Born and Raised: Intelligence and Personality Matter in Negotiations

Abstract

The prevailing opinion is that negotiators are " made, not born. " Multiple studies have concluded that cognitive ability and the Big Five personality traits likely have no impact on negotiation outcomes. Other studies report mixed or inconclusive results. This meta-analysis shows that, in certain circumstances, cognitive ability and certain personality traits have an important effect on negotiation outcomes. These effects are stronger for more complex negotiations where joint outcomes are the goal. We argue that firms should consider cognitive ability and personality measures in selecting and training negotiators.

Full text

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
33
Born and Raised: Intelligence and Personality Matter in Negotiations
Andrew J. Hosmanek
The University of Iowa
Brian W. McCormick
The University of Iowa
Erik Gonzalez-Mulé
The University of Iowa
Abstract
The prevailing opinion is that negotiators are “made, not born.” Multiple studies have
concluded that cognitive ability and the Big Five personality traits likely have no impact
on negotiation outcomes. Other studies report mixed or inconclusive results. This meta-
analysis shows that, in certain circumstances, cognitive ability and certain personality
traits have an important effect on negotiation outcomes. These effects are stronger for
more complex negotiations where joint outcomes are the goal. We argue that firms
should consider cognitive ability and personality measures in selecting and training
negotiators.
Introduction
“It is an axiom of this book that negotiators are made, not born.”
(The Practical Negotiator, Zartman & Berman, 1983)
Negotiation, whether explicit or implicit, is an important part of almost all jobs, from the lawyer
who advocates on behalf of their client to the mechanic who discusses the costs and benefits of
potential repairs with their customer. Entire industries of for-profit negotiation training
programs have arisen, and top business programs offer courses in negotiation, all in recognition
of the importance of negotiations at work. Much of the instruction offered is predicated on the
idea that great negotiators are not born, but made (there would be little incentive to take the
course otherwise). However, we know that cognitive ability (Schmidt, 2002) and the Big Five
personality dimensions (Barrick & Mount, 1991) play an important role in job performance. It
would therefore stand to reason that these inherent traits might have an effect on negotiations
success.
The empirical literature is mixed on whether great negotiators are “born” or “raised.” Many
recent empirical studies on negotiation have generally reported that cognitive ability and the Big
Five personality dimensions (extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, emotional
stability, and agreeableness) have no significant impact on negotiation success. We set out to
test these findings through the use of meta-analytical techniques.
While there are not a large number of published meta-analyses in negotiations, a good meta-
analysis can have great impact on our knowledge of the field. For example, many empirical
studies indicated there was no conclusive difference in how men and women negotiate. Two

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
34
meta-analyses investigated these faulty conclusions and proved that there are real differences
(Walters, Stuhlmacher & Meyer, 1998; Stuhlmacher & Walters, 2006).
Given the importance of the Big Five and cognitive ability to work performance in general,
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Schmidt, 2002), it is reasonable to believe that these factors may have
meaningful relationships with negotiation outcomes in the real world. Meta-analysis is the
correct methodological choice to analyze these existing empirical studies, to determine if
sampling error, measurement artifacts, and incomplete analyses have adversely impacted our
ability to understand how personality and cognitive ability influence negotiation outcomes. We
propose that organizations may be able to take advantage of both traits and training to select the
best negotiators and train them well (Fulmer & Barry, 2004).
Theory and Hypotheses
The Big Five Personality Dimensions
Negotiations such as those examined in management studies are typically dyadic exchanges
in which the parties may engage in two processes, creating value (also known as “expanding the
pie,”) and then claiming value (also known as “dividing the pie”). A purely distributive
negotiation consists of a set amount of value (a “fixed pie”), and each negotiator sets out to claim
as much for him or herself as possible, at the cost of the other. An integrative negotiation
consists of both creating and claiming value. The goals of an integrative negotiation could be to
claim the maximum value for oneself, or to create the maximum value for both parties (e.g.
where the negotiators are both members of one firm). While it is generally held that the parties
should create value before claiming value in an integrative negotiation, in reality, both processes
occur multiple times during a negotiation. The parties continually send signals to each other
about their intentions, willingness to bargain, and positional strength. The negotiator’s internal
game is a cognitive decision-making process (Ma, 2008) of deciding what offers to make and
what signals to send. These cognitions are not only influenced by the negotiator’s personality,
but also filtered through it as they are transmitted to the negotiating partner. The negotiator’s
personality may determine how the negotiator forms a strategy for the exercise and how they
form outcome preferences (Ma, 2008). A negotiator’s personality may also affect important
aspects of negotiation behavior, such as competitiveness, collaborativeness, win-lose orientation,
trust, yielding, and face-saving (Ma, 2008). These differences in approach could be associated
with differences in negotiation outcomes.
The Big Five are well-established and valid measures of personality that are useful in
examining complex behaviors and outcomes (Judge & LePine, 2007; Ma, 2008). As described
by Costa & McCrae (1992; see also Barrick & Mount, 1991), the Big Five (and descriptive
characteristics) include conscientiousness (dutiful, responsible, achievement-oriented), emotional
stability (calm, secure, unemotional), extraversion (outgoing, gregarious, energetic),
agreeableness (trusting, honest, considerate), and openness to experience (creative, artistic,
intellectual). Each of these traits could be expected to have positive effects on negotiation
success. For instance, an individual high on openness to experience might be able to brainstorm
more creative solutions in a complex negotiation, thereby creating value. A person high on
conscientiousness might proceed more dutifully through a negotiation exercise, being careful to
explore all areas of potential value. A person who is more emotionally stable might be better
able to deflect or ignore hardball tactics by a negotiation partner, and proceed toward a

