In the heat of the moment: On the effect of state neuroticism on task performance

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.022Get rights and content

Abstract

The aim of this study was to further shed light on the relationship between neuroticism and performance by taking into account the situation-specific experience of neuroticism when undertaking cognitive tasks. A total of 121 high-performing professionals completed a state measure of neuroticism before solving a complex cognitive task. Indicators of trait neuroticism and fluid intelligence were also collected. Analyses revealed a curvilinear effect of state neuroticism on task performance suggesting that moderate levels of neuroticism experienced in a given situation are most effective for cognitive performance. This effect remained unchanged when controlled for trait neuroticism and fluid intelligence. Findings support the importance of better understanding experiential effects of personality on task performance.

Highlights

► We examined the relationship between neuroticism and cognitive performance. ► A sample of high-performing professionals was employed. ► State neuroticism was curvilinearly related to cognitive performance. ► The effect remained unchanged when controlled for trait neuroticism and intelligence. ► Experiencing neurotic states can be advantageous when performing cognitive tasks.

Introduction

Research on the effect of personality on performance in cognitive tasks has typically been undertaken from a trait perspective. Within this perspective, personality dimensions are conceptualised in terms of structural differences between individuals that are assumed to remain stable across situations and that are related to behaviour, including performance on cognitive tasks (e.g., Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997, Austin et al., 1997, Austin et al., 2002, Reeve et al., 2006). In this paper we make a distinction between personality as structure and personality as a state that is experienced in a given situation, and we argue for differences in the structural and experiential effects of personality. Specifically, we focus on one personality dimension, neuroticism, and investigate its effect on task performance, both from a trait and a state perspective.

Section snippets

Neuroticism and cognitive performance

Neuroticism is the Big Five personality dimension that is most closely linked to the experience of negative emotions. Individuals who score high on this dimension are more likely than low scorers to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, depression and anger. They also tend to evaluate themselves more critically (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Such characteristics could be expected to negatively influence performance on cognitive tasks. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that trait neuroticism

Participants

In total, 121 adults working in middle-level management roles (aged 24–52 years, M = 34.2, SD = 6.2, 42.1% female) at one of four large Australian companies (an insurance company, a major airline, a national broadcasting company, a financial institution) took part in the study. On average participants had 4.6 years of experience in management and had worked 2 years in their current role within the respective organisation. Of these, 70% had completed a university degree (29% postgraduate; 41%

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and item-intercorrelations for the study variables. The state neuroticism measure was significantly related to the IPIP NEO neuroticism scale (r = .27, p < .01), suggesting that state and trait measures employed in this study relate to the same construct of neuroticism. As expected, performance in the Analysis Synthesis Task (AST) was significantly related to performance in the APM (r = .46, p < .01). Inspection of the mean percentages of correct responses

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to further investigate the role of neuroticism as a predictor of cognitive performance. To our knowledge there is no other study that included both trait and state neuroticism as predictors of cognitive performance. The findings support our hypothesis: The level of neuroticism experienced before undertaking a cognitive task was curvilinearly related to an individual’s performance on the task, with low and high levels of neuroticism being less conducive to task

Acknowledgements

This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (project LP0669552). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.

References (35)

  • Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

    (1999)
  • H. Bless et al.

    Mood and the regulation of information processing and behavior

  • Bowman, D. (2006). An investigation of the determinants of cognitive complexity and individual differences in fluid...
  • C. Brand et al.

    Intelligence, personality, and society: Constructivist versus essentialist possibilities

  • J. Cohen

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences

    (1988)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) manual

    (1992)
  • R.A. Depue et al.

    Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation and incentive motivation and extraversion

    Behavioural and Brain Sciences

    (1999)

    • Cited by (13)

    • Situation contingent negative emotions and performance: The moderating role of trait neuroticism

      2022, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Neuroticism and associated negative emotions have a wide range of detrimental effects (Lahey, 2009), such as mental and physical illnesses (Claridge & Davis, 2001), job dissatisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001), and low self-esteem (Judge et al., 2002). However, the experiences of negative emotions are not uniformly detrimental (Beckmann et al., 2010; Beckmann et al., 2013; Carver, 2004; Smillie et al., 2006), and have been shown to positively relate to cognitive mechanisms, including attention control (van Doorn & Lang, 2010), effort intensity (Smillie et al., 2006), emotion regulation (Barańczuk, 2019), goal prioritization (Carver & Scheier, 1994), planning and information processing (Forgas, 2008). The seemingly contradictory findings suggest that the different effects of negative emotions depend upon situation characteristics and the mechanisms engaged.

    • Whole traits: Revealing the social-cognitive mechanisms constituting personality's central variable

      2021, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      To date, we have tested only the affective consequences of state extraversion and state neuroticism, but we have tested these consequences extensively. Others have considered the effects of states on workplace outcomes (Beckmann, Beckmann, Minbashian, & Birney, 2013; Minbashian, Wood, & Beckmann, 2010; Wood et al., 2019). At the trait level, the extraversion to positive affect relationship has been one of the more important findings in personality psychology.

    • Beyond the intellect: Complexity and learning trajectories in Raven's Progressive Matrices depend on self-regulatory processes and conative dispositions

      2017, Intelligence
      Citation Excerpt :

      One might reasonably speculate from this data, that Neuroticism supports performance as items become more difficult, but impedes learning as one progresses through the test. This is potentially consistent with the dual competing actions account of Neuroticism – as simultaneously a propensity for arousal, that at moderate levels facilitates performance (Beckmann et al., 2013; Kahneman, 1973; Szymura, 2010), and for anxiety (i.e., worry and test anxiety, e.g., Moutafi et al., 2006). That is, sufficient arousal is necessary to ensure task focus, engagement, and performance.

    • The effects of personality and metacognitive beliefs on cognitive training adherence and performance

      2016, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Second, it is not clear how levels of neuroticism and conscientiousness might play out under these circumstances. Beckmann, Beckmann, Minbashian, and Birney (2013) for instance showed in a sample of business managers (i.e., a non-student sample) that state neuroticism can have a facilitative action (as an arousal mechanism) in some conditions, and an inhibiting one (via anxiety and rumination) in other conditions, over and above cognitive ability and trait neuroticism. And although conscientiousness might be important in younger student samples over shorter training periods, our research tends to suggest that more conative attributes like openness to experiences and a desire for novel, challenging activities that are more proximal to the actual training experience are important for longer-term engagement.

    • Creativity at work as a joint function between openness to experience, need for cognition and organizational fairness

      2016, Learning and Individual Differences

    • Influences of lateral preference and personality on behaviour towards a manual sorting task

      2013, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, Wright and Hardie (2012) recently demonstrated that left-handers and right-handers only differ in state and not trait anxiety. In a similar vein, Beckman, Beckman, Minbashian, and Birney (2013) have shown that trait neuroticism was not a significant predictor of performance in solving complex cognitive tasks, but that state neuroticism was. This suggests that perhaps the link between handedness and problem-solving is more likely to be influenced by a state rather than a trait measure.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.