 BART block 3 pumps predicting psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions moderated by condition (disinhibition or control condition)

IV DV β t p R2

BART pumps Psychopathy .09 2.38 .02 .05

Condition 2.45 1.69 .09

BART pumps x condition -.03 -2.18 .03

BART pumps Entrepreneurial Intentions .15 2.27 .02 .04

Condition 4.52 1.83 .07

BART pumps x condition -.05 -2.01 .04

116 control condition. Block 3 pumps in the disinhibition condition was moderately correlated with psychopathy (r = .29, p = .02) and moderately correlated with entrepreneurial intentions

(r = .31, p = .01). Block 3 pumps in the control condition was not associated with psychopathy (r = -.06, p = ns) or entrepreneurial intentions (r = -.02, p = ns).

Hypothesis 1 was that disinhibition would positively predict psychopathy. The response modulation model (Patterson & Newman, 1993) of disinhibition suggests persistence in pumping in Block 3 of the disinhibition condition, where participants were first rewarded then punished, would positively predict psychopathy. As Table 5 suggests, we found a significant interaction between disinhibition and condition in the prediction of psychopathy (β = -.03, t =-2.18, p = .03). We also analyzed the simple slopes in each condition (Aiken & West, 1991). In the disinhibition condition, high disinhibition predicted high psychopathy significantly greater than low disinhibition predicted low psychopathy (β =

.03, t = 2.49, p = .01). Block 3 pumps in the control condition, where participants were first punished then rewarded, did not significantly predict psychopathy (β = -.01, t = -.47, p = ns).

These results support Hypothesis 1.

Table 4 suggests, we found a significant interaction between disinhibition and condition in the prediction of entrepreneurial intentions (β = -.05, t = -2.02, p = .04). We also analyzed the simple slopes in each condition (Aiken & West, 1991). In the disinhibition condition, high disinhibition predicted high entrepreneurial intentions significantly greater than low disinhibition predicted low entrepreneurial intentions (β = .05, t = 2.54, p = .01). Block 3 pumps in the control condition, where participants were first punished then rewarded, did not

117 significantly predict entrepreneurial intentions (β = -.01, t = -.16, p = ns). These results support Hypothesis 2.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research to support our model that disinhibition positively predicts the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy or the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions (see Figure 1). Both hypotheses were supported in two separate samples. While previous research has found disinhibition predicts psychopathy, the design is stronger if we examine dysfunctional and functional outcomes for disinhibition within the same sample. In Study 1, these results were determined without financially incentivizing the modified BART task. In Study 2, the research was extended by financially incentivizing the modified BART task with the same results determined. Study 2 provides triangulation of the research through replication and additional information (Brandt et al.,

2014; Jasny, Chin, Chong, & Vignieri, 2011). We propose that these studies provide support for disinhibition as an underlying mechanism that can lead to dysfunctional or functional outcomes.

This research theoretically extends the response modulation model of disinhibition

(Patterson & Newman, 1993). Previous research found dysfunctional outcomes for disinhibition using the response modulation model, but not functional outcomes. We determine dysfunctional and functional outcomes for disinhibition using the same sample of participants. Related research in sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking has found dysfunctional and functional outcomes, but this research is the first to examine functional outcomes for disinhibition. Disinhibition differs from related traits, because disinhibition concerns the establishment of a dominant response to reward that persists even when the circumstances change to punishment (Gorenstein & Newman, 1980). Disinhibition is generally maladaptive, because passive avoidance is appropriate in most punishment

118 circumstances. According to this research, disinhibition can be appropriate in some circumstances, because the environment can change from punishment to reward. Others who have withheld responding may miss out on the reward because individuals high in disinhibition have already exploited the reward. We note that this study uses the BART as a measure of disinhibition, and other measure of risk-based decision making, such as the Iowa

Gambling Task, may measure slightly different constructs. The results of this study therefore may be specifically related to the BART.

Disinhibition may be adaptive within a business environment. For example, individuals low in disinhibition may abandon their business when market conditions become unfavorable. In many circumstances, closing the business is appropriate to avoid financial losses. According to the response modulation model of disinhibition (Patterson & Newman,

1993), an individual high in disinhibition may persist with the business despite the losses, because individuals high in disinhibition have difficulty changing their behavior when they were previously rewarded for the same behavior. Their lack of emotional responsiveness to aversive events decreases the likelihood of changed behavior, because without the emotional responsiveness they do not reflect and form new associations between their behavior and outcomes (Patterson & Newman, 1993). In time, the market conditions may again become favorable, such as when the economic cycle changes from recession to economic growth.

Circumstances may exist where individuals high in disinhibition may reap the rewards of the changed market conditions because the competitors have ceased trading.

This research benefits from several strengths. The studies examined dysfunctional and functional outcomes for disinhibition within the same sample of participants, because previous studies have only examined dysfunctional outcomes for disinhibition. The use of full-time workers in Study 1 and university staff and students in Study 2 discerned that the results are applicable for different samples. The results are also applicable whether the task is

119 financially incentivized or not financially incentivized. The modified BART measure of disinhibition may have better external validity, because pumping a balloon is more related to general life experience than the abstract go/no-go task. The adapted BART is a sophisticated design that incorporates the response modulation model with an experimental and control condition. Laboratory studies are unique because they can control the levels of the independent variable and randomly assign participants to conditions (Colquitt, 2008). The use of an objective task for the independent variable overcomes common method bias

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We incorporate the sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking literature and introduce a new model that suggests disinhibition can lead to dysfunctional or functional outcomes including business outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research

A limitation of this study is the cross-sectional design. Longitudinal experimental research (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2009) or a series of experiments (Spencer et al., 2005) is necessary to determine causality. While we suggest that disinhibition positively predicts psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions, the relationship may be that psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions predict disinhibition. This research did not examined any cognitive mechanisms such as goals that may mediate the relationship between disinhibition and the outcomes (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Cognitive factors such as goals may be a key difference between disinhibition leading toward psychopathy compared to entrepreneurial intentions.

Future studies might examine cognitive factors and utilize a longitudinal experimental design or series of experiments.

Implications

The implications of this study are that individuals high in disinhibition could be trained to redirect their approach behavior from dysfunctional activities to functional ventures. Disinhibited individuals are constantly engaging in approach behavior, even when

120 circumstances change to punishment for previously rewarded behavior. If approach behavior is channeled toward functional activities, then disinhibited individuals could perform substantial achievements, which is good for the individuals and for society. For example, a juvenile delinquent high in disinhibition may engage their approach behavior to break and enter into houses or steal cars (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1970), which is dysfunctional for society and may lead to a prison sentence for the individual. A training intervention could assist the juvenile delinquent to redirect their approach behavior toward functional outcomes such as starting and maintaining a business, thereby benefiting both the individual and society.

Conclusions

This research is the first to provide evidence for a new model where disinhibition is a positive predictor of the dysfunctional outcome of psychopathy or functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions. Study 1 provided evidence that a modified BART can be a disinhibition task that is more related to general life experience than the abstract go/no-go task. Study 2 extended the research by financially incentivizing the task and discerned the same results. This study theoretically extends the response modulation model (Patterson &

Newman, 1993) with the result that disinhibition predicts dysfunctional and functional outcomes. One implication of this research is that training may assist individuals high in disinhibition to channel their approach behavior away from dysfunctional avenues toward functional pursuits such as initiating a business. This research heeds the call by Hisrich and colleagues (2007) for psychology researchers to examine entrepreneurship and psychopathology.

121

Chapter 6: Are Global Thinkers Higher in Entrepreneurial Intentions?

Abstract

While global thinkers are presumed to be higher in Entrepreneurial Intentions than local thinkers, there remains a lack of empirical evidence to support this relationship. We examine the relationship between Global Processing and Entrepreneurial Intentions using a laboratory study and field study. In the laboratory study, 216 full-time workers completed the

Navon figure task and measures of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Mastery. We found that

Global Processing in the Navon figure task positively predicted Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery. In the field study, 193 full-time workers self-reported their Entrepreneurial

Intentions and Mastery and their supervisors rated their Organizational Performance and Job

Performance. We suggest that Organizational Performance is an applied measure of Global

Processing and Job Performance is an applied measure of Local Processing. We found that

Organizational Performance positively predicted Entrepreneurial Intentions to a greater extent than Job Performance predicted Entrepreneurial Intentions. Similar to Study 1,

Organizational Performance positively predicted Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery.

This research incorporates attentional bias into information processing theory and has implications for the identification and support of potential entrepreneurs.

122

Are Global Thinkers Higher in Entrepreneurial Intentions?

“The moon or bust was our motto”

Vinod Khosla, cofounder of Sun Microsystems (as cited in Bhide, 1996, p. 124)

A business vision is required for individuals to become entrepreneurs. Engagement in detailed aspects of the business may be valuable (Teoh & Foo, 1997), but perceiving the overall vision is essential (Sinha, 2009). While anecdotal evidence supports global thinking as crucial for entrepreneurs, the problem is that research has yet to find empirical evidence for an attentional bias among entrepreneurs toward the big picture rather than the details.

Attentional bias is important in entrepreneurial research as a source of greater depth of understanding of the cognitive processes underlying entrepreneurship, with implications for identification and support of potential entrepreneurs. The present research is the first to empirically examine whether Global Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions in a laboratory study and field study.

A vision is defined as a mental image of a desired outcome (Bass, 1990). This “birds- eye view” (Winn, 2004, p. 500) facilitates expansion of the business. The vision flows through to the detailed functioning and planning of the business including creating systems for effective work completion; strategies to build the business; and short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals to ensure appropriate resource allocation and that the business is proceeding in the desired direction (Dunkelberg, Moore, Scott, & Stull, 2013). Vision has been described as sensemaking for the organization; entrepreneurs communicate their vision to gain support from employees, which is sensegiving (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995). Vision is communicated through speech (Baum & Locke, 2004; Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998) and behavior (Bandura, 1986). The vision motivates both the entrepreneur and employees because the vision encompasses the desired outcomes (House & Shamir, 1993).

123

Vision is subject to time complexity because it incorporates both the present and future (Johnson, 2005). The ability to perceive the present and future enables entrepreneurs to recognize and exploit business prospects (Bird, 1989; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

Entrepreneurial vision includes the local level of core functions, which entrepreneurs may perform themselves or delegate; the global level, where entrepreneurs mentally integrate all aspects of the business; and the future global level, where entrepreneurs imagine what is possible for the business (Bird, 1988). Entrepreneurs create a vision and then take practical steps to enable that vision (Allio, 2006).

Vision can be problem-solving that enhances a product, service, or process (Scott &

Bruce, 1994). Entrepreneurs use this vision to turn ideas into profitable enterprises (Baltar & de Coulon, 2014). The process is multi-stage: problem identification, generating novel insights that resolves problems, building support for ideas, and working with others to enable implementation (Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994). A big-picture vision is gained through questioning, observing, experimenting, and networking, and can be used to enhance the entrepreneurial venture (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2009). Vision is a creative process of combining individual elements into a bigger picture and this reconfiguration may be important for entrepreneurship.

Research into the attentional bias of individuals high in Entrepreneurial Intentions is important because it enables understanding of entrepreneurial cognition and extends information processing theory (Ellis, 2006). Such research provides further information regarding the cognitive underpinnings of entrepreneurs. Information processing theory suggests that individuals are unable to process all the information available to them. Rather, they selectively attend to information deemed the most relevant, whether voluntarily or involuntarily (Posner & Petersen, 1990). The present research adds a new dimension to information processing theory by suggesting that individuals who selectively attend to big-

124 picture information more than detailed information are more likely to be attracted to entrepreneurship. While attentional bias is an important feature of psychological research and entrepreneurial cognition is a growing research area (Baron, 2004; Meyer et al., 2014;

Mitchell et al., 2007), attentional bias has yet to be examined within the area of entrepreneurship. Understanding attentional bias would add depth to information processing theory and the entrepreneurship literature.

This research provides initial steps toward an understanding of entrepreneurial cognition that would support three key practical implications. First, policy makers spend resources to assist entrepreneurs (Story, 1994), because entrepreneurs provide employment and are the drivers of economic growth (Schumpeter, 1934). Policy makers need to identify appropriate individuals to provide resources. If individuals with an attentional bias toward

Global Processing are higher in Entrepreneurial Intentions, then these individuals could be identified as more suitable for entrepreneurship than individuals with an attentional bias toward Local Processing. Second, this research can also assist with entrepreneurial education.

Past research has shown that training can be effective in improving attention (Petersen &

Posner, 2012) and this could pertain to potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs could be trained to attend to features in the environment that are most relevant and disregard less important features. Third, the research provides understanding of mediation through Mastery.

If Global Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery, then intrapersonal task-based learning may be a mechanism through which to improve entrepreneurial skills. By examining attentional bias and entrepreneurship, we heed a recent call for psychology researchers to engage with entrepreneurial cognition (Hisrich et al.,

2007).

125

Theoretical Development

Attentional bias is defined as selectivity in information processing and is exhibited when the environment contains several objects, but an individual voluntarily or involuntarily focuses on stimuli that concurs with their concern (Williams et al., 1996). The psychology literature contains many studies that suggest individuals have an attentional bias toward either

Global Processing or Local Processing (e.g., Billington, Baron-Cohen, & Bor, 2008; Caparos,

Linnell, Bremner, de Fockert, & Davidoff, 2013; De Joux, Russell, & Helton, 2013; Gable,

Poole, & Cook, 2013; Martens & Hübner, 2013; Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, & Chen, 2009).

Individuals have limited attentional resources, which means that attention to one reduces attention to the other. Global Processing is defined as focus on overall features, whereas

Local Processing is defined as focus on specific details (Wagemans et al., 2012). For example, when examining an airplane, Global Processing individuals would focus on the overall airplane, whereas Local Processing individuals would focus on specific parts, such as the propeller or wing. In a business, we suggest Global Processing individuals would focus on the overall functioning of the business, such as presenting a positive image of the organization to others and increasing efficiency within the organization. Local Processing individuals would focus on their specific role, such as sales, maintenance, or accounting.

Discerning the difference between Global Processing and Local Processing is important because Global Processing may relate to the ability to discern an overall vision for the business, which is an essential skill for entrepreneurship.

While Global Processing and Entrepreneurship have yet to be examined in tandem, some studies have suggested that attentional bias relates to social behaviors. The Navon figure task (Navon, 1977) was originally used to examine visual perception, but more recently researchers have demonstrated its relevance to examining social contexts such as culture, religion, and mental disorders. Asian individuals tend toward holistic and Global

126

Processing, whereas Western individuals tend toward analytical and detail processing (Ji,

Peng, & Nisbett, 2000; Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005). Adherents to Catholicism and Judaism, which emphasize social responsibility, were found to be higher in Global Processing than adherents to Calvinism, which emphasizes individual responsibility (Colzato et al., 2010;

Colzato, van den Wildenberg, & Hommel, 2008). Mental disorders such as Obsessive-

Compulsive Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and autism relate to an excessive focus on Local Processing (Behrmann, Thomas, & Humphreys, 2006; Kalanthroff,

Naparstek, & Henik, 2013; Rankins, Bradshaw, & Georgiou-Karistianis, 2005). These Global

Processing and Local Processing studies relate to social issues, suggesting that Global

Processing and Local Processing research could extend to entrepreneurship because entrepreneurship is also social in nature.

The notion that Global Processing is particularly common among entrepreneurs is consistent with information processing theory. Information processing theory (Ellis, 2006;

Olson, Parayitam, & Bao, 2007) suggests that all individuals have limited cognitive resources and can only process some form of information. Individuals cannot focus on both global and local aspects; rather, they exhibit attentional bias toward either Global Processing or Local

Processing (Leonard, Scholl, & Kowalski, 1999). Entrepreneurs are alert to business opportunities (Kirzner, 1997, 1999), which is a Global Processing concern. Attention to business opportunities may reduce attention to other aspects of the business, because they can only attend to limited information. We expect Global Processing rather than Local Processing is more likely to prevail among entrepreneurs because individuals in general have limited information processing capacity to attend to environmental stimuli.

Hypotheses

Several studies have suggested that a vision is formed by entrepreneurs (Bass, 1990;

Baum & Locke, 2004; Bird, 1988). Vision is related to Global Processing because it entails

127 incorporation of details into a larger perspective. We suggest that an attentional bias toward

Global Processing is likely to predict Entrepreneurial Intentions because Global Processing individuals have increased propensity to produce ideas on how they can use their broad spectrum of information available to them. We examine how Global Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions using the Navon figure task (Navon, 1977) as a laboratory task measure of Global Processing. We use a sample of full-time workers rather than entrepreneurs, because full-time workers will have a greater breadth of responses, whereas current entrepreneurs are likely to be high in Entrepreneurial Intentions, which restricts the range of responses. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1. Global Processing will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions.

We also examine Mastery as a potential mediator of Global Processing positively predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions. Mastery is defined as a type of goal orientation and is focused on developing skills and competencies (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). In contrast to performance goals that concern achievement relative to others, Mastery refers to gaining abilities without concern for the skills of others (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). While lower animals are driven by biological mechanisms (Schneirla, 1959), humans can self-regulate and exert cognitive effort into their actions (Berntson & Cacioppo, 2000). Individuals differ in their learning orientation (Dweck, 1986, 1989) and individuals high in Mastery adaptively seek task-based learning (O'Connor & Jackson, 2008).

Previous studies have found that Mastery mediates or predicts several outcomes.

Sensation Seeking positively predicted performance through Mastery in a learning task, work performance, and school performance (O'Connor & Jackson, 2008). Personality positively predicted performance through Mastery (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Sensation Seeking positively predicted lower depressive symptoms through Mastery in a sample of depressed patients (Jackson, Izadikhah, et al., 2012). Approach-orientation personality positively

128 predicted divergent-thinking creativity through Mastery (Walker & Jackson, 2014). Sensation

Seeking positively predicted self-rated and supervisor-rated work performance through

Mastery (Jackson, 2011). Mastery develops and directs valences in a variety of domains including education (Ames & Archer, 1988), athletics (Duda & Nicholls, 1992), and work

(Kozlowski et al., 2001; VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999; VandeWalle &

Cummings, 1997).

We expect Mastery to mediate the effect of Global Processing positively predicting

Entrepreneurial Intentions. Global Processing may positively predict Entrepreneurial

Intentions through a learning orientation to become competent in tasks without concern for the competence of others. Mastery is a self-regulation process that may lead Global

Processing to outcomes such as Entrepreneurial Intentions. Without Mastery, Global

Processing may remain a non-utilized attentional bias, but Mastery may translate the Global

Processing into applied outcomes such as cognitions supporting starting and maintain a business. In accordance with the Mastery literature, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. Global Processing will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions through

Mastery.

Studies of attentional bias toward Global Processing or Local Processing have been relatively scarce in the business literature. One study found that attentional bias toward Local

Processing predicted higher Job Performance, which is defined as work related to individual performance. Attentional bias toward Global Processing also predicted improved altruistic performance. Altruistic performance is defined as perceiving the “big picture” of how helping others can improve performance within the organization (Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson, &

Martin, 2012). Another study found Global Processing to be related to a long-term perspective (Malkoc, Zauberman, & Bettman, 2010). We use measures of Organizational

Performance and Job Performance to assess attentional biases toward Global Processing and

129

Local Processing, because Organizational Performance is defined as tasks related to the overall organization, whereas Job Performance is defined as tasks related to individual performance. Global Processing and Local Processing using individual and organizational indices is a novel area that researchers have yet to examine.

Global Processing relates to Organizational Performance because the ratings refer to the ability to conceptualize and work toward goals that benefit the overall organization, rather than just completing specific tasks (Jackson, Hobman, et al., 2012). Individuals with an

Organizational Performance mindset make a particular contribution to the overall effectiveness of an organization; that is, while all employees indirectly contribute to the organizational performance, some employees directly contribute to the overall organization through behaviors that suggest a mindset with an attentional bias toward Global Processing.

Organizational Performance concerns an overall perception of the organization including strategy and market penetration. An example item of Organizational Performance within the

Work Role Performance scale (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) is “presented a positive image of the organization to other people (e.g., clients)”. Presenting a positive image of the organization to others and defending it when criticized are indications of attentional bias toward Global Processing because they concern organizational outcomes rather than individual tasks. Another item is “came up with ways of increasing efficiency within the organization”. Suggesting ways of improving the organization indicates concern for overall organizational outcomes beyond one’s personal benefit. A further item is “coped with changes in the way the organization operates”. While an individual may prefer continuity with a current situation rather than change, accepting and working with change indicates adaptability to suit organizational needs. Supervisor ratings of Organizational Performance are indications of Global Processing because such performance supports the overall functioning of the organization rather than serving individual needs.

130

Local Processing relates to Job Performance because the corresponding performance concerns specific tasks undertaken by the individual. Local Processing relates to basic duties without concern for overall performance. Individuals with Local Processing focus on individual-level tasks without direct concern for Organizational Performance. An example of

Job Performance within the Work Role Performance scale (Griffin et al., 2007) is “ensured your tasks were completed properly”. While a manager may understand the duties of the individual within a larger context, individuals may not focus on these broad concerns because individuals only need to complete their immediate tasks. Focus on detailed task completion is an indication of Local Processing. A further item is “initiated better ways of doing your core tasks”. Initiating local improvement is a sign that individuals are focused on the details of their specific tasks, which relates to Local Processing. Another example item is “adapted well to changes in core tasks”. If local changes are necessary, then an indication of good performance is adaptability to changing work tasks. Local Processing is demonstrated through the items of the Job Performance scale.

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, we believe that an organizational index of Global

Processing will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions to a greater extent than an organizational index of Local Processing will predict Entrepreneurial Intentions. In accordance with the available literature, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3. Entrepreneurial Intentions will be positively predicted more strongly by

Organizational Performance than Job Performance.

We previously discussed that Mastery is defined as a goal orientation to develop skills and competencies within a particular domain (Elliot & Sheldon, 1997; Elliot & Thrash,

2010). As opposed to performance goals, which concern the performance of others, Mastery goals seek to develop task-based skills without concern for the skills of others. We suggest that Global Processing may develop into Entrepreneurial Intentions through desire to acquire

131 skills and competencies. Organizational Performance is an applied measure of Global

Processing. We suggest the Organizational Performance may remain an attentional bias toward organizational outcomes without Mastery. Organizational Performance may be developed into Entrepreneurial Intentions through goals to develop task-based skills. This learning orientation toward developing skills and competencies may progress Organizational

Performance into the applied outcome of Entrepreneurial Intentions. In accordance with the literature and to be consistent with Hypothesis 2, we predict:

Hypothesis 4. Organizational Performance will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery.

In summary, the aim of this research is to determine how attentional bias toward

Global Processing or Local Processing predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions. The entrepreneurial literature has thus far provided scant research on attentional bias. Attentional bias is important aspect to theoretically understand entrepreneurial cognition. This lack of focus on attentional bias is surprising, given that attentional bias is a key aspect of psychological science (Petersen & Posner, 2012; Posner & Rothbart, 2007). We examine how attentional bias predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions using a laboratory study and then extend this research with a field study examining how organizational indices of Global Processing and Local Processing predict Entrepreneurial Intentions. Global Processing and Local

Processing is a novel direction that broadens understanding of the cognitive processing of individuals high in Entrepreneurial Intentions. This research has important practical implications, because individuals with an attentional bias toward Global Processing may be more suited to entrepreneurial ventures.

Empirical Strategy

We examine the research question of whether attentional bias toward Global

Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions through two studies: a laboratory

132 study and a field study. The results of the laboratory study have greater external validity and hence generalizability than a usual laboratory study because the sample contains full-time workers rather than undergraduate students. We examine whether Global Processing, assessed by the Navon figure task, predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions, and whether Mastery mediates the results. The first study uses a single measure of Global Processing, with a high score in the Navon Figure Task indicating high Global Processing. In the second study, we extend the findings by examining the same research question using the organizational indices of Global Processing and Local Processing. In agreement with previous research (Jackson,

Hobman, et al., 2012), we provide evidence that Organizational Performance relates to

Global Processing and Job Performance relates to Local Processing. In contrast to the laboratory study, the field study uses two separate measures of Global Processing and Local

Processing. Similar to study one, we also examine whether the relationship is mediated by

Mastery. The results of these studies advance understanding of information processing theory and the cognitive architecture of individuals high in Entrepreneurial Intentions and may assist policy makers in identifying appropriate individuals to support.

Study 1

Participants and Procedure

The sample consisted of 216 full-time workers from the United States. The full-time workers were recruited online and paid for participation (109 women, 107 men, Mage = 30.21 years,

SDage = 7.57 years, age range: 18-55 years). An a priori power analysis using G*Power suggested 107 participants would enable 95% power to detect a medium sized effect at the

.05 level of significance (Faul et al., 2007).

The full-time workers completed the measures and tasks using YWeDo

(www.ywedo.com/lab.asp), which is an online cognitive laboratory (Jackson, 2010). Data has

133 been found to be similar when collected through YWeDo compared to paper and pencil method of data collection (Fraser & Boag, 2010).

Measures

Entrepreneurial Intentions.

Entrepreneurial Intentions (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012; Jackson, 2011) is a published

8-item scale that measures intention to be functional and positively engaged in the success of an enterprise. Example items are “I see big opportunities to make money in business” and “I want to manage sales, see growth and lead a team”. The full-time workers rated their agreement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The

Cronbach alpha for the current scale is acceptable (α = .76).

We assess the Entrepreneurial Intentions of full-time workers rather than current entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial Intentions is defined as the desire to start or own a business

(Bae et al., 2014). Entrepreneurial Intentions is a mental state that directs action and attention toward a business concept (Bird, 1988). Responses from current entrepreneurs would be less valuable, because they have already established their trajectory in the entrepreneurial process.

We infer that current entrepreneurs would all be high in Entrepreneurial Intentions, restricting the potential range, whereas full-time workers may exhibit greater variation in

Entrepreneurial Intentions than any other sample. Some full-time workers could be current entrepreneurs alongside their full-time work, and thus would be high in Entrepreneurial

Intentions. Other full-time workers might have no interest in entrepreneurship and be content working for others, and thus would be low in Entrepreneurial Intentions. We argue that full- time workers are the optimal sample for research on Global Processing and entrepreneurship.

Discerning differences in Entrepreneurial Intentions has practical implications because policy makers support entrepreneurs to assist them in their venture (Shane, 2009; Story, 1994).

134

Entrepreneurial Intentions is also a useful metric for examination from a theoretical perspective. Motivation scholars within a theory of planned behavior perspective (Ajzen,

1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) suggest that intentions are an important predictor of behavior

(Armitage & Conner, 2001; Kolvereid, 1996). Entrepreneurial Intentions is a measure of propensity to engage in functional and positive business practices. Entrepreneurial Intentions is a thinking style that characterized by focus on opportunity rather than threats (Krueger,

Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). Research into Entrepreneurial Intentions is important, because initial conceptions underlie all aspects of the business including foundation, development, and survival (Bird, 1988). The process of new venture creation develops over time (Gartner,

Bird, & Starr, 1992; Gartner, Shaver, Gatewood, & Katz, 1994) with the first stage in the process being intention (Bird, 1988; Krueger et al., 2000; Lee, Wong, Foo, & Leung, 2011), followed by searching for opportunities, discovery of opportunities, evaluation, and exploitation (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Shook et al., 2003). Hence, Entrepreneurial Intentions is the crucial first stage of entrepreneurship and while a range of factors predict or are predicted by Entrepreneurial Intentions, research has yet to examine attentional bias.

Mastery.

Mastery (Jackson, 2008) is a 15-item measure of the degree to which individuals allocate cognitive resources to achieving goals, self-efficacy, and competence. Individuals high in Mastery tend to persist toward goals despite difficult circumstances. Several studies have found outcomes predicted by individuals directing cognitive effort into tasks such as education and creativity (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Jackson, Baguma, et al., 2009; Walker &

Jackson, 2014). Example items are “I like to be challenged” and “I achieve specific goals that

I set myself”. The full-time workers rated their agreement on a 3-point scale ranging from 0

(disagree) to 2 (agree). The Cronbach alpha for the current scale is good (α = .80).

135

Global Processing.

The Navon figure task (Navon, 1977) has become a standard measure of assessing

Global Processing and Local Processing. Hierarchical stimuli were first studied by Asch

(1962) and later by Kinchla (1974, 1977). We designed an experiment that assessed Global

Processing and Local Processing through a task where the global interferes with the local. A higher score on the task indicates Global Processing, whereas a lower score indicates Local

Processing.

The stimuli consisted of 36 figures. Eighteen of the Navon figure trials were hierarchically organized to be congruent. In the congruent trials, the global stimuli consisted of the same local stimuli, for example, a large global letter H that consisted of small local forms of the letter H. The other 18 Navon figure trials were hierarchically organized to be incongruent. In the incongruent trials, the global stimuli consisted of different local stimuli, for example, a large global letter H that consisted of small local forms of the letter A.

Previous studies have found that the global interferes with the local when the global and local stimuli are incongruent, but not when the global and local stimuli are congruent (Navon,

1977). In the congruent trials, the global does not interfere with the local, but in the incongruent trials, the global interferes with the local.

The full-time workers completed the task online and were instructed to respond to the local form of the letter. The full-time workers completed 36 trials where the Navon figure was either congruent or incongruent. The screen consisted of six items: the congruent or incongruent Navon figure and five online buttons of different letter options underneath the

Navon figure. One letter was the correct response (i.e., the local form of the letter), another letter was an incorrect response (i.e., the global form of the letter), and the other three were incorrect responses with random letters that were neither the local nor the global form of the

Navon figure. For example, an incongruent Navon figure may be a hierarchically organized

136 figure of a global letter H consisting of small forms of the local letter A. In this incongruent example, the five letter buttons presented underneath would be the correct local response of

A, the incorrect global response of H, and three random letters such as P, Q, and Z. The order of the five letters varied across trials.

We examine reaction time to the local stimuli and assess the level of global interference. A low reaction time indicates minimal global interference and an attentional bias of Local Processing. A high reaction time indicates high global interference and an attentional bias of Global Processing. We subtract the incongruent reaction times from the congruent reaction times to gain the measure of Global Processing. The congruent reaction time acts as a within-person control because the congruent reaction time assesses the reaction time to the local stimuli without any global interference. By subtracting the congruent reaction time score from the incongruent reaction time score, we assess each full-time worker’s level of global interference relative to their score without global interference. We also subtract the load times for each of the letters to ensure accuracy across the measurement by eliminating variability relating to computer speed. Global Processing is reported in seconds. Using the Navon figure task (Navon, 1977), we assess attentional bias toward

Global Processing and Local Processing.

Results

As shown in Table 1, Global Processing has a small to moderate positive correlation with Entrepreneurial Intentions (r = .22, p = .001). Global Processing has a small to moderate negative correlation with Mastery (r = -.24, p < .001). Mastery has a strong positive correlation with Entrepreneurial Intentions (r = .61, p < .001).

Hypothesis 1 was that Global Processing will positively predict Entrepreneurial

Intentions. We found that Global Processing directly impacted Entrepreneurial Intentions (β

= .22, p = .001). This result provides evidence to support Hypothesis 1.

137

Table 1

Study 1 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of Entrepreneurial Intentions,

Mastery, and Global Processing

Variable M SD Α 1. 2.

1. Global Processing 21.86 34.06 -

2. Mastery 22.68 6.04 .80 -.24***

3. Entrepreneurial Intentions 11.75 4.02 .76 .22** .61***

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

138

Table 2

Study 1 mediation paths of the effect of Global Processing predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions mediated by Mastery

Path DV IV Β T p R2

a Mastery Global Processing .04 3.58 < .001

b Entrepreneurial Intentions Mastery .40 10.71 <.001

c Entrepreneurial Intentions Global Processing .03 3.29 .001

c’† Entrepreneurial Intentions Global Processing (Mastery) .01 1.41 .16 .38

† Path c’ is the effect of Global Processing predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions controlling for Mastery.

139

Mastery

a b

Entrepreneurial Global c Intentions Processing c’

Figure 1. Study 1 effect of Global Processing predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions mediated by Mastery.

140

Hypothesis 2 was that Global Processing will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery. We calculated mediation using bootstrapping methodology (Preacher &

Hayes, 2008). Bootstrapping is a non-parametric sampling procedure that repeatedly samples the dataset to build an approximation of the sampling distribution (MacKinnon, Fairchild, &

Fritz, 2007). Bootstrapping has several advantages over the traditional Causal Steps Model of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). An analysis of different mediation procedures found bootstrapping has the best statistical power to find an effect (MacKinnon, Lockwood,

Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Bootstrapping has better ability to control the type one error rate, which reduces the chance of incorrectly rejecting a true null hypothesis (Hayes,

2013). Bootstrapping computes the analysis with all variables simultaneously in the equation, so that the effect is quantified, whereas the Causal Steps Model (Baron & Kenny, 1986) calculates the four steps independently, so the effect is inferred. Bootstrapping is superior to the Sobel Test (Sobel, 1982, 1986), which requires large sample sizes because the Sobel Test assumes the sample is normally distributed. Bootstrapping repeatedly samples the dataset, which creates a normally dispersed sampling distribution that can be used with any sample size (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

Table 2 outlines the values of the four paths of mediation and Figure 1 displays the path diagram of mediation. In path A, we found that the independent variable of Global

Processing positively predicted the mediator of Mastery (β = .04, p = < .001). In path B, we found that the mediator of Mastery positively predicted the dependent variable of

Entrepreneurial Intentions (β = .40, p = < .001). In path C, we found the independent variable of Global Processing positively predicted the dependent variable of Entrepreneurial

Intentions (β = .03, p = .001). Full mediation is observed if the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable becomes non-significant when controlling for the

141 mediator, because this suggests the effect is through the mediator variable rather than the direct effect (Hayes, 2013). In path C’, we found that the effect of the independent variable of

Global Processing on the dependent variable of Entrepreneurial Intentions became non- significant when the mediator of Mastery was controlled for (β = .01, p = .16). This suggests that Hypothesis 2 is supported and Global Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial

Intentions through Mastery.

In Study 1, we used the Navon figure task (Navon, 1977) to examine how attentional bias toward Global Processing predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions, mediated by Mastery. In

Study 2, we advance the research using a field study to examine how organizational indices of Global Processing and Local Processing predict Entrepreneurial Intentions. Previous research has suggested that Organizational Performance relates to Global Processing and that

Job Performance relates to Local Processing (Jackson, Hobman, et al., 2012). We use multi- source data. Organizational Performance and Job Performance are rated by the full-time workers’ supervisors and Entrepreneurial Intentions and Mastery are self-reported by the workers. We examine how Entrepreneurial Intentions is predicted by Organizational

Performance to a greater extent than Job Performance and how Organizational Performance predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery.

