How does your chosen organizational behavior model relate to the inputs, processes, and outputs?

For part 1, you will research one of the specific organizational behavior models identified in the course eTextbook and write an essay in which you explain that specific model. (BIG 5 PERSONALITY MODEL)

B)egin with an introduction that presents your thesis statement and conveys the overall purpose and function of organizational behavior models. Then, address the following questions about your chosen model:

How does your chosen organizational behavior model relate to the inputs, processes, and outputs?

Explain the three levels of analysis of the organizational behavior model you chose. Use examples to illustrate.

How does this model relate to the individual, group, or organizational level of analysis?

How does what you learned about the chosen model and theoretical framework aid you in gaining a better understanding of a situation you have experienced in your work environment?

Part 1 of this assignment must be a minimum of three pages in length. You are required to use a minimum of two peer-reviewed or academically reliable sources from the CSU Online Library to support Part 1 of your essay.

For part 2 of this, you will need to search the CSU Online Library or other academic databases for two peer-reviewed articles, research, or case studies that focus specifically on your chosen organizational behavior issue. You will continue your essay by examining how the two articles contribute to the research on your chosen organizational behavior and the behavior science disciplines.

In part 2 of your essay, you must:

Briefly identify and summarize each article’s premise and findings.

Discuss how this organizational behavior issue relates to and contributes to one or more of the four behavior science disciplines. Do the articles support or challenge previous research? Defend your assessment.

Explain what you would do about this particular issue as presented in the articles as a manager. While you may mention the legal aspects of a case presented in the articles, you are not to focus solely on the legal aspects. Your perspective should be from a behavioral science viewpoint as it relates to organizational behavior. Opinions should be informed and substantiated by the research surrounding the topic.

Do you agree with the author’s findings? What additional research may be needed?

Your combined parts 1 and 2 of the essay must be a minimum of 5, but no more than 6 pages in length. The title and reference pages do not count toward the page requirement.

Requirements: 5 pages

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 1 Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 4. Explain the levels of analysis of organizational behavior models. 4.1 Analyze the inputs, processes, and outcomes of an organizational behavior model. 4.2 Explain the three levels of analysis of an organizational behavior model. Required Unit Resources Chapter 1: What Is Organizational Behavior?, pp. 26–31 Chapter 5: Personality and Values, pp. 145–150 Chapter 6: Perception and Individual Decision Making, p. 199 Chapter 12: Leadership, pp. 398–400 Chapter 18: Organizational Change and Stress Management, p. 631 In order to access the following resource, click the link below. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011, November). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2011-12684-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Unit Lesson Introduction As we elaborate on our understanding of organizational behavior, it can be helpful to explore several different models. These models enable us to look at a concept from a variety of different perspectives. There is no one-size-fits-all to explain organizational behavior. Instead, the behaviors exhibited are the result of interactions between multiple variables that are also influenced by the level of analysis. So, before we delve into the models themselves, one must understand the variables involved and the different levels of analyses that come together to form the models. Types of Variables There are three types of variables involved in creating an organizational model. These variables include inputs, processes, and outcomes (Robbins & Judge, 2019). UNIT IV STUDY GUIDE Organizational Behavior Models

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Inputs are the basic building blocks that lead to processes (Robbins & Judge, 2019). These inputs may be inherent from the onset of a working relationship, or they may develop over time. For instance, an individual may have certain characteristics that are the result of genetics or upbringing. Similarly, groups of people may be assigned roles and responsibilities when teams are formed to work on a particular project. Likewise, an organization has likely evolved over the years to the extent that customs and norms become evident. All of these are examples of inputs that can influence processes. The inputs just described can influence some sort of action within the organization. These actions are known as processes (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Examples of processes include making decisions, communicating, negotiating, and exercising change practices. As a result of the processes utilized, we arrive at some sort of outcome. These outcomes may be what was anticipated, or they may be things that we analyze further to explain what happened (Robbins & Judge, 2019). In any event, the outcome is a result of the interactions between many of the variables already noted. Outcomes may include attitudes, stress, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, group functioning and cohesion, productivity, and organizational survival. Levels of Analysis Along with the types of variables revealed, we also need to understand the impact of the levels of analysis. The three levels of analysis focus on the individual, the group, and the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2019). At each level, much can be learned about the inputs, processes, and outcomes. Each level builds a foundation upon which the next continues to build. For instance, one must consider what each individual can bring to a group. It is the individual inputs, processes, and outputs that pave the way for the many influences on the group level of analysis. This group level also progresses through the inputs, processes, and outputs that influence what can be seen at the organizational level. A Basic Organizational Behavior Model In understanding the variables and the levels of analysis, one has already been introduced to one of the most basic models of organizational behavior. As noted earlier, the variables, processes, and outcomes at the individual level influence the model’s group dynamics. This then leads to the organizational level. What begins at the most basic level can have far-more reaching impacts (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Many researchers have created more elaborate models that can aid us in gaining a better understanding of the many influences on organizational behavior at each level (individual, group, and organization). InputsProcessesOutcomesVariables involved in creating an organizational model include inputs, processes, and outcomes.

