Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS I
Personality Traits and Job Satisfaction among Police Officers
by
Anna Keramari
Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
inVictimology and Criminal Justice
Tilburg Law School
Tilburg University
October 2018
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS II
Abstract
The relationship between the Big Five personality characteristics and job satisfaction has been extensively
studied, however, no clear conclusions have been drown yet. Several studies have focused on the effect of
personality in job satisfaction for many occupational groups, as job performance is affected, as well. Although,
there is still a gap in the literature for the job of policing. For this reason, the purpose of the current study is to
explore further the link between personality and job satisfaction among police officers in the Netherlands. Data
were collected from the LISS (Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social sciences) panel, administered by
CentERdata (Tilburg University, The Netherlands).Personality and job satisfaction of Public Security and
Safety personnel (n=98) were measured. It was expected that police officers are generally extrovert, agreeable,
conscientious and open-to-experienceand it was hypothesized that these personality characteristics predict high
levels of job satisfaction, whereas high levels on neuroticism predict lower levels on satisfaction. A trend was
observed but no significant relationship was found between the variables.
Keywords: police personality, satisfaction, job performance, gender
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS III Introduction
Personality is being studied for centuries and it is defined as a complex of mental abilities playing an
important role in people’s everyday life (Costa, McCrae & Kay, 1995; Goldberg, 1990; Larsen & Buss, 2005).
Its history started from the ancient years when Aristotle identified individual differences in human behavior and
continued till recent years with researchers’ efforts to define specific personality traits (Borgatta, 1964; Cattel,
1943; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964; Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2009). One of the
most accepted and used personality model is the Five Factor Model, developed by McCrae and Costa (1985).
This model, known also as the “Big Five”, indicates that human personality can be classified through five
global dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (Garbarino,
Chiorri, & Magnavita, 2014). Openness refers to the breadth of a person’s ideas, values and open mindedness.
High levels of openness describe imaginative, empathetic and unconventional individuals who seek for
experiences and can successfully handle difficult situations (Zellars, Perrewe, & Hochwarter, 2000).
Conscientious individuals are competent, ambitious, organized and have positive coping mechanisms (Gabarino
et al., 2014; Zellars et al. 2000). Extraversion entails positive emotionality and sociability whereas, according to
Digman (1990), agreeableness involves “the more humane aspects of humanity-characteristics such as altruism,
nurturance, caring and emotional support”. On the other hand, fear, nervousness, irritability and vulnerability to
stress are characteristic features of a neurotic person (Gabarino et al., 2014; Zellars et al., 2000).
A number of studies proposed that police officers exhibit certain characteristics, like courage,
aggression, assertion, cynicism (Evans, Coman, & Stanley, 1992; Lefkowitz, 1975; Rokeach, 1973; Skolnick,
1994). However, some studies indicated that every person’s personality is unique and, therefore, there are
differences between police officers. Muir (1977), developed a typology to understand why police officers
develop different ways of performing in their workplace and classified them by four categories: the
professional, the reciprocator, the enforcer and the avoider. Similarly, Finstad (2000) distinguished eight types
of dysfunctional officers: the quick-tempered, the over-zealous, the paralyzed, the lazy, the bent and not loyal,
the without humor officers, the frustrated and, finally, the world champion. On the other hand, according to
Adlam (1982), police officers may have a “private” personality and a “working” one, making them adopt social
roles in relation to the demands of the job. Furthermore, Mitchell and Bray (1990), talked about the “rescue
personality”, consisting of specific traits, like high dedication and action orientation that workers in emergency
services have. Respectively, Sanders (2008) argued that organized, dependable and persistent police officers
more possible to respond effectively to the needs of their job in contrast to irresponsible and low achievers.
Despite the proposed uniqueness of personality, some studies revealed gender differences among policemen
with men officers being more robust and aggressive and women being more sensitive and emotionally stable
(Garcia, 2003; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Though, no significant differences were found for both genders in
the levels of job satisfaction and performance (Archbold & Moses-Schultz, 2012, Balkin, 1988).
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS IV Personality has been found to predict job satisfaction and explain job performance in a wide range of
jobs and a significant number of studies revealed the relationship between the Big Five personality
characteristics, job satisfaction and performance (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Hogan & Holland, 2003;
Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, &Rothstein, 1991). Various psychological
tests, for example, the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1956), the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1940) and the Inwald Personality inventory (Inwald, 1980) have
been used in personality assessment and they, further, contributed in identifying job satisfaction in employees,
and especially in law enforcement personnel, based on personality characteristics. Among the traits of the five
factor personality model, conscientiousness and neuroticism were mostly studied and found to be mostly
associated with the overall job satisfaction. Specifically, research showed that high levels of neuroticism are
related to less job satisfaction whereas high levels of conscientiousness, extraversion, openness and
agreeableness mostly characterize employees whose jobs are pleasant for them (Barrick & Mount, 2005;
Fenster & Locke, 1973). As a consequence, changes in work behavior are observed depending on the level of
satisfaction. More specifically,Bishop et al. (2001) found in their study that neurotic,and thus dissatisfied,
police patrol officers express avoiding behavior in their work environment, such as denial or venting of
emotions, compared to those who scored high in agreeableness and openness scales. Their results were in
agreement with a study conducted by Garbarino et al. (2014), who found that high levels of neuroticism are also
associated with lower levels of satisfaction and, as a result, more work related stress.
The linkage between job satisfaction and job performance has been the concern of many industrial-
organizational studies (Bakotic, 2016; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Police job is considered very
demanding and it was found that if employees with specific personality characteristics are satisfied with their
job, they deal more successfully with difficult working conditions and thus, they perform better (Bakotic, 2016;
Judge, et. al., 2001). For instance, researchers found that individuals high in Neuroticism are not so satisfied
and as a result they are dysfunctional, addressing the importance of satisfaction and its effect on job
performance (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999). On the other hand, there is literature supporting that
there is no correlation between these two variables (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955). So far, no research has been
done in the Dutch population. Thus, the purpose of the current study is to identify the presence of specific
personality characteristics among Dutch male and female police officers and to investigate the relationship
between personality traits, job satisfaction and performance. Therefore, the influence of gender and personality
characteristics on job satisfaction and performance is explored. More specifically, the main goal of this study is,
first, to prove that there are no differences in personality traits and satisfaction levels among the two genders,
then, that Dutch police officers are generally extravert, conscientious, agreeable and open to experience but less
neurotic and that high levels of openness, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness are related to high
levels of job satisfaction as well, whereas low levels of neuroticism predict high levels of satisfaction. This
study is divided into five parts as follows:the first part consists of the literature review, which offers an
overview of previous research and analysis. The second part, methodology, is referred to the participants and
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS V the questionnaires used for measuring personality and job satisfaction and the third part is about the analysis of
the data collected. The fourth part discusses the resultscompared with findings from previous studies and
addresses the limitations of the study. The last part concludes by summarizing main findings and,finally,
recommendations for future research areproposed.
Literature review
1. The history of personality traits
Since decades, personality traits influenced a large number of scientists to develop a variety of
theoretical perspectives and, further, to construct models applicable to individuals and study their relation to
different aspects in life. The studies started to be performed from the early 90s and confirmed the scientists’
interest and their systematic efforts to understand personality by classifying those characteristics that make
individuals different and unique. However, struggling with definitions and language interpretations, personality
scientists and practitioners faced difficulties in developing a specific taxonomy in common language and
understood by everyone to describe personality. Consequently, this led to a number of models regarding
personality domains.
Francis Galton (1884), was the first who introduced a lexical approach and pointed out the importance
of language in describing personality. He stressed the need for a specific vocabulary that defines individuals’
differences and he estimated that one thousand words, related with each other, can express personality
characteristics (Goldberg, 1990). Allport and Odbert (1936), supported Galton’s point of view by conducting a
lexical study using Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. They found 18,000 terms that
distinguish one personality from another and consider it useful to organize them in a taxonomy, which would be
helpful enough, especially for personality professionals. Indeed, they classified these terms into four main
categories. The first one, consisted of those traits, such as aggressiveness and sociability, which described the
individual’s adaptation to the environment. The second category was composed with traits representing an
individual’s state of mind and mood, such as embarrassment and the third one included evaluative judgments,
such as worthy or irritating. The last category was about characteristics that portrayed talents, skills and
capacities, such as gifted and prolific.
Allport’s and Odbert’s initiative to classify into categories the words describing personality was
appreciated by some trait theorists who took a step further in the analysis of personality traits. Cattell’s (1943)
study numbered 35 bipolar groups of terms related to each other from which Tupes and Cristal (1961) found
that only five factors were replicable, surgency (extraversion), agreeableness, conscientiousness
(dependability), emotional stability and culture which were also confirmed in the studies followed by Norman
(1963), Borgatta (1964), and Digman and Inouye (1986). However, H. J. Eysenck was the first who suggested
that extraversion and neuroticism were the basic and most significant elements in psychological testing
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS VI (Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992). Later, Costa and McCrae (1980) added three more factors,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience and developed the “Big Five” Factor Model.
This model was used in their NEO Personality Inventory, published in 1985, and aimed to represent and
measure the five dimensions of personality among individuals. The theory behind the Five Factor Model (FFM)
maintains that there is a relationship between traits and behavior that depends on the level of a trait people have.
This means that the more of a trait somebody has, the more the behavior related to this trait is expressed.
Moreover, it was found that the dimensionality of the FFM remains stable over time and across cultures and it
gained widespread recognition as it can predict a variety of life aspects, from marital adjustment to job
performance (McCrae & John, 1992; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1977).
2. The Big Five model
2.1.Extraversion
Extraversion (E) is measured by the majority of personality inventories, such as the Multidimensional
Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), as it plays a
significant role in the taxonomy (Watson & Clark, 1997). Individuals high in extraversion tend to be more
sociable, ambitious, enthusiastic and optimistic (Bishop, et. al., 2001; Garbarino, et. al., 2014; Judge, et. al.,
1999). Extraverts are described as more active, talkative and are usually surrounded by many friends, they are
easy-going and take risks and chances (Bishop, et. al., 2001; Garbarino, et, al., 2014; Judge, et. al., 1999).
Because they are less dysphoric than introverts, they express more positive emotions and thus they tend to be
happier. Watson and Tellegen (1985) indicated that Extraversion has clearly a positive affect (positive
emotionality), indicating the degree to which a person has a zest for life (Digman, 1990; Zellars, et. al., 2000).
In contrast to extroverts, individuals low in Extraversion are more shy and quiet and have less effective
interpersonal relationships.
2.2.Agreeableness
As Digman (1990) stated, the dimension of agreeableness (A) involves “the more humane aspects of
humanity” (McCrae & John, 1992). These are characteristics like tolerance, forgiveness, altruism. Agreeable
individuals are straightforward and honest, trusting, willing to help and emotionally support others (Bishop, et.
al., 2001; Digman, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992; Zellars, et. al., 2000). Moreover, because of their pro-social
behavior and communal attitude, agreeable people seek for companion whenever they are under stressful
conditions (Bishop, et. al., 2001). On the other hand, disagreeable individuals are not easy to cooperate with,
they are cynical, jealous and rude towards others (Sanders, 2008).
2.3.Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness (C) has been identified in every scientific effort for constructing a personality
taxonomy, describing it as social conformity and a need for control (Hogan & Ones, 1997). Conscientious
individuals are known for their good planning and organizational skills and their goal-driven behavior, as well
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS VII (Bishop, et. al., 2001; Sanders, 2008). Their hardworking and non-competitive personality stands out especially
in their workplace, portraying them as neat and methodical (Hogan & Ones, 1997). Moreover, when facing
difficulties, individuals high in Conscientiousness adopt coping strategies by focusing of the problem rather
than their emotions (Bishop, et. al., 2001). However, most personality scientists agree that consciousness has its
roots in dependability because such individuals are responsible and well-organized, while some others express
the opinion that this trait characterizes mostly ambition and success in achieving personal goals (Sanders,
2008).