Study 2

Participants and Procedure

The field study sample consisted of 193 full-time workers who were recruited online and paid for participation (100 men, 93 women, Mage = 30.67 years, SDage = 7.97 years, age range: 18-60 years). The full-time workers supplied their supervisor’s email address and a website link to the survey was automatically sent to the supervisor. The supervisor’s details were automatically deleted as soon as the supervisor completed the survey. Because the participants were recruited online, each full-time worker is likely to have been supervised by

142 a unique individual. An a priori power analysis using G*Power suggested 107 participants would enable 95% power to detect a medium sized effect at the .05 level of significance (Faul et al., 2007).

The full-time workers and their supervisors completed the measures using the

YWeDo online cognitive laboratory (Jackson, 2010) described in Study 1.

Entrepreneurial Intentions.

Entrepreneurial Intentions (Jackson, 2011) is described in Study 1. The Cronbach alpha for the current scale is good (α = .82).

Mastery.

Mastery (Jackson, 2008) is described in study one. The Cronbach alpha for the current scale is acceptable (α = .78).

Supervisor-rated Organizational Performance.

We used supervisor ratings of the 9-item measure Organizational Performance from the Work Role Performance scale (Griffin et al., 2007) as an applied index of Global

Processing. Organizational Performance is a multi-dimensional scale of work performance behaviors including adaptability, proactivity, assessment of compliance, and task and contextual performance. The full-time workers rated their agreement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The instructions asked supervisors to be open and honest in their assessment of their subordinates. Example items of

Organizational Performance are “To what extent have you defended the organization if others have criticized it?” and “To what extent have you adjusted well to changes in the organization?” We suggest that supervisor-rated Organizational Performance relates to

Global Processing because Organizational Performance concerns organization member proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. Organizational Performance is acting in accord with

143 the overall goals of the organization. The Cronbach alpha for the current scale is excellent (α

= .90).

We use supervisor ratings rather than self-ratings because multi-source data adds depth to the research and overcomes common method bias, where both the independent and dependent variables are self-ratings from the same source (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Supervisor ratings are also useful because they tend to differ from subordinate ratings (Bernardin &

Beatty, 1984; Mount, 1984; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). A meta-analysis found that supervisor ratings of performance were only moderately associated with subordinate ratings of performance (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Most datasets include supervisor ratings of subordinates all from the same company, whereas this dataset includes supervisors from multiple companies, improving the external validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

Supervisor-rated Job Performance.

We used the original 11-item measure of supervisor-rated Job Performance (Griffin et al., 2007) as an applied index of Local Processing. Supervisors rated their agreement with the

Job Performance of subordinates on a 5-point scale from ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The instructions asked supervisors to be open and honest in their assessment of their subordinates. Example items of Job Performance are “ensured your tasks were completed properly” and “made changes to the way your core tasks are done”. We suggest that supervisor-rated Job Performance relates to Local Processing because Job

Performance concerns individual task proficiency, individual task adaptivity, and individual task proactivity. Job Performance is acting in accord with goals that will achieve individual outcomes without concern for overall organizational goals. The Cronbach alpha for the current scale is excellent (α = .91).

144

Table 3

Study 2 means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations of the Entrepreneurial

Intentions, Job Performance, and Organizational Performance

Variable M SD Α 1. 2. 3.

1. Organizational Performance 38.24 5.55 .90

2. Job Performance 47.48 6.30 .91 .75***

3. Mastery 24.22 5.09 .78 .36*** .32***

4. Entrepreneurial Intentions 11.74 4.38 .82 .25*** .15* .48***

* p < .05.

*** p < .001.

145

Table 4

Study 2 mediation paths of the effect of Organizational Performance predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions mediated by Mastery

Path DV IV β T p R2

a Mastery Organizational Performance .33 5.33 <.001

b Entrepreneurial Intentions Mastery .41 7.52 <.001

c Entrepreneurial Intentions Organizational Performance .20 3.56 <.001

c’† Entrepreneurial Intentions Organizational Performance (Mastery) .07 1.31 .19 .24

† Path c’ is the effect of Organizational Performance predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions controlling for Mastery.

146

Mastery

a b

Entrepreneurial Organizational c Intentions Performance c’

Figure 2. Study 2 effect of Entrepreneurial Intentions on Organizational Performance mediated by Mastery.

147

Results

As displayed in Table 3, Organizational Performance had a moderate positive correlation with Entrepreneurial Intentions (r = .25, p < .001), whereas Job Performance had a small positive correlation with Entrepreneurial Intentions (r = .15, p = .03). Organizational

Performance had a moderate positive correlation with Mastery (r = .36, p < .001) and Job

Performance had a moderate positive correlation with Mastery (r = .32, p < .001). Mastery had a strong positive correlation with Entrepreneurial Intentions (r = .48, p < .001).

Organizational Performance had a strong positive correlation with Job Performance (r = .75, p < .001). Organizational Performance and Job Performance have conceptual discrimination and have been shown to have discriminant validity using two studies in the initial validation

(Griffin et al., 2007). Using a chi-squared difference test, we found the Organizational

2 Performance and Job Performance had discriminant validity in the current sample (χ diff =

112.14, df = 1, p < .001).

Hypothesis 3 was that Organizational Performance will positively predict

Entrepreneurial Intentions to a greater extent than Job Performance will predict

Entrepreneurial Intentions. In Study 1, we used a laboratory study to assess Global

Processing. In Study 2, we use the organizational indices of Organization Performance and

Job Performance to assess Global Processing and Local Processing. We analyzed the difference between the Organizational Performance and Entrepreneurial Intentions correlation compared to the Job Performance and Entrepreneurial Intentions correlation using

Steiger’s z method (1980) of calculating the difference between the two dependent correlations. Steiger’s z method conducts a Fisher z transformation (Fisher, 1921) before the analysis, which converts the raw correlation coefficients into standard scores within a normal distribution. This transformation ensures that Steiger’s z method is appropriate for any sample size, because the traditional Hotelling’s t test (Hotelling, 1940) assumes normality,

148 which necessitates large sample sizes to be meaningful (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992).

Using the improved Steiger’s z method, we found that the correlation between Organizational

Performance and Entrepreneurial Intentions was significantly larger than the correlation between Job Performance and Entrepreneurial Intentions (z = 2.00, p = .046). Because this study includes a good sample size (n = 193), the assumption of normality is fulfilled and the two correlations also differ using the traditional Hotelling’s t method (t = -2.02, p = .045).

This difference between correlations suggests that individuals with an attentional bias toward

Organizational Performance (Global Processing) are more likely to have intentions of starting and maintaining a business. This result supports Hypothesis 3 that Entrepreneurial Intentions would be predicted by Organizational Performance to a greater extent than Job Performance.

Hypothesis 4 was that supervisor-rated Organizational Performance will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery. Table 4 outlines the values of the four paths of mediation and Figure 2 displays the path diagram of mediation. We analyzed mediation using the bootstrapping SPSS macro described in Study 1 (Preacher & Hayes,

2008). In path A, we found that the independent variable of Organizational Performance positively predicted the mediator of Mastery (β = .33, p = < .001). In path B, we found that the mediator of Mastery positively predicted the dependent variable of Entrepreneurial

Intentions (β = .41, p = < .001). In path C, we found that the independent variable of

Organizational Performance positively predicted the dependent variable of Entrepreneurial

Intentions (β = .20, p < .001). Full mediation is observed if the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable becomes non-significant when controlling for the mediator, because this suggests the effect is through the mediator variable rather than the direct effect (Hayes, 2013). In path C’, we found that the effect of the independent variable of

Organizational Performance on the dependent variable of Entrepreneurial Intentions became non-significant when controlling for the mediator of Mastery (β = .07, p = .19). This result

149 supports Hypothesis 4 that Organizational Performance will positively predict

Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery.

General Discussion

We found support for Hypothesis 1 and 2 in a laboratory study and support for

Hypothesis 3 and 4 in a field study. Hypothesis 1 was that Global Processing will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions. This hypothesis was supported, suggesting that Global

Processing predicts higher intention to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits. Intentions is an important predictor of behavior within the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and is the important first step toward business creation (Bird, 1988). While several studies have examined cognitive processes related to Entrepreneurial Intentions, this is the first study to suggest that Global Processing predicts entrepreneurial outcomes. Previous research on attentional bias has examined differences in social behavior such as culture, religion, and mental illness (Colzato et al., 2010; De Fockert & Cooper, 2014; Kalanthroff et al., 2013;

Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005). This study adds depth to the existing psychological literature and incorporates attentional bias into the entrepreneurial cognition literature. The research strengthens the notion that an attentional bias toward Global Processing increases the likelihood of cognitions benefitting entrepreneurship.

Hypothesis 2 was also supported. We hypothesized that Global Processing will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery. Mastery is defined as an approach goal of acquiring competencies and skills without concern for the abilities of others

(Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Mastery provides cognitive resources that can be allocated to self- regulate attentional biases toward functional outcomes. Without Mastery, Global Processing may remain a cognitive attentional bias without any applied outcomes. Mastery may develop one’s Global Processing into cognitions regarding starting and maintaining a business. The role of Mastery in developing an orientation toward applied outcomes concurs with previous

150 research (e.g., Elliot & Thrash, 2010; O'Connor & Jackson, 2008; Walker & Jackson, 2014).

This study suggests that an attentional bias toward Global Processing develops into

Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery, which is a learning orientation toward achieving tasks and gaining competencies.

Study 1 examined how Global Processing predicted Entrepreneurial Intentions in a laboratory study. Study 2 developed this research by examining how organizational indices of

Global Processing and Local Processing predict Entrepreneurial Intentions. Hypothesis 3 was that Organizational Performance will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions to a greater extent than Job Performance will predict Entrepreneurial Intentions. Study 2 provided evidence to support this hypothesis. Using two different statistical measures, (i.e., the improved Steiger’s z method and the traditional Hotelling’s t method), we found that the correlation between Organizational Performance and Entrepreneurial Intentions was greater than the correlation between Job Performance and Entrepreneurial Intentions. The higher correlation for Organizational Performance and Entrepreneurial Intentions suggests that individuals high in Global Processing are more likely to have cognitions related to starting a business than individuals with an attentional bias to Local Processing. This field study strengthens and extends the results of the laboratory study. Both the laboratory study and field study found an attentional bias toward Global Processing positively predicted

Entrepreneurial Intentions.

The results also supported Hypothesis 4 that Organizational Performance will positively predict Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery. Similar to Global Processing predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery in Study 1, we found further evidence of mediation through Mastery. In Study 2, the organizational measure of Global Processing predicted Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery. Without Mastery, Organizational

Performance may remain an attentional bias that fails to support cognitions to start and

151 maintain a business. That is, Mastery may be necessary for developing Organizational

Performance into applied entrepreneurial cognitions and may progress this applied Global

Processing measure into cognitions beyond the organization to concerns for starting an individual’s own business. Mastery has predicted several organizational outcomes (e.g.,

Kozlowski et al., 2001; VandeWalle et al., 1999) and this research suggests an orientation toward the overall organization may develop into cognitions regarding starting a business through Mastery.

Attentional bias toward Global Processing as a predictor of Entrepreneurial Intentions extends information processing theory (Grant & Berry, 2011; Leonard et al., 1999). All individuals have limited cognitive capacity and can only process certain information and selectively attend to cues (Bhave, Kramer, & Glomb, 2010). The results of these two studies suggest attentional bias toward Global Processing predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions and that attentional bias toward Local Processing is less likely to lead to entrepreneurial cognitions. A big-picture vision for the business is necessary for entrepreneurs. While Local Processing is appropriate for employees, Global Processing is required for entrepreneurs. If an attentional bias toward Global Processing is not exhibited by an entrepreneur, then the business may suffer because of insufficient vision. This research is the first to provide evidence for the attentional bias of Global Processing among individuals high in Entrepreneurial Intentions.

This research is strengthened by its use of a two-study design where the research is developed from a laboratory study to field study. Replication and extension provides stronger evidence for the effect of Global Processing positively predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions through Mastery (Eden, 2002; Funder et al., 2014). Another strength is the use of bootstrapping to analyze the mediation (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Bootstrapping includes all the variables in the analysis simultaneously to overcome problems in the Causal Steps Model of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) including inferring rather than testing for the effect. The

152 research also incorporates two methods of overcoming common method bias, which occurs when all data are from the same source, such as individual self-report. To overcome common method bias in Study 1, we employed an objective laboratory task measure, the Navon figure task (Navon, 1977), as the independent variable. To overcome common method bias in Study

2, we utilized field study data from two different sources: supervisors rating their subordinates as the independent variable and subordinates rating themselves as the dependent variable. Supervisor ratings are useful because supervisor and subordinate ratings tend to differ (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). These techniques of overcoming common method bias are recommended in a review (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This is a unique dataset where supervisors and subordinates are from many different organizations rather than just one or two organizations, which may improve the generalizability of the results.

Limitations and Future Research

Although we have provided evidence that attentional bias toward Global Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions, we are mindful to not become deterministic or reductionist in our account of the complexities of entrepreneurship (Tracey & Schluppeck,

2013; Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008). While greater Global Processing may increase the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur and Mastery may mediate this process, many other factors may be involved such as market opportunities (Gregoire &

Shepherd, 2012) and social networks (Batjargal et al., 2013). Another limitation is our use of a cross-sectional design in a mediational analysis. While theoretically we imply that one variable causes another variable, attributions of causality requires a longitudinal experimental design (Maxwell & Cole, 2007) or causal chain of experiments (Spencer et al., 2005). Future studies might use a longitudinal experimental design or series of experiments and test for rather than infer that Global Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial Intentions.

153

Managerial Implications

This research is an important step toward the implications of identifying potential entrepreneurs, supporting potential entrepreneurs, and utilizing Mastery to foster entrepreneurial skills. Entrepreneurs are the drivers of economic growth (Schumpeter, 1934) and have been credited with many inventions that benefit society such as computers, airplanes, and contact lenses (Baumol, 2004). Policy makers spend substantial public money to assist entrepreneurs, either in direct funds or indirectly through training programs. Most entrepreneurs fail (Singh, Corner, & Pavlovich, 2015), so identifying potential entrepreneurs and assisting them where possible may improve their likelihood of success (Story, 1994).

This research suggests that individuals with an attentional bias toward Global Processing are more likely to integrate information into a vision that encompasses the whole business rather than their specific duties. The process of mastery where effort is exerted to develop skills and achieve tasks can facilitate the process. The effect of Global Processing predicting

Entrepreneurial Intentions mediated by Mastery suggests that training entrepreneurial skills may be effective in assisting potential entrepreneurs to achieve their business objectives.

Previous research has shown that training can assist with the focus of attention (Petersen &

Posner, 2012), but training can also translate Global Processing into entrepreneurial abilities to envision the “big picture” issues of the venture rather than becoming overly focused on the details. While this study examined Entrepreneurial Intentions, rather than entrepreneurs, intentions is the crucial first step in the multi-stage process of intentions, searching for opportunities, discovery of opportunities, evaluation, and exploitation (Eckhardt & Shane,

2003). This research provides important information on the personal characteristics of who may be more likely to start a business venture.

154

Conclusions

This research identified that Global Processing positively predicts Entrepreneurial

Intentions through Mastery. Global Processing may be a cognitive style where attention is allocated to big-picture information rather than specific features. A vision may be necessary for entrepreneurs to form and present to employees a strategy and goal for the business. The research heeds the call for psychology researchers to examine cognition and our findings have implications for entrepreneurial education (Hisrich et al., 2007). We address the insufficiency of research relating attentional bias to entrepreneurial activity, advancing understanding entrepreneurial cognition and extending information processing theory.

Through this understanding, policy makers are provided assistance in identifying and supporting potential entrepreneurs. In this article, we contribute to the entrepreneurial cognition literature by determining that global thinkers are more likely to be high in

Entrepreneurial Intentions.

155

Chapter 7: General Discussion

Within the body of this thesis, I have written five independent chapters designed for journal articles. My supervisor is a co-author in the chapters so the term “we” is used. The chapters include a literature review, conceptual chapter, and three empirical chapters that contain five studies. To the best of my knowledge, these studies are unique and make a substantial contribution to the personality, cognitive psychology, and entrepreneurship literature. Each of these chapters is based on RST. In chapter one, I provided an overview of the thesis. In chapter two, I reviewed original and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory in the five years between 2010 and 2014. In chapter three, I examined process models of personality and how personality and cognitions predict behavior. In chapter four, I found that an approach orientation personality positively predicted divergent thinking creativity through mastery, openness to experience positively predicted divergent thinking creativity, and fear negatively predicted divergent thinking creativity. In chapter five, I found that disinhibition positively predicted the dysfunctional outcomes of psychopathy and the functional outcome of entrepreneurial intentions. In chapter six, study one found that a global orientation attentional bias positively predicted entrepreneurial intentions through mastery. Study two found organizational performance (global processing) predicted entrepreneurial intentions greater than job performance (local processing) predicted entrepreneurial intentions.

Organizational performance is an organizational measure of global processing.

Organizational performance positively predicted entrepreneurial intentions through mastery.

This thesis addresses the request for psychology researchers to study entrepreneurship in five key areas: personality, cognition, psychopathology, education, and international entrepreneurship (Hisrich et al., 2007). This research examines three of the key areas: personality, cognition, and psychopathology. A review of cognitive styles suggested many individual fields developed specific cognitive research and theory rather than an integrative

156 framework (Kozhevnikov, 2007). This thesis is thoroughly grounded in personality and cognitive research within psychology and is relevant for entrepreneurship and general psychology. Entrepreneurship scholars seek to differentiate between entrepreneurs and non- entrepreneurs (Baron, 2004; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). These studies provide new information on such differences by examining entrepreneurial intentions within specific contexts.

This research supports several theoretical perspectives. Chapter two and four support the division of fear and anxiety in r-RST (Perkins et al., 2007). Chapter three sharpens theory on process model of personality where outcomes are predicted distally by biology and proximally through cognitive mediators. In chapter four, I found that the biological approach orientation distally predicted divergent thinking creativity through the cognitive mediator of mastery. Chapter five suggests a new perspective on the corporate psychopathy literature

(Babiak & Hare, 2006; Babiak et al., 2010). I propose that individuals high in psychopathy and individuals high in entrepreneurial intentions share disinhibition as a common underlying variable. These results also support the novel perspective that disinhibition and related traits, such as sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk-taking, are approach orientations behaviorally similar to the BAS in r-RST. They can lead to either dysfunctional or functional outcomes rather than only dysfunctional outcomes as most researcher suggest (Zuckerman,

1994). Chapter six supports information processing theory (Egelhoff, 1991; Forgas &

George, 2001). Individual can only focus on a limited amount of stimuli. These results suggest that individuals high in entrepreneurial intentions have an attentional bias toward global orientation rather than local orientation.

A key contribution of this thesis is strong methodological design and sophisticated statistical analysis. This thesis contains five rigorously designed studies with thorough data analysis. Good design is important because a field of research can be judged by the quality of

157 methods (Allen, Eby, O'Brien, & Lentz, 2008) and design can affect the results and interpretations (Sackett & Larson, 1990). The entrepreneurship field has abundant theoretical research and needs more empirical studies (Gregoire, Noel, Dery, & Bechard, 2006). A review of entrepreneurship research found a lack of methodological rigor in the studies

(Chandler & Lyon, 2001). Many studies included common method bias (Podsakoff et al.,

2003), which included both the independent and dependent variables as self-report data with a cross-sectional design. Many of the scales used were not assessed for construct validity and reliability (Cromie, 2000; Rauch & Frese, 2000). In contrast to these issues, the current research provides empirical studies with strong design and statistical analysis.

In this thesis, I incorporate several design strengths. I assess entrepreneurial intentions using a published 8-item measure (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012; Jackson, 2011). Multi-item measures assess the construct of entrepreneurial intentions better than the short or single item measures frequently used (e.g., Kolvereid, 1996). This thesis contributes to theory through interpretation of the results from five empirical studies. Four of the empirical studies use an objective laboratory task as the independent variable, which assesses the construct better than self-report measures and overcomes the problem of common method bias (Podsakoff et al.,

2003). Chapter five uses a control condition and experimental condition to assess the effect of disinhibition on psychopathy and entrepreneurial intentions. The second study of chapter six uses multi-source data, with self-report data and supervisor ratings of performance, to overcome common method bias.

This research also incorporates triangulation (Orlitzky, 2012), which is better than direct replication, because triangulation develops the research through examining the same over-arching research question using different designs. Chapter five includes a replication and extension study and chapter six examines two studies within the same research domain.

Some researchers suggest a “crisis in confidence” (Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012, p. 528)

158 regarding psychological research because of insufficient publication of studies that examine the same research questions. Triangulation can assist with the epistemic certainty of a phenomenon over single studies (Lykken, 1968; Nelson, Megill, & McCloskey, 1987).

Methodological rigor is a primary contribution psychological researchers can provide to the field of entrepreneurship (Hisrich et al., 2007).

The implications of this research are important for broad understanding of the personality and cognitions underlying entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurs are a crucial source of employment and economic growth within societies (Schumpeter, 1934). Individuals choose entrepreneurship over employment because they seek to maximize their utility

(Douglas & Shepherd, 2000; Levesque, Shepherd, & Douglas, 2002) and this acceptance of higher risk can benefit society. Understanding entrepreneurs’ personality and cognitions can assist in identifying individuals who are likely to become an entrepreneur (Bonnett &

Furnham, 1991). Identifying likely entrepreneurs is important for policy-makers to discern who to support (Shane, 2009; Story, 1994) given that most entrepreneurial ventures fail

(Shepherd, Patzelt, Williams, & Warnecke, 2014).

Understanding the personality and cognitions of entrepreneurship can also assist with entrepreneurial education. Education can enhance abilities and attitudes (Douglas &

Shepherd, 2000). Some personality traits may be stable dispositions that are unable to be changed, such as the approach orientation BAS and fear in chapter three and disinhibition in chapter four. Individuals high in BAS, high in disinhibition, and low in fear are more likely to be interested in entrepreneurship. Regarding entrepreneurial effectiveness, skills can be trained through entrepreneurship education. Mastery skills can be trained as a proximal predictor of potential success with high BAS, low fear, and high disinhibition. The attentional bias of global orientation in chapter six may be either a stable disposition or a cognitive mechanism that can be trained. If global orientation is a stable disposition, then this research

159 suggests individuals with a global orientation are more likely to be interested in entrepreneurship. If global orientation is a malleable cognitive mechanism, then entrepreneurship education may assist in increasing attentional bias toward global orientation.

Entrepreneurial education can include deliberate practice to attain expert performance

(Ericsson, Krampe, & Teschromer, 1993). Education may implement changes at the proximal cognitive level and improve the “entrepreneurial mindset” (Haynie, Shepherd, Mosakowski,

& Earley, 2010, p. 217). Education is important because one study found a relationship between venture growth intentions and actual venture growth moderated by education

(Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003)

These studies contain some limitations that future studies could address. While the objective laboratory tasks strengthen the studies, the studies were cross-sectional.

Longitudinal studies with experimental design are necessary to establish causality (Spencer et al., 2005). While the tasks included objective tasks or multi-source data, the research included some self-report data. Participants may have engaged in socially desirable responses

(Furnham, 1986), particularly with the psychopathy scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010). A psychopathy scale could be devised that is positively valenced rather than negatively valenced, which may reduce the obvious social undesirability of the items. The scale could also include some filler items. The perception of normal behavior is culture bound and socially desirable responses may be in different directions depending on the culture

(Furnham, 1979).

Future research can progress in several directions. Regarding chapter two, future studies could incorporate measures specifically designed to examine r-RST. Regarding chapter three, future studies could examine process models in the context of entrepreneurship.

Regarding chapter four, future studies could examine if an approach orientation and low fear predict higher entrepreneurial intentions and activity. I found that an approach orientation and

160 low fear positively predicted divergent thinking. Longitudinal studies could examine how approach orientation and low fear predict entrepreneurship within the process from entrepreneurial intentions to exploitation. Regarding chapter five, I found that disinhibition predicted dysfunctional and functional outcomes. A longitudinal study could use an intervention on individuals high in disinhibition and examine if this intervention can redirect the disinhibition from dysfunctional outcomes to functional outcomes. With the intervention, disinhibition could lead to a business venture rather than antisocial behavior. Regarding chapter six, I found that attentional bias to global orientation predicted entrepreneurial intentions through mastery. Future studies could examine entrepreneurial educational initiatives to assist individuals with a global orientation to gain mastery. Individuals with certain predispositions are more likely to be attracted to entrepreneurship (Bonnett &

Furnham, 1991), but the predispositions that attract them to positions can also cause derailment (Furnham, Hyde, & Trickey, 2013, 2014). Many businesses fail (Shepherd,

Haynie, & Patzelt, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2014) because of reasons such as overconfidence

(Hayward, Shepherd, & Griffin, 2006; Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2001). Entrepreneurship education may assist with mastery, which reduces the probability that individuals high in global orientation may not succeed. Future research could also examine entrepreneurial behavior instead of entrepreneurial intentions.

In conclusion, the body of this thesis contains five stand-alone chapters designed for submission to journals, which includes a literature review, conceptual chapter, and three empirical chapters that contain five studies. These studies assist the personality, cognition, and entrepreneurship literature. I have discerned new associations between personality and cognitive mechanisms. This includes an evaluation of r-RST; an examination of process model of personality where behavior is distally predicted by biology and proximally predicted by socio-cognitive mechanisms; an association between biological measures of

161 personality and divergent thinking creativity, which are related to entrepreneurship; a new model to understand the relationship between psychopathy and corporate behavior, with disinhibition as an underlying variable; and a new cognitive variable to examine entrepreneurial intentions, with attentional bias toward global orientation positively predicting entrepreneurial intentions. These relationships are rigorously designed and contribute to the understanding of entrepreneurship. Implications are the identification and support of potential entrepreneurs. Training can enhance cognitive self-regulation mechanisms such as mastery, which may lead to entrepreneurial success.

162

References

Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple-regression in

management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141-1158.

doi:10.1177/014920639502100607

Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). EQ-nomics: Understanding

the relationship between individual differences in Trait Emotional Intelligence and

entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1028-1033.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.016

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Akhtar, R., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Greed is good? Assessing the

relationship between entrepreneurship and subclinical psychopathy. Personality and

Individual Differences, 54, 420-425. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.013

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., O'Brien, K. E., & Lentz, E. (2008). The state of mentoring research:

A qualitative review of current research methods and future research implications.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 343-357. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.004

Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2012). Trait mindfulness and work-family balance among

working parents: The mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 80, 372-379. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.002

Allio, R. J. (2006). Strategic thinking: The ten big ideas. Strategy & Leadership, 34, 4-13.

doi:10.1108/10878570610676837

163

Aluja, A., & Blanch, A. (2011). Neuropsychological Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and

Behavioral Approach System (BAS) assessment: A shortened Sensitivity to

Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire version (SPSRQ-20). Journal of

Personality Assessment, 93, 628-636. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.608760

Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of

entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 11-26.

doi:10.1002/sej.4

Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities:

The implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and

organizational research. Organization Science, 24, 301-317.

doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0727

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work

environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.

doi:10.2307/256995

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning

strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

doi:10.1037//0022-0663.80.3.260

Ando, J., Ono, Y., Yoshimura, K., Onoda, N., Shinohara, M., Kanba, S., & Asai, M. (2002).

The genetic structure of Cloninger's seven-factor model of temperament and character

in a Japanese sample. Journal of Personality, 70, 583-609. doi:10.1111/1467-

6494.05018

Ando, J., Suzuki, A., Yamagata, S., Kijima, N., Maekawa, H., Ono, Y., & Jang, K. L. (2004).

Genetic and environmental structure of Cloninger's temperament and character

dimensions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 379-393.

doi:10.1521/pedi.2004.18.4.379

164

Angrilli, A., Sartori, G., & Donzella, G. (2013). Cognitive, emotional and social markers of

serial murdering. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27, 485-494.

doi:10.1080/13854046.2013.771215

Anicha, C. L., Ode, S., Moeller, S. K., & Robinson, M. D. (2012). Toward a cognitive view

of Trait Mindfulness: Distinct cognitive skills predict its observing and nonreactivity

facets. Journal of Personality, 80, 255-285. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00722.x

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-

analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.

doi:10.1348/014466601164939

Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality

and Individual Differences, 16, 289-296. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90165-1

Arnett, P. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (1997). Approach and avoidance motivation in

psychopathic criminal offenders during passive avoidance. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 72, 1413-1428. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1413

Asch, S. E. (1962). A problem in the theory of associations. Psychologische Beiträge, 6, 553-

563.

Ashby, C. R., & Stritzke, W. G. (2013). Is sensitivity to reward associated with the

malleability of implicit inclinations toward high-fat food? Emotion, 13, 711-723.

doi:10.1037/a0031611

Asscher, J. J., van Vugt, E. S., Stams, G. J., Dekovic, M., Eichelsheim, V. I., & Yousfi, S.

(2011). The relationship between juvenile psychopathic traits, delinquency and

(violent) recidivism: a meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

52, 1134-1143. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02412.x

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive

organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant

165

attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70.

doi:10.1177/0021886307311470

Avila, C., Garbin, G., Sanjuan, A., Forn, C., Barros-Loscertales, A., Bustamante, J. C., . . .

Parcet, M. A. (2012). Frontostriatal response to set switching is moderated by reward

sensitivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 423-430.

doi:10.1093/scan/nsr028

Avila, C., & Parcet, M. A. (2000). The role of Gray's impulsivity in anxiety-mediated

differences in resistance to extinction. European Journal of Personality, 14, 185-198.

doi:10.1002/1099-0984(200005/06)14:3<185::AID-PER370>3.0.CO;2-U

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Waterson, P. E. (2000).

Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-385.

doi:10.1348/096317900167029

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-

creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological

Bulletin, 134, 779-806. doi:10.1037/a0012815

Babiak, P. (1995). When psychopaths go to work: A case study of an industrial psychopath.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44, 171-188. doi:10.1111/j.1464-

0597.1995.tb01073.x

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York,

NY: HarperCollins.

Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk.

Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 174-193. doi:10.1002/bsl.925

166

Bachevalier, J. (1990). Ontogenic development of habit and memory formation in primates.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608, 457-484. doi:10.1111/j.1749-

6632.1990.tb48906.x

Back, M. D., Kufner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J.

J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark

sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013-1037.

doi:10.1037/a0034431

Bae, T. J., Qian, S. S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between

entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 217-254. doi:10.1111/etap.12095

Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and

empirical review. Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 10, 125-143.

doi:10.1093/clipsy/bpg015

Ball, S. A., & Zuckerman, M. (1990). Sensation seeking, Eysenck's personality dimensions

and reinforcement sensitivity in concept-formation. Personality and Individual

Differences, 11, 343-353. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90216-e

Baltar, F., & de Coulon, S. (2014). Dynamics of the entrepreneurial process: The innovative

entrepreneur and the strategic decisions. Review of Business and Finance Studies, 5,

69-81.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York,

NY: Guildford.

167

Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M.

H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A

meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1-24. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.133.1.1

Barnhofer, T., Duggan, D. S., & Griffith, J. W. (2011). Dispositional mindfulness moderates

the relation between neuroticism and depressive symptoms. Personality and

Individual Differences, 51, 958-962. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.032

Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when

entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13,

275-294. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00031-1

Baron, R. A. (2004). The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering

entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 221-

239. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00008-9

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.51.6.1173

Barratt, E. S. (1994). Impulsiveness and aggression. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.),

Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 61-79). Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Barros-Loscertales, A., Ventura-Campos, N., Sanjuan-Tomas, A., Belloch, V., Parcet, M. A.,

& Avila, C. (2010). Behavioral activation system modulation on brain activation

during appetitive and aversive stimulus processing. Social Cognitive and Affective

Neuroscience, 5, 18-28. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq012

168

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, &

managerial implications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review

of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 132,

455-929.

Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Tsui, A. S., Arregle, J. L., Webb, J. W., & Miller, T. L. (2013).

Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneurs' social networks, and new venture growth.

Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1024-1049. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0095

Baughman, H. M., Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). Liar liar pants on fire:

Cheater strategies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences,

71, 35-38. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.019

Baum, J. R., Frese, M., Baron, R. A., & Katz, J. A. (2007). Entrepreneurship as an area of

psychology study: An introduction. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.),

The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and

motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 587-

598. doi:10.1037/0021-9010-89.4.587

Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of

vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 83, 43-54. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.1.43

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of

General Psychology, 1, 311-320. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.1.3.311

Baumeister, R. F., & Lobbestael, J. (2011). Emotions and antisocial behavior. Journal of

Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22, 635-649. doi:10.1080/14789949.2011.617535

169

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243-267. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.115.2.243

Baumol, W. J. (2004). The free-market innovation machine: Analyizing the growth miracle of

capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Baysinger, M. A., Scherer, K. T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). Exploring the disruptive effects

of psychopathy and aggression on group processes and group effectiveness. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 99, 48-65. doi:10.1037/a0034317

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process

model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,

1054-1068. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1054

Beck, I., Smits, D. J. M., Claes, L., Vandereycken, W., & Bijttebier, P. (2009). Psychometric

evaluation of the behavioral inhibition/behavioral activation system scales and the

sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire in a sample of eating

disordered patients. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 407-412.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.007

Becker, S. P., Fite, P. J., Garner, A. A., Greening, L., Stoppelbein, L., & Luebbe, A. M.

(2013). Reward and punishment sensitivity are differentially associated with ADHD

and sluggish cognitive tempo symptoms in children. Journal of Research in

Personality, 47, 719-727. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.07.001

Behrens, J., Ernst, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2014). The decision to exploit an R&D project:

Divergent thinking across middle and senior managers. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 31, 144-158. doi:10.1111/jpim.12085

Behrmann, M., Thomas, C., & Humphreys, K. (2006). Seeing it differently: Visual

processing in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 258-264.

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.001

170

Belfort, J. (2007). The Wolf of Wall Street. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Belli, S. (2009). A psychobiographical analysis of Brian Douglas Wilson: Creativity, drugs,

and models of schizophrenic and affective disorders. Personality and Individual

Differences, 46, 809-819. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.016

Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior

at work. Boston, MA: Kent-Wadsworth.

Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2000). Psychobiology and social psychology: Past,

present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 3-15.

doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_2

Bhave, D. P., Kramer, A., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Work-family conflict in work groups:

Social information processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 95, 145-158. doi:10.1037/a0017885

Bhide, A. (1996). The questions every entrepreneur must answer. Harvard Business Review,

74, 120-130. Retrieved from ://WOS:A1996VV16800015

Bierly, P., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Charette, B. J. (2009). Understanding the complex

relationship between creativity and ethical ideologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 86,

101-112. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9837-6

Biggs, A. T., Stey, P. C., Davoli, C. C., Lapsley, D., & Brockmole, J. R. (2014). Knowing

where to draw the line: Perceptual differences between risk-takers and non-risk-

takers. Plos One, 9, e91880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091880

Bijttebier, P., Beck, I., Claes, L., & Vandereycken, W. (2009). Gray's Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory as a framework for research on personality-psychopathology

associations. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 421-430. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.04.002

171

Billington, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Bor, D. (2008). Systemizing influences attentional

processes during the Navon task: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 46, 511-520.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.09.003

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of

Management Review, 13, 442-453. doi:10.2307/258091

Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Company.

Bjørnebekk, G., & Howard, R. (2012). Validation of a motivation-based typology of angry

aggression among antisocial youths in Norway. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30,

167-180. doi:10.1002/bsl.2007

Blackburn, R. (1975). Empirical classification of psychopathic personality. British Journal of

Psychiatry, 127, 456-460. doi:10.1192/bjp.127.5.456

Blackburn, R. (1996). Replicated personality disorder clusters among mentally disordered

offenders and their relation to dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality

Disorders, 10, 68-81. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.1.76

Blackburn, R., & Fawcett, D. (1999). The Antisocial Personality Questionnaire: An inventory

for assessing personality deviation in offender populations. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 15, 14-24. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.15.1.14

Blackburn, R., & Leeevans, J. M. (1985). Reactions of primary and secondary psychopaths to

anger-evoking situations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 93-100.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1985.tb01319.x

Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy

through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and

Cognition, 14, 698-718. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004

Blair, R. J. R., & Cipolotti, L. (2000). Impaired social response reversal: A case of 'acquired

sociopathy'. Brain, 123, 1122-1141. doi:10.1093/brain/123.6.1122

172

Blair, R. J. R., Sellars, C., Strickland, I., Clark, F., Williams, A. O., Smith, M., & Jones, L.

(1995). Emotion attributions in the psychopath. Personality and Individual

Differences, 19, 431-437. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)00080-p

Blanchard, D. C., & Blanchard, R. J. (1990a). Anti-predator defence as models of animal fear

and anxiety. In P. F. Brain, R. J. Parmigiani, R. J. Blanchard, & D. C. Blanchard

(Eds.), Fear and defence (pp. 89-105). Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic.

Blanchard, D. C., & Blanchard, R. J. (1990b). An ethoexperimental analysis of defense, fear

and anxiety. In N. McNaughton & G. Andrews (Eds.), Anxiety (pp. 124-133).

Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187

Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five-factor approach to personality

description 5 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 98-107.

doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2293

Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations.

Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2-25. doi:10.1080/10478401003596626

Boddy, C. R. (2011a). The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis.

Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 255-259. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0810-4

Boddy, C. R. (2011b). Corporate psychopaths, bullying and unfair supervision in the

workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 367-379. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0689-5

Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and

counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 107-121.

doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0

Bogg, T., & Finn, P. R. (2010). A Self-Regulatory Model of Behavioral Disinhibition in Late

Adolescence: Integrating Personality Traits, Externalizing Psychopathology, and

173

Cognitive Capacity. Journal of Personality, 78, 441-470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2010.00622.x

Boksema, M. A. S., Topsa, M., Westera, A. E., Meijmana, T. F., & Lorist, M. M. (2006).

Error-related ERP components and individual differences in punishment and reward

sensitivity. Brain Research, 1101, 92-101. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.05.004

Bond, F. W., Lloyd, J., & Guenole, N. (2013). The work-related acceptance and action

questionnaire: Initial psychometric findings and their implications for measuring

psychological flexibility in specific contexts. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 86, 331-347. doi:10.1111/joop.12001

Bonnett, C., & Furnham, A. (1991). Who wants to be an entrepreneur: A study of adolescents

interested in a young enterprise scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12, 465-

478. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(91)90027-q

Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or warrior-hawks? Personality

and Individual Differences, 36, 33-45. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(03)00049-7

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent

variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203-219. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.203

Bowen, K. L., Morgan, J. E., Moore, S. C., & van Goozen, S. H. M. (2014). Young offenders'

emotion recognition dysfunction across emotion intensities: Explaining variation

using psychopathic traits, conduct disorder and offense severity. Journal of

Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 60-73. doi:10.1007/s10862-013-

9368-z

Bowen, S., & Enkema, M. C. (2014). Relationship between dispositional mindfulness and

substance use: findings from a clinical sample. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 532-537.

doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.026

174

Bracha, H. S. (2004). Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: Adaptationist perspectives on the

acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectrums, 9, 679-685. Retrieved from

ISI>://WOS:000226891700015

Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-

analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222-230.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007

Brandt, M. J., Ijzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., . . .

van 't Veer, A. (2014). The Replication Recipe: What makes for a convincing

replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217-224.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005

Briggs, I., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management

Journal, 23, 509-520. doi:10.2307/255515

Brody, Y., & Rosenfeld, B. (2002). Object relations in criminal psychopaths. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 400-411.

doi:10.1177/0306624x02464003

Broerman, R. L., Ross, S. R., & Corr, P. J. (2014). Throwing more light on the dark side of

psychopathy: An extension of previous findings for the revised Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 165-169.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.024

Brown, K. W., Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Linley, P. A., & Orzech, K. (2009). When what one

has is enough: Mindfulness, financial desire discrepancy, and subjective well-being.

Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 727-736. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.002

175

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. A., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations

and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211-237.

doi:10.1080/10478400701598298

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role

in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-

848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Bruton, G. D., Ketchen, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a solution to

poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 683-689.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.05.002

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex-differences in jealousy:

Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x

Campbell, J. S., & Elison, J. (2005). Shame coping styles and psychopathic personality traits.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 96-104. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_16

Cangemi, J. P., & Pfohl, W. (2009). Sociopaths in high places. Organization Development

Journal, 27, 85-96.

Caparos, S., Linnell, K. J., Bremner, A. J., de Fockert, J. W., & Davidoff, J. (2013). Do local

and global perceptual biases tell us anything about local and global selective

attention? Psychological Science, 24, 206-212. doi:10.1177/0956797612452569

Caponecchia, C., Sun, A. Y. Z., & Wyatt, A. (2012). ‘Psychopaths’ at Work? Implications of

Lay Persons’ Use of Labels and Behavioural Criteria for Psychopathy. Journal of

Business Ethics, 107, 399-408. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1049-9

Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating

entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of

Management Review, 9, 354-359. doi:10.2307/258448

176

Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and

implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183-204. doi:10.1037/a0013965

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and

affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.67.2.319

Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Elgar.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: I. Foundations of trait measurement.

Psychological Review, 50, 559-594. doi:10.1037/h0057276

Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., Smith, R. E., & Fiori, M. (2006). Self-regulation: Reminders and

suggestions from personality science. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

55, 333-385. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00261.x

Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement

in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

25, 101-113.

Chanowitz, B., & Langer, E. J. (1981). Premature cognitive commitment. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1051-1063. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.6.1051

Chen, Y. S., Chang, C. H., & Lin, Y. H. (2014). Green transformational leadership and green

performance: The mediation effects of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy.

Sustainability, 6, 6604-6621. doi:10.3390/su6106604

Chen, Y. S., Chang, C. H., Yeh, S. L., & Cheng, H. I. (in press). Green shared vision and

green creativity: The mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy.

Quality & Quantity. doi:DOI 10.1007/s11135-014-0041-8

177

Chermahini, S. A., & Hommel, H. (2010). The (b)link between creativity and dopamine:

Spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking.

Cognition, 115, 458-465. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.007

Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs' decisions to exploit opportunities.

Journal of Management, 30, 377-395. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.04.002

Clark, D. M. T., & Loxton, N. J. (2012). Fear, psychological acceptance, job demands and

employee work engagement: An integrative moderated meditation model. Personality

and Individual Differences, 52, 893-897. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.022

Clarke, J. (2005). Working with monsters: How to identify and protect yourself from the

workplace psychopath. Sydney, Australia: Random House.

Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity (1st ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of

personality variants: A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.

Retrieved from ://WOS:A1987H528500012

Cloninger, C. R. (1998). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. In J.

Richter, M. Eisemann, K. Bollow, & D. Schläfke (Eds.), The development of

psychiatry and its complexity (pp. 1-16). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of

temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.

doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008

Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The psychological foundations of the

affective lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 751-766.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.751

Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L. (1965). Animal conflict and adaptation. Chester Springs, PA:

Dufour.

178

Cogswell, A., Alloy, L. B., van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Fresco, D. M. (2006). A psychometric

evaluation of behavioral inhibition and approach self-report measures. Personality

and Individual Differences, 40, 1649-1658. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.008

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Colder, C. R., Trucco, E. M., Lopez, H. I., Hawk, L. W., Read, J. P., Lengua, L. J., . . . Eiden,

R. D. (2011). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory and laboratory assessment of

BIS and BAS in children. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 198-207.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.01.005

Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question of when, not if.

Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616-620. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.33664717

Colzato, L. S., van Beest, I., van den Wildenberg, W. P., Scorolli, C., Dorchin, S., Meiran,

N., . . . Hommel, B. (2010). God: Do I have your attention? Cognition, 117, 87-94.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.07.003

Colzato, L. S., van den Wildenberg, W. P., & Hommel, B. (2008). Losing the big picture:

how religion may control visual attention. Plos One, 3, e3679.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003679

Conze, E. (1956). Buddhist meditation. London, England: Allen & Unwin.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues

for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Cooper, A., Gomez, R., & Aucote, H. (2007). The Behavioural Inhibition System and

Behavioural Approach System (BIS/BAS) scales: Measurement and structural

invariance across adults and adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,

295-305. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.023

179

Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience and

Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 317-332. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01.005

Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST): introduction. In P. J. Corr (Ed.),

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality (pp. 1-43). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Corr, P. J. (2009). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. In P. J. Corr & G.

Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 347-376).

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. (2015). The Reinforceent Sensitivity Theory Personality

Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Corr, P. J., DeYoung, C. G., & McNaughton, N. (2013). Motivation and personality: A

neuropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 158-

175. doi:10.1111/spc3.12016

Corr, P. J., Hargreaves-Heap, S., Tsutsui, K., Russell, A., & Seger, C. (2013). Personality and

social attitudes: Evidence for positive-approach motivation. Personality and

Individual Differences, 55, 846-851. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.012

Corr, P. J., & McNaughton, N. (2008). Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and personality

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality (pp. 155-187). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Costa, D. M., & Babcock, J. C. (2008). Articulated thoughts of intimate partner abusive men

during anger arousal: Correlates with personality disorder features. Journal of Family

Violence, 23, 395-402. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9163-x

180

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)

and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality-

assessment using the revised neo personality-inventory. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 64, 21-50. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2

Crawley, R. (2015). Trait mindfulness and autobiographical memory specificity. Cognitive

Processing, 16, 79-86. doi:10.1007/s10339-014-0631-3

Cromie, S. (2000). Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: Some approaches and empirical

evidence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 7-30.

doi:10.1080/135943200398030

Crysel, L. C., Crosier, B. S., & Webster, G. D. (2013). The Dark Triad and risk behavior.

Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 35-40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.029

Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job

performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 67, 105-128.

doi:10.1177/0018726713487753

Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive

justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324-336.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_05

Davidson, R. J., Ekman, P., Saron, C. D., Senulis, J. A., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). Approach

withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: Emotional expression and brain physiology .1.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 330-341. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.58.2.330

181

De Fockert, J. W., & Cooper, A. (2014). Higher levels of depression are associated with

reduced global bias in visual processing. Cognition & Emotion, 28, 541-549.

doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.839939

De Fruyt, F., Van de Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2000). Cloninger's psychobiological

model of temperament and character and the five-factor model of personality.

Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 441-452. doi:10.1016/s0191-

8869(99)00204-4

De Joux, N., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2013). A functional near-infrared spectroscopy

study of sustained attention to local and global target features. Brain and Cognition,

81, 370-375. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.12.003

De Pascalis, V., Cozzuto, G., & Russo, E. (2013). Effects of personality trait emotionality on

acoustic startle response and prepulse inhibition including N100 and P200 event-

related potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124, 292-305.

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2012.07.018

De Pascalis, V., Strippoli, E., Riccardi, P., & Vergari, F. (2004). Personality, event-related

potential (ERP) and heart rate (HR) in emotional work processing. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36, 873-891. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(03)00159-4

De Raad, B., & Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five Assessment. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

De Vries, G., Jehn, K. A., & Terwel, B. W. (2012). When employees stop talking and start

fighting: The detrimental effects of pseudo voice in organizations. Journal of Business

Ethics, 105, 221-230. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0960-4

Declercq, F., & Audenaert, K. (2011). Predatory violence aiming at relief in a case of mass

murder: Meloy's criteria for applied forensic practice. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,

29, 578-591. doi:10.1002/bsl.994

182

Decuyper, M., De Pauw, S., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., & De Clercq, B. J. (2009). A Meta-

Analysis of Psychopathy-, Antisocial PD- and FFM Associations. European Journal

of Personality, 23, 531-565. doi:10.1002/per.729

Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008). Mindfulness skills

and interpersonal behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1235-1245.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.018

Dencker, J. C., Gruber, M., & Shah, S. K. (2009). Individual and opportunity factors

influencing job creation in new firms. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1125-

1147. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.47084648

Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality:

Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 22, 491-569. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99002046

Depue, R. A., & Morrone-Strupinsky, J. V. (2005). A neurobehavioral model of affiliative

bonding: Implications for conceptualizing a human trait of affiliation. Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 28, 313-395. doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000063

DeYoung, C. G. (2010a). Mapping personality traits onto brain systems: BIS, BAS, FFFS

and beyond. European Journal of Personality, 24, 404-407. doi:10.1002/per.780

DeYoung, C. G. (2010b). Toward a Theory of the Big Five. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 26-33.

doi:10.1080/10478401003648674

DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of

dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762

DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. A. (2009). Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual

differences in affect, behavior and cognition. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.),

183

Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 323-346). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R.

(2010). Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the

Big Five. Psychological Science, 21, 820-828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of Openness/Intellect:

Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal

of Personality, 73, 825-858. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10

aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880

Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive

correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 95-102.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.1.95

Dickman, S. J., & Meyer, D. E. (1988). Impulsivity and speed accuracy tradeoffs in

information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 274-290.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.274

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221

Dindo, L., & Fowles, D. (2011). Dual temperamental risk factors for psychopathic

personality: Evidence from self-report and skin conductance. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 100, 557-566. doi:10.1037/a0021848

Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2012). Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for

individual difference research in leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 651-669.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.003

184

Dissabandara, L. O., Loxton, N. J., Dias, S. R., Daglish, M., & Stadlin, A. (2012). Testing the

fear and anxiety distinction in the BIS/BAS scales in community and heroin-

dependent samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 888-892.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.023

Donahue, J. J., & Caraballo, L. J. (2015). Examining the triarchic model of psychopathy

using revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual

Differences, 80, 125-130. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.031

Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response.

Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 231-251. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(98)00008-1

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement-motivation in schoolwork

and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299. doi:10.1037/0022-

0663.84.3.290

Duijsens, I. J., Spinhoven, P., Goekoop, J. G., Spermon, T., & Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H. M.

(2000). The Dutch temperament and character inventory (TCI): Dimensional

structure, reliability and validity in a normal and psychiatric outpatient sample.

Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 487-499. doi:10.1016/s0191-

8869(99)00114-2

Dunkelberg, W., Moore, C., Scott, J., & Stull, W. (2013). Do entrepreneurial goals matter?

Resource allocation in new owner-managed firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 28,

225-240. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.07.004

Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior,

and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 67-80. doi:10.1002/job.243

Dutton, D. G., White, K. R., & Fogarty, D. (2013). Paranoid thinking in mass shooters.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 548-553. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.012

185

Dutton, K. (2012). The wisdom of psychopaths: Lessons in life from saints, spies and serial

killers. London, England: Arrow Books.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,

1040-1048. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.41.10.1040

Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a

psychology of education (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The Innovator's DNA. Harvard

Business Review, 87, 60-67. Retrieved from ://WOS:000271933500015

Echeburua, E., & Fernandez-Montalvo, J. (2007). Male batterers with and without

psychopathy: An exploratory study in Spanish prisons. International Journal of

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 254-263.

doi:10.1177/0306624x06291460

Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of

Management, 29, 333-349. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(02)00225-8

Eden, D. (2002). Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ's publication

policy. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 841-846.

doi:10.5465/AMJ.2002.7718946

Egelhoff, W. G. (1991). Information-processing theory and the multinational enterprise.

Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 341-368.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490306

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 51, 665-697. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218

186

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and

intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 70, 461-475. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.461

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501

Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal goals

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171-185.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.1.171

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:

Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 804-818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic

dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78, 865-906. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2010.00636.x

Ellis, A. (2004). Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy: It works for me - It can work for you.

Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. (1997). The practice of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. New

York, NY: Springer.

Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory

in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 49, 576-589. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794674

Emmons, R. A. (1995). Levels and domains in personality: An introduction. Journal of

Personality, 63, 341-364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00499.x

187

Epstein, S. (1972). The nature of anxiety with emphasis upon its relationship to expectancy.

In C. M. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (pp. 291-

337). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Teschromer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in

the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363

Ermer, E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2010). Psychopaths are impaired in social exchange and

precautionary reasoning. Psychological Science, 21, 1399-1405.

doi:10.1177/0956797610384148

Eysenck, H. J. (1957). The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria. New York, NY: Preger.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual

Differences, 13, 667-673. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-j

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological

Inquiry, 4, 147-178. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0403_1

Eysenck, H. J. (1996). The measurement of creativity. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of

creativity (pp. 199-242). Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1970). Crime and personality: An empirical study of the

three-factor theory. British Journal of Criminology, 10, 225-239.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical

power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical sciences. Behavior

Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146

Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy:

Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure.

188

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 953-961.

doi:10.1177/01467202028007008

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5

Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fisher, J. E., Heller, W., & Miller, G. A. (2013). Neuropsychological differentiation of

adaptive creativity and schizotypal cognition. Personality and Individual Differences,

54, 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.003

Fisher, R. A. (1921). On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a

small sample. Metron, 1, 1-32.

Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as

density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

1011-1027. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.1011

Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in

organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 86, 3-34. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2971

Forgeard, M. J. C. (2011). Happy people thrive on adversity: Pre-existing mood moderates

the effect of emotion inductions on creative thinking. Personality and Individual

Differences, 51, 904-909. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.015

Foulkes, L., McCrory, E. J., Neumann, C. S., & Viding, E. (2014). Inverted social reward:

Associations between psychopathic traits and self-report and experimental measures

of social reward. Plos One, 9, e106000. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106000

189

Foureur, M., Besley, K., Burton, G., Yu, N., & Crisp, J. (2013). Enhancing the resilience of

nurses and midwives: Pilot of a mindfulness-based program for increased health,

sense of coherence and decreased depression, anxiety and stress. Contemporary

Nurse, 45, 114-125. doi:10.5172/conu.2013.3547

Fox, A. R., Kvaran, T. H., & Fontaine, R. G. (2013). Psychopathy and culpability: How

responsible is the psychopath for criminal wrongdoing? Law and Social Inquiry:

Journal of the American Bar Foundation, 38, 1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1747-

4469.2012.01294.x

Franco, C., Manas, I., Cangas, A. J., Moreno, E., & Gallego, J. (2010). Reducing teachers'

psychological distress through a mindfulness training program. Spanish Journal of

Psychology, 13, 655-666. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2009.10.020

Franić, S., Borsboom, D., Dolan, C. V., & Boomsma, D. I. (2014). The Big Five personality

traits: Psychological entities or statistical constructs? Behavior Genetics, 44, 591-604.

doi:10.1007/s10519-013-9625-7

Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York,

NY: Norton & Company.

Fraser, M., & Boag, S. (2010). Social facilitation and performance: Comparing online to

face-to-face testing. Paper presented at the 9th Australian Conference on Personality

and Individual Differences, Wollongong, Australia.

Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Fulton, J. J., Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2014). Psychopathic personality traits, risky

sexual behavior, and psychological adjustment among colege-age women. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 33, 143-168. doi:10.1521/jscp.2014.33.2.143

Funder, D. C., Levine, J. M., Mackie, D. M., Morf, C. C., Sansone, C., Vazire, S., & West, S.

G. (2014). Improving the dependability of research in personality and social

190

psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 18, 3-12. doi:10.1177/1088868313507536

Furnham, A. (1979). Assertiveness in 3 cultures: Multidimensionality and cultural-

differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 522-527. doi:10.1002/1097-

4679(197907)35:3<522::aid-jclp2270350310>3.0.co;2-9

Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and

Individual Differences, 7, 385-400. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0

Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania,

intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060-1069.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.035

Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2013). The values of work success. Personality and

Individual Differences, 55, 485-489. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.016

Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2014). The dark side of career preference: Dark side

traits, motives, and values. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 106-114.

doi:10.1111/jasp.12205

Furnham, A., & Jackson, C. J. (2008). Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory in the work-place.

In P. Corr (Ed.), Theory and application of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Furnham, A., & Nederstrom, M. (2010). Ability, demographic and personality predictors of

creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 957-961.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.030

Gable, P. A., Poole, B. D., & Cook, M. S. (2013). Asymmetrical hemisphere activation

enhances global-local processing. Brain and Cognition, 83, 337-341.

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2013.09.012

191

Gardiner, E., & Jackson, C. J. (2012). Workplace mavericks: How personality and risk-taking

propensity predicts maverickism. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 497-519.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02090.x

Gardiner, E., & Jackson, C. J. (in press). Personality and learning processing underlying

maverickism. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Gardiner, E., Jackson, C. J., & Loxton, N. (2015). Left hemispheric lateral preference and

high neuroticism predict disinhibition in two go / no-go experiments. Journal of

Personality, 83, 84-96. doi:10.1111/jopy.12084

Garland, S. N., Campbell, T., Samuels, C., & Carlson, L. E. (2013). Dispositional

mindfulness, insomnia, sleep quality and dysfunctional sleep beliefs in post-treatment

cancer patients. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 306-311.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.003

Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new

venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10, 696-706. doi:10.2307/258039

Gartner, W. B. (1988). "Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 13, 47-68.

Gartner, W. B. (1989). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and

characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14, 27-37.

Gartner, W. B., Bird, B., & Starr, J. A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial

from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 13-31.

Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., Gatewood, E., & Katz, J. A. (1994). Finding the entrepreneur

in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 5-9.

Gerbing, D. W., Ahadi, S. A., & Patton, J. H. (1987). Toward a conceptualization of

impulsivity: Components across the behavioral and self-report domains. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 22, 357-379. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2203_6

192

Gielnik, M. M., Frese, M., Graf, J. M., & Kampschulte, A. (2012). Creativity in the

opportunity identification process and the moderating effect of diversity of

information. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 559-576.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.10.003

Gielnik, M. M., Kramer, A. C., Kappel, B., & Frese, M. (2014). Antecedents of business

opportunity identification and innovation: Investigating the interplay of information

processing and information acquisition. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 63, 344-381. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00528.x

Gillespie, N. A., Cloninger, C. R., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2003). The genetic and

environmental relationship between Cloninger's dimensions of temperament and

character. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1931-1946. doi:10.1016/s0191-

8869(03)00042-4

Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis.

Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 805-811. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.026

Glannon, W. (2008). Moral responsibility and the psychopath. Neuroethics, 1, 158-166.

doi:10.1007/s12152-008-9012-x

Glenn, A. L., Kurzban, R., & Raine, A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and psychopathy.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 371-380. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.03.009

Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2009). Psychopathy and instrumental aggression: Evolutionary,

neurobiological, and legal perspectives. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,

32, 253-258. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.04.002

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality-traits. American

Psychologist, 48, 26-34. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.48.1.26

193

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring

the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De

Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 17, pp. 7-28).

Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &

Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-

domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Gong, Y., Cheung, S., Wang, M., & Jia-Chi, H. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for

creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and

psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611-1633.

doi:10.1177/0149206310380250

Gorenstein, E. E., & Newman, J. P. (1980). Disinhibitory psychopathology: A new

perspective and a model for research. Psychological Review, 87, 301-315.

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.87.3.301

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:

Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of

Management Journal, 54, 73-96. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541-553. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541

Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour

Research and Therapy, 8, 249-266. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0

Gray, J. A. (1971). The psychology of fear and stress. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Gray, J. A. (1975). Elements of a two-process theory of learning. London, England:

Academic Press.

194

Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A

model for personality (pp. 246-276). New York, NY: Springer.

Gray, J. A. (1982a). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the

septo-hippocampal system. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Gray, J. A. (1982b). Précis of The neuropsychology of anxiety: An inquiry into the functions

of the septo-hippocampal system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 469-484.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X00013066

Gray, J. A. (1987a). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In S. M. Stahl, S. D.

Iverson, & E. C. Goodman (Eds.), Cognitive Neurochemistry (pp. 171-190). Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press.

Gray, J. A. (1987b). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of

Research in Personality, 21, 493-509. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(87)90036-5

Gray, J. A. (1987c). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition &

Emotion, 4, 269-288. doi:10.1080/02699939008410799

Gray, J. A. (1995). A model of the limbic system and basal ganglia: Applications to anxiety

and schizophrenia. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1165-

1176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (1996). The neuropsychology of anxiety: Reprise. In D. A.

Hope (Ed.), Perspectives on panic, anxiety & fear (pp. 61-134). Lincoln, NE:

University of Nebraska Press.

Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the

functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

195

Gray, J. A., & Smith, P. T. (1969). An arousal-decision model for partial reinforcement and

discrimination learning. In R. Gilbert & N. S. Sutherland (Eds.), Animal

discrimination learning (pp. 243-272). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Gregoire, D. A., Noel, M. X., Dery, R., & Bechard, J. P. (2006). Is there conceptual

convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of Frontiers of

Entrepreneurship Research, 1981-2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30,

333-373. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00124.x

Gregoire, D. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2012). Technology-market combinations and the

identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-

individual nexus. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 753-785.

doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0126

Gregory, S., Ffytche, D., Simmons, A., Kumari, V., Howard, M., Hodgins, S., & Blackwood,

N. (2012). The antisocial brain: Psychopathy matters a structural MRI investigation of

antisocial male violent offenders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69, 962-972.

doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2012.222

Greil, W., Horvath, A., Sassim, N., Erazo, N., & Grohmann, R. (2001). Disinhibition of

libido: An adverse effect of SSRI? Journal of Affective Disorders, 62, 225-228.

doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00150-6

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance:

Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management

Journal, 50, 327-347. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress

reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,

57, 35-43. doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(03)00573-7

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

196

Gullhaugen, A. S., & Nøttestad, J. A. (2011). Looking for the Hannibal behind the cannibal:

Current status of case research. International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology, 55, 350-369. doi:10.1177/0306624x10362659

Hahn, T., Heinzel, S., Notebaert, K., Dresler, T., Reif, A., Lesch, K. P., . . . Fallgatter, A. J.

(2013). The tricks of the trait: neural implementation of personality varies with

genotype-dependent serotonin levels. Neuroimage, 81, 393-399.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.037

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to

moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834. doi:10.1037//0033-

295x.108.4.814

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith

(Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Hakkanen, H., Weimann-Henelius, G., Putkonen, H., & Lauerma, H. (2008). The role of

gender in claiming partial or complete homicide-related amnesia. Personality and

Individual Differences, 45, 597-601. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.020

Hannan, S. M., & Orcutt, H. K. (2013). Emotion dysregulation as a partial mediator between

reinforcement sensitivity and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Personality and

Individual Differences, 55, 574-578. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.028

Hansenne, M., Delhez, M., & Cloninger, C. R. (2005). Psychometric properties of the

temperament and character inventory-revised (TCI-R) in a Belgian sample. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 85, 40-49. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_04

Harbeck, E. L., & Glendon, A. I. (2013). How reinforcement sensitivity and perceived risk

influence young drivers' reported engagement in risky driving behaviors. Accident

Analysis and Prevention, 54, 73-80. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.011

197

Hardie, S. M., & Wright, L. (2013). The relationship between Revised Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory (rRST), handedness and indecision. Personality and Individual

Differences, 55, 312-316. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.004

Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us.

New York, NY: Pocket Books.

Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 23, 25-54. doi:10.1177/0093854896023001004

Harenski, C. L., Harenski, K. A., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2010). Aberrant neural

processing of moral violations in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 119, 863-874. doi:10.1037/a0020979

Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence

that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced

anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 797-803.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.797

Harnett, P. H., Loxton, N. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2013). Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity

Theory: Implications for psychopathology and psychological health. Personality and

Individual Differences, 54, 432-437. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.019

Harrington, R., Loffredo, D. A., & Perz, C. A. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness as a positive

predictor of psychological well-being and the role of the private self-consciousness

insight factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 15-18.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.050

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer and

peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1988.tb00631.x

198

Harrison, A., Treasure, J., & Smillie, L. D. (2011). Approach and avoidance motivation in

eating disorders. Psychiatry Research, 188, 396-401.

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.04.022

Hasking, P., Boyes, M., & Mullan, B. (2015). Reward and cognition: Integrating

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and Social Cognitive Theory to predict drinking

behavior. Substance Use & Misuse. doi:10.3109/10826084.2015.1005315

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2010). A situated

metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing,

25, 217-229. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.001

Hayward, M. L. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. (2006). A hubris theory of

entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52, 160-172. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0483

He, Z. M., Cassaday, H. J., Bonardi, C., & Bibby, P. A. (2013). Do personality traits predict

individual differences in excitatory and inhibitory learning? Frontiers in Psychology,

4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00245

Heath, A. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Martin, N. G. (1994). Testing a model for the genetic-

structure of personality: A comparison of the personality systems of cloninger and

eysenck. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 762-775.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.762

Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review.

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 139-170. doi:10.1111/j.2044-

8333.1998.tb00355.x

199

Hennegan, J. M., Loxton, N. J., & Mattar, A. (2013). Great expectations. Eating expectancies

as mediators of reinforcement sensitivity and eating. Appetite, 71, 81-88.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.013

Heym, N., Ferguson, E., & Lawrence, C. (2008). An evaluation of the relationship between

Gray's revised RST and Eysenck's PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and

White's BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 709-715.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.013

Heym, N., & Lawrence, C. (2010). The role of Gray's revised RST in the P-psychopathy

continuum: The relationships of Psychoticism with a lack of fear and anxiety, and

increased impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 874-879.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.021

Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking and

sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21,

1057-1074. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(95)90022-5

Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: A

call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 575-589. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.62.6.575

Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or

great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences

and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

84, 347-381. doi:10.1348/096317909x485207

Holland, D. V., & Shepherd, D. A. (2013). Deciding to persist: Adversity, values, and

entrepreneurs' decision policies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 331-358.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00468.x

200

Holmqvist, R. (2008). Psychopathy and affect consciousness in young criminal offenders.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 209-224. doi:10.1177/0886260507309341

Holt, S., & Marques, J. (2012). Empathy in leadership: Appropriate or misplaced? An

empirical study on a topic that is asking for attention. Journal of Business Ethics, 105,

95-105. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0951-5

Hotelling, H. (1940). The selection of variates for use in prediction with some comments on

the general problem of nuisance parameters. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11,

271-283. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731867

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic

and visionary theories of leadership. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership

theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Howell, A. J., Digdon, N. L., Buro, K., & Sheptycki, A. R. (2008). Relations among

mindfulness, well-being, and sleep. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 773-

777. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.005

Hughes, M. A., Dolan, M. C., & Stout, J. C. (2014). Regret in the context of unobtained

rewards in criminal offenders. Cognition & Emotion, 28, 913-925.

doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.860370

Hulsheger, U. R., Alberts, H., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of

mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional

exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 310-325.

doi:10.1037/a0031313

Hulsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Alberts,

H. (2014). The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily levels

201

and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 99, 1113-1128. doi:10.1037/a0037702

Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A

theory of the relationship between individual-differences and information-processing.

Psychological Review, 91, 153-184. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.91.2.153

Hundt, N. E., Brown, L. H., Kimbrel, N. A., Walsh, M. A., Nelson-Gray, R., & Kwapil, T. R.

(2013). Reinforcement sensitivity theory predicts positive and negative affect in daily

life. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 350-354.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.021

Hunt, M. K., Hopko, D. R., Bare, R., Lejuez, C. W., & Robinson, E. V. (2005). Construct

validity of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART): Associations with psychopathy

and impulsivity. Assessment, 12, 416-428. doi:10.1177/1073191105278740

Intrator, J., Hare, R., Stritzke, P., Brichtswein, K., Dorfman, D., Harpur, T., . . . Machac, J.

(1997). A brain imaging (single photon emission computerized tomography) study of

semantic and affective processing in psychopaths. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 96-103.

doi:10.1016/s0006-3223(96)00290-9

Ivory, N. J., & Kambouropoulos, N. (2012). Coping mediates the relationship between

revised reinforcement sensitivity and alcohol use. Personality and Individual

Differences, 52, 822-827. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.013

Izadikhah, Z., & Jackson, C. J. (2010). How the behavioral approach system predicts

everyday life outcomes. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 353-365.

doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.3.0353

Izadikhah, Z., Jackson, C. J., & Loxton, N. (2010). An integrative approach to personality:

Behavioural Approach System, mastery approach orientation and environmental cues

202

in the prediction of work performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,

590-595. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.012

Jackson, C. J. (2008). Proposing a hybrid model of functional and dysfunctional learning in

personality. In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of

personality testing (pp. 73-93). London, England: Sage.

Jackson, C. J. (2009). Jackson-5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST)

and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of Research in

Personality, 43, 556-569. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.007

Jackson, C. J. (2010). Introducing the YWeDo online cognitive laboratory. In S. Boag & N.

Tiliopoulos (Eds.), Personality and individual differences: Theory, assessment, and

application (pp. 283-293). New York, NY: Nova.

