Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 2 Personality Change Following Unemployment Christopher J. Boyce Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Scotland and School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, England Alex M. Wood Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Scotland and School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, England Michael Daly Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Scotland Constantine Sedikides Center for Research on Self and Identity, School of Psychology, University of Southampton. Paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Applied Psychology Author notes: The authors would like to extend thanks to James Banks, Eamonn Ferguson, and Nattavudh Powdthavee for helpful comments. The Economic and Social Research Council (PTA-026- 27-2665, ES/K00588X/1) and the University of Stirling provided research support. The data used here were made available by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin). Neither the original collectors of the data nor the Archive bears any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here. Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 3 Abstract Unemployment has a strongly negative influence on well-being, but it is unclear whether it also alters basic personality traits. Whether personality changes arise through natural maturation processes or contextual/environmental factors is still a matter of debate. Unemployment, a relatively unexpected and commonly occurring life event, may shed light on the relevance of context for personality change. We examined, using a latent change model, the influence of unemployment on the Five Factor Model of personality in a sample of 6,769 German adults, who completed personality measures at two time-points four years apart. All participants were employed at the first time-point, and a subset became unemployed over the course of the study. By the second time-point, participants had either remained in employment, been unemployed from 1-4 years, or had become re-employed. Compared with those who had remained in employment, unemployed men and women experienced significant patterns of change in their mean-levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, whereas re-employed individuals experienced limited change. The results indicate that unemployment has wider psychological implications than previously thought. Also, the results are consistent with the view that personality changes as a function of contextual/environmental factors. Keywords: unemployment, personality, personality change, well-being, Five Factor Model. Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 4 Personality Change Following Unemployment Personality is most often viewed within the hierarchical Five Factor Model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 2008). The basic traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness occupy the highest level of the personality hierarchy, whereas other psychological characteristics (i.e., manifestations of the basic traits) occupy lower levels. Given that the FFM was partially motivated by biological considerations (McCrae et al., 2000), there was an initial tendency to regard these traits as relatively fixed, changing early in life through maturation but becoming “set like plaster” at approximately the age of 30 (Costa & McCrae, 1994; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003). Recent advances, however, have challenged the traditional “set like plaster” perspective by demonstrating evidence of change throughout the life-cycle stages (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006a). Indeed, personality may be as malleable as socio-economic variables such as income or marital status (Boyce, A. M. Wood, & Powdthavee, 2013; Osafo Hounkpatin, A. M. Wood, Boyce, & Dunn, in press). Current debate now mostly centers on the extent to which personality change is a function of natural maturation processes versus events that occur throughout life (Costa & McCrae, 2006; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006b). Some proponents of the FFM argue that most of the observed personality changes are attributable to intrinsic maturation processes brought about by genetic influences (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Such a perspective is bolstered by similarities in the way traits appear to develop over the life-cycle across diverse cultures (McCrae et al., 1999, 2000). However, there is also a strong environmental contribution to personality change (Kandler, 2012), consistent with twin longitudinal studies which indicate that personality change has both genetic and environmental components (Bleidorn et al, 2010; Bleidorn, Kandler, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2009). In support of the role of environmental variation in personality change, commonly occurring events -- such as alterations in marital status (Specht, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2011), marital and relationship quality (Neyer & Lehnart, 2007; Roberts & Bogg, 2004; Watson & Humrichouse, 2006), retirement (Specht et al., 2011), and experiences within the workplace (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003) -- have all been linked to personality change. Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 5 However, many events that have been investigated in connection with personality change are normative, in the sense that they occur at specific points in the life-cycle that correspond with age-graded social roles. As such, there may be alternative explanations to personality changes. According to the model of person-environment transactions (Roberts, D. Wood, & Caspi, 2008), continuous interactions between person and environment promote both stability and change. Individuals may orient towards environments that match their personalities, but they will still face fluctuations in the expectations placed upon them, by others and themselves, both before and after they assume new roles. The effect of normative events on personality change can therefore be challenging to examine, because it is difficult to distinguish the extent to which the experience (or anticipation) of an event precipitated personality change, whether the event itself happened to co-occur with a natural process of personality maturation, or whether personality change culminated in the event itself. To minimize the conceptual and methodological problems associated with examining changes associated with normative roles, it is more informative to explore the influence of non-normative events on personality. We know, for example, that the use of certain drugs (MacLean, Johnson, & Griffiths, 2011; Roberts & Bogg, 2004), the experience of frightening or horrifying events (Löckenhoff, Terracciano, Patriciu, Eaton, & Costa, 2009), and involvement in intensive outpatient counseling (Piedmont, 2001) can all initiate personality changes. However, although such findings are indicative of personality change due to contextual or environmental factors, the relevant events are uncommon. In this article, we examine changes in personality as a function of a relatively major and commonly occurring non-normative life event, namely unemployment. In particular, we test whether, relative to remaining employed, (a) unemployment precipitates changes in basic personality traits, (b) this change depends on unemployment duration, (c) the influence of unemployment on personality differs by gender, and (d) unemployment-triggered personality change endures following re-employment. Personality Stability and Change Debate on whether personality can and does change has been hindered from lack of explicit definitions of personality. Indeed, a good deal of disagreement has arisen by non- shared definitions of the construct. This can be particularly problematic, if one understands Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 6 personality to represent the non-changing aspects of the person. In this case, personality change would be precluded by terminological barriers or tautologies: If something is observed to change, it can no longer be deemed “personality.” Moreover, adopting a rigid definition of personality in terms of “unmitigated stability” would lead to the unavoidable conclusion that changes indicated by self-report measures of personality are inherently meaningless, despite a vast literature documenting the reliability and validity of such measures. Fortunately, personality psychologists are inclined to define personality more inclusively—for example, as “the psychological component of a person that remains from one situation to another” (A. M. Wood & Boyce, in press). This definition implies a degree of temporal and cross-situational stability, without which the construct would be viewed as a particular state arising in a particular situation, but does not preclude substantive personality change over time. Aligned with this view, Mischel and Shoda (1995, 1998) defined personality as the stable way in which people behave within a given situation, such that people may have stably different personalities in different situations (e.g., at work vs. leisure). Personality indeed varies across social roles, with higher variation across roles being linked to reduced authenticity and impaired well-being (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2013; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, Ilardi, 1997). Fleeson (2001, 2004) defined personality as the average of personality expression across roles and situations, and showed that personality expression varies continually such that a person may score a “1” on extraversion one morning and a “7” the next, depending on situational factors. At the same time, Fleeson (2001, 2004) also demonstrated that individuals can be reliably distinguished from one another by the mean point of their personality expression distribution, which is to what people refer when asked about their personality “in general.” Each of these perspectives is compatible with definitions of personality as inter-individual differences in either behavior or the propensity to behave (Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, & ter Weel, 2008; Eysenck, 1981). Drawing consensus across these contemporary definitions, personality is regarded as a snapshot of a fluid process of individuals engaging dynamically with their environments, expressing behaviors to varying degrees, but being differentiated by how they typically feel, Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 7 think, and behave -- the “stable part of themselves” (Gramzow et al., 2004; Hafdahl, Panter, Gramzow, Sedikides, & Insko, 2000; Robinson & Sedikides, 2009). None of the perspectives anticipates that personality remain completely stable over time. Quite the converse: were people to find themselves chronically in a different life situation, they would (a) reliably exhibit different characteristics in the new environment (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998); (b) have different mean-levels in distributions of personality expression (Fleeson, 2001, 2004); (c) and have stably different behavior propensities (Gramzow et al., 2004; Hafdahl et al., 2000). Indeed, it is highly plausible that living in new environments would precipitate personality change, given the adaptive advantage of adjusting flexibly to one’s contextual circumstance; such an advantage would maximize the person-environment fit (Lewin, 1951; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Pervin, 1968). These reflections on the nature of personality underlay our expectation that personality would change following unemployment, particularly if the experience were prolonged (Reynolds et al., 2010). Thus unemployment, which