2.4.Openness to Experience
Openness to experience (OE) is considered as a fundamental aspect of personality and it was widely
studied by many researchers (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Starting from Cattell (1946) and continuing with
Norman’s (1963) taxonomy, a fifth personality trait was identified. It was called “culture” and referred to
intelligence, sophistication and imagination (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Tellegen and Atkinson (1974) described
this personality dimension as “openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences” and it was related to fantasy
absorption that was found in mysterious experiences and hypnosis (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Further, Coan
(1974) measured the concept of experience and found that his items were in correlation with measures such as
emotional sensitivity and aesthetic interests. Finally, and mostly accepted, Costa & McCrae (1978) studied
what they called “Openness to Experience” in terms of fantasy, ideas, creativeness and aesthetic perceptions.
The aforementioned approaches in the interpretation of openness to experience as a dimension of personality
reveal that individuals high in this trait are more imaginative, sensitive, open-minded, flexible and adaptable to
change (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Bishop, et. al., 2001; Garbarino, et, al., 2014).
2.5.Neuroticism
The last component of the Big Five personality traits, neuroticism (N), is associated with anxiety,
irritation and tension. This means that, neurotic individuals are more hostile and aggressive and they experience
more often negative emotions (Bishop, et. al., 2001; Garbarino, et, al., 2014; Sanders, 2008). In addition, they
express high levels of self-blame and they exhibit more mental and behavioral detachment problems (Bishop,
et. al., 2001). On the other hand, individuals low in Neuroticism, are emotionally stable and can easily cope
with demanding situations (Bishop, et. al., 2001).
Except from the Big Five, other personality concepts have been demonstrated in various studies
(Asendorpf, 2002; Conte, Heffner, Roesch, & Aasen, 2017; Donnellan & Robins, 2010; Jacelon, 1997; Roth &
Hertzberg, 2017). Hardiness was firstly introduced by Kobasa (1979) and involves those traits that help
individuals dealing with stressful situations by turning them into growth opportunities. In order to successfully
achieve resistance to vulnerability, a combination of cognitive and emotional characteristics is required (Vega,
Ruiz, Gomez, & Rivera, 2013). Researchers believe that it is not an inborn trait but it can be learned as it stems
from personal experiences and it is a construct of several domains, such as commitment in life activities,
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS VIII control of thoughts and feelings, and, finally, challenge of personal development because of life’s
unpredictability (Vega, et. al., 2013).
Furthermore, the resilient, the over-controlled and the under-controlled type of personality is a person-
centered approach, introduced by Robins, John, Caspi, Moftitt & Stouthamer-Loeber (1996) and contributed in
the classification of individuals in more abstract categories (Donnellan & Robins, 2010). Resilience refers to
that specific characteristic that makes individuals able to successfully deal with adversity, as they usually are
well-adjusted (Conte, et. al., 2017; Jacelon, 1997). Therefore, a resilient personality is characterized by high
self-esteem, confidence and independence (Conte, et. al., 2017; Donnellan & Robins, 2010; Jacelon, 1997; Roth
& Hertzberg, 2017). The over-controlled type is shy and sensitive, emotionally unstable and tense and, thus,
they have low scores in extraversion (Conte, et. al., 2017). On the other hand, individuals with under controlled
personality are exposed to delinquent behavior, as aggression and disobedience are the main components of this
type (Conte, et. al., 2017; Donnellan & Robins, 2010; Roth & Hertzberg, 2017). Under-controlled individuals
are usually described as being spontaneous and they have difficulties with controlling their feelings (Conte, et.
al., 2017). Research, also, suggests that the aforementioned types are related to foreseeable work outcomes
(Conte, et. al., 2017). For instance, the resilient personality predicts positive work performance, in contrast with
the over-controlled and the under-controlled that reveal negative outcomes (Conte, et. al., 2017).
3. The concept of Police Personality
The term of “rescue personality” emerged from the study of Mitchell and Bray (1990) to describe the
traits observed in individuals working in emergency occupations, such as the paramedics. According to them,
rescue personnel is portrayed as sociable, active, goal-oriented, dedicated and obsessed with achievement
(Wagner, Marting, & McFee, 2009). Despite that police belongs to the “rescue workers” category, personality
scientists are still trying to explore the nature of police personality (Wagner, et. al., 2009). Twersky-Glasner
(2005) identified two perspectives to explain whether police personality is constructed by innate traits
individuals have (psychological perspective) or shaped by the experiences gained while being on duty
(sociological perspective). Various studies revealed that police officers may well be a homogeneous group as
they seem to display common personality characteristics compared to the general population (Dorsey &
Giacopassi, 1986; Forero, Gallardo-Pujol, Maydeu-Olivares, &Andres-Pueyo, 2009; Gudjonsson & Adlam,
1983; Hogan, 1971; Mills & Bohannon, 1980; Sanders, 2003; Trojanowicz, 1971; Twersky-Glasner, 2005).
According to Lefkowitz (1975), policemen share unique characteristics regarding mentality and are generally
described by means of two trait syndromes, trait syndrome I as aggressive, suspicious and cynical and trait
syndrome II as authoritarian. These traits interact with each other to constitute the police personality
(Abrahamsen, 2006;Gudjonsson&Adlam, 1982; Twersky-Glasner, 2005). For example, Skolnick (1994)
addresses the importance of these characteristics by stating that the element of suspiciousness, for example, is
triggered by the authoritarian trait and helps policemen to identify and interpret behaviors of others. This, in
turn, stimulates the trait of isolationfrom the public as they have specific tasks to perform under command
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS IX (Abrahamsen, 2006;Twersky-Glasner, 2005). Police officers exhibit authoritarian behavior because of
interaction with the citizens (Twersky-Glasner, 2005). They have the authority to impose themselves towards
the public and, as a result, they have a sense of superiority and isolation as well, as they separate themselves
from the public (Twersky-Glasner, 2005). Moreover, intelligence, sensitivity, empathy, dependability and
honesty are among the traits that appear more often in police research (Mills & Bohannon, 1980; Sanders,
2003). Loyalty, truthfulness, emotional stability and absence of anger were, also, identified among policemen
and they are described as determinant and mature, less neurotic, conscientious and extroverts, as they possess
better social and coping skills (Gudjonsson & Adlam, 1983; Mills & Bohannon, 1980; Sanders, 2003).
The same characteristics are, also, met in sub teams within the police unit (Garbarino, Chiorri,
Magnavita, Piattino, & Cuomo, 2012). Research on special force police officers supports the homogeneity and
stability of personality traits among policemen by showing that they are extraverted, emotionally stable, and
resilient to job stress and exhibit low levels of neuroticism and anger (Garbarino, et. al., 2012; Wagner, et. al.,
2009). Similarly, the facets of Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience are mostly
identified among special force police officers, too (Garbarino, et. al., 2012). Furthermore, police departments
are widely using personality assessment to select individuals who exhibit “positive” traits, such as confidence,
empathy and achievement orientation and to identify those who possesses undesirable and not job-effective
personality characteristics, such as suspiciousness, anxiety and anti-social behavior (Garbarino, et. al., 2014;
Garbarino, et. al., 2012). Therefore, it could be argued that the selection process for police recruits promotes a
specific personality type and, thus, it is predominant across police personnel (Twersky-Glasner, 2005).
Police personality has always been of great concern for researchers and, to date, a number of typologies
were developed. However, existing literature describes personality based on job performance, proving that
police personality may not be, eventually, unique (Abrahamsen, 2006; Finstad, 2000; Twersky-Glasner, 2005;
Muir, 1977). Muir (1977) in his research, found four personality types among 28 police officers based on how
easily they react with force under demanding situations. These are the Professional, the Reciprocator, the
Enforcer and the Avoider. Furthermore, Finstad (2000) described eight types of dysfunctional policemen
highlighting their negative behavior towards their colleagues, such as the Quick-Tempered, the Over-Zealous,
the Paralyzed, the Lazy, the Bent and not Loyal, the “Without humor” officer, the Frustrated and, finally, the
“World Champion”. Those studies evince that despite the similar personality characteristics police officers
share that distinguish them from other groups, there are, also, differences among them (Abrahamsen, 2006;
Twersky-Glasner, 2005).
4. Personality of other Emergency Personnel
4.1.The Military
The research on personality has also been expanded to other emergency occupations except from the
police, such as the military units, including the aviator and naval forces (Barron, Carretta, &Bonto-Kane, 2016;
Boe& Bang, 2017; Hartmann, Sunde, Kristensen, &Martinussen, 2003; Jong, Eck, &Bos, 1994; Salgado,
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS X 1998). According to Mitchell & Bray (1990), there are personality differences in people occupied in the
emergency service compared to the average person. High-risk occupations are characterized by elevated stress
and fear because of the unpredictable nature of the job (Boe& Bang, 2017; Hartmann, et. al., 2003).
Undoubtedly, the military belongs to these occupations that have some outstanding requirements that involve
the possession of certain behaviors and attitudes to gain the strength and robustness needed to survive in this
job (Bandlitz-Johansen, 2013; Boe& Bang, 2017; Krueger, 2001).
Bandlitz-Johansen (2013) in his research on the Norwegian military identified four dimensions that
comprise the military identity. Military personnel are characterized by idealism, professionalism, warriorism
and absence of individualism. More specifically, individuals occupied in the armed forces have a strong sense
of patriotism that fosters warriorism, meaning that they are motivated to fight not only for their personal
satisfaction but for the good of their nation, as well (Bandlitz-Johansen, 2013). These two doctrines reveal the
adoption of values and behaviors related to the military mentality of professionalism. Finally, military
personnel stands out because of the lack of selfishness and ego centrism, values that are proved to be harmful
for the service (Bandlitz-Johansen, 2013). In addition, the Big Five Personality Model was also applicable to
the personnel of the armed forces and research suggested associations between the facets of Conscientiousness,
Openness and Agreeableness and military service teams that predicted high levels of performance, including
curiosity and a desire of learning and achieving (Bandlitz-Johansen, 2013; Boe& Bang, 2017; Jong, Eck, &Bos,
1994; Salgado, 1998). Furthermore, another trait identified in the military personality is hardiness, which is an
important element that indicates the possession of coping strategies to deal with physical and mental problems
arisen from work and, as a result, individuals are capable to effectively meet the expectations and demands of
the job (Bandlitz-Johansen, 2013; Vega, et. al., 2013). As a result, individuals who adopt coping styles are more
extraverted and, thus, exhibit low levels of depression and home-sickness (Jong, Eck, &Bos, 1994).
Common personality traits portray the military pilots, too, with extraversion and emotional stability to
be the most desired characteristics for the selection of the “best” stuff (Bartram, & Dale, 1982; Glicksohn &
Naor-Ziv, 2016). Such individuals are described as sensation seekers, optimistic and courageous, resilient and
can easily adapt to unexpected and demanding situations (Glicksohn & Naor-Ziv, 2016). Siem and Murray
(1994) pinpointed six criteria that indicate a successful flying performance, in terms of skills and knowledge,
compliance, crew management and emotional support, leadership, situational awareness and planning, and
found that Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience were the most significant elements of the aviator
personality. Furthermore, same personality patterns were identified in research among the naval military
personnel who was profiled as highly charismatic and goal-oriented, emotionally stable and capable of setting
into force successful coping strategies, when needed (Hartmann, et. al., 2003). Therefore, it comes to notice
from research that personality traits and their measurement is high of importance for these occupational groups
as well, because job performance outcomes can be predicted (Barron, et. al., 2016; Glicksohn & Naor-Ziv,
2016).