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title The Big Five Personality Model The Big Five Personality Model focuses on five specific traits of an individual that help to characterize one’s personality. When assessing the traits in coordination with one another, the model can be used to assess what an individual may do or how that person may react in a variety of situations (Chiaburu et al., 2011). These five traits include conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness (Robbins & Judge, 2019). In looking at these traits, one is addressing a number of different questions. How dependable and reliable is this individual? Is this person calm and confident or nervous and insecure? Is this person sociable and assertive? How sensitive or curious is this person? Is this person good-natured and cooperative? While the answers to these questions may not be cut and dry with yes or no answers, the assessments can lead to intriguing insights and reliable predictions of behavior. The Model of Creativity In looking at business scenarios, we often find ourselves being presented with challenges. When this happens, what are you going to do? Depending on your degree of creativity, you may look at lessons learned and what others have done in the past, or you may opt to think outside of the box and produce new and ingenious ideas. It is the level of creativity that may have a large influence on which path you choose. The model of creativity is another model that focuses on the individual. The three components that make up this model include creative behavior, predictors of creative behavior, and outcomes from creative behavior (Robbins & Judge, 2019). The model begins at the center with an understanding of what creative behavior entails. This is a four-step process that includes identifying the problem, gathering information, generating ideas, and evaluating one’s options. Our response to such a situation is dependent on our intelligence, personality, expertise, and ethics (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Each characteristic or trait is a predictor of our creative potential. With all this combined, we then tend to focus on the outcomes. Some are likely to be more creative than others. Nonetheless, innovation is key, especially to those stakeholders involved. If the outcome is useful and helpful to the stakeholders, then it is likely to be deemed a success. The Fiedler Model The Fiedler Model was developed by Fred Fiedler as the first comprehensive contingency model for leadership (Robbins & Judge, 2019). This model is based on group dynamics as opposed to that of an individual like the two previous models discussed. According to this theory, “effective groups depend on a proper match between a leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader” (Robbins & Judge, 2019, p. 398). To make this determination, one must first complete the least preferred coworker (LPC) questionnaire. This questionnaire is going to enable one to identify as either being relationship-oriented or task-oriented based upon how that individual would describe one of his/her least favorable coworkers. If the coworker is described using favorable terms, then the person providing the description is likely to be relationship oriented (Robbins & Judge, 2019). On the contrary, if the coworker is described using unfavorable terms, then the person providing the description is likely to be task-oriented (Robbins & Judge, 2019). The situation is then evaluated based on three other dimensions: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. If a fit is found between the leader’s particular style and situation itself, then there may be leadership effectiveness. On the other hand, if there is no fit per se, then changes may need to be made to achieve the level of effectiveness desired. The Leader-Participation Model Have you heard people say that what you say is as important as how you say it? The Leadership-Participation Model is a bit like that. The Leader-Participation Model is another model that focuses on the group level influences of organizational behavior. The focus is on a leader’s behavior and the degree to which subordinates are permitted to participate in the decision-making process (Robbins & Judge, 2019). The model (Lacroix, n.d.)