represents a severe environmental alteration that removes social contacts and restricts the opportunity to engage in certain types of tasks, would likely enable individuals to exhibit specific personality traits relevant to the new unemployed situation, in line with Mischel and Shoda’s (1995, 1998) definition of personality. Further, and consistent with Fleeson (2001, 2004), the changes to an individual’s life brought about by the experience of unemployment would result in different mean-levels of personality expression. It is also reasonable to expect that the unemployment experience will permeate the individual’s life and help to instigate behavior change even within situations associated weakly with the work environment (e.g., during leisure activities or home stay). In all cases, the unemployment experience is likely to give rise to stably different ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving, which will precipitate changes in personality. The Psychological Effects of Unemployment Unemployment has one of the strongest impacts on well-being (d = -0.38, McKee- Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005), with the impact often lasting beyond the period of unemployment (Clark, Georgellis, & Sanfey, 2001; Daly & Delaney, 2013) and being comparable to that of becoming disabled (Boyce & A. M. Wood, 2011b; Lucas, 2007) or Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 8 losing a spouse (Oswald & Powdthavee, 2008). However, much less is known about how unemployment might shape personality. The experience of unemployment is likely to bring considerable and unexpected contextual fluctuation to an individual’s life and potentially to compromise the development of particular personality traits. In accord with this notion, personality change has been linked to other workplace variables (e.g., job satisfaction or status) and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., Roberts, 1997; Roberts & Bogg, 2004; Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003; Roberts, Walton, Bogg, & Caspi, 2006; Scollon & Diener, 2006). Given that personality maturates in normative ways across the life-span (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006a), we expect some change to take place across the whole sample. However, we are specifically interested in whether greater personality change occurs for those who become unemployed. As such, we examine personality change of the unemployed relative to the employed. Although theorizing on how personality might change is not in found in abundance, we build on this theory to offer several hypotheses below on whether and how the personality of the unemployed (vs. employed) will change, while also ascertaining, where possible, precise forms of change (Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010). Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness, which represents a tendency for individuals to be goal focused (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993) and highly motivated (Judge & Ilies, 2002), bears links with achievements within the work environment. Hence, the experience of unemployment may curtail opportunities to express conscientious type behavior. Conscientiousness is also positively linked to one’s economic situation, such as wealth accumulation (Ameriks, Caplin, & Leahy, 2003) or higher wages (Mueller & Plug, 2006; Nyhus & Pons, 2005), and predicts fluctuations in life satisfaction following income changes (Boyce & A. M. Wood, 2011a). Unemployment, then, may cut-off access to previously valued achievement goals, and this may act as a catalyst for personality change. Consistent with the theoretical expectation that unemployment will precipitate changes in conscientiousness, both retirement and first-time entry into employment have been associated with changes, negative and positive respectively, in conscientiousness (Specht et al., 2011). Further, being in paid work has been linked with changes in conscientiousness-related traits, such as increased social responsibility (Roberts & Bogg, 2004). Due to the critical role of Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 9 conscientiousness in the workplace, we hypothesize that levels of conscientiousness will be influenced by unemployment. H1: The experience of unemployment (relative to employment) will produce mean- level reductions in conscientiousness. Neuroticism. Unemployment may have an influence on neuroticism. Unemployment is associated with high levels of stress (Frost & Clayson, 1991) and depression (Dooley, Prause, & Ham-Rowbottom, 2000). Given that neuroticism entails stress and depression at the dispositional level (Widiger, 2009), it is likely that unemployment will prompt higher neuroticism. Additionally, the work environment provides a vital source of social support, which may dissipate following unemployment (Atkinson, R. Liem, & J. H. Liem, 1986). Lack of social support may result in loneliness (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006) and low self- esteem (Waters & Moore, 2002). In turn, lack of social support and low self-esteem engender negative emotions, cognitions, and behaviors (Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000; Sedikides & Gregg, 2003). Based on the above, we hypothesize that unemployment will influence neuroticism. H2: The experience of unemployment (relative to employment) will produce mean- level increases in neuroticism. Agreeableness, extraversion, and openness. Work, like many normative life events, can have a crucial socialization influence (Roberts, 1997). The ability to interact socially, convey ideas, and make compromises are typical aspects of day-to-day activities within the workplace (Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000). Hence, the experience of unemployment may thwart the expression of socially-oriented personality traits. However, given that