1

Examining the Role of Personality for Intra-Individual Processes:

Cross-Level Interactions

Remus Ilies and Timothy A. Judge

University of Florida

2

Old Questions – Old Methods

Old Questions: What is the role of individual differences in moderating

The relationship between mood and job satisfaction, or The magnitude of emotional reactions to stimuli (mood

induction)

Old methods: Moderated regression - cross-sectional data

Predict job satisfaction with mood, affectivity (e.g., negative affectivity), and their interaction (e.g., Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995)

Predict mood with the valence of the mood induction, personality (e.g., Neuroticism and Extraversion), and their interaction (e.g., Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989)

3

Old Questions – New Methods

Old Questions [reframed]: What is the role of individual differences in moderating the within-individual relationships between mood and

endogenous evaluations such as job satisfaction, or exogenous stimuli such as performance feedback

New method: Cross-level interactions in multi-level modeling

Use time sampled measures of both the dependent and the independent variables (i.e., across time) and model cross-level interactions in a multi-level framework

4

Cross-Level Effects Example #1: Mood and job satisfaction across

time Ilies and Judge (OBHDP, 2002)

27 individuals provided an average of 70 reports of momentary mood and job satisfaction over a 4-week period, from work

For each individual, one can compute the correlation between his/her mood and satisfaction scores across time

Then one can correlate the within-individual correlations with person-level variables (Neuroticism)

5

Within-Individual Correlations

Subject N Positive Affect Negative Affect1 69 .41** .032 71 -.06 -.22*3 73 .44** .164 73 .68** -.73**. . . .

25 73 .53** -.39**26 56 .20 -.48**27 70 .17 -.11

Average .42 -.29

6

Cross-Level Correlations

Across individuals, correlate personality scores with the within-individual correlations

For example #1 Individuals’ Neuroticism scores were significantly

correlated with their correlation of negative affect with job satisfaction at r=.36

Thus, negative affect and job satisfaction were more strongly related for neurotic individuals than for non-neurotic individuals

7

Two Additional Examples Theoretical Framework: Behavioral-Motivation

Theory Behavioral Approach System (BAS) and Behavioral

Inhibition System (BIS) regulate (a) individuals’ sensitivity to reward and punishment, and (b) their approach and avoidance motivation

The strength of the BAS and BIS (which is indicated by personality/affectivity) should influence the magnitude of individuals’ reactions to approach- and avoidance-relevant stimuli

Mood or job satisfaction spillover from work to home or home to work (example #2)

Reactions to feedback as reflected in state affect or goal setting (example #3)

8

Cross-Level Interactions

Example #2: Fifty-five individuals provided time sampled ratings for their momentary job satisfaction and mood from work (1,204 ratings) and from home (715 ratings; Judge & Ilies, under second review):

Within individuals, state evaluations of the job (i.e., momentary job satisfaction) will spill over to the off-work sphere by influencing mood at home

Furthermore, the magnitude of the spillover effect on positive and negative mood is moderated by positive and negative affectivity, respectively (affectivity as rated by significant others)

21.5

22

22.5

23

23.5

Low Job Satisfaction High Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction at Work

Po

sit

ive

Aff

ec

t a

t H

om

e

1 SD below the mean on Positive Affectivity 1 SD above the mean on Positive Affectivity

Moderating Effect of Trait Positive Affectivity on the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction

at Work and Positive Affect at Home

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

High Job Satisfaction Low Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction at Work

Ne

ga

tiv

e A

ffe

ct

at

Ho

me

1 SD above the mean on Negative Affectivity 1 SD below the mean on Negative Affectivity

Moderating Effect of Trait Negative Affectivity on the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction at Work and Negative Affect at

Home

11

Cross-Level Interactions: Example #3

• The behavioral motivation systems regulate individuals’ goal regulation tendencies following performance feedback such as:

When feedback sign is positive, individuals scoring higher on Extraversion will have their subsequent goals influenced more strongly by feedback than those scoring lower on Extraversion

When feedback sign is negative, individuals scoring higher on Neuroticism will have their subsequent goals influenced more strongly by feedback than those scoring lower on Neuroticism

12

Example #3: Method

• Internet study where student participants performed eight successive trials of the “uses” task, received feedback, reported mood after receiving the feedback, and set a goal before each trial (N=162 participants; 1,296 data points)

In order to simultaneously estimate different Level 1 parameters for positive and negative feedback, we followed Raudenbush, Brennan, & Barnett (Journal of Family Psychology, 1995) and used a system of dummy variables

Level 1GOAL= b1i*X_neg + b2i*X_pos + b3i*PF_neg + b4i*PF_pos +

rji

Level 1 POSITIVE FEEDBACKGOAL= b2i + b4i*PF_pos + rji

Level 1 NEGATIVE FEEDBACKGOAL= b1i + b3i*PF_neg + rji

HLM Equations

Level 2Predicting level 1 coefficients with Extraversion and

Neuroticism

Level 1GOAL= b1i*X_neg + b2i*X_pos + b3i*PF_neg + b4i*PF_pos +

rji

14

Results: Moderator Hypotheses

Extraversion did not predict the effect of positive feedback on goals (i.e., positive feedback was not more motivating for extraverts)

Neuroticism did predict the effect of negative feedback on goals (β=.011, p<.02) (i.e., negative feedback was more de-motivating for neurotics)

Interpretation: for one SD increase in N, the regression coefficient increases by Δβ=.09 (Δβ=.07 [standardized])

65

70

75

80

85

Zero Negative Feedback Maximum Negative Feedback

Negative Feedback

Goa

ls

1 SD above mean on Neuroticism 1 SD below mean on Neuroticism

When Feedback Valence Was Negative, Neuroticism Moderated the Effect of Feedback

on Goals