Jackson, C. J. (2011). How sensation seeking provides a common basis for functional and

dysfunctional outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 29-36.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.005

Jackson, C. J., Baguma, P., & Furnham, A. (2009). Predicting grade point average from the

hybrid model of learning in personality: Consistent findings from Ugandan and

Australian students. Educational Psychology, 29, 747-759.

doi:10.1080/01443410903254583

Jackson, C. J., Hobman, E. V., Jimmieson, N. L., & Martin, R. (2009). Comparing different

approach and avoidance models of learning and personality in the prediction of work,

university, and leadership outcomes. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 283-312.

doi:10.1348/000712608x322900

Jackson, C. J., Hobman, E. V., Jimmieson, N. L., & Martin, R. (2012). Do left and right

asymmetries of hemispheric preference interact with attention to predict local and

203

global performance in applied tasks? Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and

Cognition, 17, 647-672. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2011.615125

Jackson, C. J., Izadikhah, Z., & Oei, T. P. S. (2012). Mechanisms underlying REBT in mood

disordered patients: Predicting depression from the hybrid model of learning. Journal

of Affective Disorders, 139, 30-39. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.09.025

Jackson, C. J., Loxton, N. J., Harnett, P., Ciarrochi, J., & Gullo, M. J. (2014). Original and

revised reinforcement sensitivity theory in the prediction of executive functioning: A

test of relationships between dual systems. Personality and Individual Differences,

56, 83-88. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.024

Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality

and Individual Differences, 40, 331-339. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006

James, S., Kavanagh, P. S., Jonason, P. K., Chonody, J. M., & Scrutton, H. E. (2014). The

Dark Triad, schadenfreude, and sensational interests: Dark personalities, dark

emotions, and dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 211-216.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.020

Jasny, B. R., Chin, G., Chong, L., & Vignieri, S. (2011). Again, and again and again. Science,

334, 1225. doi:10.1126/science.334.6060.1225

Ji, L. J., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in

the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 943-955.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.943

Jiang, Y. X., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2014). Individual differences in adult attachment and

reinforcement sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 205-210.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.022

Johnson, L. K. (2005). Manage like an entrepreneur. Havard Management Update, 10, 3-4.

204

Johnson, S. L., Turner, R. J., & Iwata, N. (2003). BIS/BAS levels and psychiatric disorder:

An epidemiological study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,

25, 25-36. doi:10.1023/A:1022247919288

Johnsson, M., Andersson, B., Wallinius, M., Hofvander, B., Stahlberg, O., Anckarsater, H., . .

. Radovic, S. (2014). Blame attribution and guilt feelings in violent offenders. Journal

of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25, 212-223.

doi:10.1080/14789949.2014.903506

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad:

Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23,

5-18. doi:10.1002/per.698

Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Baughman, H. M., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). What a tangled web

we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual

Differences, 70, 117-119. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.038

Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Bethell, E. J., & Ross, R. (2013). Different routes to limited

empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy.

Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 572-576. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.009

Jonason, P. K., & Schmitt, D. P. (2014). The virtues of Evolutionary Psychology for studying

human vices. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 341-345.

doi:10.1080/1047840x.2014.897200

Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic

employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449-453.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark

triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420-432. doi:10.1037/a0019265

205

Jones, D. N. (2014). Predatory personalities as behavioral mimics and parasites: Mimicry-

deception theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 445-451.

doi:10.1177/1745691614535936

Jordan, C. H., Wang, W., Donatoni, L., & Meier, B. P. (2014). Mindful eating: Trait and state

mindfulness predict healthier eating behavior. Personality and Individual Differences,

68, 107-111. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.013

Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P. A., Korten, A. E., & Rodgers, B.

(1999). Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and behavioural

activation: Factor structure, validity, norms in a large community sample. Personality

and Individual Differences, 26, 49-58. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00143-3

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.797

Jylha, P., & Isometsa, E. (2006). Temperament, character and symptoms of anxiety and

depression in the general population. European Psychiatry, 21, 389-395.

doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2005.09.003

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to

face stress, pain and illness. New York, NY: Delacourt.

Kalanthroff, E., Naparstek, S., & Henik, A. (2013). Spatial processing in adults with attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 27, 546-555. doi:10.1037/a0033655

Kambouropoulos, N., Egan, S., O'Connor, E. J., & Staiger, P. K. (2014). Escaping threat:

Understanding the importance of threat sensitivity in social anxiety. Journal of

Individual Differences, 35, 47-53. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000126

206

Kansi, J. (2003). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Applicability in a Swedish

population sample. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 441-448.

doi:10.1046/j.1467-9450.2003.00365.x

Kanter, R. M. (1988). 3 Tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15, 509-

523. doi:10.1177/009365088015005001

Katz, J. A. (1992). A psychological cognitive model of employment status choice.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, 29-37.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I'm creative - But not in mathematics! Self-reported

creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143-155.

doi:doi.org/10.2190/26hq-vhe8-gtln-bjjm

Kaye, S. A., White, M. J., & Lewis, I. M. (2013). Individual differences in drivers' cognitive

processing of road safety messages. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, 272-281.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.04.018

Kearney, W. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington, D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effective

schools: A mixed-method application of Hoy's M-scale. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 41, 316-335. doi:10.1177/1741143212474802

Keiser, H. N., & Ross, S. R. (2011). Carver and Whites' BIS/FFFS/BAS scales and domains

and facets of the Five Factor Model of personality. Personality and Individual

Differences, 51, 39-44. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.007

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis.

Cognition & Emotion, 13, 505-521. doi:10.1080/026999399379168

Kendler, K. S., Karkowski, L. M., & Prescott, C. A. (1999). Causal relationship between

stressful life events and the onset of major depression. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 156, 837-841. Retrieved from ://WOS:000080698500005

207

Keough, M. T., & O'Connor, R. M. (2014). Clarifying the measurement and the role of the

Behavioral Inhibition System in alcohol misuse. Alcoholism: Clinical and

Experimental Research, 38, 1470-1479. doi:10.1111/acer.12387

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 2, 196-217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review,

63, 161-167.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2014). Coaching the toxic leader. Harvard Business Review, 92,

100-109. Retrieved from ://WOS:000333476800034

Kiehl, K. A. (2006). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: Evidence for

paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Research, 142, 107-128.

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2005.09.013

Kiken, L. G., & Shook, N. J. (2014). Does mindfulness attenuate thoughts emphasizing

negativity, but not positivity? Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 22-30.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.002

Kim, D. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Effects of the BAS and BIS on decision-making in a

gambling task. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1131-1135.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.041

Kinchla, R. A. (1974). Detecting target elements in multi-element arrays: A confusability

model. Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 149-158. doi:10.3758/BF03205843

Kinchla, R. A. (1977). The role of structural redundancy in the perception of visual targets.

Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 19-30. doi:10.3758/BF03206076

King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model.

Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189-203. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0013

208

Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perceptions, opportunity, and profit. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An

Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60-85. Retrieved from

to ISI>://WOS:A1997WQ61500005

Kirzner, I. M. (1999). Creativity and/or alertness: A reconsideration of the Schumpeterian

entrepreneur. Review of Austrian Economics, 11, 5-17.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to

socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research

(pp. 347-480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intention. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 21, 47-57.

Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modem psychology: Toward an

integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464-481.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R.

(2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional

training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 85, 1-31. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2930

Krasner, M. S., Epstein, R. M., Beckman, H., Suchman, A. L., Chapman, B., Mooney, C. J.,

& Quill, T. E. (2009). Association of an educational program in mindful

communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians.

JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 1284-1293.

doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1384

209

Krueger, N. F., Jr., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of

entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432.

doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0

Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., Patrick, C. J., Carlson, S. R., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M.

(2002). Etiologic connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, and

personality: Modeling the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

111, 411-424. doi:10.1037//0021-843x.111.3.411

Lafuente, A., & Salas, V. (1989). Types of entrepreneurs and firms: The case of new spanish

firms. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 17-30. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100103

Lake, A. J., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Li, W., Curtin, J. J., & Newman, J. P. (2011). Evidence

for unique threat-processing mechanisms in psychopathic and anxious individuals.

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 451-462. doi:10.3758/s13415-

011-0041-2

Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Brown, K. W., & Goodie, A. S. (2007). Dispositional

mindfulness as a predictor of the severity of gambling outcomes. Personality and

Individual Differences, 43, 1698-1710. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.007

Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American

Pyschologist, 72, 372-385. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.50.5.372

Lange, S., Leue, A., & Beauducel, A. (2012). Behavioral approach and reward processing:

Results on feedback-related negativity and P3 component. Biological Psychology, 89,

416-425. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.12.004

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Boston, MA: De Capo Press.

Langer, E. J. (2014). Mindfulness in the Age of Complexity. Harvard Business Review, 92,

68-73. Retrieved from ://WOS:000331992400031

210

Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). Mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful

action: Role of placebic information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635-642. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.36.6.635

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in

emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.

doi:10.1037/h0026570

Latzman, R. D., & Vaidya, J. G. (2013). Common and distinct associations between

aggression and alcohol problems with trait disinhibition. Journal of Psychopathology

and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 186-196. doi:10.1007/s10862-012-9330-5

Leakey, L. S. (1967). Development of aggression as a factor in early human and pre-human

evolution. In C. D. Clemente & D. B. Lindsley (Eds.), Aggression and defense:

Neural mechanisms and social patterns (Vol. 5, pp. 1-33). Berkeley: University of

California Press.

LeBreton, J. M., Baysinger, M. A., Abbey, A., & Jacques-Tiura, A. J. (2013). The relative

importance of psychopathy-related traits in predicting impersonal sex and hostile

masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 817-822.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.009

Lee, L., Wong, P. K., Foo, M. D., & Leung, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions: The

influence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 26,

124-136. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.003

Leigh, B. C. (1999). Peril, chance, adventure: Concepts of risk, alcohol use and risky

behavior in young adults. Addiction, 94, 371-383. doi:10.1046/j.1360-

0443.1999.9433717.x

211

Leistico, A. M., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J., & Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-

analysis relating the hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and

Human Behavior, 32, 28-45. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9096-6

Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., . . .

Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon

Analogue Risk Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75-84.

doi:10.1037//1076-898X.8.2.75

Leonard, N. H., Scholl, R. W., & Kowalski, K. B. (1999). Information processing style and

decision making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 407-420.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)20:3<407::AID-JOB891>3.0.CO;2-3

Leone, L., Maricchiolo, F., & Presaghi, F. (2011). Appetitive and impulsive components in

the Appetitive Motivation Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 655-661.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.09.003

Leone, L., Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R. P., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2001). Construct validity

and generalizability of the Carver-White Behavioural Inhibition System/behavioural

Activation System scales. European Journal of Personality, 15, 373-390.

doi:10.1002/per.415

Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship

between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits.

Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58-63. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042

Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic

attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68, 151-158. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.68.1.151

212

Levesque, M., Shepherd, D. A., & Douglas, E. J. (2002). Employment or self-employment: A

dynamic utility-maximizing model. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 189-210.

doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(00)00063-x

Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-

mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17, 502-513.

doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0197

Levy, N. (2014). Psychopaths and blame: The argument from content. Philosophical

Psychology, 27, 351-367. doi:10.1080/09515089.2012.729485

Lilienfeld, S. O., Latzman, R. D., Watts, A. L., Smith, S. F., & Dutton, K. (2014). Correlates

of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: Results from a large community

survey. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00740

Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., &

Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless Dominance and the US Presidency:

Implications of Psychopathic Personality Traits for Successful and Unsuccessful

Political Leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 489-505.

doi:10.1037/a0029392

Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, P. J. (2014). A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in

organizational behavior and management studies. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 35, 898-908. doi:10.1002/job.1940

Lipper, A. (1987). If constructively creative divergent thinking equals entrepreneur ... How

can we help create more of them. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21, 214-218.

doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1987.tb00478.x

Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of

the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of

Management Journal, 55, 1187-1212. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0400

213

Lopez-Vergara, H. I., Colder, C. R., Hawk, L. W., Wieczorek, W. F., Eiden, R. D., Lengua,

L. J., & Read, J. P. (2012). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and alcohol outcome

expectancies in early adolescence. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,

38, 130-134. doi:10.3109/00952990.2011.643973

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information-processing models and their

implications for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15,

9-28. doi:10.2307/258103

Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological

Bulletin, 70, 151-159. doi:10.1037/h0026141

Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling

psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209-234. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.209

Lynam, D. R., & Vachon, D. D. (2012). Antisocial Personality Disorder in DSM-5: Missteps

and missed opportunities. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3,

483-495. doi:10.1037/per0000006

Lyvers, M., Hinton, R., Gotsis, S., Roddy, M., Edwards, M. S., & Thorberg, F. A. (2014).

Traits linked to executive and reward systems functioning in clients undergoing

residential treatment for substance dependence. Personality and Individual

Differences, 70, 194-199. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.004

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review

of Psychology, 58, 593-614. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. doi:10.1037//1082-989x.7.1.83

MacNeilage, P. F., Rogers, L. J., & Vallortigara, G. (2009). Origins of the left and right brain.

Scientific American, 301, 60-67. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0709-60

214

Malkoc, S. A., Zauberman, G., & Bettman, J. R. (2010). Unstuck from the concrete:

Carryover effects of abstract mindsets in intertemporal preferences. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 112-126.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.07.003

Mankus, A. M., Aldao, A., Kerns, C., Mayville, E. W., & Mennin, D. S. (2013). Mindfulness

and heart rate variability in individuals with high and low generalized anxiety

symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therarpy, 51, 386-391.

doi:10.1016/j.brat.2013.03.005

Marsh, A. A., & Ambady, N. (2007). The influence of the fear facial expression on prosocial

responding. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 225-247. doi:10.1080/02699930600652234

Marsh, A. A., & Cardinale, E. M. (2012). Psychopathy and fear: Specific impairments in

judging behaviors that frighten others. Emotion, 12, 892-898. doi:10.1037/a0026260

Marsh, A. A., & Cardinale, E. M. (2014). When psychopathy impairs moral judgments:

neural responses during judgments about causing fear. Social Cognitive and Affective

Neuroscience, 9, 3-11. doi:10.1093/scan/nss097

Marshall, A., Baden, D., & Guidi, M. (2013). Can an ethical revival of prudence within

prudential regulation tackle corporate psychopathy? Journal of Business Ethics, 117,

559-568. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1547-4

Martens, U., & Hübner, R. (2013). Functional hemispheric asymmetries of global/local

processing mirrored by the steady-state visual evoked potential. Brain and Cognition,

81, 161-166. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.11.005

Martin, R., Prichard, I., Hutchinson, A. D., & Wilson, C. (2013). The role of body awareness

and mindfulness in the relationship between exercise and eating behavior. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 655-660. Retrieved from

ISI>://WOS:000330129600009

215

Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Developmental transformations in appraisals for

pride, shame, and guilt. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious

emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 64-113).

New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Mathieu, C., Hare, R. D., Jones, D. N., Babiak, P., & Neumann, C. S. (2013). Factor structure

of the B-Scan 360: A measure of corporate psychopathy. Psychological Assessment,

25, 288-293. doi:10.1037/a0029262

Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of leadership:

Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and job satisfaction.

Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 83-88. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010

Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal

mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23-44. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23

McAdams, D. P. (1992). The Five-Factor Model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal

of Personality, 60, 329-361. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00976.x

McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258-1265. doi:10.1037//0022-

3514.52.6.1258

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality

across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,

81-90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.

American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.5.509

216

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In O. P.

John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and

research (3rd ed., pp. 159-181). New York: Guildford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a

moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249-266. doi:10.1037//0033-

2909.127.2.249

McNaughton, N., Swart, C., Neo, P., Bates, V., & Glue, P. (2013). Anti-anxiety drugs reduce

conflict-specific "theta": A possible human anxiety-specific biomarker. Journal of

Affective Disorders, 148, 104-111. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.057

Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523-541. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00039595

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review,

69, 220-232. doi:10.1037/h0048850

Meehan, J. C., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Herron, K. (2001). Maritally violent men's heart

rate reactivity to marital interactions: A failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995)

typology. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 394-408. doi:10.1037//0893-

3200.15.3.394

Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences

in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117-174. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1992.tb00269.x

Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation-

coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172

Mescon, T., & Montanari, J. (1981). The personalities of independent and franchise

entrepreneurs: An empirical analysis of concepts. Journal of Enterprise Management,

3, 149-159.

217

Meyer, M., Libaers, D., Thijs, B., Grant, K., Glänzel, W., & Debackere, K. (2014). Origin

and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field. Scientometrics, 98, 473-485.

doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1021-9

Miller, E., Joseph, S., & Tudway, J. (2004). Assessing the component structure of four self-

report measures of impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 349-358.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.008

Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1998). Ten subtypes of psychopathy. In T. Millon, M. Simonsen,

M. Birket-Smith, & R. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal and violent

behavioiur (pp. 161-170). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system-theory of personality:

Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality

structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246

Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L. W., Bird, B., Gaglio, C. M., McMullen, J. S., Morse, E. A., &

Smith, J. B. (2007). The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research 2007.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2007.00161.x

Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L. W., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B.

(2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of

entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 93-104.

Mitrović, D., Smederevac, S., Čolović, P., Kodžopeljić, J., & Dinić, B. (2014). Personality

prototypes based on dimensions of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory among

prisoners and non-prisoners. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 50-55.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.004

218

Moffitt, T. E. (1990). The neuropsychology of delinquency: A critical review of theory and

research. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 12, pp. 99-169).

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial-behavior: A

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701. doi:10.1037/0033-

295x.100.4.674

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial

behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal

study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Moffitt, T. E., & Henry, B. (1991). Neuropsychological studies of juvenile delinquency and

violence: A review. In J. Milner (Ed.), The neuropsychology of aggression (pp. 67-

91). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Monteleone, P., Scognamiglio, P., Monteleone, A. M., Perillo, D., & Maj, M. (2014).

Cortisol awakening response in patients with anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa:

Relationships to sensitivity to reward and sensitivity to punishment. Psychological

Medicine, 44, 2653-2660. doi:10.1017/s0033291714000270

Morrison, D., & Gilbert, P. (2001). Social rank, shame and anger in primary and secondary

psychopaths. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 12, 330-356.

doi:10.1080/09585180110056867

Morton, R. D., & White, M. J. (2013). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: The impact

of FFFS and stress on driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 57-63.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.005

Mount, M. K. (1984). Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial

performance. Personnel Psychology, 37, 687-702. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1984.tb00533.x

219

Mun, C. J., Okun, M. A., & Karoly, P. (2014). Trait mindfulness and catastrophizing as

mediators of the association between pain severity and pain-related impairment.

Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 68-73. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.016

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social,

organizational and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.

Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3

Nelson, J. S., Megill, A., & McCloskey, D. N. (1987). Rhetoric of inquiry. In J. S. Nelson, A.

Megill, & D. N. McCloskey (Eds.), The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language

and argument in scholarship and public affairs (pp. 3-18). Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press.

Neo, P. S. H., Thurlow, J. K., & McNaughton, N. (2011). Stopping, goal-conflict, trait

anxiety and frontal rhythmic power in the stop-signal task. Cognitive Affective &

Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 485-493. doi:10.3758/s13415-011-0046-x

Newman, J. P. (1987). Reaction to punishment in extroverts and psychopaths: Implications

for the impulsive behavior of disinhibited individuals. Journal of Research in

Personality, 21, 464-480. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(87)90033-x

Newman, J. P., & Kosson, D. S. (1986). Passive-avoidance learning in psychopathic and

nonpsychopathic offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 252-256.

doi:10.1037/0021-843x.95.3.252

Newman, J. P., & Lorenz, A. R. (2003). Response modulation and emotion processing:

Implications for psychopathy and other dysregulatory psychopathology. In R. J.

Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp.

904-929). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

220

Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Buckholtz, J., Bertsch, J., Hiatt, K. D., & Vaughn, L. J.

(2007). Deficient integration of top-down and bottom-up influences on attention in

psychopaths: Potential contribution of the septal-hippocampal system. In D. Barch

(Ed.), Cognitive and affective neuroscience of psychopathology. Oxford, England:

Oxford University Press.

Newman, J. P., Patterson, C. M., Howland, E. W., & Nichols, S. L. (1990). Passive-

avoidance in psychopaths: The effects of reward. Personality and Individual

Differences, 11, 1101-1114. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90021-i

Newman, J. P., Patterson, C. M., & Kosson, D. S. (1987). Response perseveration in

psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 145-148. doi:10.1037//0021-

843x.96.2.145

Newman, J. P., Schmitt, W. A., & Voss, W. D. (1997). The impact of motivationally neutral

cues on psychopathic individuals: Assessing the generality of the response modulation

hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 563-575. doi:10.1037/0021-

843x.106.4.563

Newman, J. P., & Wallace, J. F. (1993). Diverse pathways to deficient self-regulation:

Implications for disinhibitory psychopathology in children. Clinical Psychology

Review, 13, 699-720. doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(05)80002-9

Newman, J. P., Wallace, J. F., Strauman, T. J., Skolaski, R. L., Oreland, K. M., Mattek, P.

W., . . . McNeely, J. (1993). Effects of motivationally significant stimuli on the

regulation of dominant responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,

165-175. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.65.1.165

Newman, J. P., Widom, C. S., & Nathan, S. (1985). Passive-avoidance in syndromes of

disinhibition: Psychopathy and extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48, 1316-1327. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1316

221

Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Students as educational theorists. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece

(Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 267-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Niemiec, C. P., Brown, K. W., Kashdan, T. B., Cozzolino, P. J., Breen, W. E., Levesque-

Bristol, C., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Being present in the face of existential threat: The

role of trait mindfulness in reducing defensive responses to mortality salience.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 344-365. doi:10.1037/a0019388

Nieß, C., & Biemann, T. (2014). The role of risk propensity in predicting self-employment.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1000-1009. doi:10.1037/a0035992

Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views

from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy.

Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220-246. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.2.220

Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic

perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 467-473. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004

Nob, R. M. (2013). Reinforcement sensitivity as predictor of test anxiety. Educational

Measurement and Evaluation Review, 4, 26-36.

Novovic, Z., Misic-Pavkov, G., Smederevac, S., Drakic, D., & Lukic, T. (2013). The role of

schizoid personality, peritraumatic dissociation and behavioral activation system in a

case of parricide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 113-117.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.004

Nystrom, M. B. T., & Mikkelsen, F. (2013). Psychopathy-related personality traits and shame

management strategies in adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 519-

537. doi:10.1177/0886260512455512

O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis

of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 97, 557-579. doi:10.1037/a0025679

222

O'Connor, P. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2008). Learning to be saints or sinners: The indirect

pathway from sensation seeking behavior through mastery orientation. Journal of

Personality, 76, 733-752. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00502.x

O'Connor, P. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2010). Applying a psychobiological model of personality

to the study of leadership. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 185-197.

doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000027

Öhman, A. (1979). The orienting response, attention, and learning: An information-

processing perspective. In E. H. Kimmel, H. Van Oist, & J. F. Orlebke (Eds.), The

orienting reflex in humans (pp. 443-471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. J. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of

cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management,

33, 196-222. doi:10.1177/0149206306298657

Orlitzky, M. (2012). How can significance tests be deinstitutionalized? Organizational

Research Methods, 15, 199-228. doi:10.1177/1094428111428356

Ottaviani, C., & Couyoumdjian, A. (2013). Pros and cons of a wandering mind: A

prospective study. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 524. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00524

Oyserman, D., Sorensen, N., Reber, R., & Chen, S. X. (2009). Connecting and separating

mind-sets: Culture as situated cognition. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 97, 217-235. doi:10.1037/a0015850

Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-

taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 425-

438. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(95)00082-j

Pardue, A. D., Robinson, M. B., & Arrigo, B. A. (2013a). Psychopathy and corporate crime:

A preliminary examination, Part 1. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 116-

144. doi:10.1080/15228932.2013.765745

223

Pardue, A. D., Robinson, M. B., & Arrigo, B. A. (2013b). Psychopathy and corporate crime:

A preliminary examination, Part 2. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 145-

169. doi:10.1080/15228932.2013.765746

Park, S. M., Park, Y. A., Lee, H. W., Jung, H. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Choi, J. S. (2013). The effects

of behavioral inhibition/approach system as predictors of internet addiction in

adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 7-11.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.033

Parkin, A. J., Reid, T. K., & Russo, R. (1990). On the differential nature of implicit and

explicit memory. Memory & Cognition, 18, 507-514. doi:10.3758/bf03198483

Parkin, L., Morgan, R., Rosselli, A., Howard, M., Sheppard, A., Evans, D., . . . Dunn, B.

(2014). Exploring the relationship between mindfulness and cardiac perception.

Mindfulness, 5, 298-313. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0181-7

Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors' introduction to the special section on

replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 7, 528-530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253

Patrick, C. J. (1994). Emotion and psychopathy: Startling new insights. Psychophysiology,

31, 319-330. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02440.x

Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form

of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14,

150-163. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.14.2.150

Patterson, C. M., Kosson, D. S., & Newman, J. P. (1987). Reaction to punishment,

reflectivity, and passive-avoidance learning in extraverts. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52, 565-575. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.565

224

Patterson, C. M., & Newman, J. P. (1993). Reflectivity and learning from aversive events:

Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological

Review, 100, 716-736. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.100.4.716

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563.

doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Pelissolo, A., Mallet, L., Baleyte, J. M., Michel, G., Cloninger, C. R., Allilaire, J. F., &

Jouvent, R. (2005). The Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R):

Psychometric characteristics of the French version. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,

112, 126-133. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00551.x

Perkins, A. M., Cooper, A., Abdelall, M., Smillie, L. D., & Corr, P. J. (2010). Personality and

defensive reactions: Fear, trait anxiety, and threat magnification. Journal of

Personality, 78, 1071-1090. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00643.x

Perkins, A. M., Kemp, S. E., & Corr, P. J. (2007). Fear and anxiety as separable emotions:

An investigation of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality.

Emotion, 7, 252-261. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.252

Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years

after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 73-89. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-

150525

Phillips, R. R., Malamut, B. L., Bachevalier, J., & Mishkin, M. (1988). Dissociation of the

effects of inferior temporal and limbic lesions on object discrimination learning with

24-h intertrial intervals. Behavioural Brain Research, 27, 99-107. doi:10.1016/0166-

4328(88)90035-6

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgement of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York, NY: Free

Press. (Original work published 1932).

225

Pickering, A. D. (2004). The neuropsychology of impulsive antisocial sensation seeking

personality traits: From dopamine to hippocampal function? In M. Stelmack (Ed.), On

the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honour of Marvin Zuckerman. New York,

NY: Elsevier.

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2009). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and

analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94-120.

doi:10.1177/0149206309352110

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35-61). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.88.5.879

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London, England: Hutchinson.

Porter, S., Bhanwer, A., Woodworth, M., & Black, P. J. (2014). Soldiers of misfortune: An

examination of the Dark Triad and the experience of schadenfreude. Personality and

Individual Differences, 67, 64-68. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.014

Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual

Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25-42. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.13.1.25

Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Educating the human brain. Washington, DC: APA

Books.

Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., Landfield, K., Lilienfeld, S. O., Skeem, J. L., & Douglas, K. S.

(2008). A critique of Carver and White's (1994) behavioral inhibition scale (BIS) for

226

investigating Lykken's (1995) theory of primary psychopathy. Personality and

Individual Differences, 45, 269-275. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.014

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect

effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruments &

Computers, 36, 717-731. doi:10.3758/bf03206553

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879

Purser, R. E. (1999). The human relations myth unveiled: Deconstructing the history and

origins of work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Work teams: Past, present and

future (pp. 59-84). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Purser, R. E., & Milillo, J. (2015). Mindfulness revisited: A Buddhist-based

conceptualization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24, 3-24.

doi:10.1177/1056492614532315

Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime: Criminal behavior as a clinical disorder.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Raine, A., Park, S., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L., Widom, C. S., . . . Singh, M. (2001).

Reduced right hemisphere activation in severely abused violent offenders during a

working memory task: An fMRI study. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 111-129.

doi:10.1002/ab.4

Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2002). Stimulation seeking and

intelligence: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 663-674. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.4.663

227

Rankins, D., Bradshaw, J. L., & Georgiou-Karistianis, N. (2005). Local-global processing in

obsessive-compulsive disorder and comorbid Tourette's syndrome. Brain and

Cognition, 59, 43-51. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2005.04.003

Rasmussen, S. A., Elliott, M. A., & O’Connor, R. C. (2012). Psychological distress and

perfectionism in recent suicide attempters: The role of behavioural inhibition and

activation. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 680-685.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.011

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial succes: A

general model and an overview of findings. International Review of Industrial &

Organizational Psychology, 15, 101-141.

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A

meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business

creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16,

353-385. doi:10.1080/13594320701595438

Ray, J. J., & Ray, J. A. B. (1982). Some apparent advantages of sub-clinical psychopathy.

Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 135-142. doi:10.1080/00224545.1982.9713415

Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the

influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance.

Mindfulness, 5, 36-45. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z

Reidy, D. E., Wilson, L. F., Sloan, C. A., Cohn, A. M., Smart, L. M., & Zeichner, A. (2013).

Psychopathic traits and men's anger response to interpersonal conflict: A pilot study.

Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 957-961. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.473

Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Hunnicutt-Ferguson, K., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Psychopathy

traits and the processing of emotion words: Results of a lexical decision task.

Cognition & Emotion, 22, 1174-1186. doi:10.1080/02699930701745663

228

Remmers, C., Topolinski, S., & Michalak, J. (2015). Mindful(l) intuition: Does mindfulness

influence the access to intuitive processes? Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 282-

292. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.950179

Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295-328.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.46.020195.001455

Robertson, C. D., Miskey, H., Mitchell, J., & Nelson-Gray, R. (2013). Variety of self-injury:

Is the number of different methods of non-suicidal self-injury related to personality,

psychopathology, or functions of self-injury? Archives of Suicide Research, 17, 33-40.

doi:10.1080/13811118.2013.748410

Roche, M., & Haar, J. M. (2013). A metamodel approach towards self-determination theory:

a study of New Zealand managers' organisational citizenship behaviours.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3397-3417.

doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.770779

Roche, M., Haar, J. M., & Luthans, F. (2014). The role of mindfulness and psychological

capital on the well-being of leaders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19,

476-489. doi:10.1037/a0037183

Rogers, R. D., Andrews, T. C., Grasby, P. M., Brooks, D. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2000).

Contrasting cortical and subcortical activations produced by attentional-set shifting

and reversal learning in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 142-162.

doi:10.1162/089892900561931

Roose, A., Bijttebier, P., Claes, L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic traits in

adolescence: Associations with the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

systems. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 201-205.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.028

229

Rosalky, D. S. (2013). How fear and anxiety differ in the prediction of cortisol in graduate

firefighters: Implications for revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST)

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New South Wales, Sydney,

Australia.

Ross, S. R., Millis, S. R., Bonebright, T. L., & Bailley, S. E. (2002). Confirmatory factor

analysis of the Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Scales. Personality and

Individual Differences, 33, 861-865. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00196-9

Rossman, E., & Fink, A. (2010). Do creative people use shorter associative pathways?

Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 891-895. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.025

Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping

between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes

(community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,

574-586. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.870

Rubinstein, G. (2008). Are schizophrenic patients necessarily creative? A comparative study

between three groups of psychiatric inpatients. Personality and Individual

Differences, 45, 806-810. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.012

Rudolph, U., Schulz, K., & Tscharaktschiew, N. (2013). Moral emotions: An analysis guided

by Heider's naive action analysis. International Journal of Advances in Psychology, 2,

69-92.

Rudolph, U., & Tscharaktschiew, N. (2014). An attributional analysis of moral emotions:

Naive scientists and everyday judges. Emotion Review, 6, 344-352.

doi:10.1177/1754073914534507

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and

organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of

230

industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the

European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43. doi:10.1037//0021-

9010.82.1.30

Satel, S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013). Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless

neuroscience. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the Big Five.

Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 1-31. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2335

Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2000). Cross-language studies of lexical

personality factors. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in personality psychology (Vol.

1, pp. 1-36). East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.

Sava, F. A., & Sperneac, A. M. (2006). Sensitivity to reward and sensitivity to punishment

rating scales: A validation study on the Romanian population. Personality and

Individual Differences, 41, 1445-1456. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.024

Schaich Borg, J., Lieberman, D., & Kiehl, K. A. (2008). Infection, incest, and iniquity:

Investigating the neural correlates of disgust and morality. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 20, 1529-1546. Retrieved from ://WOS:000258695900001

Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic

test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38,

291-332. doi:10.1111/etap.12087

Schneirla, T. C. (1959). An evolutionary and development theory of biphasic processes

underlying approach and withdrawal. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on

motivation (pp. 1-42). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

231

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits,

capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (R. Opie, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1952). Can capitalism survive? New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2011). Emotional intelligence mediates the relationship

between mindfulness and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual

Differences, 50, 1116-1119. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.037

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of

individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-

607. doi:10.2307/256701

Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive

therapy for depression. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Segarra, P., Poy, R., Lopez, R., & Molto, J. (2014). Characterizing Carver and White's

BIS/BAS subscales using the Five Factor Model of personality. Personality and

Individual Differences, 61-62, 18-23. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.027

Seidel, E. M., Pfabigan, D. M., Keckeis, K., Wucherer, A. M., Jahn, T., Lamm, C., & Derntl,

B. (2013). Empathic competencies in violent offenders. Psychiatry Research, 210,

1168-1175. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.08.027

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.

Organization Science, 11, 448-469. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602

Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public

policy. Small Business Economics, 33, 141-149. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9215-5

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of

research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-226. doi:10.2307/259271

232

Shapero, A. (1984). The entrepreneurial event. In C. A. Kent (Ed.), The environment for

entrepreneurship (pp. 21-40). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L.

Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shaver, K. G. (1995). The entrepreneurial personality myth. Business & Economic Review,

41, 20-23.

Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture

creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 23-45.

Sheldon, K. M. (2014). Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 349-365.

doi:10.1177/1088868314538549

Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and

opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 91-112.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00071.x

Shepherd, D. A., Haynie, J. M., & Patzelt, H. (2013). Project failures arising from corporate

entrepreneurship: Impact of multiple project failures on employees' accumulated

emotions, learning, and motivation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30,

880-895. doi:10.1111/jpim.12035

Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., Williams, T. A., & Warnecke, D. (2014). How does project

termination impact project team members? Rapid termination, 'creeping death', and

learning from failure. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 513-546.

doi:10.1111/joms.12068

233

Shibata, Y. (2013). Sex differences in the effects of disinhibition, perceived peer drinking,

and delay discounting on drinking among Japanese college students. Personality and

Individual Differences, 55, 766-770. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.011

Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising

individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29, 379-399.

doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00016-3

Short, M. M., & Mazmanian, D. (2013). Perfectionism and negative repetitive thoughts:

Examining a multiple mediator model in relation to mindfulness. Personality and

Individual Differences, 55, 716-721. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.026

Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, J. T., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., . . .

Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring

the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetic

Creativity, 2, 68-85. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68

Sims, D. (2005). You bastard: A narrative exploration of the experience of indignation within

organizations. Organization Studies, 26, 1625-1640. doi:10.1177/0170840605054625

Singh, S., Corner, P. D., & Pavlovich, K. (2015). Failed, not finished: A narrative approach to

understanding venture failure stigmatization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 150-

166. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.005

Sinha, G. (2009). Entrepreneurial vision. Siliconindia, 12, 44-45.

Skatova, A., & Ferguson, E. (2011). What makes people cooperate? Individual differences in

BAS/BIS predict strategic reciprocation in a public goods game. Personality and

Individual Differences, 51, 237-241. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.013

Slobodskaya, H. R. (2011). Two superordinate personality factors in childhood. European

Journal of Personality, 25, 453-464. doi:10.1002/per.810

234

Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D., Čolović, P., & Nikolašević, Ž. (2014). Validation of the

measure of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory constructs. Journal of Individual

Differences, 35, 12-21. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000121

Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity

theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 10, 320-335. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_3

Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46-64.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46

Smith, R. H., Turner, T. J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C. W., UrchDruskat, V., & Weston, C. M.

(1996). Envy and Schadenfreude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,

158-168. doi:10.1177/0146167296222005

Smith, S. F., Lilienfeld, S. O., Coffey, K., & Dabbs, J. M. (2013). Are psychopaths and

heroes twigs off the same branch? Evidence from college, community, and

presidential samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 634-646.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.006

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural

equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 290-312). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in

covariance structure models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 159-

186). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Soler, J., Vega, D., Elices, M., Feliu-Soler, A., Soto, À., Martín-Blanco, A., . . . Pascual, J. C.

(2014). Testing the reinforcement sensitivity theory in borderline personality disorder

compared with major depression and healthy controls. Personality and Individual

Differences, 61-62, 43-46. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.005

235

Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why

experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining

psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, P. R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983).

Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological

Bulletin, 87, 245-251. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.87.2.245

Stevens, G. W., Deuling, J. K., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Successful psychopaths: Are they

unethical decision-makers and why? Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 139-149.

doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0963-1

Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs

and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 145-153.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.145

Stillman, C. M., Feldman, H., Wambach, C. G., Howard, J. H., Jr., & Howard, D. V. (2014).

Dispositional mindfulness is associated with reduced implicit learning. Consciousness

and Cognition, 28, 141-150. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.07.002

Story, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London, England: Thomson

Learning.

Stout, M. (2005). The sociopath next door. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

Svaldi, J., Naumann, E., Trentowska, M., & Schmitz, F. (2014). General and Food-Specific

Inhibitory Deficits in Binge Eating Disorder. International Journal of Eating

Disorders, 47, 534-542. doi:10.1002/eat.22260

Symanowitz, C. (2013). Persistence pays off for entrepreneurs. Finweek, 46-47.

236

Tam, K. P., Leung, A. K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). On being a mindful authoritarian: Is need

for cognition always associated with less punitiveness? Political Psychology, 29, 77-

91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00613.x

Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and

embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,

1256-1269. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1256

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior.

Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345-372.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

Teal, E. J., & Carroll, A. B. (1999). Moral reasoning skills: Are entrepreneurs different?

Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 229-240. doi:10.1023/a:1006037510932

Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., Ridgeway, V. A., Soulsby, J. M., & Lau, M.

A. (2000). Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based

cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 615-623.

doi:10.1037//0022-006x.68.4.615

Teoh, H. Y., & Foo, S. L. (1997). Moderating effects of tolerance for ambiguity and risk-

taking propensity on the role conflict-perceived performance relationship: Evidence

from Singaporean entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 67-81. Retrieved

from ://WOS:A1997WD11500005

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management

Journal, 43, 178-190. doi:10.2307/1556375

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.88.3.500

237

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-

situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in

Personality, 34, 397-423. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292

Thompson, D. F., Ramos, C. L., & Willett, J. K. (2014). Psychopathy: Clinical features,

developmental basis and therapeutic challenges. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and

Therapeutics, 39, 485-495. doi:10.1111/jcpt.12182

Thompson, K. L., Hannan, S. M., & Miron, L. R. (2014). Fight, flight, and freeze: Threat

sensitivity and emotion dysregulation in survivors of chronic childhood maltreatment.

Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 28-32. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.005

Tomkins, S. S. (1981). The quest for primary motives: Biography and autobiography of an

idea. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 306-329. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.41.2.306

Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms technical manual, verbal

forms A an B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Moltó, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The Sensitivity to Punishment and

Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and

impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837-862.

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5

Tracey, P., & Schluppeck, D. (2013). Neuroentreprenuership: "Brain pornography" or new

frontier in entrepreneurship research? Journal of Management Inquiry, 23, 101-103.

doi:10.1177/1056492613485915

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two

facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506-525. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.92.3.506

238

Trivers, R. L. (1971). Evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-

&. doi:10.1086/406755

Tsotsos, J. K., Culhane, S. M., Wai, W. Y. K., Lai, Y. H., Davis, N., & Nuflo, F. (1995).

Modeling visual attention via selective tuning. Artificial Intelligence, 78, 507-545.

doi:10.1016/0004-3702(95)00025-9

Tucker, R. P., O'Keefe, V. M., Cole, A. B., Rhoades-Kerswill, S., Hollingsworth, D. W.,

Helle, A. C., . . . Wingate, L. R. (2014). Mindfulness tempers the impact of

personality on suicidal ideation. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 229-233.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.001

Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Miller, J. D., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T.

(2013). Basic traits predict the prevalence of personality disorder across the life span:

The example of psychopathy. Psychological Science, 24, 698-705.

doi:10.1177/0956797612460249

Van den Bos, K., Müller, P. A., & van Bussel, A. A. L. (2009). Helping to overcome

intervention inertia in bystander’s dilemmas: Behavioral disinhibition can improve the

greater good. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 873-878.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.014

Van Holst, R. J., Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., Veltman, D. J., & Goudriaan,

A. E. (2012). Attentional bias and disinhibition toward gaming cues are related to

problem gaming in male adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 541-546.

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.006

Van Zant, A. B., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Avoiding the pitfalls of overconfidence while

benefiting from the advantages of confidence. California Management Review, 55, 5-

23. doi:10.1525/cmr.2013.55.2.5

239

VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human

Resource Management Review, 13, 581-604. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2003.11.004

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1999). The influence of goal

orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249-259. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.249

VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the

feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390-400.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.390

Vega, D., Soto, À., Amengual, J. L., Ribas, J., Torrubia, R., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., &

Marco-Pallarés, J. (2013). Negative reward expectations in Borderline Personality

Disorder patients: Neurophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 94, 388-396.

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.08.002

Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor's

perspective. In J. A. Katz & R. H. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship,

firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119-138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Vergara-Lopez, C., Lopez-Vergara, H. I., & Colder, C. R. (2013). Executive functioning

moderates the relationship between motivation and adolescent depressive symptoms.

Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 18-22. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.034

Verona, E., Sprague, J., & Sadeh, N. (2012). Inhibitory control and negative emotional

processing in psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 121, 498-510. doi:10.1037/a0025308

Vervoort, L., Wolters, L. H., Hogendoorn, S. M., de Haan, E., Boer, F., & Prins, P. J. M.

(2010). Sensitivity of Gray's Behavioral Inhibition System in clinically anxious and

non-anxious children and adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,

629-633. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.021

240

Vigil-Colet, A., & Morales-Vives, F. (2005). How impulsivity is related to intelligence and

academic achievement. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8, 199-204.

doi:10.1017/S1138741600005072

Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of

job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error

influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108-131. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.90.1.108

Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Prevention of school dropout through

the reduction of disruptive behaviors and school failure in elementary school. Journal

of School Psychology, 37, 205-226. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00006-0

Vogus, T. J., & Welbourne, T. M. (2003). Structuring for high reliability: HR practices and

mindful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 24, 877-903. doi:10.1002/job.221

Voigt, D. C., Dillard, J. P., Braddock, K. H., Anderson, J. W., Sopory, P., & Stephenson, M.

T. (2009). Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales and their relationship to risky

health behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 89-93.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.003

Wagemans, J., Feldman, J., Gepshtein, S., Kimchi, R., Pomerantz, J. R., van der Helm, P. A.,

& van Leeuwen, C. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II.

Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1218-1252.

doi:10.1037/a0029334

Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmuller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006).

Measuring mindfulness: The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and

Individual Differences, 40, 1543-1555. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025

241

Walker, B. R., & Jackson, C. J. (2014). How the Five Factor Model and revised

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict divergent thinking. Personality and

Individual Differences, 57, 54-58. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.011

Walker, J. S., & Bright, J. A. (2009). False inflated self-esteem and violence: a systematic

review and cognitive model. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20, 1-32.

doi:10.1080/14789940701656808

Wallace, J. F., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and psychopathy:

Associations between psychopathy and the behavioral activation and inhibition

systems. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality (pp. 398-

414). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace, J. F., Newman, J. P., & Bachorowski, J. A. (1991). Failures of response modulation:

Impulsive behavior in anxious and impulsive individuals. Journal of Research in

Personality, 25, 23-44. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(91)90003-9

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the

creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson.

Walsh, T. C. (1999). Psychopathic and nonpsychopathic violence among alcoholic offenders.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 34-48.

doi:10.1177/0306624x99431004

Walters, G. D. (2003). Predicting institutional adjustment and recidivism with the

psychopathy checklist factor scores: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 27,

541-558. doi:10.1023/a:1025490207678

Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business

Venturing, 19, 173-188. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00005-3

242

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. (2006). Organizing for mindfulness: Eastern wisdom and

Western knowledge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 275-287.

doi:10.1177/1056492606291202

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability:

Processes of collective mindfulness. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in

Organizational Behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 81-123). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice and the moral emotions: An attributional

approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weinshenker, N. J., & Siegel, A. (2002). Bimodal classification of aggression: affective

defense and predatory attack. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 237-250.

doi:10.1016/s1359-1789(01)00042-8

Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method examination of the

effects of mindfulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-being. Journal

of Research in Personality, 43, 374-385. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.008

Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. A. (2008). The seductive

allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470-477.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20.3.470

Welsh, G. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.),

Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

243

White, T. L., & Depue, R. A. (1999). Differential association of traits of fear and anxiety with

norepinephrine- and dark-induced pupil reactivity. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 77, 863-877. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.863

Whitmarsh, S., Udden, J., Barendregt, H., & Petersson, K. M. (2013). Mindfulness reduces

habitual responding based on implicit knowledge: evidence from artificial grammar

learning. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 833-845.

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.05.007

Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2013). Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model

of personality (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role

of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1919-1941.

doi:10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00406.x

Williams, A. M., Hundt, N. E., & Nelson-Gray, R. (2014). BIS and cognitive appraisals in

predicting coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 60-64.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.006

Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional stroop task and

psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 3-24. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3

Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T., & Gray, J. A. (1989). Human reactions to reward and

punishment: A questionnaire examination of grays personality theory. British Journal

of Psychology, 80, 509-515. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02339.x

Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York, NY: Free Press.

Winn, J. (2004). Making it big. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 487-500.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00059.x

244

Winslow, E. K., & Solomon, G. T. (1988). Entrepreneurs are more than non-conformists:

They are mildly sociopathic. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21. doi:10.1002/j.2162-

6057.1987.tb00477.x

Winterheld, H. A., & Simpson, J. A. (2011). Seeking security or growth: A regulatory focus

perspective on motivations in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 101, 935-954. doi:10.1037/a0025012

Wolpe, J., & Lang, P. J. (1977). Manual for the fear survey schedule. San Diego, CA:

Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Wood, M. S., & Williams, D. W. (2014). Opportunity Evaluation as Rule-Based Decision

Making. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 573-602. doi:10.1111/joms.12018

Wright, L., & Hardie, S. M. (2011). "Not ready to sort it yet": Revised reinforcement

sensitivity theory (rRST) predicts left-handed behavioural inhibition during a manual

sorting task. Laterality, 16, 753-767. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2010.521752

Wu, J. Y., Chen, C. Y., & Li, C. I. (2013). Dispositional manpower quality as a predictor of

personal and departmental human resource performance. Social Behavior and

Personality, 41, 739-750. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.5.739

Wuthrich, V., & Bates, T. C. (2001). Schizotypy and latent inhibition: Non-linear linkage

between psychometric and cognitive markers. Personality and Individual Differences,

30, 783-798. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00071-4

Wytykowska, A., & Lewicka, M. (2011). Learning the affective value of target categories:

The role of category valence and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS).

Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 944-948. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.003

Yanagisawa, K., Masui, K., Onoda, K., Furutani, K., Nomura, M., Yoshida, H., & Ura, M.

(2011). The effects of the behavioral inhibition and activation systems on social

245

inclusion and exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 502-505.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.014

Zacharakis, A. L., & Shepherd, D. A. (2001). The nature of information and overconfidence

on venture capitalists' decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 311-332.

doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00052-x

Zgierska, A., Rabago, D., Chawla, N., Kushner, K., Koehler, R., & Marlatt, A. (2009).

Mindfulness meditation for substance use disorders: A systematic review. Substance

Abuse, 30, 266-294. doi:10.1080/08897070903250019

Zhang, J., Ding, W., Li, Y., & Wu, C. (2013). Task complexity matters: The influence of trait

mindfulness on task and safety performance of nuclear power plant operators.

Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 433-439. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.004

Zhang, J., & Wu, C. (2014). The influence of dispositional mindfulness on safety behaviors:

A dual process perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 70, 24-32.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2014.03.006

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial

status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259-271.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259

Zuckerman, M. (1978). Sensation seeking. In H. London & J. E. Exner, Jr. (Eds.),

Dimensions of personality. New York, NY: Wiley.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocial

factors. Journal of Personality, 68, 999-1029. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00124

246

Appendix A: Balloon bursting probabilities for Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)

The reward, punish, and random blocks of trials have different probabilities (P) of the balloon bursting depending on the number of pumps (i). The maximum number of pumps in the first trial is 20 and decreases by one with each trial. In the random block of trials, the probability formula of the balloon bursting after each pump is P[i] = 1/(20 – i). The specific probability of a burst after each pump in the random block is P1 = 1/(19 = .0526, P2 = 1/18 =

.0555, P3 = 1/17 = .0588 … P20 = 1/1 = 1. In the reward block of trials, the probability formula of the balloon bursting after a pump is P[i] = P[counter]/2, based on the counter in the random block of trials. The reward block of trials has a specific probability of a burst after each pump: P1 = (1/19)/2 = .0526/2 = .0260, P2 = (1/18)/2 = .0555/2 = .0278, P3 = (1/17)2 =

.0588/2 = .0290 and so forth. The reward block of trials rewards the participant because the balloon has half as much chance of bursting compared to the random block of trials. In the punish block of trials, the probability formula of the balloon bursting after a pump is P[i] =

P[counter] x 2, based on the counter in the random block of trials. The punish block of trials has a specific probability of a burst after each pump: P1 = (1/19)/2 = .0526 x 2 = .1052, P2 =

(1/18) x 2 = .0555 x 2 = .1110, P3 = (1/17) x 2 = .0588 x 2 = .1176. The punish block of trials punishes the participant because the balloon has twice as much chance of bursting compared to the random block of trials.

247

Appendix B: A Comparison of Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory with Other

Contemporary Personality Theories

Abstract

Gray and McNaughton’s revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) is unique among personality theories because it is based on contemporary neuroscience and animal learning.

We advocate r-RST provides a basis through which to compare strengths and weaknesses of other personality theories. We compare r-RST to the Five Factor Model (FFM), Zuckerman’s

Sensation Seeking, Jackson’s Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (HMLP), Elliot and

Thrash’s Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (AATM), and Cloninger’s

Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (PMTC). We highlight that most modern theories conflate or under-represent systems of r-RST despite possessing other admirable qualities. We think r-RST could be more widely used as the “best available basic model of temperament” with applications across work, clinical, educational and other domains, because it is the most complete theoretical representation of temperament consistent with biology and animal learning. Measures to assess r-RST, such as Jackson’s J5, are now available.

248

A Comparison of Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory with Other Contemporary

Personality Theories

Gray’s (1970, 1982a) original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST) was comprehensive and based on the best available animal learning and neuroscience of the time.

The theory was revised by the original author based on developments in animal learning and neuroscience and was renamed revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Gray &

McNaughton, 2000). In this article, we compare and contrast r-RST with other personality theories. This investigation is important because to the best of our knowledge, this exercise has not been previously conducted despite evidence that r-RST occupies a unique space in the literature as the “best available basic model of temperament” currently available within the literature although much work needs to be done.

Whilst there are many potential personality theories available for review, we constrain our review to a representative group of the most contemporary and important personality theories in the academic literature that claim a full or partial biological basis. The systems we include are the Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg,

1993), Sensation Seeking (Zuckerman, 1979), the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality

(HMLP; Jackson, 2008), the Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (AATM; Elliot

& Thrash, 2002, 2010), and the Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character

(PMTC; Cloninger et al., 1993). We believe this review will assist in better understanding strengths and weaknesses of r-RST as the most comprehensive available personality model of temperament, whilst also better recognizing its limitations given the contrasting strengths of the other models.1

Gray’s (1987c) o-RST highlighted two motivational systems. The Behavioral

Approach System (BAS), also called the Behavioral Activation System, is reward sensitive

1 We do not include in our review Eysenck’s psychobiological theory of personality (e.g., Eysenck, 1967) as it is a forerunner of Gray’s (1987c) model of o-RST with declining influence in the contemporary literature.

249 and mediates approach motivations. The Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) is punishment sensitive and mediates avoidance of aversive stimuli. A vast literature of neuroscience and animal learning has supported understanding of personality in terms of approach and avoidance. The self-report measures developed to test o-RST included the Behavioral

Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation System scales (BIS/BAS scales; Carver &

White, 1994) and the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire

(SPSRQ; Torrubia et al., 2001). Researchers conducted substantial research using these measures. The claimed biological base of these scales made them attractive to many fields including medical, clinical and organizational domains. Potentially because three systems did not match well onto the general and widely accepted concept of approach and avoidance, or because the most widely used measurement models did not include them, the third system, called the Fight/Flight System (FFS), gained little traction in the literature.

While the simplicity of o-RST (Gray, 1987c) was appealing, developments in animal learning and neuroscience provided further evidence that the motivational system divided into three primary systems (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The BAS remains relatively unchanged, except that it now mediates motivation to approach any rewarding stimuli rather than just conditioned stimuli (Smillie et al., 2006). The second motivational system retains the name BIS, but now the function of the BIS changes such that it becomes a comparator that evaluates whether to approach or avoid a stimuli (Corr, 2004). BIS is activated when a threat is intangible and requires investigation, which often leads to arousal, hypersensitivity to threat and cautious approach to determine if the threat is real (Smillie et al., 2006). The conflict detector mechanism of the BIS usually evaluates between approach-avoidance conflicts, but can also evaluate between approach-approach conflicts and avoidance- avoidance conflicts (Smillie et al., 2006). The BIS is also described as anxiety. The third motivational system in r-RST is the Fight/Flight/Freezing System (FFFS). As opposed to the

250 evaluative function of the BIS, the FFFS mediates a fear response to tangible, punishing stimuli. Fight (also known as defensive aggression) concerns a frenzied and vociferous response to threat or pain that is unescapable (Smillie et al., 2006). Fight is usually perceived as defensive aggression and different from predatory aggression (Harmon-Jones & Sigelman,

2001), but may also have an approach element similar to the BAS (Smillie et al., 2006).

Flight concerns rapid escape from threat or pain that is escapable. Freezing concerns escape from pain or threat through non-motion. Freezing is associated with the physiological state of panic (DeYoung, 2010a). Flight and freezing are responses to distal threat, whereas fight is a response to proximal threat (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1990a, 1990b)

As described, r-RST differs considerably to o-RST. The original theory mainly focused on motivational systems in which BAS was an approach system, BIS was an inadequately defined avoidance orientation and the FFS was poorly understood. The revised theory is more comprehensive with better definitions of each of the proposed systems, greater focus on the importance of fear as a personality system and its division into the behavioral responses of fight, flight and freezing (Smillie et al., 2006).

Corr suggests that Gray took Darwinism seriously because he believed that “data obtained from (non-human) animals could be extrapolated to human animals” (Corr, 2008, p.

2) and that personality arises from brain-behavior systems. Most researchers would agree that r-RST is a model of temperament but, similar to a few others, we argue that r-RST is the

“best available basic model of temperament” currently available within the literature. Given-

RST is consistent with contemporary biology and animal learning (Corr, 2008; Gray &

McNaughton, 2000; Smillie et al., 2006), the purpose of the current article is to evaluate how well r-RST provides a standard by which we can assess the contribution of contemporary personality theories which are representative of the modern personality literature. Now that scales have been developed to assess r-RST, such as the J5 (Jackson, 2009), r-RST could

251 potentially be applied to many domains including clinical, organizational, educational and other domains that have traditionally been dominated by other personality theories. Yet such application is dependent upon understanding the relative strengths of r-RST and its currently available measurement models in comparison to other contemporary models. Making this comparison would be an important step as, for example, temperament models in general have had negligible impact in some applied literatures, such as workplace contexts, despite their considerable possibilities (Furnham & Jackson, 2008)

Five Factor Model (FFM)

The Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993) is the most widely researched personality model (Widiger & Costa, 2013). Although sometimes presented with different scale names and definitions, the FFM is generally regarded as comprising Extraversion, which concerns reward sensitivity and socially gregariousness;

Neuroticism, which concerns emotionally instability and propensity to be easily upset;

Openness to Experience, which concerns imagination, intellectual curiosity and artistic interests; Agreeableness, which concerns social harmony and compassion; and

Conscientiousness, which concerns diligence, orderliness, goal orientation and hard work.

The model appears to ably predict many outcomes (Salgado, 1997) and meta-analyses have supported the FFM across varied contexts (e.g., Judge & Ilies, 2002; Zhao & Seibert, 2006).

The greatest strength of the FFM is also potentially its greatest problem: it was derived through psychometrics including the statistical techniques of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and item analysis (Block, 1995). As a result, the FFM has been designed to achieve simple and almost orthogonal structure as well as high reliability. Whilst a talented psychometrician could design scales to also achieve high validity, the most likely reason for the reported high validity of the FFM (e.g., Salgado, 1997) is that EFA extracts the most prominent factors in language which happen to also be excellent ways of describing how

252 people are generally different from each other across important criteria. In our view, the greatest appeal of the FFM is that it is psychometrically the best available contemporary personality model and given that psychometrics provides strong evidence from which to judge the quality of a model, we are not surprised that the FFM dominates modern personality psychology. Despite much evidence showing the FFM predicts outcomes and has many admirable qualities, investigation into the FFM itself has still not provided evidence that it is the optimal model (Saucier, 2002). For example, a twin study did not support a realist interpretation of the FFM and suggested it is a statistical construct (Franić, Borsboom,

Dolan, & Boomsma, 2014). An optimal model is a model that is comprehensible, generalizable across cultures, discerned through multiple methods and is high in usefulness

(De Raad & Perugini, 2002).

Given that the FFM was designed using EFA, there is no a priori theory. As a result, the FFM has even been described as “atheoretical” (Block, 1995, p. 207). The best theory underlying the FFM is that words used to describe people provide a mechanism to understand personality (the "lexical hypothesis"; Cattell, 1943), but we maintain that this theoretical position confirms that the FFM is simply a parsimonious way of explaining “the personality of a stranger” (McAdams, 1992, p. 329). Although other criticisms are also applicable (e.g.,

Block, 1995, 2010), we think the lack of a priori theory is the FFM’s greatest weakness because (a) it encourages shallow analysis and circular thinking, for example, that conscientious people are hard workers, (b) there will always be a lack of definiteness, such that there is no evidence that the EFA solution underlying one version of the FFM is better than any other version, and (c) there will be no on-going development of the FFM. These criticisms have been effectively hidden by the strong psychometrics of the FFM, which have appealed to psychologists who tend to follow the reductionist/scientific tradition (Popper,

1959).

253

As a result, we advocate that the FFM has inappropriately dominated the literature.

We think future personality psychologists will reflect that the FFM gave increased credibility to personality psychology that was not deserved and that its dominance has stifled richer, theory based models, despite the valiant post hoc theory building of some FFM researchers

(DeYoung, 2010b; McCrae & Costa, 2008). For example, DeYoung and colleagues have used brain imaging studies and studies relating the FFM to other personality measures to add depth to the FFM (DeYoung, 2013; DeYoung et al., 2010; DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins,

2005). Although there is a tradition of building sophisticated post hoc theory consequently to factor analysis (e.g., Eysenck, 1992), the reality is that it is inappropriate to theorize after, rather than before, the results are known (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Kerr refers this practice of “HARKing” (Hypothesizing after the results are known) and problems including the inhibition of alternative hypotheses being identified, encouraging narrow theory that may be context-bound, and the encouragement of “fudging” in in other scientific grey areas (Kerr,

1998).

While some biological correlations for the scales underlying the FFM have been reported (e.g., DeYoung, 2013; DeYoung et al., 2005), they are not substantial enough to overcome the basic argument that there is no a priori biological evidence in favor of all the five scales underlying the FFM. As a result we advocate that the relationships identified by researchers (e.g., DeYoung, 2013; DeYoung et al., 2005) reflect the more likely possibility that the FFM consists of conflations of motivational systems associated with r-RST. Below we show how the FFM can be understood as conflations of r-RST scales. Perhaps the best evidence of a biological basis for the FFM comes from the scale of Extraversion.

Extraversion in the FFM has been argued as having similarities to the BAS (Smillie et al.,

2006) and the BAS has evidence of a biological basis (e.g., Depue & Collins, 1999). One potential difference from the BAS concerns the centrality of sociability in extraversion,

254 whereas the BAS more generally concerns a more basic reward sensitivity that could lead to sociability. Depue and Collins (1999) identify two factors underlying extraversion: one related to social achievement and a potency in achieving social goals and the other related to sociability and affiliativeness. The centrality of sociability to Extraversion can also be demonstrated noting that all items in the 20-item scale of Extraversion in the International

Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006) relate to sociability. For example, “I am the life of the party” and “I feel comfortable around people”. Depue and colleagues (e.g., Depue & Collins, 1999; Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005) have suggested that these two factors of Extraversion are mediated by two different neurobiological systems and DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson (2007) have linked them to different genetic factors. In contrast to this conflation of factors concerning sociability, BAS in r-RST concerns a more basic reward response underlying sociability and other rewarding stimuli such as food and sex.

Neuroticism in the FFM could be understood as a conflation of BIS, FFFS and potentially depression (as noted by Corr, DeYoung, et al., 2013; Gray & McNaughton, 2000).

For example, of the 20 items in the IPIP, most appear related to a broad definition of BIS anxiety such as “I worry about things” and “I get irritated easily”. Some items could be related to FFFS fear such as “I panic easily” and “I feel threatened easily”. Other items appear to relate to depression, such as “I am often blue”, but depression may also be a conflation of dispositions such as low BAS and high BIS (Bijttebier et al., 2009). From this perspective, Neuroticism, may be related to biological functioning, but more likely these relationships reflect conflations of more basic r-RST variables.

The other three variables of the FFM (Agreeableness, Openness and

Conscientiousness) are sufficiently dissimilar to r-RST scales to argue that they are unlikely to be related to the biologically-based personality variables associated with r-RST. The

255 possibility that some personality variables might be more cognitive and less biological is explored by Elliot and Thrash (2002, 2010), Jackson (2008) and Cloninger and colleagues

(1993), although it should be noted that DeYoung (2010) argues that all FFM variables have a biological basis. For example, Jackson (2008) suggests conscientiousness may be more cognitive in origin, whereas the related construct of persistence in Cloninger and colleagues’

(1993) Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character is identified as biological in origin (De Fruyt, Van de Wiele, & Van Heeringen, 2000). Openness to experience overlaps with Deep Learning, which is another variable that Jackson (2008) theoretically designated as more cognitive. Agreeableness may be a conflation of high approach orientation and the ability to constrain behavior (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). In short, Agreeableness, Openness and

Conscientiousness may or may not have a biological basis and the FFM has nothing to say about such a basis, but most researchers would agree that they might in some way extend the scope of r-RST. As we shall see, other models proposed by Jackson (2008) and Cloninger and colleagues’ (1993) provide arguments how broadly similar scales to Agreeableness,

Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness relate to r-RST.

Overall, we are impressed by the psychometrics underlying the FFM but we think it is achieved at too great a cost. In contrast to r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), our view is that the FFM is theoretically weak in origin and leads to shallow theorizing, because it provides no room for theoretical advancement or proper explanation of behavior.

Sensation Seeking and the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (HMLP)

Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking is the tendency to be excited by novel experiences and the willingness to take risks (Zuckerman, 1978, 1994). As a result, the focus of most research on Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking has concerned its dysfunctional basis, which indicates it is different to BAS.

256

On the other hand, Jackson’s (2008) Sensation Seeking focuses on exploration and curiosity, which is conceptually similar to the underlying reward seeking drive of the BAS.

Operationally, the BAS scale in Jackson’s J5 measurement model of r-RST (Jackson, 2009) and Jackson’s Sensation Seeking scale in the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality

(HMLP; Jackson, 2008) share some items. In line with Arnett (1994), the HMLP suggests that Sensation Seeking is not necessarily dysfunctional and can be functional. The HMLP develops the concept of the BAS by arguing that Sensation Seeking is potentially dysfunctional if directly expressed, but likely to be functional if expressed through socio- cognitive mediators such as Consciousness, Rationality, Mastery or Deep Learning (e.g.,

Jackson, 2011; O'Connor & Jackson, 2008). The HMLP is consistent with research suggesting Sensation Seeking concerns exploratory behavior that is not necessarily associated with reinforcement (Ball & Zuckerman, 1990; Pickering, 2004). Notably, the HMLP includes

Conscientiousness and deep learning (similar to openness) as socio-cognitive mechanisms rather than general personality variables in the FFM.

The broad theoretical basis of the model is similar to the Approach and Avoidance

Temperament Model (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) in that it assumes personality variables have “more of a biological basis” and some have “more of a socio-cognitive basis” (Jackson,

2011, p. 35). In the HMLP (Jackson, 2008), Sensation Seeking has more of a biological basis and the other scales are more socio-cognitive or experiential (Jackson, Hobman, et al., 2009).

Interestingly, Jackson, Izadikhah, et al. (2012) identify how the theory underlying HMLP is similar to the theory underlying Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (Ellis, 2004) which adds additional credibility to the model. Jackson and colleagues have provided evidence of how cognitive mechanisms re-express high scores of sensation seeking through indirect paths to predict organizational, educational and other outcomes (Gardiner & Jackson, in press;

257

Jackson, 2008, 2009, 2011; Jackson, Baguma, et al., 2009; Jackson, Izadikhah, et al., 2012;

O'Connor & Jackson, 2008).

In short, the HMLP (Jackson, 2008) is consistent with r-RST and provides socio- cognitive mechanisms through which a general reward seeking stimulus (BAS) can be re- expressed as functional or dysfunctional behavior. However, the HMLP in its current form only concerns the BAS and its mediators and excludes variables similar to the BIS or the

FFFS, which is a problem given recent evidence that fear is related to performance outcomes

(Walker & Jackson, 2014). The HMLP provides a unique contribution to the personality literature as a theory based process model but it fails to properly capture all the temperament processes implicated in r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000).

The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (AATM)

The Approach and Avoidance Temperament Model (AATM; Elliot & Thrash, 2002;

Elliot & Thrash, 2010) is a process model of personality where behavior is distally predicted by temperament and proximally predicted by goals. The authors analyzed several personality systems and deduced that the core of most personality systems is approach temperament and avoidance temperament. As a result, the authors included o-RST in their analyses of personality systems and noted they awaited more information regarding r-RST.

We applaud the AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) as a parsimonious, biologically-based personality model that makes predictions from the BAS and BIS through the socio-cognitive mechanism of goals. While the model includes different types of goals

(Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001), we suggest the model could be broadened to include many different types of socio-cognitive mechanisms rather than only goals

(perhaps following the perspective of Jackson's HMLP; Jackson, 2008). Only a few studies have used the model (e.g., Izadikhah et al., 2010; Jackson et al., 2014) and the model is dated due to its basis on o-RST, which makes the model less elegant than it might have been if it

258 had been based on r-RST. Updating the model to incorporate the FFFS would make it consistent with contemporary neuroscience and animal learning (Gray & McNaughton,

2000).

We suggest that the AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) and the HMLP (Jackson,

2008) are process models that have value within the personality literature. These models build on RST and provide a major alternative to EFA and the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

However, we think the AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) and the HMLP (Jackson, 2008) should only be understood as tentative and initial process models of personality. These models themselves have the ability to be updated, which is a major point of difference between them and the FFM.

The Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (PMTC)

The Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (PMTC; Cloninger et al.,

1993) is a model that incorporates both genes and environment (Heath et al., 1994) and has conceptual overlap with o-RST: Harm Avoidance can be equated with original BIS and

Novelty Seeking is similar to original BAS. The model is more complicated because it also includes two other temperament dimensions of Reward Dependence and Persistence. The

PMTC also includes three dimensions of character because character is thought to mature over the life-span and consequently is an important predictor of behavior (Cloninger, 1998).

Character is broadly similar to socio-cognitive mechanisms already discussed in terms of the

AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; 2010) and the HMLP (Jackson, 2008). From this perspective, the PMTC has general similarity of theoretical design to these other two models although the variables within the models differ. Importantly, the PMTC is not a process model and is therefore dissimilar to the AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) or HMLP (Jackson, 2008) in this respect because outcomes are not predicted by temperament through character. Instead character is thought to predict outcomes independently from temperament. The character

259 dimensions are Self-Directedness, Cooperativeness and Self-Transcendence (Cloninger et al.,

1993). While theoretically temperament and character are perceived to be orthogonal

(Cloninger, 1987), research has found temperament and character to be correlated (Jylha &

Isometsa, 2006; O'Connor & Jackson, 2010) and have a common genetic basis (Ando et al.,

2002).

While the PMTC (Cloninger et al., 1993) is an established model that continues to be widely used within medical and clinical domains, it is no longer contemporary with current neuroscience and animal learning (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Novelty Seeking (BAS) and

Harm Avoidance (BIS) are based on o-RST and the model does not incorporate r-RST. In addition to AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; 2010), PMTC (Cloninger et al., 1993) provides another example where researchers appear to persist with o-RST despite developments in neuroscience and animal learning research that suggests these models are neither contemporary nor accurate. Updating PMTC to be based on r-RST and potentially developing

PMTC into a process model would be valuable developments.