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 4 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title itself lays down the rules for when and how these types of interactions can occur. While some situations are more conducive to a leader making an executive decision and moving forward, other situations can benefit from the participatory style. Lewin’s Three-Step Model of the Change Process Kurt Lewin developed the three-step model of the change process that looks at the overall organization itself (Robbins & Judge, 2019). In order for a paradigm shift to occur, unfreezing must occur. This is the first step. According to Lewin, this can occur in one of three ways. There may be: (a) an increase in driving forces, (b) a decrease in restraining forces, or (c) some other combination of the two. Once this is done, the second step is where the change can occur. It is in this phase that movement from one way of doing things to another can occur. Once the momentum is in place, it should be sustained, if possible, until the desired effect is achieved. Upon getting to the desired state, then in the third and final step it is to be re-frozen in place whereby the restraining and driving forces are once again in balance with one another (Robbins & Judge, 2019). If additional changes are needed, then the process would be implemented once again. Conclusion Throughout this unit, we have focused on understanding the levels of analysis and a multitude of variables that are used to create models to help us better understand the dynamics of organizational behavior. There are no easy answers in all cases. It takes time, effort, and understanding to lead our teams where we need them to go. We are all unique, yet we bring a wealth of knowledge and experiences to our workplaces. The interactions with others and even the setup of the organization itself can influence the behaviors exhibited. Still, through understanding the many interactions, the models discussed can provide a new perspective on the predictors of behaviors that are going to aid us in making decisions on what is needed to get us to the desired outcome. References Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011, November). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2011-12684-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Larcoix, A. (n.d.). Personality traits, ID 19168435 [Photograph]. Dreamstime. https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-personality-traits-image19168435 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134729749 Suggested Unit Resources In order to access the following resource, click the link below. Mumford and Fried (2014) look at variables influencing several models used to predict behavior and yet introduce interesting insight/perspective which will leave you questioning the validity of said models. Mumford, M. D., & Fried, Y. (2014, July). Give them what they want or give them what they need? Ideology in the study of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5), 622–634. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=96645880&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyCodevelopment of Life Goals and the Big Five Personality Traits AcrossAdulthood and Old AgeLaura Buchinger, Theresa M. Entringer, David Richter, Gert G. Wagner, Denis Gerstorf, and Wiebke BleidornOnline First Publication, July 27, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477CITATIONBuchinger, L., Entringer, T. M., Richter, D., Wagner, G. G., Gerstorf, D., & Bleidorn, W. (2023, July 27). Codevelopment ofLife Goals and the Big Five Personality Traits Across Adulthood and Old Age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477

CodevelopmentofLifeGoalsandtheBigFivePersonalityTraitsAcrossAdulthoodandOldAgeLauraBuchinger1,2,TheresaM.Entringer1,DavidRichter2,3,GertG.Wagner1,4,5,DenisGerstorf6,andWiebkeBleidorn71Socio-EconomicPanel,GermanInstituteforEconomicResearch,Berlin,Germany2DepartmentofPsychology,FreieUniversitätBerlin3SHAREBERLINInstituteGmbH,Berlin,Germany4MaxPlanckInstituteforHumanDevelopment,Berlin,Germany5FederalInstituteforPopulationResearch,Wiesbaden,Germany6DepartmentofPsychology,Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin7DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofZurichSincethenewmillennium,researchinthefieldofpersonalitydevelopmenthasfocusedonthestabilityandchangeofbasicpersonalitytraits.Motivationalaspectsofpersonalityandtheirlongitudinalassociationwithbasictraitshavereceivedcomparablylittleattention.Inthispreregisteredstudy,weappliedbivariatelatentgrowthcurvemodeltoinvestigatedthecodevelopmentofninelifegoalsandtheBigFivetraits.Wetestedage,perceivedcontrol,gender,educationalbackground,andregionalsocializationaspotentialmoderatorsofcodevelopment.DatacamefromtheGermanSocio-EconomicPanelstudy(N=55,040,agerange:18–103years)andspanastudyperiodof13years.Duringthisperiod,theBigFivetraitsandlifegoalswereassessedfourtimes.Ourfindingssuggestthatdevelopmentinbroaderlifegoaldomains(e.g.,self-fulfillment)ismorestronglyconnectedtopersonalitydevelopmentacrossthelifespan,whereaschangesinspecificgoals(e.g.,havingchildren)aremorecloselytiedtotraitchangesduringyoungandmiddleadulthood.ThestrongestcodevelopmentwasfoundbetweenOpennessandagenticgoalswithafocusonpersonalgrowthfollowedbycodevelopmentbetweenAgreeablenessandcommunalgoals.DevelopmentalstageandeducationalbackgroundmoderatedthecodevelopmentofConscientiousnessandeconomicachievementaswellasfamily-relatedgoals.Contrarytothepreviousresearch,wefoundthatNeuroticismcodevelopedwithcommunallifegoals(i.e.,havingahappyrelationship/marriage).Ourfindingsreinforcetheoreticalframeworksthathighlighttheroleofchangingopportunities,constraints,anddevelopmentaltasksacrossadulthood.Keywords:lifegoals,BigFive,longitudinalstudy,lifespandevelopment,corresponsiveprincipleSupplementalmaterials:https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477.suppThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Editor’sNote.LauraA.Kingservedastheactioneditorforthisarticle.—RELLauraBuchingerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8052-4634TheresaM.Entringerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1149-7852DavidRichterhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2811-8652GertG.Wagnerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5985-4073DenisGerstorfhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2133-9498WiebkeBleidornhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3795-8143ThisstudywasfundedbytheGermanFederalMinistryofEducationandResearch(BundesministeriumfürBildungundForschung,Grant:01UJ1911BY).Theresponsibilityforthecontentofthispublicationlieswiththeauthors.TheauthorsthankCarolineWehnerandMichaelD.Krämerfortheirhelpfulcommentsonearlierversionsofthisarticle.PleasenotethatthisstudywaspreregisteredviatheOpenScienceFramework(OSF,https://osf.io/j5ps2).ThewholeOSFprojectincludingfurthersupplementmaterialscanbeaccessedathttps://osf.io/a8bjz/.ThisstudyispartofLauraBuchingerdissertationduringwhichshewasapredoctoralfellowoftheInternationalMaxPlanckResearchSchoolontheLifeCourse(LIFE,https://www.imprs-life.mpg.de;participatinginstitutions:MaxPlanckInstituteforHumanDevelopment,FreieUniversitätBerlin,Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin,UniversityofMichigan,UniversityofVirginia,UniversityofZurich).LauraBuchingerplayedaleadroleinconceptualization,datacuration,formalanalysis,methodology,visualization,writing–originaldraft,andwriting–reviewandediting.TheresaM.Entringerplayedasupportingroleinsupervisionandwriting–reviewandediting.DavidRichterplayedaleadroleinfundingacquisitionandsupervisionandasupportingroleinwriting–reviewandediting.GertG.Wagnerplayedasupportingroleinconceptualizationandwriting–reviewandediting.DenisGerstorfplayedasupportingroleinmethodologyandwriting–reviewandediting.WiebkeBleidornplayedasupportingroleinconceptualization,methodology,andwriting–reviewandediting.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoLauraBuchinger,Socio-EconomicPanel,GermanInstituteforEconomicResearch,Mohrenstraße58,10117Berlin,Germany.Email:[email protected]:PersonalityProcessesandIndividualDifferences©2023AmericanPsychologicalAssociationISSN:0022-3514https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp00004771