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XI 4.2.Nurses
Nursing also belongs to the occupations that require not only skills and knowledge but certain
personality characteristics to endure and fulfill the high demands and responsibilities of the job (Takase, et. al.,
2018). The stereotype of a “caring job” has raised questions of whether there is a consistency of traits among
the personality of nurses and various studies have been conducted to provide a profile in relation to job
performance (D. Eley, R. Eley, Bertello & Rogers-Klark, 2012; Charkhabi, Hayati, &Rouhi, 2015; Takase,
Yamamoto, & Sato, 2018). More specifically, researchers have found that nurses’ job performance is
influenced by the levels of job satisfaction which is associated with the Big Five dimensions of personality
(Charkhabi, et. al., 2015). Less neurotic and extravert nurses are described as more energetic and productive,
sociable and passionate for work and, therefore, they exhibit higher levels of job satisfaction and this results to
better performance at work (Charkhabi, et. al., 2015). Furthermore, Kennedy, Curtis, & Waters (2014) came to
the conclusion that nurses’ personality is unique, suggesting in their survey that the nurses participated
exhibited high scores on impulsiveness and low on vulnerability. These scores point out that nurses with such
characteristics are, also, capable of successfully dealing with emergency incidents and have lower possibilities
of burnout because they possess coping strategies to reduce stress (Kennedy, et. al., 2014; Modaresi & Ahmadi,
2015). Additionally, Eley, et. al., (2012) distinguished nurses’ personality in terms of four facets of
temperament (novelty seeking, harm avoidance, reward dependence and persistence) and three facets of
character (self-directness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence). According to this distinction, nurses are
portrayed as caring individuals who have a strong will to help their patients (Eley, et. al., 2012).
However, Tett & Burnett (2003) indicated that personality traits are reflected at work only when there is
such an environment that allows individuals to express these traits. For example, extravert and open-to-
experiences nurses are more hard-working and have a stronger urge to learn more when they are in a friendly
and feedback-providing environment and this leads to goal achievement and better job performance (Takase, et.
al., 2018). Therefore, they suggested to focus on making a suitable workplace for nurses rather than employing
them based on their personality characteristics (Takase, et. al., 2018).
4.3.Firefighters
Firefighting is an occupation that demands not only physical strength but psychological resilience, as
well. The nature of this job is characterized by danger and the unexpected incidents that firefighters may have
to face while they are on duty (Gnacinski, Meyer, Hess, Cornell, Mims, Zamzow, &Ebersole, 2015; Vega, et.
al., 2013). For instance, they have to suppress a fire under very high temperatures and toxic fumes and they
may also have to search for and rescue victims (Gnacinski, et. al., 2015; Vega, et. al., 2013). Although limited,
there is literature suggesting that not everyone is capable of performing on the job and, therefore, certain
personality characteristics need to be present in individuals while serving this job meaning that personality has
an impact on job performance (Aamodt & Kimbrough, 1985; Gnacinski, et. al., 2015; Wagner, et. al., 2009).
Results on measurement of firefighters’ personality indicate that they are characterized mainly by fearlessness,
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XII hardiness and emotional clarity which are basic components to prevent posttraumatic symptomatology and,
thus, to perform better at work (Wagner, et. al., 2009). Extraversion was, also, positively correlated with
energetic and sociable firefighters (Wagner, et. al., 2009) However, when compared to other occupations such
as the police and paramedics, significant differences were observed (Aamodt & Kimbrough, 1985; Wagner, et.
al., 2009). Interestingly, low levels of Openness and Conscientiousness were found to be predictors of good job
performance (Wagner, et. al., 2009). Therefore, it could be argued that homogeneity among emergency
personnel cannot be assumed (Wagner, et. al., 2009).
5. Job Satisfaction among Police Officers
Job satisfaction has been one of the most studied topics in the field of occupational and industrial
psychology (Dantzker, 1994; Johnson, 2012; Miller, Mire, & Kim, 2009).Although there is no accepted
definition so far, job satisfaction, according to Henne & Locke (1985), refers to the employee’s “emotional
response” to the nature and conditions of the job. Khizar, et. al., (2016) added to this by defining job
satisfaction as the link between the employee’s desires and the demands of the job but Herzberg (1968)
perceived job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction as two different concepts, with the first stemming from
personal goals and expectations and the latter being determined by working conditions. The combination of the
aforementioned definitions conclude that the bigger the difference between employees’ expectations and
working reality is, the lower the job satisfaction is (Johnson, 2012). Moreover, the personological approaches of
Fischer & Hanna (1931) and Hoppock (1935) indicated that job satisfaction is associated with the employee’s
emotional adjustment or maladjustment.
However, despite that the importance of job satisfaction is being addressed in almost every occupational
group, it is still ignored among police officers. This is because police officers are trained to perform specific
tasks no matter if they are satisfied or not (Miller, et. al., 2009). Although dissatisfaction of police personnel
may negatively influence the delivery of services to the community, research on determinants of job satisfaction
is still limited(Dantzker, 1994). Dispositional characteristics were found to be among the strongest forerunners
of job satisfactionand, although limited, research revealed its conforming relationship with the Big Five
personality traits (Bakotic, 2016; Dantzker, 1994; Judge, et. al., 2002; Khizar, 2008; Miller, et. al., 2009).
Researchers agreed that different personality patterns may predispose employees’ on having specific
perceptions about work (Khizar, 2008). To this, they argued that satisfied with their job employees express
more positive emotions, such as happiness, they feel more secure and, as a result, they show more commitment
to the organization they belong to (Bakotic, 2016; Dantzker, 1994; Johnson, 2012; Judge, et. al., 2002; Khizar,
2008; Miller, et. al., 2009).Furthermore, policemen with a flexible and bullish personality structure do not seem
disappointed compared with those who are more rigid (Khizar, 2008).
In their meta-analysis, Judge, Heller and Mount (2002) revealed the linkage of personality traits, especially
those of Extraversion and Neuroticism, with job satisfaction. Neuroticism is one of the most investigated traits
as it isfound to be the main source of disappointment at work and therefore many studies revealed a negative
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XIII correlation between these two variables (Judge, et. al., 2002). As also previously mentioned, neurotic
individuals are negative by their nature and therefore they experience negative emotions more often than others,
as they put themselves into situations that reinforce negativity. When it comes to the working environment,
employees with high levels on Neuroticism are less satisfied compared to non-neurotic individuals because they
have difficulties in dealing with problems and in maintaining interpersonal relations (Judge, et. al., 2002;
Tziner, Waismal-Manor, Vardi, &Brodman, 2008). In contrast to neuroticism, extraversion is related to the
experience of positive emotions and to social interactions, both being characteristics of satisfied employees
(Judge, et. al., 2002; Tziner, et. al., 2008). This means that extroverts find in the workplace the social
relationships they are looking for and therefore they adopt more positive perceptions about their job.
In spite of neuroticism’s popularity on being systematically studied, association, although weak, was also
found between the rest of the personality traits and job satisfaction. Specifically, agreeableness which is,
according to McCrae & Costa (1991), related to happiness, is positively associated with job satisfaction, but at a
low level (r= .16). Indeed, agreeable individuals describe themselves as generally satisfied with their life and,
accordingly, with their job because of the positive insight they have on well-being (Judge, et. al., 2002).
Moreover, theycan successfully build pleasant interpersonal relationships and they are characterized by their
strong motivation to achieve personal goals. In respect to their workplace, agreeable employees seem to be
more satisfied because same attitudes apply there, as well (Judge, et. al., 2002; Tziner, et. al., 2008).
Additionally, the relationship between conscientiousness and high levels on job satisfaction can be explained by
the fact that conscientious employees are hardworking and obtain rewards more often by means of promotions
and higher salaries or just by having the sense of personal accomplishment (Judge, et. al., 2002; Tziner, et. al.,
2008). Finally, as literature suggests, the domain of Openness to Experience seems to be the only exception as a
very weak to no correlation was found in its relationship with job satisfaction, as the characteristics of the first
(altruism, religiosity, freedom) can merely be applied to job conditions leaving this concept still vague and
unclear(Judge, et. al., 2002; Tziner, et. al., 2008).
Except from personality traits, other factors were studied, too, to test whether job satisfaction can be
predicted (Judge, et. al., 2002; Miller, et. al., 2009). Job characteristics are, also, held responsible for having
satisfied and dissatisfied employees in every business. Similarly, in the police organization, officers, in order to
execute their duties, have to deal on an almost daily basis with many factors in their working environment that
have a significant impact on their level of satisfaction. The demanding nature of the policing job require police
officers toperform diverse tasks, from operational tobureaucraticand administrative, that were perceived as
more tense and troubling for them than, for example, interacting with public (Judge, et. al., 2002; Kohan &
Mazmanian, 2003; Miller, et. al., 2009). Job Autonomy is one of the determinants of job satisfaction and refers
to the employees’ freedom to perform their tasks without restrictions (Judge, et. al., 2002; Miller, et. al., 2009).
This means that officers who implement individually policing strategies have higher levels of satisfaction, as
well (Judge, et. al., 2002). Additionally, strict supervision and performance evaluations can affect perceptions
of satisfaction (Miller, et. al., 2009). Moreover, organizational characteristics of the job, such as salary, working
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XIV hours and organizational support are proved to be positively correlated with satisfaction (Judge, et. al., 2002).
Furthermore, work-related anxiety, which is usually met among police officers, can also be a source for a
decreased job satisfaction (Judge, et. al., 2002). Specifically, Hackman & Oldham (1980) suggested that job
and organizational characteristics are salient for the individual’s psychological state, which in turn contributes
to increased or diminished levels of satisfaction. For example, increased feelings of responsibilities caused by
less job autonomy may lead to psychological disturbance and therefore, less satisfaction.
Evidence from the investigation of demographic characteristics reached the conclusion that age in
combination with the duration of being on duty can significantly predict job satisfaction (Miller, et. al., 2009).
Both variables were found to be linked with job satisfaction as the one gets older and has spent more years on
service, the satisfaction is increased. However, there were some studies that reported a negative relationship
between age and satisfaction with the latter to decrease (Dantzker, 1994; Forsyth & Copes, 1994). The effect of
race on police officers’ satisfaction was also examined, although literature remains ambivalent (Miller, et. al.,
2009). More specifically, while studies found that White policemen in minority groups are no less satisfied than
their Black co-workers, at the same time other studies contradict these findings (Dantzker, 1994; Judge, et. al.,
2002; Singer & Love, 1988; Zhao, Thurman, & He; 1999). Finally, the level of education showed minimum to
no relationship with job satisfaction as the results of studies had small correlationcoefficient (Griffin, Dunbar &
McGill, 1978; Judge, et. al., 2002; Lefkowitz, 1974).
6. Satisfaction and Job Performance
A growing body of research in the field of personality psychology has focused on job performance of
law enforcement personnel and, especially, police officers (Forero, et. al., 2009). However, there is confusion
regarding the definition of job performance, as it is measured differently in every study (Sanders, 2008;
Sanders, 2003). For example, some studies define job performance in terms of leadershipand career success,
including high salaries and promotions, while others measure it by rating the frequency of burnouts, quitting or
getting fired (Forero, et. al., 2009; Judge, et.al., 2002; Judge, et. al., 1999; Sanders, 2003; Zellars, et. al., 2000).
Furthermore, many researchers studied job performance based on three criteria: supervisory ratings, academy
training performance and job retention (Sanders, 2003). Additionally, the Ohio Law Enforcement Foundation
introduced 12 criteria to define how policemen perform at work, related to team orientation, motivation,
interpersonal and organizational skills and self-control (Sanders, 2003). Notwithstanding, several difficulties
are still met for composing a universally accepted definition. First, academy training may be different from the
actual job performance during duty and job retention is found not to be a criterion that predicts an effective-at-
work police officer. Also, supervisory ratings can be biased by demographic factors such as age, gender and
race and, therefore, do not seem valid (Abrahamsen, 2006; Sanders, 2003).
Various psychological tests were introduced and used to measure police officers’ job performance in
order to achieve the best fit between employees and the organization (Harmanci, Caliskan, &Baycan, 2014;
Sanders, 2003; Simmers, Bowers & Ruiz, 2003). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XV the most widely used test when it comes to police personnel selection, to identify psychopathology which, in
turn, might affect job performance (Simmers, et. al., 2003). The Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI) was
designed for public security and law enforcement personnel, especially for police applicants and research found
that IPI could better predict police officers’ job performance in terms of career success, recommendations,
absenteeism and grievances (Sanders, 2003;Simmers, et. al., 2003). In addition, Hogan &Kurtines (1975) found
that the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) provided significant evidence regarding personality and
effective job performance and stated that there are indicators of good and poor performance (Twersky-Glasner,
2005). Specifically, it was found that successful police officers, compared to unsuccessful ones, were more
dominant and independent, had more self-esteem, were more functional intelligent and were more sociable.