Scales to Measure r-RST

Three published scales are now available that assess r-RST. The primary measure is the J5 (Jackson, 2009), which has been used in at least 14 articles (Clark & Loxton, 2012;

Donahue & Caraballo, 2015; Gardiner & Jackson, 2012; Hannan & Orcutt, 2013; Harnett et al., 2013; Hennegan et al., 2013; Ivory & Kambouropoulos, 2012; Jackson, 2009; Jackson et al., 2014; Kambouropoulos et al., 2014; Morton & White, 2013; Nob, 2013; Thompson,

Hannan, et al., 2014; Walker & Jackson, 2014). The r-RST version of the Sensitivity to

Punishment Sensitivity to Reward for Children’s Caregivers (SPSRQ-C; Colder et al., 2011) has been used in four articles (Becker et al., 2013; Colder et al., 2011; Lopez-Vergara et al.,

2012; Vergara-Lopez et al., 2013). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire

260

(Smederevac et al., 2014) has been used in two articles (Mitrović et al., 2014; Smederevac et al., 2014).

Other researchers have used existing measures to separate fear and anxiety (De

Pascalis et al., 2013; Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014; Lake et al., 2011; McNaughton et al., 2013;

Neo et al., 2011; Perkins et al., 2010; Wright & Hardie, 2011). Alternative measures include the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1983) to measure BIS anxiety and the

Fear Survey Scale (Wolpe & Lang, 1977) to measure FFFS fear.

A weakness of the Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (Smederevac et al., 2014) is that it includes the subscales of flight, flight and freezing without reference to using them as a single dimension of fear, whereas the J5 includes the option of either separating fight, flight and freezing into subscales or using them as one fear dimension. A weakness of the

SPSRQ-C (Colder et al., 2011) is the use of BAS subscales. However, BAS theory does not support the use of subscales (Gray, 1982a) and factor analysis is not an appropriate method if theoretically unsupported (Meehl, 1992).

While some studies have shown slightly less than satisfactory (i.e., lower than 0.7) alpha reliability for the flight and freezing scales in the J5 (Harnett et al., 2013; Morton &

White, 2013), we suggest that the J5 is currently the best available measure of r-RST because it provides the best differentiation of FFFS from the BIS and the best conceptualization of

FFFS in terms of its factor structure. Moreover, the scale has the most research supporting its psychometric design and validity. Interestingly, the BIS in the J5 is defined in terms of social comparisons (Jackson, 2009), which is consistent with White and Depue (1999) but may over-emphasize the social context.

Conclusions

As a result of this review, we suggest that r-RST (Gray & McNaughton, 2000) is the

“best available basic model of temperament” in terms of its basis in modern neuroscience and

261 animal learning (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). This is a similar conclusion to that drawn by

Corr and colleagues (Corr, 2009; Corr, DeYoung, et al., 2013). In contrast, the FFM (Costa &

McCrae, 1992) is based on exploratory factor analysis and factors appear to be conflations of r-RST and other variables. Given that the FFM has overlaps with r-RST in terms of these conflations, it is unsurprising that some biological correlations with the FFM have been found

(e.g., DeYoung & Gray, 2009; DeYoung et al., 2010). Although the FFM has remarkable psychometric credibility, we advocate that this is not surprising given that it was designed to achieve this purpose. Importantly, its lack of theoretical credibility leaves it a dead-end in terms of developing the theoretical personality literature. The HMLP (Jackson, 2008) is incomplete from the perspective of r-RST, because it excludes the BIS and FFFS, but provides an initial start in developing a more complete personality model because it extends the BAS and has extra credibility due to its general similarity to the theory underlying REBT

(Ellis & Dryden, 1997). Models such as the AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002, 2010) and the

PMTC (Cloninger et al., 1993) are based on o-RST and also seek to extend the applicability of o-RST. They also provide initial models that can be developed to provide general process models of personality with theoretical depth and measurement rigor.

However, the HMLP (Jackson, 2008), the AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; 2010) and the

PMTC (Cloninger et al., 1993) all face the hurdle of adequately defining what is meant by a biological basis or a socio-cognitive basis (or temperament versus character) and the differences between temperament and character. For example, the HMLP (Jackson, 2008), the AATM (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; 2010) and the PMTC (Cloninger et al., 1993) define character in terms of very different variables, which suggests that much scholarly research needs to be undertaken even at this very basic level. Finally, exactly how the temperament and character variables are related to each other is a topic still in its infancy. Whilst the FFM

262

(McCrae & Costa, 1987) argues for orthogonal relationships between variables, we find this too simplistic.

This review suggests that r-RST is the best available biologically-focused model of temperament and therefore it should be suitable for use across a variety of contexts including clinical, organizational, educational and general domains. Despite the strong theoretical value of r-RST and the availability of measurement systems of r-RST, such as Jackson’s J5

(Jackson, 2009), the literature appears reluctant to embrace r-RST. In a review, Corr (2008) suggests that r-RST has not become established in the literature and researchers continue to use o-RST over r-RST. Since the review by Corr (2008), little appears to have changed.

Moreover, it should be remembered that the FFM is used far more widely in the literature than any other model of personality. It is unclear how the FFM can be improved, because we perceive it as having hardly developed since its conception and has nowhere to go. In contrast, biologically-based and process-based models can be continually updated as research develops even if criticisms can be directed at their present levels of development.

Some models have been slow in being updated and researchers have continued to use scales to assess models that have become outdated. Our hope is that r-RST and process models will see further revisions and scale developments as neuroscience and animal learning research continues to suggest how we might develop better models of personality. The challenge for personality researchers in the 21st century is to leave behind the safety of psychometrically strong models such as the FFM and focus on theory built process models of personality which will advance the discipline.

263

Appendix C: Moral Emotions and Corporate Psychopathy: A Review

Abstract

While psychopathy research has been growing for decades, a new area of research is corporate psychopathy. A gap in the literature is the influence of moral emotions on corporate psychopathy. This gap is important to fill because it provides greater breadth of awareness of the emotional decision-making processes of individuals high in corporate psychopathy. In this review, we analyze representative psychopathy research pertaining to each of the 23 moral emotions identified by Rudolph, Schulz and Tscharaktschiew. We categorize these emotions using Haidt’s typology: other-condemning emotions are anger, contempt, disgust, envy, indignation, jealousy, rage, resentment, schadenfreude (joy in the misfortune of others) and scorn; self-conscious emotions are embarrassment, guilt, regret, remorse, pride and shame; other-suffering emotions are pity and sympathy; and other-praising emotions are admiration, awe, elevation, gratitude and respect. We advocate that these moral emotions play a role in shaping and understanding the unethical behavior of corporate psychopaths. We hope this review provides impetus to further empirical research identifying moral emotions as an influence on corporate psychopathy and unethical behavior in organizations.

264

Moral Emotions and Corporate Psychopathy: A Review

Corporate psychopathy has emerged as a lens to understand unethical behavior in organizations and has been implicated in, but is different from, bullying (Boddy, 2011b), dysfunctional leadership (Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, & Babiak, 2014) and workplace deviance (Dunlop & Lee, 2004). Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by behavioral, affective and interpersonal deficits including shallow emotions, reduced concern for social norms, and lack of guilt, remorse and empathy (Hare, 1993). While psychopaths are over-represented in the prison population (Hare, 1996), many psychopaths are non-violent members of the community (Stout, 2005). Corporate psychopaths are subclinical psychopaths within an organizational setting (Boddy, 2014) and research has suggested that psychopathy can even confer an advantage on individuals seeking individual rewards within a corporate setting (Ray & Ray, 1982). While researchers continue interest in corporate psychopathy, a review has yet to be conducted on the influence of moral emotions on corporate psychopathy and unethical behavior. Moral emotions “are linked to the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent” (Haidt, 2003, p. 276).

We use the 23 moral emotions identified by Rudolph and colleagues (2013) to identify overlapping scholarship related to psychopathy or corporate psychopathy. Our aim is to help create an understanding of how moral emotions play a role in shaping and understanding the unethical behavior of corporate psychopaths. We hope this review will promote research designed to further understand moral emotions, corporate psychopathy and ethics in organizations.

Psychopathy is present in approximately one percent of the population and is a disorder characterized by disagreeableness, shallow affect, callousness, a parasitic lifestyle and lack of conscience (Hare, 1993). Much research has been conducted on psychopathy within institutional settings, but a growing body of research is recognizing that most

265 individuals high in psychopathy are in the community including businesses (Boddy, 2011a;

De Vries, Jehn, & Terwel, 2012; Holt & Marques, 2012; Marshall, Baden, & Guidi, 2013;

Stevens, Deuling, & Armenakis, 2012). Psychopathy is not necessarily an impediment to corporate advancement because of risk-taking, low fear and lack of concern for consequences are all associated with ambition and strong leadership styles (Babiak, 1995; Babiak & Hare,

2006; Babiak et al., 2010). Corporate psychopathy is likely to be subclinical, because psychopathy is a continuous variable rather than a typology (Vachon et al., 2013) and community studies have found individuals are situated along a psychopathy continuum

(Lilienfeld et al., 2014).

Psychopathy is a trait that has evolved in, rather than been selected out, of the gene pool, which suggests that it confers some survival and reproductive advantages. Altruism is beneficial for most of the population because cooperation can increase survival in the long term even if it reduces opportunities in the short term (Trivers, 1971). While altruism may be beneficial for most, a proportion of the population may use a “cheater” strategy where they choose not to reciprocate and therefore choose self-interest over cooperation (Baughman,

Jonason, Lyons, & Vernon, 2014; Book & Quinsey, 2004; Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, &

Vernon, 2014). A cheater strategy is frequency dependent. If too many individuals within the population use a cheater strategy, then the strategy would not be successful because it is based on others’ anticipation that goodwill is the natural state of affairs and they in turn will receive goodwill. A cheater strategy is taking advantage of others. Hence, psychopaths can act as “con men” or “con women” because of the anticipation of reciprocation (Hare, 1996).

Potentially beneficial features of psychopathy include undue acquisition and maintenance of resources as a result of superficial charm, deception, lack of other-centered emotions and a manipulative and parasitic lifestyle. Game theory, as demonstrated in the prisoner’s dilemma, has demonstrated that cheating can be an effective strategy if the associate does not cheat

266

(Mealey, 1995). From an evolutionary perspective of gaining resources, “it can be good to be bad, adaptively speaking” (Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, & Ross, 2013, p. 574). The cheater strategy can be particularly useful for psychopaths within a corporate setting for rising in the corporate hierarchy because it can be associated with unfairly gaining status and acquiring financial benefits.

Psychopaths have been described as homo economus (Haidt, 2003) because of their utilitarian approach to life where they are focused on gaining rewards and unconcerned with social consequences including possible punishment. While others may use aggression as an emotional reaction, psychopaths are more likely to use aggression proactively and without emotion. Aggression is simply a means to an end to ensure that they get what they want

(Glenn & Raine, 2009). Corporate psychopaths similarly prioritize self-interest, which can include destructive consequences such as disruptions to group functioning (Baysinger et al.,

2014).

Previous research and philosophy has emphasized the cognitive component of morality and suggested that morals arise through reasoning and reflection (Kohlberg, 1969;

Piaget, 1965). Emotion is sometimes an input into the process of reasoning, but the traditional view is that it is a minor component if a component at all. Since the 1980s “affective revolution” (Tomkins, 1981), some researchers have suggested that emotion is the primary component in determining morals (Haidt, 2001; Wilson, 1993). Moral judgments may be made intuitively rather than rationally and a cognitive process of reasoning and reflection may be simply a means to justify the intuitively made judgment. Corporate psychopaths will likely lack these moral emotions because of their self-interested concern. Intelligent psychopaths may be able to articulate what they believe to be the socially appropriate responses to moral issues, and may be able to fake such responses, but are unlikely to feel these emotions. Interestingly, we will identify that psychopaths may fake moral emotions as

267

Table 1

Rudolph and colleagues (2013) 23 moral emotions integrated into Haidt’s (2003) typology of moral emotions

Other-Condemning Self-Conscious Other-Suffering Other-Praising

Emotions Emotions Emotions Emotions

Anger Embarrassment Pity Admiration

Contempt Guilt Sympathy Awe

Disgust Pride Elevation

Envy Regret Gratitude

Indignation Remorse Respect

Jealousy Shame

Rage

Resentment

Schadenfreude

Scorn

268

part of their cheater strategy and the faking of moral emotions has yet to be seriously explored in the literature (Book & Quinsey, 2004).

This review integrates research from corporate psychopathy, moral emotions and ethics in organizations. Rudolph and colleagues (2013) identified 23 moral emotions using the “affective lexicon” (Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987) and research on moral emotions by

Haidt (2003) and Weiner (2006). Rudolph and colleagues (2013) created an alphabetical list of moral emotions, but we progress the literature by identifying each of these moral emotions within the context of Haidt’s (2003) typology (see Table 1). Other-condemning emotions are anger, contempt, disgust, envy, indignation, jealousy, rage, resentment, schadenfreude (joy in the misfortune of others) and scorn; self-conscious emotions are embarrassment, guilt, pride, regret, remorse and shame; other-suffering emotions are pity and sympathy; and other- praising emotions are admiration, awe, elevation, gratitude and respect. Research into moral emotions continues and this list is not intended to be definitive, but rather a current collection of moral emotions that has been utilized by one or more researchers (Rudolph &

Tscharaktschiew, 2014).

The emotions are moral because they can evoke prosocial action tendencies (Frijda,

1986). Some emotions, such as anger, may be either moral or non-moral and the dividing line between different types of anger is often not clear (Haidt, 2003). A moral emotion has prosocial action tendencies and can be elicited from disinterested means and almost every emotion can be a moral emotion at some point (Haidt, 2003). Broadly, we predict that corporate psychopaths will be high in the non-moral aspect of the other-condemning emotions, but low in the moral aspect of the other-condemning emotions. The exception is disgust, which we believe corporate psychopaths will be low because behavior related to disgust is less likely to affect them personally. We predict corporate psychopaths will be lower in the other three types of moral emotions because their cheater life strategy disregards

269 emotions of the self and the concerns of others. Pride is unique because psychopaths may be high on non-moral pride but low on moral pride. A caveat which we will introduce is that corporate psychopaths fake emotions when needed to promote social advancement. A case study of a corporate psychopath suggested his eyes never changed no matter what emotion he was expressing (Clarke, 2005), which suggests that faking moral emotions may be a key manipulation strategy used by corporate psychopaths.

Literature Search

We conducted a series of literature reviews using the Web of Science database to identify literature relevant to each of the 23 moral emotions identified by Rudolph and colleagues (2013). For each moral emotion, we conducted three topic searches: the relevant moral emotion and “psychopath”, the relevant moral emotion and “psychopathy”, and the relevant moral emotion and “psychopathic”. We similarly included different endings to the moral emotion words, such as “angry” and “anger”. We did not use the asterisk wildcard search “psychopath*” where any article that included a word starting with “psychopath” is displayed, because this incorporates “psychopathology” and would provide an extensive number of irrelevant results.

We found few articles directly related to corporate psychopathy, but a sufficient number of articles related to moral emotions and psychopathy generally. Some of the articles were part of Dark Triad research, which examines psychopathy, narcissism and

Machiavellianism together (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012; O'Boyle et al., 2012; Paulhus

& Williams, 2002). This review therefore attempts to extend the broader literate on psychopathy to corporate psychopathy and we only include the psychopathy element of Dark

Triad research. We now turn to each of the 23 moral emotions in turn and discuss their relation to psychopathy and corporate psychopathy. See Table 2 for a summary of the results.

270

Table 2

Summary of results and literature relating to Rudolph and colleagues (2013) 23 moral emotions integrated into Haidt’s (2003) typology

Moral Emotion Key finding Literature

Other-condemning emotions

Anger Psychopaths are high in anger, though no studies specifically examine moral anger Many studies including:

Decuyper et al. (2009)

Morrison & Gilbert (2001)

Blackburn & Leevans (1985)

Bowen et al. (2014)

Reidy et al. (2013)

Reidy et al. (2008)

LeBreton et al. (2013)

Blair & Cipoolotti (2000)

Angrilli et al. (2013)

Contempt No literature on psychopathy and contempt

Disgust No literature on psychopathy and socio-moral disgust, but a study found pathogen- Many studies including:

related disgust arose from the same brain regions as socio-moral disgust so general Bowen et al. (2014)

271

disgust research is relevant. Psychopaths are low on general disgust Seidel et al. (2013)

Marsh & Cardinale (2012)

Marsh & Cardinale (2014)

Blair & Cipolotti (2000)

Envy Psychopaths are high in schadenfreude which is correlated with envy James et al. (2014)

Porter et al. (2014)

Indignation No literature on psychopaths and felt indignation. One study found psychopaths use Book & Quinsey (2004)

displays of indignation (faking) as a cheater life strategy to gain resources

Jealousy Two studies found non-significant results for psychopathy and jealousy Costa & Babcock (2008)

Meehan et al. (2001)

Rage No empirical literature on psychopathy and rage. Theoretical articles suggest Theoretical articles:

psychopaths may be low on rage and that their aggression is predatory rather than arising Weinshenker & Siegel (2002)

from affective rage. Declercq & Audenaert (2011)

Dutton et al. (2013)

Resentment Psychopaths are high in resentment Blackburn & Fawcett (1999)

Brody & Rosenfeld (2002)

Schadenfreude Psychopaths are high in schadenfreude James et al. (2014)

272

Porter et al. (2014)

Scorn No literature on psychopathy and scorn

Self-conscious emotions

Embarrassment Psychopaths are low on embarrassment Blair & Cipolotti (2000)

Gregory et al. (2012)

Harenski et al. (2010)

Kiehl (2006)

Glenn & Raine (2009)

Baumeister & Lobbestael (2011)

Pride No literature on psychopathy and pride. A review article suggested psychopaths and Theoretical article:

other may use aggression to restore pride Walker & Bright (2009)

Regret Psychopaths are low in regret Hughes et al. (2014)

Hakkanen et al. (2008)

Remorse Psychopaths are low on remorse Thompson et al. (2014)

Gullhaugen & Nøttestad (2011)

Walsh (1999)

273

Harenski et al. (2010)

Kiehl (2006)

Intrator et al. (1997)

Glenn & Raine (2009)

Glannon (2008)

Shame Psychopaths are generally low on shame, but some mixed results. Secondary Holmqvist (2008)

psychopaths are higher in shame than primary psychopaths. Another study found no Morrison & Gilbert (2001)

relation with shame. Campbell & Elison (2005)

Nystrom & Mikkelsen (2013)

Millon & Davis (1998)

Fulton et al. (2014)

Other-suffering emotions

Pity No literature on psychopathy and pity

Sympathy Large literature on psychopathy and empathy, but no studies directly examining Marsh & Ambady (2007)

psychopathy and sympathy. One study found fear and sadness priming predicted greater

sympathy and interpreted the results as relevant because psychopaths have low fear.

274

Other-praising emotions

Admiration No literature on psychopathy and admiration for others. Literature shows psychopaths Back et al. (2013)

enjoy admiration from others Foulkes et al. (2014)

Kansi (2003)

Awe No literature on psychopathy and awe

Elevation No literature on psychopathy and elevation

Gratitude No literature on psychopathy and gratitude

Respect No literature on psychopathy and respect

275

Other-Condemning Emotions

Anger

We predict that corporate psychopaths are likely to be high in anger, though the anger may not be moral anger. A case study example of anger in a corporate psychopath is how

“Dave” had verbal tirades during staff meeting which disrupted the organization (Babiak,

1995). However, corporate psychopaths are unlikely to feel anger when witnessing a colleague be a recipient of abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000).

Many articles pertain to psychopathy and anger, but none are directly related to business. A meta-analysis found psychopathy was positively associated with scores on the angry-hostility dimension (Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, & De Clercq, 2009).

Classifying psychopaths into primary psychopaths, with better social competence, and secondary psychopaths, who are moody and have lower self-esteem (Blackburn, 1975), a study found primary psychopaths to be higher in social rank and lower in anger than secondary psychopaths (Morrison & Gilbert, 2001). A study found psychopaths were higher in anger than controls and more likely to interpret a provocation as an attack; secondary psychopaths experienced higher anger arousal than primary psychopaths (Blackburn &

Leeevans, 1985). Offenders show reduced recognition of anger at low levels, but increased recognition of anger in others at high levels and offense severity predicted the differences

(Bowen, Morgan, Moore, & van Goozen, 2014). Another study found Factor 1 (interpersonal and affective) psychopathy had a negative relationship with anger activation after interpersonal conflict and Factor 2 (lifestyle and antisocial) psychopathy had a positive relationship with anger activation related to interpersonal conflict (Reidy et al., 2013). Factor

2 had a heightened experience to anger in a lexical decision task (Reidy, Zeichner, Hunnicutt-

Ferguson, & Lilienfeld, 2008). A study found anger was associated with psychopathy and this predicted hostile attitudes towards women in single men (LeBreton, Baysinger, Abbey, &

276

Jacques-Tiura, 2013). After brain injury, a case study of “acquired sociopathy” showed impairments in anger recognition and attribution (Blair & Cipolotti, 2000). A case study of a serial killer found low recognition of anger (Angrilli, Sartori, & Donzella, 2013)

This research provides evidence of a relationship between psychopathy and anger, particularly secondary psychopathy and Factor 2 psychopathy. This type of anger appears to be more self-interested than moral. Future research would need to determine whether anger is related to corporate psychopathy and particularly in relation to moral anger.

Contempt

We predict corporate psychopaths are likely to be high in contempt, but may experience contempt as a non-moral and self-interested emotion. Contempt may be felt if an individual is blocking a resource they desire or has taken away a resource they desire. They are likely to be proactive in attempting to gain or regain the resource. Moreover, a corporate psychopath may use contempt as a method for maintaining social superiority by ensuring others are “kept in their places”. A case study example is where a psychopathic leader in an organization was shown to be wrong on an issue and he said in a sneering and sarcastic way

“so I was wrong!” (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009, p. 87)

No academic literature was identified related to psychopathy and contempt. Future research will be necessary to examine psychopathy or corporate psychopathy and contempt.

Disgust

Socio-moral disgust is activated when observing degrading behavior of others such as fawning and betrayal (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999). Socio-moral disgust guards the

“soul” from behaving in an undignified manner. We predict that corporate psychopaths will be less likely to feel socio-moral disgust. Disgust differs from other-condemning moral emotions because others disgusting behavior is less likely to affect them. Psychopaths might however fake disgust of important others as this would be a useful way of putting competitors

277 down and providing self-advancement. An example of socio-moral disgust unlikely to be felt by a psychopath would be observing a middle manager who has “kick down” strategy with subordinates use a “kiss up” strategy to superiors.

No evidence in the literature was found regarding psychopathy and socio-moral disgust. However, one study found that pathogen-related disgust and socio-moral disgust have some overlapping brain regions, which suggests that general research regarding disgust is relevant to understanding the lack of socio-moral disgust in psychopaths (Schaich Borg,

Lieberman, & Kiehl, 2008). Several studies report that psychopaths have low general disgust.

Young offenders with psychopathy were worse at recognizing low intensity disgust faces in a facial emotion recognition task (Bowen et al., 2014) and a study of violent offenders with psychopathy found reduced emotion recognition for bodily disgust (Seidel et al., 2013). A case study of “acquired sociopathy” after brain injury showed impairments in facial recognition of others’ disgust (Blair & Cipolotti, 2000). In contrast, one study found no relation between psychopathy and bodily disgust (e.g., Marsh & Cardinale, 2012, 2014).

In the case of disgust, general disgust research appears to be relevant for socio-moral disgust because they arise from the same brain region and both relate to whether transgressions are acceptable or not. Corporate psychopathy would need to be examined, but these studies suggest corporate psychopaths are likely to be low on both general disgust and socio-moral disgust.

Envy

Envy is “an unpleasant, often painful emotion characterized by feelings of inferiority, hostility, and resentment caused by an awareness of a desired attribute enjoyed by another person or group of persons” (Smith & Kim, 2007, p. 46). We predict that corporate psychopaths would value others’ attributes and be high on envy. For example, a psychopath may be envious of their supervisor’s position. A case study example is where a psychopathic

278 university professor became envious of a colleague who was highly sought after for consulting whereas he was rarely sought after (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009).

We found no articles that directly examine envy and corporate psychopathy, but two articles indirectly examine psychopathy and envy. One article found envy was correlated with schadenfreude, which in turn was associated with psychopathy (James, Kavanagh, Jonason,

Chonody, & Scrutton, 2014). Another article found a relation between schadenfreude and psychopathy and mentioned envy as a related construct (Porter, Bhanwer, Woodworth, &

Black, 2014). These two articles suggest envy is experienced by psychopaths and we would expect these results to extend to the workplace.

Indignation

Indignation is an “other-condemning” type of anger in response to unfair treatment

(Frank, 1988). Similar to anger generally, indignation can be a moral emotional response to another individual’s unfair treatment or a social injustice. Alternatively, indignation can be in response to an individual’s own experience of unfair treatment (Sims, 2005). Similar to anger, we expect that corporate psychopaths may experience indignation related to their own unfair treatment, but are unlikely to experience indignation in response to others’ unfair treatment.

No studies examined corporate psychopathy and felt indignation, but one study found support for psychopaths using a cheater evolutionary strategy with displays of indignation, which is faking indignation (Book & Quinsey, 2004). The indignation can be a signal to the other individual to change their behavior. In some cases, indignation is appropriate, but a corporate psychopath may fake indignation to manipulate the other person’s behavior. Future research needs to examine corporate psychopathy and indignation and differentiate appropriate from inappropriate indignation.

279

Jealousy

While envy is inferior feelings associated with desirable attributes belonging to others, jealousy is a threat to an existing resource (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth,

1992). Similar to envy, we expect that corporate psychopaths would be high in non-moral jealousy, but not moral jealousy. For example, corporate psychopaths would be sensitive to a potential rival who may usurp their managerial role in an organization.

Few studies exist on psychopathy and jealousy and the few studies we identified did not find significant associations. One study that incorporated psychopathy did not find differences in jealousy related to their wives’ behavior between intimate partner abusers, distressed/nonviolent men and satisfied/nonviolent men (Costa & Babcock, 2008). Another marital interaction study examined several constructs including psychopathy and jealousy, but found no association between psychopathy and jealousy (Meehan, Holtzworth-Munroe, &

Herron, 2001). Another study examined male batterers with and without psychopathy, but did not find a difference and suggest the difference may be due to other reasons such as jealousy, which was not examined (Echeburua & Fernandez-Montalvo, 2007).

We only found two studies that directly incorporated psychopathy and jealousy and surprisingly neither found significant results. Further research needs to be conducted to determine relations between jealousy and corporate psychopathy. Potentially, studies need to be conducted which include moderating variables. One potential moderator is threat to existing resources and another potential moderator is threat to future resources. We expect threat to activate jealousy in psychopaths whereas lack of threat would not be associated with jealousy.

Rage

280

Rage is similar to anger, but with higher intensity (Rudolph & Tscharaktschiew,

2014). Rage can be “other condemning” moral emotion in the sense of “moral outrage”, for example, when observing harm intentionally inflicted on another individual (Darley &

Pittman, 2003). We expect that corporate psychopaths may be high on self-centered rage, but would be low on other-centered rage. In a case study of corporate psychopathy, “Dave” exhibited rage when his secretary displayed insufficient respect for him and demanded to his superior that she be fired (Babiak, 1995).

A theoretical article suggests psychopaths would be low on rage and that their aggression is more likely to be predatory attack than affective defense (Weinshenker &

Siegel, 2002). A theoretical article on mass murderers suggested they were cold-blooded predatory murders rather than acting in rage (Declercq & Audenaert, 2011). A theoretical article on mass shooters suggested paranoid delusions as a cause rather than acting in rage

(Dutton, White, & Fogarty, 2013). No empirical evidence was found for psychopathy and rage, but these articles provide an interesting perspective that the aggression of psychopaths may be predatory as opposed to influenced by rage. In the case study of the corporate psychopath, when “Dave” in a fit of rage demanded his secretary be fired (Babiak, 1995), it is possible that the displayed rage was faked and a predatory means of gaining an outcome.

Future research on corporate psychopathy is necessary to determine associations.

Resentment

Resentment is an “other-condemning” negative emotion related to a perception that an outcome is undeserved (Feather & Sherman, 2002). We predict that corporate psychopaths would be higher than average on resentment because of the relationship between psychopathy and narcissism. Narcissist feel a sense of entitlement that may spillover to resentment if an outcome related to themselves or others is perceived to be underserved. A case study example of a corporate psychopath with resentment is a university department chair who intentionally

281 gave poor performance reviews to another professor because of resentment (Cangemi &

Pfohl, 2009)

Psychopaths were found to be higher in resentment than individuals with a mental illness or healthy controls in the validation measure of the Antisocial Personality

Questionnaire, which includes resentment as one of its factors (Blackburn & Fawcett, 1999).

A study of criminal men on probation found psychopathy related to resentment (Brody &

Rosenfeld, 2002). This limited evidence suggests that psychopaths are high in resentment.

Future research will need to determine the relationship between corporate psychopathy and resentment.

Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude is the “other condemning” malicious pleasure regarding the misfortune of others (Smith et al., 1996). We expect corporate psychopaths would experience schadenfreude because it is a self-interested emotion and psychopathy is self-focused, but are less likely to experience a moral form of schadenfreude. When Eliot Spitzer was Governor of

New York, he called himself the “steamroller” and apparently delighted in bringing down others (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009).

Two articles on the Dark Triad of psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism examined schadenfreude. A survey of the Dark Triad in the general population found participants higher in psychopathy self-reported higher delight in the misfortune of others

(James et al., 2014). Another study used vignettes of an unfortunate event and found participants in the general population who were higher in psychopathy had higher self- reported schadenfreude and higher smile intensity at the unfortunate event (Porter et al.,

2014). These articles on psychopathy support the relationship between psychopathy and schadenfreude and we would expect the relationship to extend to corporate psychopathy.

Scorn

282

Scorn is an “other-condemning” feeling of disdain or contempt to another individual or group. Scorn is other focused, observer emotion that may reduce a behavior in the target of the concern (Rudolph & Tscharaktschiew, 2014). A case study example is of a psychopathic university professor who began a campaign of verbal attack on the university president

(Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009).

Scorn could either be a moral emotion or not. We expect that corporate psychopaths may display scorn related to a self-interested issue, but not scorn regarding an unethical behavior observed in another, for example reflecting abusive supervision. No literature was found relating psychopathy with scorn. Future research is necessary to determine relationships with corporate psychopathy and scorn.

Self-Conscious Emotions

Embarrassment

Embarrassment is a “self-conscious emotion” and serves an appeasement function after transgressing a social norm (Keltner & Haidt, 1999). We predict that corporate psychopaths would be low on embarrassment because they neither care about social norms nor appeasement. A non-psychopath would be embarrassed to give a presentation to senior people in their organization without preparation, but a psychopath would feel no embarrassment about a poor quality presentation to senior managers.

After brain injury, a case study of “acquired sociopathy” showed impairments in embarrassment attribution using vignettes (Blair & Cipolotti, 2000). Brain areas of violent offenders with psychopathy were found to have less grey matter and this related to lower embarrassment compared to healthy controls and violent offenders without psychopathy

(Gregory et al., 2012). A case study of a serial killer found low recognition of embarrassment

(Angrilli et al., 2013). Another study of psychopathic and non-psychopathic incarcerated controls did not find a difference in embarrassment attributions using vignettes, but this study

283 included a low sample size of 25 participants in each condition (Blair et al., 1995). While few studies have been conducted on psychopathy and embarrassment and none on corporate psychopathy and embarrassment, most of these studies support low embarrassment and psychopathy. Future studies would need to determine if these results extend to corporate psychopathy.

Guilt

Guilt is a “self-conscious” moral emotion that is interpersonal and related to transgressions (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994). Reduced guilt is one of the features of psychopathy because psychopaths are unconcerned with the consequences of their actions (Thompson, Ramos, & Willett, 2014), so we expect research to show reduced guilt in corporate psychopaths. In the case study of the corporate psychopath “Dave”, he alternated between bullying behavior and begging for forgiveness (Babiak, 1995); forgiveness-seeking is an action tendency of guilt, but in this case the emotion would appear to be faked.

Two review articles examined psychopathy and corporate crime and suggested reduced guilt is a key feature of corporate crime (Pardue, Robinson, & Arrigo, 2013a,

2013b). Many other studies examined guilt in psychopaths generally. A study directly examined guilt and psychopathy in offenders and found psychopaths attributed less blame to themselves and had less guilty feelings (Johnsson et al., 2014). Another study found psychopaths and non-psychopathic controls could make similar attributions for happiness, sadness and embarrassment, but that psychopaths had difficulty attributing guilt. The authors infer that psychopaths experience happiness, sadness and embarrassment but less guilt (Blair et al., 1995).

Many studies examined brain regions associated with reduced guilt in psychopaths.

Less gray matter was found in violent offenders with psychopathy in areas of the brain associated with guilt compared to violent offenders without psychopathy and healthy controls

284

(Gregory et al., 2012). Another article examined psychopaths and non-psychopaths making moral decisions and found reduced amygdala activation in psychopaths compared to non- psychopaths and associated this with their reduced guilt (Harenski, Harenski, Shane, & Kiehl,

2010). A review article suggested psychopaths have reduced guilt because of a hemispheric imbalance with reduced right hemispheric activation related to guilt and increased left hemispheric activation which is associated with impulsivity. A review suggests deficits that include deficits in guilt stem from reduced functioning in the paralimbic system (Kiehl,

2006). A review article associated the reduced guilt in psychopathy with instrumental aggression and suggested evolutionary reasons for psychopathy as an alternative life strategy that benefits themselves (Glenn & Raine, 2009). Another theoretical article suggested guilt is a key prosocial emotion that can potentially lead to antisocial behavior when not functioning properly (Baumeister & Lobbestael, 2011).

These articles suggest that reduced guilt is a key theme of psychopathy. Guilt is a

“quintessential moral emotion” (Eisenberg, 2000, p. 666) and the lack of guilt reduces the likelihood of moral behavior. Psychopaths lack concern for social norms, which may arise from their inability to experience guilt.

Pride

A definition of moral pride is “generated by appraisals that one is responsible for a socially valued outcome or for being a socially valued person” (Mascolo & Fischer, 1995, p.