Personalitytraitsandlifegoalsaretwofundamentalbuildingblocksofpersonality(McAdams&Pals,2006).TheBigFivepersonalitytraits(Goldberg,1990),comprisingAgreeableness,Conscientiousness,Extraversion,Openness,andNeuroticism,arerelativelyenduringtendenciestoact,feel,andthink.Lifegoalsaremotivationalstrivingsthatguideindividuals’thoughts,feelings,andbehaviorsoveryearsordecades(Robertsetal.,2004).Theyarestronglyshapedbysocietalexpectationsorsocialscriptsandusuallyfollowanormativesequence(e.g.,careerentryandfamilyformationinearlyadulthood;e.g.,Heckhausenetal.,2019).Importantly,mostpersonalitypsychologistsagreethatpersonalitytraitsandlifegoalsarecloselyrelatedandcriticallyrelevanttofullycaptureanindividual’spersonality(Jayawickremeetal.,2019;Roberts&Wood,2006;Wagneretal.,2020).Yet,moreoftenthannot,traitsandlifegoalshavebeenstudiedindependentlyinseparatelinesofresearch(Austin&Vancouver,1996;Emmons,2003).Thisisalsotrueforresearchonpersonalitydevelopment.Over,thepasttwodecades,hundredsofstudieshaveexaminedage-gradedchangesintheBigFive(formeta-analyses,seeBleidornetal.,2022;Robertsetal.,2006).Thesestudiesfoundthat,onaverage,individualsbecomemoreagreeable,moreconscientious,andlessneurotic,particularlyduringyoungadulthood(Bleidorn,2015).Amostlyseparatelineofresearchhasexaminedlifespanchangesinlifegoals(e.g.,Ebneretal.,2006;Freund,2020;Heckhausenetal.,2010,2019;Nurmi,1992;Salmela-Aroetal.,2007).Thesestudiesindicatethatchangesinnormativelifegoals,thosethatarestronglytiedtosocietalexpectationsorsocialscripts,alignwithage-gradedchangesindevelopmentalopportunitiesandconstraints.Forinstance,parenthoodandcareergoalsareprioritizedduringearlyadulthoodwhenopportunitiesforgoalattainmentareplentiful,insteadofmiddleorlateadulthoodwhenbiologicalandsocietalconstraintsandreducedopportunitiesrenderattainmentdifficultorimpossible.However,considerablylessresearchstudiedtheinterplaybetweenchangesinlifegoalsandpersonalitytraits(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Robertsetal.,2004).Thesestudies,whichoftenreliedonrelativelysmallandhomogenoussamplesintermsofageandeducationalbackground,providedmixedresults.Assuch,westillknowlittleaboutthecodevelopmentofthesetwobuildingblocksofpersonalityacrossthelifespan(Bleidornetal.,2010;Roberts&Robins,2000).Toaddressthisquestion,weanalyzedthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivepersonalitytraitsandninelifegoalsinalargeandheterogeneoussample(N=55,040)across13years.Insodoing,weaimedtoprovideamorecomprehensiveandprecisepictureofthenatureanddegreeofcodevelopmentbetweenpersonalitytraitsandlifegoals.TheoreticalPerspectivesontheCodevelopmentofPersonalityTraitsandLifeGoalsAlthoughpersonalitytraitsandlifegoalsareinterrelatedbuildingblocksofpersonality(e.g.,Roberts&Robins,2000;Wagneretal.,2020),theyarealsodistinct.Traitsrefertothedescriptivepartofpersonality.Lifegoalsrefertothemotivationalpart.Previousresearchfoundthatindividualdifferencesintraitsandlifegoalsareinfluencedbybothsharedanduniquegeneticandenvironmentalfactors(Bleidornetal.,2010),withbothbeingindependentpredictorsofimportantlifeoutcomes(e.g.,Bauer&McAdams,2010;Headey,2008).Together,traitsandlifegoalsofferafairlycomprehensivewindowintoaperson’sgeneralpatternsoffeelings,thoughts,andbehaviors,includingthedriversthatmotivatethem(e.g.,Little,1999;McAdams&Pals,2006).Thecloselinksbetweentraitsandlifegoalsraisequestionsabouttheirdevelopmentalassociations.Dochangesinlifegoalsgohandinhandwithchangesintraits?Severaltheoreticalperspectiveshighlighttheinterplaybetweenmotivationalconstructsandpersonalitytraitsbutmanyofthemassumedirectionalityregardingtheirrelationshiporacommoncauseofboth(e.g.,DeYoung,2015;Jayawickremeetal.,2019;McCabe&Fleeson,2012;Quirinetal.,2020;Wrzus&Roberts,2017).Thequestionwhytraitsandlifegoalscodevelop(althoughanextremelyinterestingone)wasnotthefocusofthisstudy,norcanitbeansweredwiththisstudydesign.Toexplainthecodevelopmentbetweentraitsandlifegoals,threeperspectivesareofparticularrelevance:theself-regulationperspective(e.g.,Denissenetal.,2013;Henneckeetal.,2014),theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personalityanddevelopment(Dweck,2017),andthecorrespon-siveprinciple(Roberts&Wood,2006).First,accordingtotheself-regulationperspective,trait-specificbehaviors,feelings,andthoughtsareperformedasstrategicmeanstoattaincertaindesirablegoals(Denissenetal.,2013;Henneckeetal.,2014).Forinstance,someonewhotriestotakeonmoreresponsibilityintheirjob,worksharder,andmorethoroughly(increasedConscientiousness),maydosotoadvancetheircareer.Empiricalsupportforthisperspectivecomesfromthefieldofvolitionalpersonalitydevelopmentwhichshowsthatpeoplecanpurposefullychangetheirpersonalitytraitsinadesireddirectiontoattaincertaingoals(e.g.,Hudsonetal.,2019,2020;Hudson&Fraley,2016;Mooreetal.,2021;Olaruetal.,2022;Stiegeretal.,2021).Second,similartotheself-regulationperspective,theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personality,anddevelopment(Dweck,2017)assumesafeedbackloopbetweengoalsandpersonalitytraits.Specifically,itpositsthatmentalrepresentationsofgoal-relevantbeliefs,emotions,andactiontendenciesmediatetheassociationbetweengoalsandpersonalitytraits.Thesementalrepresentationsarebasedonpriorexperiencesandareupdatedastheindividualmakesnewexperiences.Thisway,theyguidefuturegoalformationandfostercharacteristicbehavioral,cognitive,andemotionalpatterns—personalitytraits—whichguidegoalpursuit.Forinstance,avoidingconflict-pronecontexts,ignoringprovocations,andforgiv-ingeasily(Agreeableness)maybemotivatedbythegoaltohaveharmoniousrelationships.Ifsuchbehaviorsareaccompaniedbytheexperienceofmorepositiveinteractions,theindividualmayupdatetheirgoal-relevantbeliefs,emotions,andactiontendencies.Theymayconcludethatactivelyshapingtheenvironmentispossible(updatedcontrolbeliefs)andthatthechosenbehaviorswereeffectiveindoingso(updatedactiontendencies).Themoreoftentheindividualthenactsthisway(avoidsconflict,ignoresprovocations,etc.)toattaintheirdesiredgoal(tohaveharmoniousrelationships),themorehabitualthisbehaviormaybecome,potentiallytranslatingintochangesatthepersonalitytraitlevel(increasedAgreeableness).Third,thecorresponsiveprincipleemphasizestheinterconnec-tednessofselectionandsocializationprocesses.Itpredictsthatpeopletendtoprioritizelifegoalsthatmatchtheirpersonalitytraits.Onewayofinterpretingtheprincipleis,thatalsoincreasesinagivenpersonalitytraitpromptincreasesintheimportanceofmatchinglifegoals.Thepursuitoftheselifegoalsshouldthenreinforcethepersonalitytraitsthatledtothem(e.g.,Robertsetal.,2003;ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.2BUCHINGERETAL.