Policemen’s duty is, first of all, to execute their authority and to protect the community and thus, coping
with difficulties, stress management, communication skills, adaptation and personal achievement are among the
elements that characterize job performance (Simmers, et. al., 2003).However, as job satisfaction gained more
and more attention in the industry, researchers started, even from the early 30s’to explore its relationship with
performance. So far, a number of theory-driven models attempted to explain the nature of the relationship, with
the oldest one addressing the causal effect of satisfaction to job performance (Judge, et. al., 2001). Based on the
theory of social psychology that attitudes produce behavior, Strauss (1968) and Fishbein (1973) indicated that
employees’ are engaged to a certain working behavior which depends on personal attitudes. As a result positive
or negative attitudes for job cause positive or negative performance, respectively that reflect to levels of
productivity (Judge, et. al., 2001). Following this model, studies on the policing job confirmed this relationship
by setting satisfaction as a requirement of a successful performance at work and stated that the more satisfied
policemen are, the better they respond to the demands of the job and the more loyal to their workplace and its
responsibilities are (Bakotic, 2016; Chan, Gee, & Steiner, 2000; Judge, et. al., 2001; Garbarino, et. al., 2014;
Khizar, et. al., 2016; Landy, 1989; Lim, 2008; Miller, et. al., 2009). In contrast to this model, Olson and Zanna
(1993) proposed an expectancy-based one that determines an opposite link. That is, job satisfaction stems from
job performance and they specifically argued that employees are more satisfied when they get positive feedback
and rewards followed by good performance. Furthermore, several studies suggested a mutual relationship
between satisfaction and job performance, although its power remains vague as there are still no clear inference
on how this reciprocal relationship works (Judge, et. al., 2001; Keller, 1977; Schwab & Cummings, 1970).
However, other researchers,such as Brayfield& Crockett (1955) who published one of the most important
reviews regarding this relationship including behavioral outcomes, reported no correlation between these
variables (Bakotic, 2016, Daily & Near, 2000; Mohr & Puck, 2007). To this, Cohen & Cohen (1983) added that
the reason behind this zero relationship is because of the mediation of a third variable. Such variables were role
ambiguity, self-esteem, and decision-making but salary was the most important determinant, as it was found
that if employees are getting paid, then they are satisfied and this works as a motivation for them to perform
better (Abdel-Halim, 1983; Judge, et. al., 2001; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XVI Concluding, there is no doubt that the influence of job satisfaction on performance is crucial because it
affects not only the police officer in individual level, but the overall functioning of the police organization. For
example, policemen who are not that satisfied with their job report higher levels of medical problems, such as
heart disease, mental health problems, like anxiety and suicidality and other functioning difficulties like
turnover, absenteeism and burnout. Finally, it is observed that dissatisfied policemen have higher divorce rates
compared to the general population (Axelberd & Valle, 1979; Miller, et. al., 2009). Therefore, it is very
important for police organizations to meet their employees’ needs and expectations so that dysfunctional
behavior can be diminished (Miller, et. al., 2009).
7. Personality Traits and Police Job Performance
To date, a significant number of studies have addressed the importance of personality characteristics as
strong predictors of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Costa & Kay, 1995; Forero, et. al., 2009;
Gudjonsson & Adlam, 1983; Judge, et. al., 1999; Salgado, 2002; Salgado, 1998; Salgado, 1997; Zellars, et. al.,
2000). Organizational psychologists have studied if and how personality can affect work performance and
many managers, in turn, take into account those studies to select a highly skilled personnel (Barrick & Mount,
2005; Harmanci, et. al., 2014). Personality assessment is more and more used for the law enforcement
personnel, and especially, for police officers as it serves two goals, first, to pinpoint skilled individuals to
becoming future policemen and, secondly, to identify which personality characteristics are related to career
success or poor job performance (Detrick, Chibnall, & Luebbert, 2004; Harmanci, et. al., 2014).
As empirical literature states, personality is found to be essential because it can predict the way police
officers respond to the demands of the job (Khizar, Orcullo, & Mustafa, 2016). Specifically, certain personality
characteristics reveal police work performance (Sanders, 2008). For example, aggressive, organized, goal-
oriented, tough minded and reliable police officers usually respond well at work whereas low achievers and
careless officers show poor job performance (Sanders, 2008; Wagner, et. al., 2009). The Big Five Taxonomy
has been used in this occupational field as a framework to assess police officers’ personality in relation to job
performance (Abrahamsen, 2006; Barrick & Mount, 2005). According to Tett, et. al., (1991) and Salgado
(2002), all domains of the Taxonomy are possible to predict job performance. However, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion and Neuroticism are the traits most measured in police personality research (Barrick & Mount,
2005; Burbeck & Furnham, 1984; Costa & Kay, 1995; Forero, et. al., 2009; Garbarino, et. al., 2014;
Gudjonsson & Adlam, 1983; Judge, et. al., 1999; Salgado, 2002; Sanders, 2008).
Police job is very demanding and requires specific personality characteristics to struggle with the
demands of the job. According to research, Conscientiousness is the most significant personality trait that
predicts job performance (Salgado, 1998; Sanders, 2008). This is because conscientious police officers are very
careful and organized at their work place (Sanders, 2008). They are highly motivated and, therefore, more
productive because they work hard to achieve their goals following the rules of the job (Barrick & Mount,
2005; Salgado, 2002; Sanders, 2008). Another characteristic is that they are easily adaptive and cope with any
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XVII difficulties that may occur while they are on duty as they can successfully solve problems (Barrick & Mount,
2005; Sanders, 2008). Add to that, Burke, et. al., (2006), identified in police personality another trait associated
with conscientiousness, “internal locus of control” which is related to ability of coping, managing stress and,
thus, better job performance. Furthermore, conscientiousness is a valid predictor of counterproductive
behaviors, such as burnout, absenteeism and turnover and it confirms that police officers adopt effective coping
strategies to avoid stress and other negative effects of work load (Detrick, et. al., 2004; Salgado, 2002).
Additionally, conscientiousness domain is also associated with success and promotions, as well as higher
salaries (Sanders, 2008). On the other hand, police officers with low scores in conscientiousness usually show
signs of careless and irresponsible behavior, they are lazy and not goal-oriented (Barrick & Mount, 2005).
The validity of Extraversion in relation to police job performance has been proved in many studies
(Barrick & Mount, 2005; Bishop, et. al., 2001; Burke, et. al., 2006; Detrick, et. al., 2004; Sanders, 2008).
Burbeck & Furnham (1984) found in their research that successful police officers in Britain scored high in
Extraversion compared to the normative population. In general, Extraversion is associated with sociability
which, also, consists one of the demands of the job, meaning that extravert police officers can deal effectively
with civilians and, as dominants, enforce the law when necessary (Judge, et. al., 1999). In addition, because of
their active and assertive nature when handling challenging tasks and situations, Extraversion is also related to
high rates of personal accomplishments and leadership positions in the law enforcement field (Judge, et. al.,
2002; Judge, et. al., 1999). Also, because of their rich communication skills they cooperate better with
supervisors and coworkers (Zellars, et. al., 2000). Police officers high in extraversion are, also, more
pessimistic and, therefore, they fling themselves into activities that reduce stress and emotional strain (Zellars,
et. al., 2000). In contrast, introvert police officers serve poorly at work and face more difficulties because they
are dysphoric and shy and do not take easily initiative (Judge, et. al., 1999).
According to Costa & McCrae (1988), Neuroticism is the most prominent domain, as it is related to
emotional stability and appears in almost every personality measure. Garbarino, et. al., (2014) found in their
study that police officers with high levels of Neuroticism suffer from stress and anxiety and, therefore, they
exhibit low levels of work control. In addition, they do not have the calmness to confront demanding and
dangerous incidents as their stress is being increased (Garbarino, et. al., 2014). Hence, they cannot cooperate
effectively with other colleagues because they usually choose to keep a distance from difficult situations that
might occur at work (Garbarino, et. al., 2014; Sanders, 2008). They are, also, influenced by negative events as
they adopt avoidance coping styles and, as a result, they often experience burnouts and even inappropriate
behavior, such as substance abuse (Bishop, et. al., 2001; Detrick, et. al., 2004; Garbarino, et. al., 2014;
Twersky-Glasner, 2005). Furthermore, research reveals that police officers with high scores in Neuroticism are
less successful and less satisfied with their job for the reason that they perceive the work environment as
dangerous, threatening and stressful, making them feel vulnerable (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Burbeck &
Furnham, 1984; Garbarino, et. al., 2014).
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XVIII Agreeableness and Openness to Experience are important predictors of performance, too, especially for
jobs that require team work and cooperation (Barrick & Mount, 2005). Interpersonal interaction is what
characterizes police work and, thus, agreeable police officers meet the expectations of the job as “good team
players” (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Sanders, 2008). Agreeable employees are intelligent and tough-minded,
trustworthy and willing to help others to a great extent and, for this reason, they have many possibilities to have
a successful career (Burbeck & Furnham, 1984; Judge, et. al., 1999; Zellars, et. al., 2000). However, some
studies argue that because agreeable workers are not so ruthless to defend themselves when needed (Sanders,
2008). Finally, this domain of personality is also associated with positive coping mechanisms (Detrick, et. al.,
2004). Similarly, Openness to Experience is related to adaptation at work place and because policemen work in
an environment that constantly changes, high scores in this element is essential. Nevertheless, Black (2000)
found that these two elements of the Big Five are not significantly associated with job performance and
Neuroticism not associated at all.
The job of policing is demanding because police officers are frequently exposed to traumatic and
stressful events that have an impact not only on their mental and physical health but, also, on the way they
perform at work place (Andersen, Papazoglou, Nyman, Koskelainen, & Gustafsberg, 2015; Lee, et. al., 2016).
However, not all policemen react the same and this depends to a certain degree on how resilient the individual
is (Andersen, et. al., 2015; Goerling, 2012; Lee, et. al., 2016). Resilient officers are able to cope with
difficulties when they are exposed to stressors and overcome adversities to provide effectively their services
(Goerling, 2012; Lee, et. al., 2016). However, despite that policemen are, in general, more resilient than
employees in other occupational fields, there are officers whose job performance is affected by the absence of
the trait of resilience (Andersen, et. al., 2015). For example, non-resilient individuals experience high levels of
stress and this, in turn, causes a number of negative consequences, such as respiratory difficulties, sensory and
auditory problems and limited ability of driving, all these important skills required for policing (Andersen, et.
al., 2015; Lee, et. al., 2016). Also, studies demonstrated that, as a result, absenteeism and sick days are being
increased (Andersen, et. al., 2015).
Cynicism was described by Graves (1996) as another personality feature that is counterproductive and
harmful when identified at police officers’ personality and it is defined as disbelief against human nature. He
propounded this trait by stating that it emerges from stress and the difficulties of the job and, therefore, it is
evident in large and busy police departments, meaning that it causes negative effects not only to officers
individually but, also, to the departments as a whole, as it may bring corruption and misconduct. Despite that
cynicism is an undesirable trait, Nieferhoffer (1967) proposed that it is often meet in police officers and it is
being increased in relation to the years of service reflecting to unproductive job performance.
Furthermore, the concept of intelligence, both cognitive and emotional, has received great attention in
the fields of industrial and organizational psychology and its relationship with personality traits and job
performance has been widely examined (Ebrahim, Garner, & Magadley, 2012; Furnham, 2008; Moon & Hur,
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XIX 2011; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011). Cognitive intelligence refers to all those abilities
that individuals have and make them capable of performing tasks based on knowledge and experience and it is
positively concerned an essential part of a successful job performance (Cote & Miners, 2006).