unemployment presents both new threats and new opportunities, it is not entirely clear how unemployment might influence traits like agreeableness, extraversion, and openness. For example, unemployment may result in new social engagements. Contrastingly, however, unemployed individuals may have fewer financial resources, but more time to share with others. On a similar note, openness may increase, as unemployment offers individuals the opportunity to evaluate their lives and refocus on less material outcomes (e.g., deepening relationships, appreciating aesthetics). At the same time, unemployment could constrain the individual’s ability for novel experiences (e.g., restaurant eating, travel) and even beget Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 10 perceptions of the world as distasteful and unfriendly. As such, we do expect agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to be influenced by unemployment, but we are uncertain of the precise direction of influence; consequently, we adopt an exploratory approach. H3: The experience of unemployment (relative to employment) will produce mean- level changes in agreeableness (H3a), extraversion (H3b), and openness (H3c). Influence of unemployment on personality as a function of time remaining unemployed. Consistent with our earlier definitional considerations of personality (Fleeson, 2001, 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Shoda & Mischel, 1998) – culminating in the conclusion that unemployment may give rise to stably different ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving – we would expect the duration of unemployment and whether re-employment took place to be differentially critical for personality change. Distinctly stable ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving may prevail at various stages of the unemployment experience. Personality change may therefore differ according to whether individuals are short-term unemployed compared to those who are long-term unemployed or transitioning between short-term and long-term unemployment. For example, individuals may be initially subject to personality change as they actively search for new employment, but, after several years of failed searches, may experience lack of motivation to continue pursuing job leads (Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001). This motivational burnout may still spark personality change, albeit different from that of the initial “search” years. We therefore expect that the impact of unemployment will depend on the number of years spent unemployed and may develop in a non-linearly fashion such that larger changes will occur at various stages of unemployment. For example, in the first year or two of unemployment, large personality change may be evident, whereas, in subsequent years, personality may be stabilized at the newly formed level. Alternatively, after a year or two of being out of work, individuals may learn to engage more productively with the unemployment process, thus being able to mitigate the initial personality change. H4: The magnitude of the mean-level changes in personality resulting from unemployment will be dependent on the number of years that an individual has been unemployed, such that a linear or non-linear relation will be observed between individuals at Running Head: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PERSONALITY 11 different years of unemployment and changes in their agreeableness (H4a), conscientiousness (H4b), extraversion (H4c), neuroticism (H4d), and openness (H4e). Influence of unemployment on men’s and women’s personality. Unemployment may also have distinct personality implications for men and women owing to variability in thinking, feeling, and behaving following the event. Different personality traits are valued in the workplace for men and women; for example, agreeableness is likely to be penalized in men but rewarded in women (Mueller & Plug, 2006; Nyhus & Pons, 2005). Thus, to the extent that individuals develop certain personality traits to achieve greater workplace success, the absence of work may differentially dis-incentivize behavior patterns in the two genders. Further, men and women may experience and cope with unemployment dissimilarly. For example, men adopt a problem-focused orientation and hence are unlikely to seek social support, whereas women are symptom-focused and hence are likely to seek social support (Leana & Feldman, 1991). As such, men may engage with the job search process, whereas women may engage in socially-oriented activities (Kanfer et al., 2001). Also, unemployment may present a unique set of opportunities and threats across men and women that vary according to the years spent unemployed. Some authors (Forret, Sullivan, & Mainiero, 2010), for example, have speculated that traditional gender roles could still be relevant to the experience of unemployment, with men viewing the experience as a threat to their provider role and women viewing the experience as a potential opportunity for child rearing. Hence, although we are not in a confident position to ascertain precise patterns, we expect gender differences in the way unemployment alters personality. H5a: Men and women will exhibit different mean-level changes in personality as a result of unemployment (relative to employment). H5b: Men and women will exhibit different non-linear relations between years spent unemployed and personality change, such that the magnitude of the mean-level changes in personality will vary differently for men and women by the years they spend unemployed. Unemployed-triggered personality change and rebound following re- employment. Given that we anticipate unemployment to influence personality change via the opportunity to express relevant traits, it is possible that unemployment’s “impact” on personality will not be enduring. Once an individual regains employment, the dynamic