Personality Traits and Job Satisfaction among Police ...

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)