Notwithstanding the importance of cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence is surmised the one
mostly associated with general job performance and more specifically in the police organization (Ebrahim, et.
al., 2012; Kumarasamy, Pangil, & Isa, 2016; Lokesh, Patra, &Venkatesan, 2016; O’Boyle, et. al., 2011). The
first definition for emotional intelligence was given by Salovey and Mayer (1990) who described it as the
capacity of recognizing, expressing and regulating own emotions and of others. Although sparse, research
highlighting the usefulness of emotional intelligence has been proved significant in identifying success during
and post training of police officers (Ebrahim, et. al., 2012). Because the nature of the job requires human
contact, either with citizens or colleagues, it is essential for policemen to communicate effectively and to
establish good relationships in teams and outside the police organization (Ebrahim, et. al., 2012). This can be
achieved by highly emotionally intelligent police officers who are able to identify behaviors and emotions and
to know how to behave in any given circumstance, for example when confronting aggressive individuals
(Ebrahim, et. al., 2012). Moreover, individuals high in emotional intelligence are more adaptive to work place
and can cope better with job difficulties and stress, resulting in less chances of experiencing burn out and, thus,
having low levels of job performance (Kumarasamy, et. al., 2016; Moon &Hur, 2011).
As an additional part of emotional intelligence, empathy is supported by growing evidence as a strong
predictor of performance in policing job (Ebrahim, et. al., 2012). Police officers need to be aware of feelings
expressed by other people and their needs so that to respond appropriately. For instance, police job involves
cooperation with witnesses or victims and their families, so it is critical for policemen to help them by
encouraging and making them feel comfortable (Ebrahim, et. al., 2012). Policemen who show high levels of
empathy not only provide satisfying services but they also contribute with success in the general functioning of
police departments.
8. Personality Stability and The Importance of Training
Many personality theorists have supported that personality traits remain stable over time and argued that
only small and predictable changes can occur because of maturity or characteristic adaptations (McCrae &
Costa, 1999; Wilks, 2009). Studies on temperament provided enough evidence regarding stability of personality
(Caspi, et. al., 2003; Lewis, 2001; McCrae, et. al., 2000). Specifically, research on adolescents revealed that
personality patterns that are developed at an early age, they continue to exist in an older age and concluded
upon personality’s consistency across the life span (Caspi, et. al., 2003; Lewis, 2001; Wilks, 2009). However,
the stability of personality traits remains a conflicting issue as additional exploration of each trait separately in
every individual claimed an extent of changes (Mroczek & Spiro, 2003; Scollon & Diener, 2006; Wilks, 2009).
Considerable changes were observed mostly in the traits of Extraversion and Neuroticism of the Big Five
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XX personality factors while in other personality models characteristics such as outgoingness and assertiveness
were significantly modified (Scollon & Diener, 2006; Wilks, 2009).
Furthermore, a study on working adults revealed that their personality characteristics remained stable,
although slight changes were established in a three-year period, with female employees being less extraverted
and conscientious but more open to experiences and male employees being less emotionally stable (Cobb-Clark
& Schurer, 2011). In respect to law enforcement personnel, undoubtedly, personality characteristics are of
utmost importance in selecting future police officers who will be able to meet the expectations of the job.
Despite the gap, some researchers have studied the relationship between training before entering the police unit
and job performance during employment and addressed its importance for the maintenance of personality
characteristics (Caro, 2011). While vocational training is essential to succeed in workplace, mental health
strengthening through training is also needed. Indeed, training in police academies can foster pre-existing
personality traits in candidates that can predict satisfaction and thus job performance. This means that the better
training of police officers is, the more the chances of having satisfied and productive future employees (White,
1972). There is a variety of training programs applied in police unit and they all have a common function,
which is to prepare new police candidates by qualifying them with the necessary educational, physical and
mental skills to further perform according to the requirements and deal with law enforcement’s demands and to
further prevent the negative effects that stress factors cause, such as burnout, absenteeism and general mental
health disturbances (Caro, 2011; Meadows, 1985). Hardiness and, as previously mentioned, resilience are found
to significantly contribute to police officers’ personal life and career. To date, many programs have been
developed in policing training to foster those personality characteristics associated to psychological resilience
and hardiness and to offer stress management techniques, which are vital for police officers to overcome the
difficulties of the job, such as traumatic events (van der Meulen, Bosmans, Lens, Lahlah, & van der Velden,
2017).
9. Job satisfaction and Gender Differences among Police Officers
Since decades, law enforcement positions, and especially the policing job, have been surrounded by the
stereotypical beliefs of male domination in the profession (Bell, 1982; Berg & Budnick, 1986; Garcia, 2003;
Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Male police officers were portrayed as robust, easily adapted to rules and hierarchy
and could use force easier when needed, but due to the prevailing perception that only healthy, physically
strong and aggressive men could be employed as police officers, women were not encouraged to enter the
profession because they lacked basic qualifications and their perceived social role was that of the mother and
housewife (Garcia, 2003; Worden, 1993). It is still believed that women are physically and emotionally fragile,
compassionate and irrational and thus they can’t meet the expectations of the job and perform as male police
officers would (Garcia, 2003). Despite the social expectations, some women chose this job, but even when they
gained their Rights on equal employment in the 1960s and became more involved in “masculine” occupations,
their number was still lower than men in police departments (Archbold & Moses Schultz, 2012; Gould &
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXI Volbrecht, 1999). However, this involvement raised questions about any differences between the two genders
regarding their job performance (Archbold & Moses Schultz, 2012). Officially, women joined police
departments in the 1900s with the duty of taking care of children and women in custody or taking part in spy
investigations, differentiating them from men in terms of the kind of service they provided (Archbold & Moses
Schultz, 2012; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Female police officers were expected to be educated and experienced
in social work, as well as pleasant, emotionally stable and sensitive enough to deal with female issues, such as
female victims (Bell, 1982; Garcia, 2003; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999).
Later on, as the presence of women officers in police departments became more obvious, researchers
attempted to examine their perceptions for overall job satisfaction as their role within police departments started
to evolve and policewomen had more duties and powers much like male officers, for example making arrests
(Archbold & Moses Schultz, 2012; Garcia, 2003; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Surprisingly, satisfaction levels
do not seem to differ as several studies revealed no significant differences among the two genders while on the
other hand, others found women to be less satisfied (Bennett, 1997; Johnson, 2012, Miller, et. al., 2009; Zhao,
et. al., 1999). This variance in findings can be explained by the dominance of men in police departments and
the assumptions that women officers do not execute the same tasks as successfully as their male counterparts do
(Garcia, 2003; Hodson, 1989; Johnson, 2012).
So far mentioned, literature pointed out the impact that satisfaction has on job performance. What was also
investigated was that personality characteristics that predict job satisfaction can also predict performance at
work (Archbold & Moses-Schultz, 2012; Carpenter & Roza, 1987; Garcia, 2003; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999).
Specifically, traits like aggressiveness and competitiveness among police officers lead to a successful job
performance (Garcia, 2003). Interestingly though, researchers found no differences among male and female
police officers, concluding that they both police in a similar way (Archbold & Moses Schultz, 2012; Balkin,
1988; Bell, 1982; Garcia, 2003; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). In their study, Carpenter & Roza (1987) suggested
that policemen and policewomen where identical in terms of emotional maturity, effectiveness, assertiveness
and positive attitudes. Likewise, other studies described women police officers as energetic, gregarious and
independent as men (Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Additionally, and in contrast to what was expected by social
stereotypes, both genders showed the same levels of empathy when investigating incidents of sexual violence
(Archbold & Moses-Schultz, 2012).
Nevertheless, research identified a variation between male and female police officers regarding personality
traits (Archbold & Moses Schultz, 2012; Garcia, 2003; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Compared to male police
officers, policewomen were found to have higher levels of energy, patience and tolerance as they are less
authoritarian (Garcia, 2003). Furthermore, female officers expressed better communication skills when
dissolving disputes than using force (Archbold & Moses Schultz, 2012; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). On the
other hand, male officers had lower rates in turnover and feelings of depression and higher rates in social
conformity (Garcia, 2003).
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXII Method
The aim of the present study is to prove that Dutch police officers exhibit specific personality
characteristics, such as high levels on extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience
which predict high levels on job satisfaction and performance, and low levelson neuroticism which predict low
levels on job satisfaction and performance, as well. Also, no differences among male and female officers are
expected to be found regarding personality traits and job satisfaction levels.
For the purpose of the current study, the data used were obtained from a longitudinal study conducted by
the LISS (Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social sciences) panel, administered by CentERdata (Tilburg
University, The Netherlands). The LISS panel is a representative sample of Dutch individuals who participate
in monthly Internet surveys. The panel is based on a true probability sample of households drawn from the
population register. Households that could not otherwise participate are provided with a computer and Internet
connection. A longitudinal survey is fielded in the panel every year, covering a large variety of domains
including work, education, income, housing, time use, political views, values and personality.The study was
consisted of nine waves,meaning nine years of duration, from 2008 to 2017. However, for the current analysis
data were used only from the 7th and 9th wave, for the years of 2014 and 2017 and included only the
measurements of personality and job satisfaction. The data collection periods were from 3/11/2014 to
31/12/2014 and from 1/5/2017 to 26/5/2017.The reason for choosing the data of this survey is because, to my
knowledge, there is no other recent study that examined the relationship of personality and job satisfaction that
includes a Dutch population.
1. Participants
In 2014 and 2017, 6,561 Dutch participants, both male and female, took part in the survey of the LISS
panel and were the same in both years. In the current study the data used wereonly from participants belonging
to the occupational group of Public Order and Safety (police, army, fire brigade, etc.) numbering 98 out of the
total number of participants and they had to be 16 and older.
2. Measurements
For the needs of the current study, the data were collected from two standardized questionnaires that
were administered to the participants in three different points in time, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The first
questionnaire was the 50-item Big Five Markers version of the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP),
which was developed to measure the Big Five personality domains (Goldberg, 1992). For the measurement of
every of the five personality factors as the independent variable (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional
Stability, Intellect or Imagination and Conscientiousness) correspond ten Likert response scale questions
distributed throughout the questionnaire ranging from 1(very inaccurate) to 5(very accurate). However, for the
interpretation of results, emotional stability will be referred as Neuroticism and Intellect as Openness to
experience. Also, for the purpose of scoring, negative items of the subscales were reversed with 1 being “very
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXIII inaccurate”, 2 “moderately inaccurate”, 3 “neither inaccurate nor accurate”, 4 “moderately accurate” and 5
“very accurate”. The items of the test were standardized and summed together and had a Cronhach’s alpha
reliability coefficient of .88. The Cronhach’s alpha reliability coefficient for each subscale was the following:
Extraversion (α=.87), Agreeableness (α=.82), conscientiousness (α=.79), Neuroticism (α=.86) and Openness to
experience (α=.84).
The second questionnaire was designed to measure overall job satisfaction and satisfaction regarding
working conditions and was based on fourteen (14) survey items related to satisfaction with working
conditions, such as working hours, environment and salary and overall job satisfaction. Eight (8) of the survey
items were answered with Likert response scales ranging from 1 (disagree entirely) to 4 (agree entirely) and six
(6) items with Likert response scales ranging from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (fully satisfied). Additionally,
there were included two (2) open-ended questions to obtain demographic information regarding the
respondents’ gender and age.
3. Statistical Analysis
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) v. 23 was used for testing the hypotheses and the level of
statistical significance was set at p< .05.Measures of demographic characteristics of public order and safety
personnel for gender (1=male, 2=female) were also included in this analysis. Descriptive statistics was
performed to explore personality characteristics among male and female police officers. Independent sample t-
tests were conducted to test gender’s association with satisfaction in the workplace and to identify any potential
differences. Then, a Pearsonproduct-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship
between the five personality factors and job satisfaction among participants. The data obtained from the years
of 2014 and 2017 and were compared to investigate the reliability of the current study.
4. Results
When the questionnaires were administered for the first time in 2014, 88 out of 98 public order and safety
personnel were male (89.8%) and ten (10) were female (10%). Participants were on average 68 years old
(M=56.16, SD=16.83) and ages ranged from 17 to 85 years.