66). Pride is associated with self-esteem and can also be excessively hubristic and self-loving

(Tracy & Robins, 2007). We expect that corporate psychopathy may relate to some forms of pride, but not moral pride. Pride is a self-conscience positively valenced emotion and may or may not be a moral emotion. As opposed to the other self-conscious emotions, pride is a positively-valenced emotion. We did not find any empirical research related to psychopathy and pride. A review article examining self-esteem and violence, which included an

285 examination of psychopathy, suggested violence may be a “macho” response to threat that restores pride (Walker & Bright, 2009). Corporate psychopaths may have this non-moral form of pride that uses aggression against threats. Future research needs further examination on corporate psychopathy and moral and non-moral pride.

Regret

A feature of psychopathy is lack of concern for consequences, so we would expect corporate psychopaths to be low on the “self-conscious” moral emotion of regret. A case study of a corporate psychopath found he lied and manipulated others and would apologize, which is normally an action tendency of regret, when the apology would aid in manipulating others (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009).

Using a simulated gambling task, psychopathic incarcerated offenders displayed less regret than control participants (Hughes, Dolan, & Stout, 2014). A study of homicide offenders that incorporated psychopathy found male homicide offenders’ amnesia for the killing was associated with regret (Hakkanen, Weimann-Henelius, Putkonen, & Lauerma,

2008). This limited research on psychopaths shows low regret as expected and future research is necessary to determine if low regret is similarly a feature in corporate psychopaths.

Remorse

Lack of remorse is a key feature of psychopathy, so we would expect corporate psychopaths to be low on the “self-conscious” moral emotion of remorse. One review article notes the therapeutic challenge for rehabilitating individuals who lack remorse, because it reduces desire to change (Thompson, Ramos, et al., 2014). A case study example of a corporate psychopath with low regret is a director of an international non-profit organization who hired a professor to secure a grant, but once the grant was established fired the professor with no sense of remorse for using him (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009).

286

An examination of 11 case studies of severely psychopathic offenders found most lacked remorse, but overall were a heterogeneous group that experienced some psychological pain (Gullhaugen & Nøttestad, 2011). A study found psychopathic alcoholics lacked remorse

(Walsh, 1999). Reduced amygdala activity is associated with less remorse in psychopaths compared to non-psychopaths (Harenski et al., 2010). The paralimbic system has also been associated with reduced remorse in psychopaths (Kiehl, 2006). Psychopaths differed from non-psychopaths in cerebral blood flow in an emotion-processing word task that included remorse (Intrator et al., 1997). A review suggested less remorse in psychopaths is associated with higher instrumental aggression (Glenn & Raine, 2009). Another author notes that biological underpinnings that lead to less remorse reduce, but do not eliminate, the moral responsibility of psychopaths (Glannon, 2008). These studies suggest low remorse is a key feature of psychopathy. Future research is necessary, but we would suggest low remorse is also a key feature of corporate psychopathy.

Shame

Shame is a “self-conscious” emotion and we would expect corporate psychopaths to be low on shame because it is generated through interpersonal mechanisms. Shame has a real or imagined audience that is derogatory (Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996), but psychopaths are unconcerned about social norms so we would expect corporate psychopaths to be low on shame. An example of low shame in a corporate psychopath may be the “Wolf of Wall Street” Jorden Belfort who became a millionaire through selling worthless stock

(Belfort, 2007).

A qualitative and quantitative study of adolescent boys in juvenile delinquent facilities found they had less shame (Holmqvist, 2008). A study found differences in shame dividing psychopaths into primary and secondary psychopaths (Blackburn, 1975, 1996), primary psychopaths had higher social rank than secondary psychopaths and were lower in

287 shame and anger (Morrison & Gilbert, 2001). Another study found both types of psychopathy included externalizing shame coping and a negative relationship with adaptive shame coping, but primary psychopathy had a negative relationship with internalizing shame coping and secondary psychopathy had a positive relationship with internalizing shame coping

(Campbell & Elison, 2005). A study found higher psychopathy-related personality traits related to higher unconscious and externalized shame management strategies (Nystrom &

Mikkelsen, 2013). A review article agreed with the Millon and Davis (1998) suggestion psychopath’s explosive anger could be triggered by feelings of shame and humiliation and said the Hare (1993) conception of psychopathic insensitivity to humiliation should be re- examined. Another study of risky sexual behavior and psychopathy traits in college women found no association with shame (Fulton, Marcus, & Zeigler-Hill, 2014).

We expected to find psychopaths to be lower in shame, but instead we found mixed results, with differences between Factor 1 and Factor 2 psychopathy and between primary and secondary psychopathy. One study found no association with shame. Further research is necessary to examine the role of shame and corporate psychopathy.

Other-Suffering Emotions

Pity

Pity is an “other suffering” moral emotion. We do not expect that corporate psychopaths would experience pity or any of the “other suffering” emotions because it is related to lack of empathy, which is a key feature of psychopathy (Blair, 2005). For example, we would not expect a corporate psychopath to have pity on a poor performer in a workplace and provide them feedback for assistance rather than terminating them. No research was found relating to psychopathy and pity. Further research is necessary to determine relations between empathy and corporate psychopathy.

288

Sympathy

Lack of empathy is a key feature of psychopathy, so we would expect corporate psychopaths to be low in the “other-suffering” moral emotion of sympathy. We found many studies include lack of empathy but almost no studies examine sympathy. One study did not examine psychopathy, but related the results to psychopathy because impaired ability to feel and recognize fear is related to reduced sympathy and has behavioral consequences. Study 1 found viewing fear and sadness expressions exhibited greater sympathy and willingness to assist and Study 2 found fear-primed participants exhibited greater sympathy when reading a vignette of mild distress (Marsh & Ambady, 2007). Future studies directly examining corporate psychopathy and sympathy are necessary to accurately determine the relationship.

Other-Praising Emotions

Admiration

Admiration is an “other praising” emotion and we predict that corporate psychopaths are unlikely to have admiration for others due to it being contrary to self-interest. However, we found no literature related to admiration as a moral emotion in psychopathic individuals themselves. Three articles found an association between psychopathy and the social reward of admiration of self by others (Back et al., 2013; Foulkes, McCrory, Neumann, & Viding,

2014; Kansi, 2003), because of the relationship between psychopathy and narcissism

(Paulhus & Williams, 2002). This literature suggests corporate psychopaths may value admiration of self by others to achieve favorable social comparisons. The desire to achieve favorable social comparisons is associated with performance goal orientation which concerns the belief positive feedback from others drives performance improvement (VandeWalle,

2003) and may be associated with social anxiety (Jackson, 2009; White & Depue, 1999).

Further research is needed regarding admiration and corporate psychopathy to determine whether corporate psychopaths lack admiration for others, but overall this research appears to

289 support the view that admiration of self by others is valued by psychopaths because of psychopathy’s relation to narcissism.

Awe

We predict that corporate psychopaths are unlikely to feel the “other praising” moral emotion of awe for others because of their self-interested life strategy. No literature was identified related to psychopathy and awe for others so further research is needed to determine if corporate psychopaths lack awe of others. Similar to admiration, we think it likely that corporate psychopaths would enjoy being held in awe by others since this will infer personal success and control.

Elevation

Elevation is the “other-praising” moral emotion elicited when observing virtuous behavior in others (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). We think corporate psychopaths are unlikely to experience the moral emotion of elevation because they do not value commendable behavior in themselves or others although we think psychopaths might fake elevation to charm others. No literature was found regarding psychopathy and elevation.

Future research is necessary to determine a relationship between corporate psychopathy and elevation.

Gratitude

A feature of psychopathy is a parasitic lifestyle in which psychopaths take without reciprocity (Jones, 2014). Gratitude is an “other-praising” moral emotion that has the function of promoting prosocial action toward the benefactor (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, &

Larson, 2001). A case study example of a corporate psychopath who was a leader in an organization noted he used others, particularly his subordinates, and never reciprocated (Kets de Vries, 2014), which can be inferred as lack of gratitude.

290

We expect that corporate psychopaths are unlikely to experience gratitude because their behavior suggests self-interested rather than social behavior even when the beneficiary of prosocial action. We suspect however that psychopaths might fake gratitude as a result of a desire to charm others. No literature was identified for psychopathy and gratitude. Future research will need to determine if the cheater behavior of corporate psychopaths is indicative of a lack of gratitude.

Respect

A feature of psychopathy is lack of empathy and we would expect this extends to reduced “other-praising” moral emotion of respect for others in corporate psychopaths. No research was found regarding psychopathy and respect. Future research is necessary to determine the relationship between respect and corporate psychopathy.

Discussion

In this review article, we examined corporate psychopathy in relation to the 23 moral emotions identified by Rudolph and colleagues (2013) organized according to Haidt’s (2003) typology: other-condemning emotions of anger, contempt, disgust, envy, indignation, jealousy, rage, resentment, schadenfreude (joy in the misfortune of others) and scorn; self- conscious emotions of embarrassment, guilt, pride, regret, remorse and shame; other- suffering emotions of pity and sympathy; and other-praising emotions of admiration, awe, elevation, gratitude and respect. We found very few corporate psychopathy articles related to moral emotions, which identifies the importance of this review article and a gap for future empirical researchers to fill. We discussed available literature in general psychopathy regarding moral emotions because we believe this will assist understanding about underlying motivations concerning corporate psychopath’s behavior in the workplace While we would expect corporate psychopathy to be broadly similar to general psychopaths in the way that

291 they are influenced by moral emotions, it is important to note that research may identify differences.

We predicted that corporate psychopaths would be higher in the non-moral aspect of the “other-condemning emotions” and lower in the moral aspect of the other condemning emotions. We predicted corporate psychopaths would be lower in the “self-conscious emotions”, “other-suffering emotions” and “other-praising emotions,” according to Haidt’s

(2003) typology. The unique moral emotions were the other-condemning moral emotion of disgust where we predicted corporate psychopaths would be low. The only positively valenced self-conscious emotion of pride could be either moral or non-moral. Psychopaths have a cheater strategy that focuses on self-interest above others and this strategy may arise from their lack of moral emotions because cognition often arises after emotion (Haidt, 2001).

We found broad support for most of these predictions using general psychopathy samples although it is important to note that some moral emotions have no corresponding psychopathy literature. In summary, we identified that psychopaths and corporate psychopaths are widely deficient in moral emotions. We suspect the failure of psychopaths to be influenced by moral emotions promotes a cheater strategy to life that appears to provide benefits. For many corporate psychopaths, however, this will not be the case because their failure to consider moral emotions leads to considerable negative outcomes for the individual

(e.g., prison) and the organization (e.g., fraud or corporate theft) than they could have had if only they had been able to develop better morality.

Most of the articles we reviewed found research that was in the expected direction of the general features of psychopathy (see Table 2). Psychopaths are high in anger, hostility, and arousal to potential threat, but this differs from the moral emotion of anger, which is anger of injustice to one or more other people. Psychopaths are low on general disgust, and this finding may suggest that psychopaths also have low socio-moral disgust because a study

292 found both arise from the same brain region (Schaich Borg et al., 2008). Psychopaths are likely to be higher in envy. One study found indignation in participants higher in psychopathy. Jealousy was expected to be a feature of psychopathy, but the available evidence so far shows null results. Psychopaths had a higher delight in the misfortune of others (schadenfreude) as evidenced by two studies. The few embarrassment studies showed psychopaths to be low in embarrassment. Psychopaths have reduced guilt as evidenced by general studies and brain imagining studies. As expected, psychopaths had low regret.

Psychopaths also had low remorse as found by general studies and brain imaging studies.

Psychopaths were higher in resentment. Shame was divided into primary and secondary psychopathy with higher shame in secondary psychopathy than primary psychopathy. A review article suggested violence may be a mechanism to restore pride. Psychopaths valued admiration by others, which suggests a link between psychopathy and narcissism as suggested by the Dark Triad of psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism (Jonason, Li,

Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). Many studies examine empathy and the small research on sympathy also find deficits in psychopathy.

All this suggests a high degree of overlap between corporate psychopathy and moral emotions. It is worth noting that there are two surprising observations which are that both jealousy and psychopathy are not related (Costa & Babcock, 2008; Meehan et al., 2001) and that the results for psychopathy and shame are mixed (Campbell & Elison, 2005; Fulton et al., 2014; Holmqvist, 2008; Millon & Davis, 1998; Morrison & Gilbert, 2001; Nystrom &

Mikkelsen, 2013). This demonstrates that there is no direct correspondence between psychopathy and poor moral emotions. Another perspective here is that while we have found that psychopaths are generally low on moral emotions, there can be differences between individuals who are psychopaths and individuals who are low on moral emotions. A psychopath is a general term and likely refers to someone who is poor in most components of

293 moral emotions. In contrast, individuals who are poor in moral emotions may be poor on just one or two emotions and higher in all the others. Corporate psychopathy likely reflects an extreme case of a person generally low in moral emotions.

Another difference between psychopathy and moral emotions is that there are features of psychopathy that are unrelated to moral emotions. For example, psychopaths are generally considered to be disinhibited (Newman et al., 1997). In the Response Modulation Model

(Patterson & Newman, 1993), psychopaths are disinhibited because of lack of emotional responding to changes in the environment when engaging in previously rewarded behavior.

This type of emotional responding, and lack of reflection on the emotional responding, appears unrelated to moral emotions. A workplace example of disinhibition would be engaging in forthright sales behavior and continuing to engage in this behavior even when not achieving sales and others are achieving sales through more subtle sales behavior. We think that the failure to learn, which is implicit in the process of disinhibition (Gardiner et al., 2015;

Patterson & Newman, 1993), is related to the psychopath’s and corporate psychopath’s failure to learn moral emotions. Evidence from the criminality literature suggests that failure to socialize, fearlessness and affectionless behavior (Raine, 1993) is associated with right hemispheric deficits at a very early age; serious long term problems include antisocial, affectionless, psychopathic-like and aggressive behavior (Moffitt, 1990, 1993; Moffitt, Caspi,

Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Moffitt & Henry, 1991; Patrick, 1994; Raine et al., 2001).

Corporate psychopathy can be considered adaptive within some contexts whereas the moral emotions literature has less focus on how low moral emotions can be adaptive. One article reviews both perspectives, of psychopathy as a mutation and personality disorder and the other as adaptive, and suggests the results are inconclusive (Glenn, Kurzban, & Raine,

2011). Psychopathy may be a cheater life strategy that depends on cooperative norms to take advantage of unsuspecting victims (Trivers, 1971). Alternatively, psychopathy may be a

294 genetic mutation that persists throughout evolutionary history. With either perspective, psychopaths engage in considerable workplace destruction, and poor moral emotions assist them to acquire resources because they are unconcerned with working for the common good.

An added complexity is that we think that actual moral emotions and faked moral emotions differ as psychopaths will often want to show prosocial behavior to charm important others whilst not actually engaging in prosocial behavior. Showing signs of moral emotions could be a manipulation strategy used by corporate psychopaths within organizations. For example, a corporate psychopath could use anger as an emotional labor strategy within negotiations. In normal circumstances, anger would signal an unfair offer, but the corporate psychopath could use anger to improve bargaining positions even when offers are reasonable. Another example would be displays of gratitude, which may elicit desired behavior from the person being shown gratitude even if the corporate psychopath is not actually feeling gratitude. Our review suggests that it is worth investigating if cheater strategies are apparent in moral emotions in the general population or in just psychopaths. It is also worth investigating if there are gender differences in which moral emotions are faked, for example, men may fake more aggression and women may fake more gratitude.

An issue that requires further reflection is whether psychopaths and individuals with poor moral emotions are morally culpable because of their lack of moral emotions. One article suggests that psychopaths may not be fully responsible for their crimes, but that civil action against them is nevertheless warranted (Fox, Kvaran, & Fontaine, 2013). Another article suggests that deficits in brain regions related to emotion suggests that psychopaths are incapable of positive moral emotions and should not be held responsible. Another article suggests that psychopaths fail to appreciate personhood, which reduces their responsibility with crimes against individuals (Levy, 2014). We argue that psychopathy at high levels can be considered a personality disorder and so reduced responsibility should be attributed to

295 psychopaths. Nevertheless, incarceration is sometimes necessary to protect others. In the case of subclinical, corporate psychopaths, they may be better able to understand their behavior, even if not fully. In general, therefore, corporate psychopaths should be held accountable for their actions and reduced moral emotions.

Another contentious issue is whether organizations should use personality testing to reduce the likelihood of hiring or promoting a corporate psychopaths or individuals with low moral emotions. At least one instrument is available for testing to reduce the likelihood of corporate psychopaths entering institutions (Mathieu, Hare, Jones, Babiak, & Neumann,

2013). Consultants also offer their services to prevent psychopaths entering organization and offering advice on how to handle psychopaths within organizations (Clarke, 2005). Research suggests that individuals over-label others as psychopaths (Caponecchia, Sun, & Wyatt,

2012); and personality tests, lay people, and consultants may over-diagnose individuals as corporate psychopaths. Integrity tests are already present in many organizations (Babiak &

Hare, 2006) and integrity is also related to moral emotions because moral emotions may be the action tendency underlying integrity. Moreover, it might usefully be noted that psychopathy appears to have a function in society as shown by its continued evolutionary success (Jonason & Schmitt, 2014) and therefore an organization devoid of psychopaths might in fact be at a competitive disadvantage to those which do. Potentially the correct perspective is to determine how to best regulate and control corporate psychopaths as opposed to simply not select them.

This review article has mostly examined negative consequences of psychopathy, but an emerging literature has examined some positive consequences of psychopathy such as increased likelihood toward heroic behavior in occupations such as firefighters (Smith,

Lilienfeld, Coffey, & Dabbs, 2013). In contrast, low moral emotions are not specifically heroic. Clarke (2005) suggests that an organization could be designed based on incentives, so

296 corporate psychopaths would behave in ways that benefit the organization despite their lack of morals. Dutton (2012) provides the example of a neurosurgeons high in psychopathy whose insensitivity allows their hands to be steady, make utilitarian decisions and to sleep at night whatever the consequences. Presidents of the United States have also been shown to be higher in psychopathy (Lilienfeld et al., 2012); aspects of psychopathy such as fearlessness, boldness and disinhibition may be unrelated to moral emotions and in some cases may include benefits. For example, in business, the ability to survive backstabbing and other negative corporate behavior and a desire for financial and status rewards may be adaptive or even necessary to gain promotions in the corporate sphere.

Some comment is necessary regarding the methodology of these studies in psychopathy and moral emotions. A strength is that the studies have used several methodologies. These include self-report questionnaires, vignette studies, brain imaging studies, an examination of facial expressions and attributions of these emotions in others.

Nevertheless, these studies also contain some methodological limitations. Many of the studies contain small samples sizes when comparing psychopaths and non-psychopaths. The brain imaging studies are similar to most brain imaging studies and contain small sample sizes

(Satel & Lilienfeld, 2013). Use of brain imaging may not provide further information beyond other studies (Lindebaum & Jordan, 2014). Some studies examine specific areas of the brain to identify particular emotions, but brain functions are often more distributed (Satel &

Lilienfeld, 2013). Other studies are case studies that provide in depth analysis, but future studies need larger sample size to determine the generalizability of the findings. Almost no studies use longitudinal studies or a causal chain of experiments.

Future studies could use several methodologies. To determine causality between corporate psychopathy and moral emotions, studies need either longitudinal experimental studies (Maxwell & Cole, 2007) or a sequence of related experiments (Spencer et al., 2005).

297

A possible methodology to include in corporate psychopathy studies is 360 degree feedback, which is multi-source feedback from supervisors, peers and subordinates. Psychopathy studies often uses the go/no-go discrimination task (Verona, Sprague, & Sadeh, 2012) and objective laboratory measures could also be devised to measure moral emotions.

In conclusion, we hope this review of articles related to psychopathy, corporate psychopathy and moral emotions provides impetus for further research. We found few articles directly related to corporate psychopathy and moral emotions and therefore we were forced to infer relationships from the more general psychopathy literature. Most of the articles provided results in the expected direction but we also identified gaps in the literature.

As a result, our review must not be considered the final word on either general psychopathy and moral emotions or corporate psychopathy and moral emotions.

298

Appendix D: The Dark Side of Mindfulness in the Workplace: A Review

Abstract

Proponents of mindfulness contend that it has numerous benefit in clinical, educational, organizational and general domains. In contrast, Purser and Milillo counterbalance this enthusiasm by proposing that mindfulness may include negative outcomes in the workplace.

We review empirical literature on trait mindfulness in the workplace to assess whether researchers found negative aspects. We reviewed 16 articles and found that all the articles only examined benefits. We therefore conducted a second literature review to examine negative outcomes in the general literature on trait mindfulness. In contrast to the workplace literature, we found 11 articles that included negative aspects of trait mindfulness. These general articles have workplace implications. We suggest that mindfulness researchers balance their enthusiasm and include bright and dark sides in their study of mindfulness.

299

The Dark Side of Mindfulness in the Workplace: A Review

Mindfulness has become an increasingly important topic within the psychological and organizational literature as evidenced by the proliferation of articles in the last decade. Most of these articles contend that mindfulness has far reaching benefits in all domains including clinical, organizational, educational and general domains (Langer, 2014). In contrast to this enthusiasm, Purser and Milillo (2015) contend that mindfulness may include some negative workplace outcomes. This article attempts to fill the theoretical-empirical divide in the literature by reviewing trait mindfulness articles in the workplace literature and examining the negative outcomes.

A well-cited definition of mindfulness is "the intentional, accepting, and non- judgmental focus of one’s attention on the emotions, thoughts, and sensations occurring in the present moment" (Zgierska et al., 2009, p. 267). Researchers are beginning to understand mindfulness as not only a state of consciousness, but a variable with reliable individual differences (Anicha, Ode, Moeller, & Robinson, 2012), similar to the stable individual differences found with positive and negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

Mindfulness has come from a 2500 year old Buddhist tradition, but some argue that the current Western conceptions of mindfulness have diverged substantially from the historical

Eastern foundations (Weick & Putnam, 2006).

A debate in the mindfulness literature is how to conceptualize mindfulness. Western understandings of mindfulness have derived from early articles from Ellen Langer and her colleagues (e.g., Chanowitz & Langer, 1981; Langer, 1989; Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz,

1978). Some characterize this type of mindfulness as “conceptual mindfulness” as it is concerned with attention and awareness (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Vogus & Welbourne,

2003; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999). Mindfulness can be cultivated through meditation

(Conze, 1956) and programs have been developed such as mindfulness-based stress reduction

300

(Kabat-Zinn, 1990) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale,

2002).

Clinical psychology researchers have mainly examined mindfulness as a state where individuals have greater awareness of internal thoughts and feelings and heightened observation of external sights and sounds (Baer, 2003; Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007).

Numerous research studies have examined the impact of state mindfulness programs on clinical symptoms of distress (Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; Teasdale et al., 2000). Trait mindfulness has also been studied in the clinical literature; for example, trait mindfulness has been inversely associated with depression, catastrophizing, suicidal ideation, perfectionism, substance dependence and sleep issues (e.g., Barnhofer, Duggan, & Griffith,

2011; Garland, Campbell, Samuels, & Carlson, 2013; Lyvers et al., 2014; Mun, Okun, &

Karoly, 2014; Short & Mazmanian, 2013; Tucker et al., 2014).

Personality psychology examines mindfulness as a stable trait (Brown & Ryan, 2003;

Niemiec et al., 2010; Weinstein, Brown, & Ryan, 2009). In the personality literature, trait mindfulness has predicted many outcomes including positive interpersonal behavior

(Dekeyser, Raes, Leijssen, Leysen, & Dewulf, 2008), lower severity in gambling issues

(Lakey, Campbell, Brown, & Goodie, 2007), improved healthy eating (Jordan, Wang,

Donatoni, & Meier, 2014), and many studies discern that mindfulness improves subjective well-being (e.g., Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz, 2014; Howell, Digdon, Buro, & Sheptycki,

2008; Schutte & Malouff, 2011). A meta-analysis of mindfulness found it had a positive relationship with conscientiousness and inverse relationships with neuroticism and negative affect (Giluk, 2009). These studies and many other purport the benefits of trait mindfulness.

Alongside the personality literature, the organizational psychology literature has also examined mindfulness as a stable trait as well as workplace interventions to reduce stress.

The majority of workplace studies have been stress reduction interventions in high stress jobs

301 such as physicians, nurses and teachers (e.g., Foureur, Besley, Burton, Yu, & Crisp, 2013;

Franco, Manas, Cangas, Moreno, & Gallego, 2010; Krasner et al., 2009). The organizational literature appears to mostly include positive outcomes for trait mindfulness, but this is in contrast to theory that suggests trait mindfulness may include negative as well as positive outcomes.

While most of the literature regarding mindfulness is positive, Purser and Milillo

(2015) have suggested mindfulness, at least in its current conceptions divorced from its

Buddhist roots, has some negative outcomes. A key issue is that most Western conceptions of mindfulness have reduced it to a self-help technique to focus attention and reduce stress that is divorced from any kind of ethical practice. While Western mindfulness techniques may be effective in achieving attentional focus and less stress, mindfulness has nothing to add in terms of the content of the thoughts and what types of actions are appropriate. In contrast,

Buddhist conceptions of mindfulness add the attention and stress reduction qualities to deeper aspects of “right mindfulness”, “right view” and “right effort” (Purser & Milillo, 2015, p. 8).

Mindfulness programs within organizations do nothing to address issues that made the environment stressful in the first place and place the emphasis on individual employees. In some cases, mindfulness programs may be an excuse to persist with toxic work environments. Mindfulness could be a form of “cow psychology” (Purser, 1999) where mindfulness pacifies the workers and they provide more milk. Mindful employees may be the opposite of organizational mavericks (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012, in press) who seek to make changes. In summary, mindfulness divorced from Buddhist conceptions may simply be a stress-reduction and attention-focusing technique that says nothing about the content of thoughts and actions, and organizations that emphasize mindfulness may even promote a continuance of toxic work environments and docile employees.

302

Literature Search on Trait Mindfulness in the Workplace

We conducted a search for trait mindfulness in the workplace literature through using the Web of Science database. We used wildcard search term “mindful*”, which captures the terms “mindful”, “mindfully” and “mindfulness”. While complementary terms such as “job”,

“work” and “workplace” capture some articles, they do not capture articles with specific professions in the title. We therefore assessed each entry individually (approximately 6500 articles in March, 2015) for its relevance to trait mindfulness in the workplace. We excluded any study that used undergraduate students because our aim is to examine working individuals. We further excluded any article that had a clinical focus on issues such as stress, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and emotional exhaustion even though the focus was working individuals, though articles were acceptable if this was not the main focus of the study. We also excluded studies that were at the organizational level of analysis because we are interested in the individual level of analysis. Overall, our focus is on individual-level, non-clinical, working individuals on how trait mindfulness may have negative aspects.

Studies on Trait Mindfulness in the Workplace

While we identified nearly 300 articles related to mindfulness in the workplace, we only found 16 articles related to trait mindfulness and all of them had positive outcomes (See

Table 1). We did not find a single study that included negative outcomes for trait mindfulness in the workplace, which suggests that Purser and Milillo’s (2015) theory of negative aspects to mindfulness has yet to be supported. This does not mean that their contention is not supported, but research needs to be conducted on the bright and dark sides of mindfulness in the workplace.

Several studies examines trait mindfulness in the workplace using samples of general employees. Trait mindfulness increased job satisfaction and reduced emotional exhaustion

303

Table 1

Findings of the literature review on trait mindfulness in the workplace

Authors Sample Finding

Hulsheger et al. Employees Trait mindfulness increased job satisfaction and reduced emotional exhaustion. Both

(2013) relationships were mediated by surface acting

Hulsheger et al. Employees Trait mindfulness during the workday predicted sleep quality mediated by psychological

(2014) detachment from the workday

Avey et al. Employees Trait mindfulness interacted with psychological capital to positively predict positive emotions,

(2008) which in turn positively predicted behaviors and attitudes

Bond et al. Employees The work-related acceptance and action questionnaire, which includes trait mindfulness, was

(2013) found to have good psychometric properties

Brown et al. Employees Trait mindfulness predicted subjective well-being and reduced the distance between their

(2009) current financial position and desired financial position

Allen & Kiburz Employees In working parents, trait mindfulness predicted vitality, work-family balance and sleep quality.

(2012) Sleep quality and vitality mediated between trait mindfulness and work-family balance

Chen et al. Electronics industry Green transformational leadership positively predicted green performance partially mediated

(2014) managers and employees by green self-efficacy and green mindfulness

Chen et al. (in Electronics industry green shared vision predicted green creativity mediated by green self-efficacy and green

304 press) managers and employees mindfulness

Kearney et al. School principals and their The trait mindfulness of school principals improved school student achievement

(2013) students

Reb et al. Supervisors and employees Supervisor trait mindfulness positively predicted psychological need satisfaction, job

(2014) satisfaction, in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior of their employees.

Supervisor trait mindfulness predicted employee performance through psychological need

satisfaction.

Roche et al. CEOs/presidents/top Trait mindfulness negatively predicted dysfunctional outcomes including burnout, negative

(2014) managers, middle managers, affect, depression and anxiety mediated by psychological capital.

junior managers and

entrepreneurs

Roche & Haar Managers and employees Trait mindfulness predicted organizational citizenship behavior related to the organization but

(2013) not predict organizational citizenship behavior related to the individual

Wu et al. HR Managers Conscious quality, which incorporates mindfulness, positively predicted departmental

(2013) performance

Zhang & Wu Nuclear power plant control Trait mindfulness predicted safety compliance and safety participation behavior moderated by

(2014) room operators intelligent and experience

305

Zhang et al. Nuclear power plant control Mindfulness loads onto presence and acceptance factors in Study 1. Task mindfulness and task

(2013) room operators complexity interacted to predict performance in Study 2. For control room operators with high

task complexity, the presence factor predicted task performance and safety. Dane & Restaurant servers Trait mindfulness improved job performance and reduced turnover intentions

Brummel

(2014)

306 and both relationships were mediated by the emotional labor strategy of surface acting

(Hulsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013). Trait mindfulness during the workday predicted sleep quality mediated by evening psychological detachment from the workday

(Hulsheger et al., 2014). Trait mindfulness interacted with psychological capital (hope, resilience, efficacy and optimism) to positively predict positive emotions, which in turn positively predicted behaviors and attitudes (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008). In three samples of employees, the work-related acceptance and action questionnaire was found to have good psychometric properties. The work-related acceptance and action questionnaire included psychological flexibility, a measure of trait mindfulness, and correlated task performance, job satisfaction, work engagement and less days absent from work (Bond,

Lloyd, & Guenole, 2013). Mindfulness predicted subjective well-being and less financial desire gap, which concerns how individuals are dissatisfied because of the difference between their current financial situation and desired financial situation (Brown, Kasser, Ryan, Linley,

& Orzech, 2009). In a study of working parents, trait mindfulness predicted vitality, work- family balance and sleep quality; sleep quality and vitality mediated the relationship between trait mindfulness and work-family balance (Allen & Kiburz, 2012).

Several studies examined leadership with some in specific industries. In electronics industry managers and employees, green transformational leadership predicted green performance and the relationship was partially mediated by green self-efficacy and green mindfulness (Chen, Chang, & Lin, 2014). In another study of electronics industry managers and employees, green shared vision predicted green creativity and the relationship was mediated by green self-efficacy and green mindfulness (Chen, Chang, Yeh, & Cheng, in press). A study on leadership found that trait mindfulness of the principals of public schools improved school student achievement (Kearney, Kelsey, & Herrington, 2013). Another study on leadership found supervisor trait mindfulness positively predicted subordinate measures of

307 well-being (psychological need satisfaction and job satisfaction) and subordinate in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior and well-being. Psychological need satisfaction mediated the relationship between supervisor trait mindfulness and subordinate performance (Reb, Narayanan, & Chaturvedi, 2014). An article with four samples,

CEOs/presidents/top managers, middle managers, junior managers and entrepreneurs, found trait mindfulness was negatively related to several dysfunctional outcomes including burnout, negative affect, depression and anxiety. Psychological capital (optimism, hope, efficacy and resilience) mediated the relationship in all four samples (Roche, Haar, & Luthans, 2014). A study of managers and employees discerned that trait mindfulness predicted organizational citizenship behavior related to the organization (organizationally-oriented behaviors), but trait mindfulness did not predict organizational citizenship behavior related to the individual (self- disciplined behavior, effort and rule-following); perceived autonomous support did not moderate the relationship (Roche & Haar, 2013). A study of human resources managers found that conscious quality, which incorporates mindfulness, positively predicted departmental performance (Wu, Chen, & Li, 2013).

Three studies examined employees in specific industry sectors. In a study of nuclear power plant control room operators, trait mindfulness predicted safety compliance and safety participation behavior even when controlling for conscientiousness, work experience, age and intelligence. Moderators suggested the effect was even stronger when operators were more intelligent and more experienced (Zhang & Wu, 2014). Another study of nuclear power plant control room operators found in study 1 that the Freiberg Mindfulness Inventory (Walach,

Buchheld, Buttenmuller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006) loaded onto presence and acceptance factors. Study 2 discerned that task mindfulness and task complexity interacted to predict performance. For control room operators with high task complexity, the presence factor of trait mindfulness predicted task performance and safety (Zhang, Ding, Li, & Wu,

308

2013). In restaurant servers, trait mindfulness improved job performance and reduced turnover intentions. The effect persisted even when controlling for work engagement

(dedication, vigor and absorption), which arguably has some overlap with mindfulness (Dane

& Brummel, 2014).

These articles do not show any negative outcomes for trait mindfulness in the workplace, which is counter to theory by Purser and Milillo (2015). Rather than suggest that their theory is incorrect, we suggest that insufficient research has been conducted and currently researchers are not utilizing designs that allow for negative as well as positive outcomes. We therefore conducted a second literature review examining the general literature on trait mindfulness and discern if these findings have relevance for the organizational literature.

Literature Search on Negative Aspects of General Trait Mindfulness

We conducted a literature search to discern negative aspects of general trait mindfulness. Similar to the original literature search, we used the term “mindful*”, which is a wildcard search that captures “mindful” with any ending to the word including “mindfully” and “mindfulness”. We incorporated this search with the term “trait”. We then conducted another search using “mindful*” with “disposition*”, which captures the terms “disposition” and “dispositional”. We found 11 articles that included negative aspects of trait mindfulness

(See Table 2).

Studies on Negative Aspects of General Trait Mindfulness

Several studies on general trait mindfulness included negative aspects to mindfulness.