Roberts&Wood,2006).Forinstance,apersonwhoexperiencesincreasesinAgreeablenessmayalsoincreasetheircommunalstrivingsforharmoniousrelationshipsthat,ifachieved,mayleadtofurtherincreasesinAgreeableness.Similarly,increasesinConscientiousnessmaybelinkedtoanincreasedstrivingforcareersuccess,withthesestrivingsinturnfosteringfurtherincreasesinConscientiousness.Asindicatedbytheaforementionedexamples,therearetheoreticalreasonstoexpectdistinctivelinksbetweendifferenttraitandgoaldomains.Broadly,thesecanbeorganizedalongthedimensionsofagency(e.g.,competence,assertiveness,domi-nance)andcommunion(e.g.,warmth,relatedness,morality;seeBakan,1966).BoththeBigFiveandlifegoalscanbeorganizedintermsofthesetwocontentdimensions.ExtraversionandOpennesscontainagenticcontent,whereasAgreeablenesscontainscommunalcontent.Conscientiousnesscontainsbothagenticandcommunalcontent(Abeleetal.,2016;T.M.Entringer,Gebauer,&Paulhus,2022),whereasNeuroticismisconsideredapurelyevaluative,content-freedomain(Furr&Funder,1998;Gebaueretal.,2015).Lifegoalsconcerningstatus,careersuccess,economicachievement,hedonism,andpersonalgrowthcontainagenticcontent,whereaslifegoalsconcerningfamily,relationships,andaltruismcontaincommunalcontent(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Wehneretal.,2022).Somelifegoals(e.g.,societalinvolvementandowningahouse)containbothcommunalandagenticcontent(Headey,2008).Insummary,theself-regulationperspective,theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personality,anddevelopment,andthecorresponsiveprinciplepositclosedevelopmentalassociationsbetweenpersonal-itytraitsandlifegoals.Thetwocontentdimensionsofagencyandcommunionmayhelpusbetterunderstandwhichpersonalitytraitsshouldcodevelopwithwhichgoals.Specifically,itcanbeexpectedthatindividualswhoincreaseinagenticpersonalitytraitsaremorelikelytoalsoexperienceincreasesinagenticlifegoals,whileincreasesincommunaltraitsshouldgohandinhandwithincreasesincommunalgoals.LongitudinalResearchontheCodevelopmentofPersonalityTraitsandLifeGoalsSofar,onlyfourlongitudinalstudieshaveexaminedthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivetraitsandlifegoals(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Robertsetal.,2004).Thefirststudy(Robertsetal.,2004)reliedexclusivelyonstudentsfromtheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley(N=298)whoprovideddatainthefirstandlastweekoftheirfirstsemesterandattheendoftheirfirst,second,third,andfourthyearofcollege.TheBigFivewereassessedwiththeNEO-FiveFactorInventory(Costa&McCrae,1992).Lifegoalswereassessedintheformofnormativeimportanceratingsof26goalsth

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.