Year of 2014
Results from the means of participants’ responses in 2014 regarding personality characteristics, showed
that individuals working in the field of public order and safety scored quite high on Extraversion (M=31.42,
SD=2.35),Openness to Experience (M=31.27, SD=2.93), Agreeableness (M=29.90, SD=2.64)
andConscientiousness (M=24.75, SD=4.56), but scored lower on Neuroticism (M=19.61, SD=2.91). Scores
ranged from 16 to 38. Results from the independent samples t-test revealed slight but not significant differences
were found between the two genders and personality (p> .05), with females scoring to a certain extent higher
than males on Conscientiousness (M=31.30, SD=4.02), Agreeableness (M=32.00, SD=3.19), Openness to
experience (M=32.50, SD=3.59) and Neuroticism (M=25.90, SD=3.69) and males scoring somewhat higher on
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXIV Extraversion (M=31.47, SD=2.42). Regarding the relationship between gender and job satisfaction, no
statistically significant differences were observed, t(46)=.74, p=.46, however, men found to be slightly more
satisfied with their job (M=3.23, SD=.60) than women (M=3.00, SD=0.00). As for the association between
personality traits and job satisfaction,there was a weak negative correlation between Neuroticism and job
satisfaction (r= -.286, n=58, p= -.030), meaning that increases in Neuroticism were correlated with decreases in
job satisfaction. Also, a significant regression equation was found for Neuroticism and job satisfaction
(F(1,56)=4.980, p< .05), with an R2 of .065.However, no significant correlation was found between the rest of
personality traits and job satisfaction.
Year of 2017
Despite that female participants scored higher than men in Agreeableness (M=31.38, SD=3.06),
Conscientiousness (M=29.75, SD=2.91), Extraversion (M=31.63, SD=2.32), Neuroticism (M=27.13, SD=4.08)
and Openness to Experience (M=28.75, SD=2.91), no significant differences were found (p> .05). As the
results demonstrated from testing the hypothesis that gender is associated with satisfaction in the workplace,
there was no significant differences were found in the scores of job satisfaction between males (M=3.29, SD=
.55) and females (M=3.00, SD= .00), t(48)= .72, p= .47. Also, no significant correlation was found (p> .01) in
the assessment of the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and job satisfaction among 98 public
order and safety personnel.
Discussion
So far,extended research on industrial and organizational psychology has demonstrated that police
officers’ personality is strongly associated with job satisfaction, with the latter affecting performance in the
place of work (Bakotic, 2016; Chan, Gee, & Steiner, 2000; Judge, et. al., 2001; Khizar, 2008; Landy, 1989;
Miller, et. al., 2009). According to the literature, exhibit certain personality characteristics which are related to
high or low levels of job satisfaction and performance. The aim of the current study was to explore personality
patterns among Dutch police officers, the relationship with job satisfaction and to test whether there are any
gender differences regarding these variables.
To start with the investigation of the demographic variable of gender, interpretation of the results led to
the confirmation of previous research that there is a significant supremacy of males in public order and safety
occupations indicating that the job of policing is a masculine profession (Berg & Budnick, 1986; Carpenter &
Raza, 1987; Dantzker & Kubin, 1998; Garcia, 2003; Gayre, 1996; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Indeed, the
limited number of women compared to men in the police force throughout the years concerned researchers who
tried to justify this discrepancy. Since decades, social norms shaped the stereotypical consensus that policing
job is dangerous and violent and, therefore, the caring and sensitive nature of women do not fit to the job
(Dantzker & Kubin, 1998; Garcia, 2003). Police recruiters have been looking for certain characteristics in
candidates, such as robustness, aggressiveness, bravery and brutality which are met more often in men and
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXV made women, who are emotional and fragile, to abstain from the job (Bell, 1982; Charles, 1981; Garcia, 2003;
Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). Furthermore, Garcia (2003) postulated that women experience higher rates of
turnover, thus, they are not selected in the recruitment process are frequently as men and that the difficulties
they face in the socialization process, compared to men, can explain why they keep themselves away from
integrating into this job or leave while on training.
Even when women started to enter police departments, they received criticism from male counterparts
about the way they perform at work, changing women’s perception about the policing job and their satisfaction
(Dantzker & Kubin, 1998; Garcia, 2003). Indeed, some researchers reported a discrepancy among men and
women police officers, with the latter being less satisfied than men, because of the difference in personal
expectations they have or because they do not have the same evaluation standards (Dantzker & Kubin, 1998;
Hertzberg, Mausner, Peterson & Capwell, 1957; Hodson, 1989). On the other hand, other studies found that
women exhibit greater satisfaction levels when compares to male counterparts (Lunneburg, 1989; Weisheit,
1987). However, the current study found no significant differences between the two genders with respect to
satisfaction. According to the literature, men and women in police force are similarly satisfied with their job
and, thus, gender cannot be an explanatory factor if any little difference occurs in satisfaction levels (Archbold
& Schulz, 2012; Dantzker & Kubin, 1998; Fry & Greensfield, 1980; Miller, et. al., 2009; Singer & Love, 1988;
Worden, 1993; Zhao, et. al., 1999).
One of the hypotheses of this study was to explore the personality of police personnel and its
homogeneity. So far, literature on the emergency and law enforcement occupations stated that, because of the
nature of the job, it is important for employees to have certain traits that will help them to go through the
conflicting struggles they have to fulfill. The results of the current research replicated the discoveries of
previous studies which indicated that police officers share common personality characteristics (Abrahamsen,
2006; Garbarino, et. al., 2012; Gudjonsson & Adlam, 1983; Sanders, 2003; Wagner, et. al., 2009). To date,
numerous conceptualizations have been emerged to portray the police personality (Gudjonsson & Adlam, 1983;
Hogan, 1971; Mills & Bohannon, 1980; Sanders, 2003; Trojanowicz, 1971; Twersky-Glasner, 2005; Wagner,
et. al., 2009). However, this research focused on the concept of Costa & McCrae’s (1988) Big Five Personality
domains. According to Barrick & Mount (1991), police officers exhibit high levels in four of the Big Five
personality factors, these are Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, Extraversion and Agreeableness but
have lower levels on Neuroticism. Moreover, Fenster & Locke (1973) and Gudjonsson & Adlam (1983) also
reported low levels on Neuroticism for police personnel, which was confirmed in this study, too.
Additionally, the present results are in accordance to Sanders (2003) who also addressed the
homogeneity of the law enforcement personnel. She noted that police officers are generally intelligent, honest
and reliable, they have good interpersonal skills, and they are calm but also reasonably aggressive only when a
situation demands it. Similarly, the current study identified these traits through the Big Five personality
domains and agreed upon the homogeneity of public order and safety occupations. Although most of the
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXVI literature rejects the diversity in police personality, Carpenter and Roza (1987) highlighted some differences,
especially between genders. More specifically, they found that female police officers are more extrovert,
cheerful and assertive whereas male police officers were described as more socially interactive and less
depressed. Indeed, the current analysis found slight differences in personality traits among the two genders, but
not significant enough to underpin Carpenter’s and Roza’s (1987) findings, indicating that male and female in
such occupations share more or less similar characteristics. The homogeneity between male and female police
officers can be well explained by the phenomenon of “defeminization”, which means that women exhibit the
“desired” personality characteristics that the policing job demands (Archbold & Schultz, 2012; Berg &
Budnick, 1986; Gould & Volbrecht, 1999). This perspective is also viewed by Martin & Jurik (1999), who
talked about the “doing gender” concept, meaning that policewomen hide their feminine nature (Garcia,
2003).Finally, a comparison of participants’ results on the personality test in 2014 and 2016 revealed no
differences in responses, indicating the stability and consistency of personality traits over time (McCrae &
Costa, 1994). On the contrary, there is literature that supports the view that specific personality dimensions
might change across the life span (Cobb-Clark & Schurer, 2012; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000).
Another hypothesis of this study was that personality traits were strong predictors of job satisfaction, as
they affect the way individuals view their job. It is well documented in previous studies that Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are related to job satisfaction (Judge, et. al., 2002; Khizar,
et. al., 2016; Tokar, Fischer & Subich, 1998; Tziner, et. al., 2008). In this study, it was expected that the
relationship between extraversion, conscientiousness and job satisfaction would be displayed, and despite that
participants in general were found to experience positive emotions related to the aforementioned traits, no
significant association was proved. Unsurprisingly though, a negative correlation was confirmed between
Neuroticism and satisfaction, meaning that when the one variable increases, the other one decreases and vice
versa. Specifically, as the results of the current research revealed, public order and safety personnel showed low
levels on Neuroticism and high levels of job satisfaction, supporting as well the evidence in Khizar’s et. al.,
(2016) study. This indicates that police officers do not experience negative emotions so often and therefore,
they express more satisfaction in the place of work. Additionally, findings of this study are consistent with the
research of Judge, et. al., (2002) that revealed no association between the facet of openness to experience and
job satisfaction. This is because individuals with high levels on openness to experience are usually artistic,
creative and more liberal and these characteristics are not found to be related to job satisfaction (DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998; Judge, et. al., 2002; Khizar, et. al., 2016; Tziner, et. al., 2008).
Affectively, personality characteristics that influence job satisfaction may also affect job performance
(Dantzker, 1994). For example, research has noted that individuals high on extraversion and conscientiousness
who are, also, emotionally more stable, perform better at work and show more commitment because they are
more satisfied with working conditions (Judge, et. al., 2002; Miller, et. al., 2009; Tziner, et. al., 2008). On the
other hand, job dissatisfaction may result in counterproductive behavior at work, such as absenteeism and
turnover, anxiety and other related mental health problems (Judge, et. al., 1999; Miller, et. al., 2009; Tziner, et.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXVII al., 2008). Consequently, based on literature and the findings reported above, it can be assumed that public
order and safety personnel will perform better at work because they exhibit more positive perceptions of their
work, however, further investigation is still needed.
Limitations of the study
Although the study was carefully prepared, shortcomings were met and, therefore, need to be addressed.
To start with and regarding the nature and the composition of the sample, the occupational group that was used
for the purpose of the research was too broad and not particularly defined, as it included different categories of
public order and safety, such as the police, the army and fire brigade, leading to the conclusion that the results
are applicable not exclusively to police officers. Additionally, the sample size was not large (98 participants)
and the percentages of male and female were not equal with male outnumbering female participants, therefore,
there was difficulty in finding significant relationships from the data and the results could not be generalized
and be representative of the rest of the population. Moreover, inconsistency and incomplete responses from
participants led to a lot of missing information and as a result, the reliability of the questionnaires was limited,
consisting the main reason for having results just for the years of 2014 and 2017, even though the survey was
replicated in other years, as well.
Also, although the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is proved by previous
research, conclusions would be more accurate if in the current study there was also a scale to measure job
related policing skills, for instance, by means of evaluations from supervisors, to test in practice this
relationship. In addition, the validity of psychological tests for predicting job performance has been an issue of
controversy between scientists and, therefore, this may consist one of the reasons why this study did not have
significant results (Sanders, 2003). Furthermore, the broad construct and the multidimensionality of the
definitions of job performance and job satisfaction may have led participants to have different perceptions that
may confused them while answering the questionnaires. Moreover, self-reported data were possible to include
biased responses as respondents may not have subjective beliefs about themselves, they may exaggerated or
wanted to conceal their thoughts. Another important factor that may influenced the consistency of the results is
that there may was a gendered discrepancy in tasks, as sometimes, males in police units perform different tasks
than females and consequently there are different perceptions about performance and satisfaction. For example,
patrol officers are mostly males and most female police officers usually deal with administrative issues of the
unit. Finally, despite that literature suggests the existence of specific characteristics among police officers, the
uniqueness of police personality could not be tested in the current study, as there was no general population as a
normative sample to compare with.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXVIII Conclusion
Although the relationship of personality and job satisfaction is widely measured within several
occupational groups, its importance for the job of policing is being underestimated. For this reason, the current
study aimed to add to the growing corpus of research so far. By using Dutch participants working in public
order and safety occupations, the hypothesis that the Big Five personality dimensions are strong predictors of
job satisfaction was tested. While so far each of the personality traits was tested separately, this study explored
the linkage of job satisfaction to a more complete taxonomy. In summary, findings of the current paper from the
years of 2014 and 2017 are consistent with previous research that supports the relationship between the domain
of Neuroticism and job satisfaction, but no other association was found with the rest of the five traits.