In a laboratory study, the mindfulness facet acting without judgement was inversely related to intuitive performance (Remmers, Topolinski, & Michalak, 2015), which suggests that evaluating one’s performance may in some cases assist with following hunches and gut- feelings. A study found mindful participants had worse performance at recalling

309

Table 2

Studies that found negative aspects to mindfulness

Authors Sample Finding

Remmers et al. (2015) Undergraduate students Acting without judgement (mindfulness facet) was inversely related to intuitive

performance

Crawley (2015) Undergraduate students High trait mindfulness participants worse at recalling autobiographical memory

more than a day ago than low trait mindfulness participants

Kiken & Shook (2014) Undergraduate students Trait mindfulness was associated with less negative rumination but unassociated

with positive rumination

Parkin et al. (2014) Healthy volunteers Trait mindfulness was unrelated to cardiac perception, but improved individuals

confidence.

Bowen & Enkema (2014) Review and Substance Trait mindfulness positively associated with substance abuse in undergraduate

abusers samples but negatively associated with mindfulness in clinical samples

Martin et al. (2013) Female exercisers The relationship between eating and food intake was not mediated by trait

mindfulness in the general population. Trait mindfulness may only be relevant for

the clinical population with eating disorders

Whitmarsh et al. (2013) Undergraduate students Trait mindfulness associated with reduced performance in a grammar classification

310

task

Ottaviani & Couyoumdjian Undergraduate students Trait mindfulness inversely associated with mind wandering. Creativity has

(2013) associations with mind wandering.

Mankus et al. (2013) Undergraduate students Trait mindfulness interacted with generalized anxiety symptoms to predict heart rate

variability in high generalized anxiety individuals but not low generalized anxiety

individuals

Stillman et al. (2014) Undergraduate students Trait mindfulness associated with reduced implicit learning

Tam et al. (2008) Undergraduate students Trait mindfulness does not reduce intolerance toward stigmatized groups

311 autobiographical memory more than a day ago than less mindful participants (Crawley,

2015), which suggests mindful individuals may have improved moment-to-moment awareness but worse memory over time. A study found trait mindfulness was associated with less negative rumination but unassociated with positive rumination (Kiken & Shook, 2014), which suggests the value of mindfulness is in a reduction of negative thought patterns rather than the production of positive thought patterns. Trait mindfulness did not predict individual’s cardiac perception, but their confidence was improved (Parkin et al., 2014), which suggests mindfulness does not necessarily improve awareness of body sensations and also that mindfulness can improve confidence when unwarranted. A review of trait mindfulness and substance abuse has found positive correlations and suggested the correlation may be positive in undergraduate samples but negative in clinical samples

(Bowen & Enkema, 2014).

Exercise and food intake was not mediated by trait mindfulness in the general population of female exercisers (Martin, Prichard, Hutchinson, & Wilson, 2013), which suggests trait mindfulness may be more relevant to prevent eating disorders in the clinical population than the general population. Trait mindfulness was associated with reduced performance in a grammar classification task (Whitmarsh, Udden, Barendregt, & Petersson,

2013), which suggests that being accepting and non-judging may in some cases reduce performance. Trait mindfulness is negatively associated with mind wandering (Ottaviani &

Couyoumdjian, 2013), which may be negative because mind wandering has positive associations with creativity. Trait mindfulness interacted with generalized anxiety symptoms to predict heart rate variability in individuals with high generalized anxiety but not low generalized anxiety (Mankus, Aldao, Kerns, Mayville, & Mennin, 2013), which suggests mindfulness only assists individuals with clinical-level issues. In a sequence learning task, trait mindfulness was associated with reduced implicit learning (Stillman, Feldman,

312

Wambach, Howard, & Howard, 2014), which suggests that mindfulness does not assist all cognitive functions. Trait mindfulness does not reduce intolerance toward stigmatized group with high authoritarian having more stigmatization and low authoritarian having low stigmatization (Tam, Leung, & Chiu, 2008), which suggests mindfulness is unassociated with the content of the thought. These studies suggest trait mindfulness may not always provide benefits.

Discussion

The purpose of the current literature review was to examine Purser and Milillo’s

(2015) contention that mindfulness may include negative aspects in the workplace. They suggest negatives such as the pacification of employees, stress reduction whilst not doing anything to change toxic work environments and the fact that in the Western conceptualization of mindfulness it is divorced from its Buddhist roots that includes ethical practice. In our first literature review of trait mindfulness in the workplace, we only found 16 articles and all the articles only found benefits for trait mindfulness in the workplace.

Benefits include improved job performance, job satisfaction and subjective well-being and reduced turnover intention and emotional exhaustion. We suggest that organizational trait mindfulness researchers themselves may have a mental framework themselves where they are only examining positives of mindfulness and not creating designs that allow for negative aspects to be found.

We therefore conducted a second literature review in the general literature on trait mindfulness to examine negative outcomes because these may have implications for the workplace. In contrast to the trait mindfulness in the workplace literature, which only included benefits, we found 11 articles that included negative aspects to trait mindfulness.

Several of these articles suggest that trait mindfulness may be effective in reducing negative outcomes in the clinical population, but may have less relevance for the general population

313

(Bowen & Enkema, 2014; Mankus et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2013). The working population is presumably less likely to have clinical level issues, so mindfulness may have less relevance for the working population than the clinical population. If the main effects for mindfulness come from reduced stress, then the main benefit for mindfulness in the workplace may be reduced stress for highly stressed employees.

Several studies examined negative cognitive outcomes for mindfulness, because mindfulness has increased present moment awareness. Mindfulness may increase present moment awareness, but reduce memory over time (Crawley, 2015), which is a concern because while increased focus at a single point in time may be beneficial in some workplace tasks, memory over time is necessary to be effective in many other tasks. Another study found that being non-evaluative and non-judging reduced performance in a particular task

(Whitmarsh et al., 2013), which suggests that cognitive evaluations and judgements are helpful for performance. Mindfulness reduced implicit learning in another task (Stillman et al., 2014), which is a concern because implicit learning as well as explicit learning are both helpful for many job tasks. Decision-making in the workplace is often assisted though intuitive judgements (gut feeling and hunches) and a study found negative relations between the mindfulness facet acting without judgement and intuitive performance (Remmers et al.,

2015), which suggests that cognitive judgement assists with intuitive judgements, which may be an important finding for decisions regarding hiring and business strategy. A study also found that trait mindfulness was negatively associated with mind wandering (Ottaviani &

Couyoumdjian, 2013), which may have implications for creativity because mind wandering has been associated with creativity. Mind wandering may also be associated with innovations in the workplace and so a reduction of mind wandering may be associated with a reduction of innovative ideas.

314

Purser and Milillo’s (2015) concern about the content of the thoughts appears to be founded in the general literature on trait mindfulness. A study found trait mindfulness reduced negative rumination, but was unassociated with positive rumination (Kiken & Shook,

2014), which suggests that mindfulness may reduce negative outcomes, but does not necessarily improve positive outcomes. Another study also found that stigmatization of outgroups remained even with mindfulness (Tam et al., 2008). This study highlights Purser and Milillo’s concerns regarding mindfulness as an attention and stress reduction technique that has no input into the content of the thoughts as opposed to the Buddhist conceptions of mindfulness. In a workplace, this could mean that employees could become more mindful whilst still engaging in unethical practices.

A study found the interesting finding that trait mindfulness did not improve body awareness, but did improve confidence regarding their inaccurate perceptions of body awareness (Parkin et al., 2014). This study suggests that mindfulness could make individuals more confident even when confidence is unwarranted. While confidence is helpful in many workplace situations, overconfidence is also a concern (Van Zant & Moore, 2013). In organizations, accuracy is necessary and so overconfidence when perceptions are inaccurate could lead to poor decision-making.

These 11 articles in the general literature on trait mindfulness highlight several important issues that have relevance for the workplace. These studies have mostly been conducted using undergraduate students and so employee samples are necessary to evaluate whether the findings translate to the workplace. These studies highlight several negatives, but we suggest that there may be other negative aspects to mindfulness that have yet to be discovered. Mindfulness research has proliferated in recent years and researchers have been overwhelming positive about the benefits of mindfulness such that some appear to suggest it is a universal panacea. We suggest a more balanced approach where mindfulness includes

315 both positives and negatives. Mindfulness appears to have benefits in reducing stress in clinical population and this may be relevant for workers who are also highly stressed, particularly in jobs that are naturally high stress such as nurses and firefighters. The role of mindfulness for general roles appears to be more mixed.

In conclusion, this articles provides empirical evidence to support the theoretical claims of Purser and Milillo (2015) that Western conceptualizations of mindfulness, divorced from Buddhist roots that includes thoughts and actions, may include some negatives in the workplace. We found that the workplace literature only provided positives of mindfulness, but that the general literature on mindfulness included several negatives including differences between the clinical and general population, cognitive impairments for mindfulness, confidence when perceptions are inaccurate and that mindfulness does not improve ethical thoughts. We suggest that future researchers adopt research designs that include potential positives and negatives of trait mindfulness in the workplace to examine the light and dark shades of trait mindfulness in the workplace.

316

Appendix E

Appendix E is the published version of Chapter 4. The editor of Personality and Individual

Differences has granted permission to reproduce the journal article within this thesis.

Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 54–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

How the Five Factor Model and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict divergent thinking ⇑ Benjamin R. Walker , Chris J. Jackson

School of Management, Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia article info abstract

Article history: From the Five Factor Model (FFM), we hypothesized openness to experience would positively predict Received 16 April 2013 divergent thinking. From revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST), we hypothesized revised Received in revised form 2 September 2013 Behavioural Approach System (r-BAS) would positively predict divergent thinking and revised Fight/ Accepted 9 September 2013 Flight/Freezing System (r-FFFS) would negatively predict divergent thinking. Moreover, we hypothesized Available online 30 September 2013 that r-FFFS would incrementally predict divergent thinking after controlling for signiﬁcant FFM traits. Consistent with Elliot and Thrash (2010), we also hypothesized an indirect effects model with r-BAS Keywords: predicting divergent thinking through mastery. Using 130 participants, we found support or partial Creativity support for all hypotheses. Our results indicate that biological factors of personality associated with Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Five Factor Model r-RST as well as openness to experience predict divergent thinking. The distinction between fear and Fear anxiety in r-RST was also supported with fear and not anxiety negatively predicting divergent thinking. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to other items in the dataset (Wallach & Kogan, 1965). The statistical infrequency of an idea is an index of creativity because indi- Creative thinking concerns the cognitive processes associated viduals must temporarily abandon conventional thinking and with novel and useful ideas (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & build new associations between stimuli that no other person has Herron, 1996). It is the basis for generating originality in a range perceived (Rossman & Fink, 2010). Mednick’s (1962) theory posits of endeavours including science, art, philosophy, technology and that differences in creativity are variations in cognitive association business. In the current volatile economic climate, businesses need abilities. Eysenck (1993) suggests that increased originality arises creativity to attain competitive advantage and continued viability from high levels of dopamine, which reduces latent inhibition. (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, & Waterson, 2000). Creative per- Individuals with fewer constraints and inhibitions in their thinking sonality studies associate it with brilliance and adaptive behaviour use a wider array of information with which to make associations as well mental and affective disorders (Belli, 2009; Fisher, Heller, & (Chermahini & Hommel, 2010). Miller, 2013). Our study on how personality predicts divergent Divergent thinking tasks using the Five Factor Model (FFM: thinking, a key critical feature of creativity, contributes therefore openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agree- to several applied fields and advances theoretical models of ableness, and neuroticism) have consistently identified that open- creativity. ness to experience predicted divergent thinking (e.g. Feist, 1998; Researchers commonly use divergent thinking tasks to measure King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McCrae, 1987; Silvia et al., 2008; creativity, as these tasks may best assess the construct (Plucker & Wuthrich & Bates, 2001). Openness to experience also predicted Renzulli, 1999; Runco, 2007). In divergent thinking tasks, partici- other aspects of creativity, such as self-assessed creative ability pants list creative uses for everyday objects. The two most com- (Kaufman & Baer, 2004) and creative accomplishments (Feist, mon scoring methods are fluency and originality. Fluency is the 1998, 2006). We predict: raw number of creative items (Torrance, 2008). It assesses ability to spontaneously create a flow of ideas (Rubinstein, 2008). Fluency H1. Openness to experience will positively predict fluency and is consistent with Eysenck’s (1996) definition of creativity as the originality in divergent thinking. ability to produce inventions, insights and ideas that experts assess Researchers devised the FFM with a focus on producing a model as valuable in domains ranging from science, aesthetics, society with good psychometric design, yet some scholars are sceptical of and technology. Originality is the uniqueness of the item compared the FFM because of its poor integration with theory and biology (e.g. Block, 2010). One attempt to develop a biopsychological ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 405679100. personality theory is Gray’s (1970) Reinforcement Sensitivity E-mail address: [email protected] (B.R. Walker). Theory (RST). This provides a biological basis for approach and

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.011 B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 54–58 55 avoidance motivations. Response to reward is mediated by the high in mastery work hard to achieve goals. They accept mistakes Behavioural Approach System (BAS), which is associated with and difficulties as learning experiences (Nicholls, 1992). extraversion (Gray, 1987; Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). Gray Several studies suggest r-BAS and mastery predict functional (1987) designated avoidance as the Behavioural Inhibition System outcomes. Izadikhah, Jackson, and Loxton (2010) found r-BAS pos- (BIS). This is associated with punishment sensitivity and the per- itively impacted supervisor ratings of work performance, mediated sonality trait of anxiety. BIS has some overlap with neuroticism. by mastery and moderated by psychological climate (Izadikhah Research has supported the BAS and BIS biopsychological model et al., 2010). Jackson (2011) found sensation seeking (related to of personality (e.g. Boksema, Topsa, Westera, Meijmana, & Lorist, r-BAS) through mastery predicted work performance. Grant and 2006; Clark & Loxton, 2012; Gray, 1987; Lang, 1995). Dweck (2003) found a goal-driven approach orientation to learning RST underwent a major revision that separates anxiety and fear predicted educational achievement. We expect a similar impact for into two systems (Gray & McNaughton, 2003). Animal data, r-BAS on divergent thinking given that reward seeking concerns psychology and neuroscience support this revision (De Pascalis, curiosity, exploration and novelty seeking, and r-BAS on divergent Strippoli, Riccardi, & Vergari, 2004; Dissabandara, Loxton, Dias, Dagl- thinking through mastery given that mastery hones energizing ish, & Stadlin, 2012). The new model is termed revised Reinforcement drives (see Elliot & Thrash, 2010; Jackson, 2011). We predict: Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and comprises three building blocks of personality: r-BAS, r-BIS and r-FFFS (Perkins, Kemp, & Corr, 2007). H4. r-BAS will positively predict fluency and originality in Several studies support the distinction between fear and anxi- divergent thinking. ety in r-RST. Perkins and colleagues (2007) found anxiety and fear separately predicted performance in a military training setting. Jackson (2009) found that r-Fight and r-Flight predicted delin- H5. r-BAS will positively predict fluency and originality in quency and everyday psychopathy in students, whereas r-BIS re- divergent thinking through mastery, which is an indirect effects sults were non-significant. A study of workers (Clark & Loxton, model. 2012) found that r-FFFS rather than r-BIS predicted lower psychological acceptance and was correlated with lower work engagement when participants considered the job demanding. Another 2. Method study found r-BIS predicted depression when r-BAS was low, and r-BAS, low o-BIS and low r-Freeze predicted psychological well- 2.1. Participants being (Harnett, Loxton, & Jackson, 2013). Jackson, Loxton, Harnett, Ciarrochi, and Gullo (2013) found that r-flight negatively predicted The sample consisted of 130 management students who partic- executive functioning. The authors advocated that fear restricts ipated in return for course credit (mean age = 19.29 years, SD higher order cognitive functioning so cognitive resources can be age = 1.98 years, age range 17–30 years; female 60%, male 40%). channelled into a single minded flight response. Similarly, we think An a priori power analysis suggested 107 participants would en- fear rather than anxiety will negatively impact divergent thinking, able 95% power to detect a medium sized effect at the .05 level because divergent thinking consumes higher order cognitive re- of significance (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). sources and generates multiple cognitions which the fear response would usually restrict. This view adds depth to our current under- 2.2. Measures standing that the role of r-BIS is to resolve conflicting demands, whereas the role of FFFS is to quickly respond to aversive stimuli 2.2.1. Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992) (Morton & White, 2013). While the divergent thinking task FFM is the primary personality assessment tool. We used the includes time pressure, we do not believe this will trigger the ap- International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006). Open- proach-avoidance conflict detector role of the r-BIS, because the ness to experience is associated with appreciation for art, curiosity task does not associate producing ideas with reward or punish- and variety of experience. Conscientiousness is associated with ment. We predict: self-discipline, duty and need for achievement. Extraversion is associated with positive emotions, energy and sociability. Agree- H2. r-FFFS will negatively predict fluency and originality in ableness is associated with compassion and cooperativeness. Each divergent thinking. measure included 10-items rated on a five-point scale. The neuroticism scale from FFM has some association with the r- This study compares FFM with r-RST in the prediction of diver- BIS and r-FFFS. It appears to be a conflation of depression, anxiety gent thinking. FFM and r-RST differ in many aspects but one prin- and fear items. The scale includes five depression items, four anxiety cipal way is the inclusion of r-FFFS and its separation from anxiety items and one fear item. Because neuroticism includes four anxiety in r-RST, whereas the FFM more broadly measures emotionality in items, we expect neuroticism to associate with r-BIS more than r-FFFS. terms of neuroticism. Given our expectation that r-FFFS will predict divergent thinking, we expect r-FFFS to predict divergent 2.2.2. Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Jackson, 2009) thinking incrementally over and above significant predictors from The Jackson Five is the only published measure of r-RST. It is the FFM: rated on a five-point scale and has three biological ‘building blocks’ of personality with r-BAS, r-BIS (anxiety) and r-FFFS (fear). Revised H3. r-FFFS will incrementally negatively predict fluency and FFFS is an 18-item measure of fear spanning r-fight, r-flight and r- originality in divergent thinking with openness to experience freeze. Because we theorise fear will predict creativity, we analyse controlled. our data at the r-FFFS level of analysis as opposed to the underlying sub-scales of r-FFFS. Dual systems theory by Elliot and Thrash (2010) and Jackson (2008) suggests r-BAS indirectly predicts functional outcomes 2.2.3. Mastery (Jackson, 2008) through mastery. Elliot and Thrash (2010) suggest that observable Mastery is a competence and learning subcategory of goal ori- behaviour arises from self-regulation as well as personality. entation associated with exerting effort into tasks. Participants rate Individuals use self-regulation such as mastery to gain momentum the 15 items on a three-point scale. Several studies have validated toward positive outcomes (Elliot & Sheldon, 1997). Individuals this scale (Jackson, 2011; Jackson, Baguma, & Furnham, 2009; Jack- 56 B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 54–58 son, Izadikhah, & Oei, 2012). Theoretically, researchers propose Table 2 mastery as a mediator that re-expresses undirected energy toward Multiple regression results of FFM predicting fluency and originality. functional outcomes (Elliot & Thrash, 2010; Jackson, 2008). DV IV BT pR2 Fluency Openness to experience .26 2.71 .01 2.2.4. Brick divergent thinking task (Guilford, 1967) Conscientiousness .03 .38 .71 The ‘brick’ divergent thinking task is an established measure Extraversion .11 1.13 .26 where participants list alternate uses for a brick. Three minutes Agreeableness À.13 À1.35 .18 Neuroticism .03 .28 .78 .09 was allocated as a standard time-frame that studies have shown to discern variance between participants (e.g. Furnham, Batey, Originality Openness to experience .21 2.08 .04 Conscientiousness À.05 À.54 .59 Anand, & Manfield, 2008). We scored answers in terms of ‘fluency’ Extraversion À.03 .28 .78 and ‘originality’. For fluency, we calculated the raw number of Agreeableness À.10 À1.05 .30 ideas produced (Furnham & Nederstrom, 2010). For originality, Neuroticism À.07 À.80 .46 .05 we used the Wallach and Kogan (1965) method. We awarded one point for each response that occurred once only in the dataset. While researchers score originality using several methods, Silvia Table 3 and colleagues (2008) suggest researchers most commonly use Multiple regression results of r-RST predicting fluency and originality. the Wallach and Kogan (1965) method. DV IV BT pR2 Fluency r-BAS .14 1.52 .13 2.3. Procedure r-BIS .01 .13 .90 r-FFFS À.22 À.2.38 .02 .08 Participants used the YWeDo online cognitive laboratory Originality r-BAS .20 2.17 .03 (Jackson, 2010). YWeDo is available at www.ywedo.com/lab.asp. r-BIS À.10 À1.11 .27 Fraser and Boag (2010) compared YWeDo to paper-and-pencil data r-FFFS À.25 À2.73 .007 .13 collection methods and found few differences. The second author created YWeDo as a resource for the research community. Table 4 3. Results Multiple regression results of r-FFFS and openness to experience predicting fluency and originality.

As Table 1 suggests, the measures showed at least adequate DV IV BT pR2 reliability. We removed the item I avoid work that makes me look Fluency Openness to experience .24 2.68 .008 bad from r-BIS to improve reliability. Several correlations were sig- r-FFFS À.15 À1.72 .088 .09 nificant. We found a significant positive correlation between r-BAS Originality Openness to experience .13 1.45 .15 and both fluency and originality. There were no significant correla- r-FFFS À.23 À2.65 .009 .08 tions between r-BIS and either fluency or originality. We found a significant negative correlation between r-FFFS and both fluency and originality. Openness to experience had a significant positive Results suggest r-FFFS is a unique construct separate from r-BIS correlation with both fluency and originality. Mastery correlated regarding their intercorrelation (r = .28, p < .05) and that only r- with r-RST measures, FFM measures and fluency. FFFS predicted creativity. Our results support developing evidence We performed a series of multiple regression analyses to exam- that fear differs from anxiety (Jackson, 2009; White & Depue, ine the impact of FFM and r-RST on divergent thinking. In each 1999). analysis, we used all personality scales from FFM or r-RST to pre- We completed further multiple regression analysis with r-FFFS dict either fluency or originality. We found Openness to experience and openness to experience to determine if r-FFFS uniquely pre- positively predicted both fluency and originality (see Table 2). dicted creativity incrementally beyond the FFM. As Table 4 sug- Originality was positively predicted by r-BAS; fluency and original- gests, r-FFFS negatively predicted originality, whereas openness ity were negatively predicted by r-FFFS (see Table 3). The propor- to experience was non-significant. Openness to experience position of variance accounted for was similar for both FFM (R2 = .09) tively predicted fluency, whereas r-FFFS was non-significant. and r-RST (R2 = .08) on fluency. For originality, the proportion of In support of dual systems theory by Elliot and Thrash (2010), variance accounted for was substantially higher in r-RST (R2 = .13) we tested an indirect effects model of the impact of r-BAS on flu- than FFM (R2 = .05). ency through mastery (see Fig. 1). The model had good fit of the

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations between variables.

MSDa C E A N r-BAS r-BIS r-FFFS Mastery Fluency Originality O 34.10 5.48 .79 .25* .33* .30* À.06 .39* .11 À.21* .46* .27* .18* C 32.82 4.77 .68 .02 .09 À.09 .06 .07 À.17 .21* .09 À.001 E 31.66 6.93 .86 .34* À.14 .53* .19* À.24* .51* .15 .07 A 37.83 4.87 .76 À.12 .15 .03 À.13 .12 À.01 À.03 N 30.54 5.94 .80 À.01 .17 .39* À.22* .01 À.07 r-BAS 22.12 3.48 .78 .30* À.19* .52* .19* .21* r-BIS 19.74 2.84 .71 .28* .28* À.01 À.11 r-FFFS 55.28 7.56 .70 À.25* À.25* À.31* Mastery 20.49 5.65 .76 .20* .09 Fluency 8.96 5.48 .55* Originality 1.01 1.57

Note: O = Openness to experience, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism. * p < .05. B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 54–58 57

and Thrash (2010) suggest that r-BAS is a distal driver of reward oriented behaviour, and learning goals re-express this energy to- .52* .20* r-BAS Mastery Fluency ward effort oriented outcomes. Our research supports this dual systems perspective, since fluency is likely to be an effort oriented outcome requiring the expenditure of much cognitive resources over a relatively long period of time, whereas originality may re- Fig. 1. Path model of an indirect effect of r-BAS on fluency through mastery. ⁄p < .05. quire less cognitive effort. Previous studies show mastery directs the drive toward functional outcomes (Clark & Loxton, 2012; Izadi- khah et al., 2010) and our research provides further evidence to data (CMIN = 1.244, p = .265, CMIN/DF = 1.244, GFI = .994, give weight to the models of Elliot and Thrash (2010) and more AGFI = .962, NFI = .974, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .043). The significant broadly Jackson (2008). This study provides several important con- pathways and the good model fit suggest an indirect effects model tributions to the literature. Our results sustain the view that anxi- of r-BAS predicting fluency through mastery. We found no evi- ety and fear are separate systems which uniquely predict outcomes dence that r-BAS predicted originality through mastery. (Gray & McNaughton, 2003), as we found fear but not anxiety reduced divergent thinking. Elliot and Thrash (2010) advocate per- 4. Discussion sonality is best understood in terms of ‘approach temperament’ and ‘avoidance temperament’. They noted that they were waiting The results support or partially support all five hypotheses. for further evidence regarding r-RST and the distinction between Concerning the first hypothesis, we found openness to experience anxiety and fear. This study reinforces a three domain approach positively predicted divergent thinking regarding both fluency and to biological personality with two distinct avoidance motivations. originality. This is consistent with established meta-analytic re- This study incorporated both the FFM and r-RST and found fear search (Feist, 1998). It suggests imagination, art appreciation, and uniquely predicted originality in addition to openness to experi- desire for intellectual conversation impact idea generation and ence. Our research suggests that FFM does not adequately measure the ability to make unique associations between stimuli. fear and that neuroticism does not properly capture r-FFFS. Our re- The second hypothesis was supported with fear but not anxiety search suggests that biologically based models of personality have predicting fluency and originality. This strengthens previous re- promise over the FFM (Block, 2010). search suggesting fear and anxiety are different constructs. Fear Our results add depth to applied research on divergent thinking. appears to negatively predict several outcomes not impacted by Gong, Cheung, Wang, and Jia-Chi (2012) found that proactive anxiety (Clark & Loxton, 2012; Jackson et al., 2013). Personality ap- employees engaged in greater information exchange and this in- pears to include three ‘building blocks’ of personality rather than creased creativity in an environment of psychological safety. We just approach and avoidance (e.g. Elliot & Thrash, 2010). This re- think proactivity may derive from r-BAS and openness to experi- search also supports the r-RST model of personality given the ence. Information exchange may be similar to mastery goals. In- prominence of r-FFFS. We think fear may restrict cognitive capacity creased psychological safety indicates an environment designed for higher order cognitions such as divergent thinking and channel to reduce fear. Another study found abusive supervision reduced them into primal responses such as flight, freeze and defensive creativity (Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012), which again suggests that nega- fight, which are more specific fear responses oriented to survival tive effects of abusive supervision may derive from fear rather than behaviour. anxiety. Many studies found positive mood enhances creativity The third hypothesis was partially supported as fear uniquely (e.g. Forgeard, 2011) and positive mood is likely associated with predicted originality after accounting for the variance explained high safety and low fear. Overall, our research suggests that indi- by openness to experience. We also found that openness to expe- vidual differences plays an important role in lateral thinking and rience predicted fluency rather than fear. We think fear might be may partially explain some macro findings in the area. more of a primal system depleting cognitive resources from diver- Our cross-sectional methodology is an important limitation of gent thinking, whereas openness to experience is likely to be more our research, but the objective divergent thinking measure of a higher order cognitive system. From this perspective, we are strengthens the research design as it likely reduces the influence not surprised they correlate (r = À.21, p < .05) and yet are poten- of common method variance. tially separate antagonistic systems influencing cognitions. Our re- In conclusion, our research found evidence that openness to search suggests that fear is more important than openness to experience and fear predict divergent thinking. Moreover, the ef- experience in restricting cognitions associated with unique diver- fect of r-BAS on divergent thinking may be through mastery such gent thinking. Fear may restrict higher order cognitions and there- that the energizing effect of r-BAS is honed by mastery to achieve fore the quality of the cognition. Our research also suggests that functional outcomes. Fear appears to be an additional variable to openness to experience is more important than fear in providing the FFM with the potential to better explain some applied findings a broad range of divergent thinking cognitions. This view provides of earlier research. insight into openness to experience which is broadly defined and therefore more oriented towards fluency. Overall, we think open- References ness to experience and fear both play a role in divergent thinking. The fourth hypothesis was supported with r-BAS positively pre- Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the dicting originality. We did not find r-BAS predicted fluency. This work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, suggests that r-BAS is an energiser that impacts the uniqueness 1154–1184. Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Waterson, P. E. (2000). of ideas, but not the number of ideas produced. We think this pro- Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. vides an interesting theoretical understanding of r-BAS, because it Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–385. appears that reward-seeking is related to the pursuit of idea qual- Belli, S. (2009). A psychobiographical analysis of Brian Douglas Wilson: Creativity, drugs, and models of schizophrenic and affective disorders. Personality and ity (i.e. novelty) more than quantity. The finding supports the idea Individual Differences, 46, 809–819. that r-BAS concerns reward seeking activity, since originality is Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some likely to provide more stimulation than fluency. ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25. Boksema, M. A. S., Topsa, M., Westera, A. E., Meijmana, T. F., & Lorist, M. M. (2006). The fifth hypothesis was supported with an indirect effects Error-related ERP components and individual differences in punishment and model for the impact of r-BAS on fluency through mastery. Elliot reward sensitivity. Brain Research, 1101, 92–101. 58 B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 54–58

Chermahini, S. A., & Hommel, H. (2010). The (b)link between creativity and Jackson, C. J. (2011). How sensation seeking provides a common basis for dopamine: Spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and functional and dysfunctional outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, convergent thinking. Cognition, 115, 458–465. 29–36. Clark, D. M. T., & Loxton, N. J. (2012). Fear, psychological acceptance, job demands Jackson, C. J., Baguma, P., & Furnham, A. (2009). Predicting grade point average from and employee work engagement: An integrative moderated mediation model. the hybrid model of learning in personality: Consistent findings from Ugandan Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 893–897. and Australian students. Educational Psychology, 29, 747–759. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Jackson, C. J. (2010). Introducing the YWeDo online cognitive laboratory. In S. Boag and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological & N. Tiliopoulos (Eds.), Personality and individual differences: Theory, assessment, Assessment Resources. and application (pp. 283–293). New York: Nova. De Pascalis, V., Strippoli, E., Riccardi, P., & Vergari, F. (2004). Personality, event- Jackson, C. J. (2008). Proposing a hybrid model of functional and dysfunctional related potential (ERP) and heart rate (HR) in emotional work processing. learning in personality. In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 873–891. Handbook of personality testing (pp. 73–93). London: Sage Publishers. Dissabandara, L. O., Loxton, N. J., Dias, S. R., Daglish, M., & Stadlin, A. (2012). Testing Jackson, C. J., Loxton, N. J., Harnett, P. H., Ciarrochi, J., & Gullo, M. J. (2013). Original the fear and anxiety distinction in the BIS/BAS scales in community and heroin- and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory in the prediction of executive dependent samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 888–892. functioning: A test of relationships between dual systems. Personality and Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal Individual Differences, 56, 83–88. goals analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171–185. Jackson, C. J., Izadikhah, Z., & Oei, T. P. S. (2012). Mechanisms underlying REBT in Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic mood disordered patients: Predicting depression from the hybrid model of dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78, 865–906. learning. Journal of Affective Disorders, 139, 30–39. Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative – But not in mathematics! Self- Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147–178. reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, Eysenck, H. J. (1996). The measurement of creativity. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), 143–155. Dimensions of creativity (pp. 199–242). Massachusetts: MIT Press. King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G⁄Power 3: A flexible Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189–203. statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. Pyschologist, 72, 372–385. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187–1212. Haven, CT: Yale University Press. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Fisher, J. E., Heller, W., & Miller, G. A. (2013). Neuropsychological differentiation of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265. adaptive creativity and schizotypal cognition. Personality and Individual Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Differences, 54, 70–75. Review, 69, 220–232. Forgeard, M. J. C. (2011). Happy people thrive on adversity: Pre-existing mood Morton, R. D., & White, M. J. (2013). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: The moderates the effect of emotion inductions on creative thinking. Personality and impact of FFFS and stress on driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, Individual Differences, 51, 904–909. 57–63. Fraser, M., & Boag, S. (2010). Social facilitation and performance: Comparing online to Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Students as educational theorists. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece face-to-face testing. Paper presented at the 9th Australian Conference on (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 267–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Personality and Individual Differences, Wollongong, Australia. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, Perkins, A. M., Kemp, S. E., & Corr, P. J. (2007). Fear and anxiety as separable intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060–1069. emotions: An investigation on the Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Furnham, A., & Nederstrom, M. (2010). Ability, demographic and personality personality. Emotion, 7, 252–261. predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 957–961. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public- New York: Cambridge University Press. domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. Rossman, E., & Fink, A. (2010). Do creative people use shorter associative pathways? Gong, Y., Cheung, S., Wang, M., & Jia-Chi, H. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 891–895. for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, Rubinstein, G. (2008). Are schizophrenic patients necessarily creative? A and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611–1633. comparative study between three groups of psychiatric inpatients. Personality Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. and Individual Differences, 45, 806–810. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553. Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, J. T., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al. Research and Therapy, 26, 67–70. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of University Press. Aesthetic Creativity, 2, 68–85. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2003). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press. sensitivity theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Social Psychology Review, 10, 320–335. Harnett, P. H., Loxton, N. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2013). Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms technical manual, Theory: Implications for psychopathology and psychological health. Personality verbal forms A an B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. and Individual Differences, 54, 432–437. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the Izadikhah, Z., Jackson, C. J., & Loxton, N. J. (2010). An integrative approach to creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson. personality: Behavioural Approach System, mastery approach orientation and White, T. L., & Depue, R. A. (1999). Differential association of traits of fear and environmental cues in the prediction of work performance. Personality and anxiety with norapinephrine- and dark-induced pupil reactivity. Journal of Individual Differences, 48, 590–595. Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 863–877. Jackson, C. J. (2009). Jackson-5 Scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Wuthrich, V., & Bates, T. C. (2001). Schizotypy and latent inhibition: Non-linear (r-RST) and their applications to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of linkage between psychometric and cognitive markers. Personality and Individual Research in Personality, 43, 556–569. Differences, 30, 783–798.