Moreover, similarities in the results of both years provide additional information about the stability and
consistency of personality characteristics. However, regardless of not meeting all of the expected results, this
study casts a light on the discipline of industrial and organizational psychology. The main conclusion that can
be drawn is that, although not significantly proved, personality plays a noteworthy role in the functioning of
public order and safety organizations, such as the police, fire brigade, nurses, etc. Because of the demanding
nature of the job, having employees that are characterized by specific characteristics, such as extraversion or
emotional stability may lead to the “desired” level of productivity of the organization because there are more
possibilities for them to feel satisfied. Of course, a commensurate working environment that increases
satisfaction and promotes organizational commitment is also needed. This, in turn, will be beneficial for the
general community, as security and order will prevail. In addition, satisfaction within the organizations is
important for the public’s perceptions about the functioning of law enforcement organizations. Nonetheless, the
tripartite relationship between personality, satisfaction and job performance needs to be further explored.
Hence, the multidimensional and diverse concepts of satisfaction and performance still remain broad indicating
that there is a long way to arrive at any ultimate conclusions.
Implications for future research
Despite its limitations, this paper can be the basis for a more complete research in the future. Although
the present study provides an insight to the interaction of personality characteristics with job satisfaction and
performance, primary research is needed to fruitfully explore and extend the understanding of their causal
relationship by considering the limitations of the study. First of all, similar studies would be more beneficial to
the literature if replicated with a larger and more diverse sample to identify any differences between police
departments and across different cultures, so that the subjects of personality, job satisfaction and performance
could be explored from a racial and geographic perspective. Also, further research could be extended and
compared with other emergency populations, for example nurses or firefighters, to investigate the diversity or
the unique nature of the rescue personality. Moreover, by applying another and more robust methodology in
future studies may help to address the research problem more effectively.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXIX Furthermore, as the concept of job performance is still complex, future studies need to look for and take
into account other potential factors, except from personality, that may influence job satisfaction and, therefore,
performance at work. These factors could be psychological, such as mental health conditions, behavioral
implications (attitude) or job characteristics, such as working conditions, level of supervision, productivity
records, salary etc. Additionally, general mental ability should not be underestimated when measuring job
performance as there is literature, although limited, that supports their correlation (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
Besides, since the stability of personality traits over time remains questionable, further research could focus on
shed a light on that. Depending on inferences, specialized programs during and after training could be
developed to reinforce the “desirable” personality characteristics or weakening those that may affect the
functioning of the organization. Moreover, based on expectancy motivational theories, research could continue
by exploring whether job performance predicts satisfaction, meaning that if police officers are performing well
in their workplace, they will, also, report high levels of job satisfaction. Finally, if satisfaction levels between
male and female police officers are similar, other reasons why the number of female police officers still remains
low might prove an important area for further investigation.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXX References
Aamodt, M. G., & Kimbrough, W. W. (1985). Personality Differences Between Police and Fire Applicants. The
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 1, 10-13.
Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Effects of task and personality characteristics on subordinate responses to
participative decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 477-484.
Abrahamsen, S. (2006). Police personality and the relationship between personality and preferences for conflict
resolution tactics. PHSForskning, 2, 1-82.
Adlam, K. R. C. (1982). The Police Personality: Psychological Consequences of Being a Police Officer.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10(3), 344-349.
Allport, G. W, & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1,
Whole No. 211).
Andersen, J. P., Papazoglou, K., Nyman, M., Koskelainen, M., & Gustafsberg, H. (2005). Fostering Resilience
Among the Police. Journal of Law Enforcement, 5(1), 1-14.
Archbold, C. A., & Moses-Schultz, D. (2012). Research on Women Policing: A Look at the Past, Present and
Future. Sociology Compass, 6(9), 694-706.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2002). Editorial: The Puzzle of Personality Types. European Journal of Personality, 16, 1-5.
Axelberd, M., & Valle, J. (1979). South Florida’s approach to police stress management. Police Stress, 1, 13-
14.
Bakotic, D. (2016). Relationship between job satisfaction and organizational performance. Economic research-
EkonomskaIstrazivanja, 29(1), 118-130.
Balkin, J. (1988). Why policemen don’t like policewomen. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16,
29-38.
Bantlitz-Johansen, R. (2013). The impact of military identity on performance in the Norwegian Armed Forces
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bergen, Norway.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, Personality Matters: Moving on to More Important Matters.
Human Performance, 18(4), 359-372.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions and job performance:
Meta-analysis of meta-analyses (Special issue). International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-
30.
Barron, L. G., Carretta, T. R., & Bonto-Kane, M. (2016). Relations of Personality Traits to Military Aviator
Performance. It Depends on the Criterion. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 6(2), 57-
67.
Bartram, D., & Dale, H. C. A. (1982). The Eysenck Personality Inventory as a selection test for military pilots.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 287-296.
Bell, D. J. (1982). Policewomen: Myths and realities. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10, 112-
120.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXXI Bennett, R. R. (1997). Job satisfaction among police constables: A comparative study in three developing
nations. Justice Quarterly, 14, 295−323
Berg, B. L., & Budnick, K. J. (1986). Defeminization of women in law enforcement: A new twist on the
traditional police personality. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14(4), 314-319.
Bishop, G. D., Tong, E. M. W, Diong, S. M., Enkelmann, H. C., Why, Y. P, Khader, M., & Ang, J. C. H.
(2001). The Relationship between Coping and Personality among Police Officers in Singapore. Journal
of Research in Personality, 35, 353-374.
Black, J. (2000). Personality testing and police selection: Utility of the “big five”. New Zealand Journal of
Psychology, 29(1), 1-9.
Boe, O. & Bang, H. (2017). The Big 12: The Most Important Character Strengths for Military Officers. Athens
Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 161-173.
Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9, 8-17.
Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 52, 396-424.
Burbeck, E., & Furnham, A. (1984). Personality and Police Selection: Trait Differences in Successful and Non-
successful Applicants to the Metropolitan Police. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(3), 257-263.
Burke, K. J., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Paton, D., & Ryan, M. (2006). Characterizing the Resilient Officer:
Individual Attributes at Point of entry to Policing. Traumatology, 12(3), 178-188.
Caro, C. A. (2011). Predicting State Police Officer Performance in the Field Training Officer Program: What
Can We Learn from the Cadet’s Performance in the Training Academy?.American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 36, 357-370.
Carpenter, B. N., & Raza, S. M. (1987). Personality Characteristics of Police Applicants: Comparisons Across
Subgroups and with Other Populations. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 10-17.
Caspi, A., Harrington H., Milne, B., Amell, J. W., Theodore, R. F., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Children’s
behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Personality,
71(4), 495-514.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506.
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers-on-Hudson,NY: Worid Book.
Chan, K. C., Gee, M. V., & Steiner, T. L. (2000). Employee happiness and corporate financial performance.
Financial Practice and Education, 10, 47-52.
Charkhabi, M., Hayati, D., &Rouhi, A. (2015). Investigating the Relationship Between Personality Traits and
Job Satisfaction Among Nurses Working in Hospitals Affiliated to Ahvaz Jundishapur University of
Medical Sciences. Modern Care Journal, 12(3), 105-108.
Charles, M. T. (1981). The performance and socialization of female recruits in the Michigan State Police
Training Academy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 9, 209-223.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXXII Coan, R. W. (1974). The optimal personality. New York: Columbia University Press
Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Schurer, S. (2012). The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics Letters, 115(1),
11-15.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conte, J. M., Heffner, T. S., Roesch, S. C., & Aasen, B. (2017). A person-centric investigation of personality
types, job performance, and attrition. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 554-559.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports
and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 853-863.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1978). Objective personality assessment. In M. Storandt, I. C. Siegler, & M.
F. Elias (Eds.). The clinical psychology of aging (pp. 119-143). New York: Plenum Press.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, Places and Personality: Career Assessment Using
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2), 123-139.
Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional Intelligence, Cognitive Intelligence, and Job Performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1-28.
Cuttler, M., &Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Prediction of Law Enforcement Training Performance and
Dysfunctional Job Performance with General Mental Ability, Personality, and Life History Variables.
Criminal Justice & Behavior, 33(3), 3-25.
Daily, C. M., & Near, J. P. (2000). CEO satisfaction and firm performance in family firms: Divergence between
theory and practice. Social Indicators Research, 51, 125-170.
Dantzker, M. L. (1994). Identifying determinants of job satisfaction among police officers. Journal of Police
and Criminal Psychology, 10(1), 47-56.
Dantzker, M. L., & Kubin, B. (1998). Job satisfaction: The Gender Perspective Among Police Officers.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(1), 19-31.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulleting, 124, 197-229.
Detrick, P., Chibnall, J. T., & Luebbert, M. C. (2004). The Revised Neo Personality Inventory as Predictor of
Police Academy Performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(6), 676-694.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology,
41, 417-440.
Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.
Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2010). Resilient, Overcontrolled, and Undercontrolled Personality Types:
Issues and Controversies. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1070-1083.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXXIII Dorsey, R. R., & Giacopassi, D. J. (1986). Assessing Gender Differences in the Levels of Cynicism among
Police Officers. American Journal of Police, 5(11), 91-112.
Ebrahim, O., Garner, I., & Magadley, W. (2012). An Exploration of the Relationship Between Emotional
Intelligence and Job Performance in Police Organizations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology,
27, 1-8.
Eley, D., Eley, R., Bertello, M., & Rogers-Klark, C. (2012). Why did I become a nurse? Personality traits and
reasons for entering nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(7), 1546-1555.
Evans, B. J., Coman, G. J., & Stanley, R. O.(1992). The Police Personality: Type A Behavior and Trait
Anxiety. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(5), 429-441.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University
of London Press.
Fenster, C. A., & Locke, B. (1973). Neuroticism among policemen: An examination of police personality.
Journal of Applied Personality, 57, 358-359.
Finstand, L. (2000). Politiblikket. Oslo: PaxForlag
Fischer, V. E., & Hanna, J. V. (1931). The dissatisfied worker. New York: MacMillan.
Fishbein, M. (1973). The prediction of behaviors from attitudinal variables. In C. D. Mortensen & K. K. Sereno
(Eds.), Advances in communication research ( pp. 3-38). New York: Harper & Row.
Forero, C. G., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Andres-Pueyo, A. (2009). A longitudinal model for
predicting performance of police officers using personality and behavioral data. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 36(6), 591-606.
Forsyth, C., & Copes, J. (1994). Determinants of job satisfaction among police officers. International Review of
Modern Sociology, 24, 109−116.
Fry, L., & Greensfield, S. (1980). An examination of attitudinal differences between policewomen and
policemen. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 123-126.
Furnham, A. (2008). Individual differences at work. In Furnham, A. (Ed.), Personality and Intelligence at
Work: Exploring and Explaining Individual Differences at Work (1-30). New York, NY: Routledge.
Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179-185.
Garbarino, S., Chiorri, C., & Magnavita, N. (2014). Personality traits of the Five-Factor Model are associated
with work-related stress in special force police officers. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 87, 295-306.
Garbarino, S., Chiorri, C., Magnavita, N., Piattino, S., & Cuomo, G. (2012). Personality Profiles on Special
Force Police Officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 99-110.
Garcia, V. (2003). “Difference” in the Police Department. Women, Policing, and “Doing Gender”. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(3), 330-344.
Gayre, C. (1996). The police role: Studies of male and female police.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXXIV Glicksohn, J., & Naor-Ziv, R. (2016). Personality profiling of pilots: traits and cognitive style. International
Journal of Personality Psychology, 2(1), 7-14.
Gnacinski, S. L., Meyer, B. B., Hess, C. W., Cornell, J. D., Mims, J.,Zamzow, A., & Ebersole, K. T. (2015).
The Psychology of Firefighting: An Examination of Psychological Skills Use Among Firefighters.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 47(812), 1-24.
Goerling, R. (2012). Police officer resilience and community building. Proceedings of ASBBS, 19(1), 394-397.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological
Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Gough, H. G. (1956). California Psychological Inventory. England: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gould, L. A., & Volbrecht, M. (1999). Personality differences between women police recruits, their male
counterparts, and the general female population. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 14(1), 1-
18.
Graves, W. (1996). Police cynicism: Causes and cures. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 65(6), 17-20.
Griffin. D. R., Dunbar, R. L., & McGill, M. E. (1978). Factors associated with job satisfaction among police
personnel. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6, 77-85.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Adlam, K. R. C. (1983). Personality patterns of British police officers. Personality and
Individual Differences, 4(5), 507-512.
Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harmanci, F. M., Caliskan, A., & Baycan, C. (2014). Examining the police officers’ physical and personal
characteristics based on units. European Scientific Journal, 10(29), 1857-7881.
Hartmann, E., Sunde, T., Kristensen, W., & Martinussen, M. (2003). Psychological Measures As Predictors of
Military Training Performance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 87-98.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): Construction of
the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249-254.
Henne, D., & Locke, E. A. (1985). Job dissatisfaction: What are the consequences? International Journal of
Psychology, 20, 112-127.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees?.Harvard Business Review, 46, 53-62.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. A., & Capwell, D. F.(1957). Job attitudes review of research and
opinions. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh.
Hodson, R. (1989). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction: Why Aren’t Women More Dissatisfied?.The
Sociological Quarterly, 30(3), 385-399.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job performance relations: A
socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXXV Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and Integrity at Work. In Hogan. R., Johnson, J., & Briggs,
S. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (849-870). USA: Academic Press
Hogan, R. (1971). Personality characteristics of highly rated policemen. Personnel Psychology, 24, 679-686.
Hogan, R., & Kurtines, W. (1975). Personological correlates of police effectiveness. The Journal of
Psychology, 91, 289-295.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper.
Jacelon, C. S. (1997). The trait and process of resilience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 123-129.
Johnson, R. R. (2012). Police Officer Job Satisfaction: A Multidimensional Analysis. Policy Quarterly, 15(2),
157-176.
Jong, R. D., Eck, H. C. M., & Bos, K. (1994). The Big Five personality factors, leadership, and military
functioning. Personality Psychology in Europe, 5, 216-221.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general
mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance
Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
Keller, R. T. (1997). Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal predictors of job
performance: A study of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psvchology, 82, 539-545.
Kennedy, B., Curtis, K., & Waters, D. (2014). The personality of emergency nurses: Is it unique? Australasian
Emergency Nursing Journal, 17, 139-145.
Khizar, U., Orcullo, D. J. C., & Mustafa, J. (2016). Relationship between Personality Traits and Job
Satisfaction of Police Officers in Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 7(7), 109-113.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful Life Events, Personality, and Health: An Inquiry Into Hardiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-11.
Kohan, A., & Mazmanian, D. (2003). Police work, burnout, and pro-organizational behavior: A consideration
of daily work experiences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 559−583.
Krueger, G. P. (2001). Military psychology: United States. International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences. Oxford, England: Elsevier Ltd/Pergamon Press.
Kumarasamy, M. M., Pangil, F., & Isa, M. F. (2016). The effect of emotional intelligence on police officers’
work-life balance: The moderating role of organizational support. International Journal of Police
Science & Management, 18(3), 184-194.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXXVI Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Introduction to personality. In Personality psychology: Domains of
knowledge about human nature (2nd Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill
Lee, J. K., Choi, H. G., Kim, J. Y., Nam, J., Kang, H. T., Koh, S. B., Oh, S. S. (2016). Self-resilience as a
protective factor against development of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in police officers.
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28(58), 1-7.
Lefkowitz, J. (1974). Job attitudes of police: Overall description and demographic correlates. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 5, 221-230.
Lefkowitz, J. (1975). Psychological Attributes of Policemen: A Review of Research and Opinion. Journal of
Social Issues, 31(1), 3-26.
Lewis, M. (2001). Issues in the study of personality development. Psychological Inquiry, 12(2), 67-83.
Lim, S. (2008). Job Satisfaction of Information Technology Workers in Academic Libraries. Library and
Information Science Research, 30(2), 115-121.
Lokesh, L., Patra, S., & Venkatesan, S. (2016). Emotional Intelligence among Police Personnel: Socio-
Demographic Analysis. Guru Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4(1&2), 503-511.
Love, K., & Singer, M. (1988). Self-efficacy, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and job involvement:
Comparison of male and female police officers. Police Studies, 11, 98-102.
Lunneburg, P. W. (1989). Women police officers." Current career profile. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Martin, S.E. & Jurik, N.C. (1996). Doing justice, Doing Gender: Women in Law, and Criminal justice
Occupations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman. M. C. (2009). Personality traits. (3rd Ed.). NY: Cambridge University
Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s “adequate taxonomy”: Intelligence and personality
dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (eds.),
Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153). New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1994). The Stability of Personality: Observations and Evaluations. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 173-175.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Conceptions and Correlates of Openness to Experience. In Hogan. R.,
Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (825-847). USA: Academic Press
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of
Personality, 60(2). 175-215.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS
XXXVII McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., & Avia, M. D. (2000). Nature over
nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(1), 173-186.
Meadows, R. J. (1985). Police Training Strategies and the Role Perceptions of Police Recruits. Journal of
Police and Criminal Psychology, 1(2), 40-47.
Miller, H. A., Mire, S., & Kim, B. (2009). Predictors of job satisfaction among police officers: Does personality
matter?.Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 419-426.
Mills, C. J., & Bohannon, W. E. (1980). Personality Characteristics of Effective State Police Officers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 65(6), 680-684.
Mitchell, J. T., & Bray, G. P. (1990). Emergency services stress: Guidelines for preserving the health and
careers of emergency services personnel. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Modaresi, S., & Ahmadi, M. S. (2015). Investigate the relationship between personality traits, stress, and job
burnout among nurses. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(1), 2345-2352.
Mohr, A. T., & Puck, J. F. (2007). Role conflict, general manager job satisfaction and stress and the
performance of international joint ventures. European Management Journal, 25, 25-35.
Moon, T. W., & Hur, W. M. (2011). Emotional intelligence, emotional exhaustion, and job performance. Social
Behavior and Personality, 39(8), 1087-1096.
Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A. (2003). Modeling intra-individual change in personality traits: Findings from the
normative aging study. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B(3), 153-165.
Mufson, D. W., & Mufson, M. A. (1998). Predicting police officer performance using the Inwald Personality
Inventory: An illustration from Appalachia. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 59-
62.
Muir, W. K. (1977). Police: Streetcorner Politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Niederhoffer, A. (1967). Behind the Shield: The Police in Urban Society. New York: Doubleday.
O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between
emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,
788-818.
Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154.
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to
old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3-25.
Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient,
overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 157-171.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.
Roth, M., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2017). The Resilient Personality Prototype. Resilience as a Self-Deception
Artifact? Journal of Individual Differences, 38(1), 1-11.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS
XXXVIII Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.
Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance in Army and Civil Occupations: A
European Perspective. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 271-288.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Counterproductive Behaviors. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1-2), 117-125.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185-
211.
Sanders, B. A. (2003). Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”-Organizational challenges in selecting
quality officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(2), 68-71.
Sanders, B. A. (2008). Using Personality Traits to Predict Police Officer Performance. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(1), 129-147.
Schwab, D. P., & Cummings, L. L. (1970). Theories of performance and satisfaction: A review. Industrial
Relations, 9, 408-430.
Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2006). Love, work, and changes in extraversion and neuroticism over time.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1152-1165.
Siem, F. M., & Murray, M. W. (1994). Personality factors affecting pilot combat performance: A preliminary
investigation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 65, 45-48.
Simmers, K. D., Bowers, T. G., & Ruiz, J. M. (2003). Pre-employment psychological testing of police officers:
the MMPI and the IPI as predictors of performance. International Journal of Police Science &
Management, 5(4), 277-294.
Singer, M. S., & Love, K. (1988). Gender differences in self-perception of occupational efficacy: A study of
law enforcement officers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,3(1), 63-74.
Skolnick, J. H. (1994). Justice Without Trial. New York: MacMillian.
Strauss, G. (1968). Human relations—1968 style. Industrial Relations, 7,262-276.
Takase, M., Yamamoto, M., & Sato, Y. (2018). Effects of nurses’ personality traits and their environmental
characteristics on their workplace learning and nursing competence. Japan Journal of Nursing Science,
15, 167-180.
Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-ahering experiences ("absorption'*), a trait
related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,83, 268-277.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.
Tett, R. P., Jackson. D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A
meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A selected review
of the literature, 1993–1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115–153.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XXXIX Trojanowicz, R. C. (1971). The Policeman’s Occupational Personality. The Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, 62(4), 551-559.
Twersky-Glasner, A. (2005). Police Personality: What Is It and Why Are They Like That? Journal of Police
and Criminal Psychology, 20(1), 56-67.
Tziner, A., Weismal-Manor, R., Vardi, N., & Brodman, A. (2008). The personality dispositional approach to
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Psychological Reports, 103, 435-442.
Van der Meulen, E., Bosmans, M. W. G., Lens, K. M. E., Lahlah, E., & van der Velden, P. G. (2017). Effects of
Mental Strength Training for Police Officers: a Three-Wave Quasi-experimental Study. Journal of
Police and Criminal Psychology, 1-13.
Vega, R., Ruiz, R., Gomez, J., & Rivera, O. (2013). Hardiness in Professional Spanish Firefighters. Perceptual
& Motor Skills: Physical Development & Measurement, 117(2), 608-614.
Wagner, S. L., Martin, C. A., & McFee, J. A. (2009). Investigating the “Rescue Personality”. Traumatology,
15(3), 5-12.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985).Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin,98(2) 19-
235.Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Personality Structure. The Return of the Big Five. In Hogan. R.,
Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (767-793). USA: Academic Press
Weisheit, R. A. (1987). Women in the state police: Concerns of male and female officers. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 15(2), 137-144.
White, S. O. (1972). A Perspective on Police Professionalization. Law & Society Review, 7(1), 61-86.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality Structure. The Return of the Big Five. In Hogan. R.,
Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (737-765). USA: Academic Press
Wilks, J. (2009). The stability of personality over time as a function of personality trait dominance. Griffith
University Undergraduate Psychology Journal, 1, 1-10.
Worden, A. P. (1993). The attitudes of women and men in policing: Testing conventional and contemporary
wisdom. Criminology,2, 203-237.
Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2000). Burnout in Health Care: The Role of the Five
Factors of Personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1570-1598.
Zhao, J., Thurman, Q., & He, N. (1999). Sources of job satisfaction among police officers: A test of
demographic and work environment models. Justice Quarterly, 16, 153−173.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG POLICE OFFICERS XL Appendix
Personality test: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,887 ,891 50
2014 2017
Males Females Males Females
Conscientiousness 29,41 31,30 29,47 29,75
Extraversion 31,47 31,00 31,25 31,63
Agreeableness 29,66 32,00 29,79 31,38
Neuroticism 24,62 25,90 25,34 27,13
Openness 31,13 32,50 28,26 28,75
Valid N 87 10 68 8
Job Satisfaction 3,23 3,00 3,29 3,00
Valid N 44 4 42 2
Correlation Matrix for the year of 2014
Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness Job
Satisfaction
Conscientiousness 1 ,767 ,001 ,555 ,001 678
Extraversion ,767 1 ,197 ,889 ,185 ,512
Agreeableness ,001 ,197 1 ,105 ,041 ,124
Neuroticism ,555 ,889 ,105 1 ,547 -,030
Openness ,001 ,185 ,041 ,547 1 ,867
Job Satisfaction ,678 ,512 ,124 -,030 ,867 1
. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Correlation Matrix for the year of 2017
Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness Job
Satisfaction
Conscientiousness 1 ,193 ,633 ,118 ,000 ,734
Extraversion ,193 1 ,378 ,087 ,129 ,363
Agreeableness ,633 ,378 1 ,344 ,815 ,059
Neuroticism ,118 ,087 ,344 1 ,870 ,948
Openness ,000 ,129 ,815 ,870 1 ,399
Job Satisfaction ,734 ,363 ,059 ,948 ,399 1
. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)