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
35
successful resolution of the conflict. A person who is more agreeable might build more trust in a
negotiation, inducing higher concessions from the other side. A person who is more extraverted
might be able to extract more information from the person he/she is negotiating with.
Empirical studies have examined various traits on negotiations, from emotional intelligence
to Machiavellianism, with varying results. Because of the strong body of literature and
theoretical background underlying the Big Five, we chose to limit our meta-analysis to these
traits. Some of the negotiations literature holds that personality traits have little to do with
negotiation outcomes (Thompson, 1990), while other studies show that the Big Five may have an
effect. For example, Barry and Friedman (1998) found that agreeableness and extraversion are
negatively associated with success in distributive negotiations. The first finding, on
agreeableness, is intuitive, as a highly agreeable person might tend to yield to their partner. The
second finding, on extraversion, may seem less so. However, as Barry and Friedman point out,
the gregariousness of an extrovert may lead them to overdisclose information in a competitive
negotiation. Antonioni (1998) found a positive relationship between agreeableness and
extraversion with successful integrative negotiation outcomes. Other studies find very small
correlations between the Big Five and outcomes. The majority of empirical studies failed to
find statistical significance in these relationships and thus accorded little value to the importance
of personality.
Perhaps because of the mixed empirical results, researchers have not developed strong theory
about which of the Big Five traits should impact negotiations, and how that should occur.
However, because the Big Five have been shown to have considerable effect in many areas of
job performance, we expected to find generally positive relationships between these traits and
negotiation success, where the situation was right for the traits to have an impact. Even an
incremental gain in understanding the relationship between personality and negotiation outcomes
would be important, as an individual negotiator might handle millions of dollars’ worth of
negotiations each year for a company. If the inconsistent empirical results on personality and
negotiations can be clarified, this could result in a great deal of utility to businesses in selecting
negotiators. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1: The Big Five personality traits will have
a positive correlation with negotiation success for all negotiation types.
Meta-analysis is an ideal method to explore the reported relationships between personality
traits and negotiation outcomes, and to report any moderators. Some of the samples used in the
empirical studies are idiosyncratic as compared to the business world as a whole. For instance,
many studies report only one or two nationalities of negotiators, and often, one group is
associated with an individualistic culture (e.g. the United States) and the other is associated with
a more collectivist culture (e.g. China and Japan). Some studies use only student samples, and
some use only experienced negotiators. By using meta-analysis, we can examine these samples
together, weighted appropriately for size and corrected for measurement error, to determine
effects across all samples. This will allow our results to generalize more aptly across real-life
business settings, which are rarely so homogenous.
Cognitive Ability
As mentioned previously, cognitive ability is a very important predictor of work success
(Schmidt, 2002). It also predicts many other important life outcomes, including educational
attainment, delinquency and criminal behavior, socio-economic status, and health outcomes
(Gottfredson, 1997). Therefore, it is surprising that studies have reported near-zero (Barry &

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
36
Friedman, 1998) or even negative (Kong & Bottom, 2010) correlations between cognitive ability
and negotiation success. Other studies have found positive correlations between cognitive ability
and outcomes, where success was measured by joint utility or how integrative the final
agreement is (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Antonioni, 1998).
While non-findings in this relationship are puzzling, negative correlations are even more so.
How is it possible that being less intelligent would lead to better outcomes in a cognitive process
such as negotiation? Prior research tells us that intelligence should be an asset in any business
transaction (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). We would expect more intelligent negotiators to make
fewer errors in judgment, and to have a more rational decision-making process (Fulmer & Barry,
2004). One possibility is that some of the existing studies failed to detect a relationship between
cognitive ability and negotiation outcomes due to sampling error or measurement error. In this
case, meta-analytic techniques should help us determine whether these findings can be corrected.
Another possibility is that the studies have failed to take into account certain moderators
between cognitive ability and negotiation outcomes. Barry & Friedman (1998), for example,
found a difference in the correlation between intelligence and outcomes when the negotiation
was distributive versus when it was integrative. However, they downplayed this finding after
doing post-hoc analyses that showed one of the parties typically claimed most of the value
created in the integrative negotiation (even though individual economic gain was not the primary
goal of the exercise). They noted that this value claimed was primarily correlated with the
opponent’s cognitive ability. They stated that how the negotiators interacted with the problem
was more important than how they interacted with each other or how intelligent the negotiators
were. Because cognitive ability has been shown as an important determinant of success in
various areas of business and life in general, we chose to use meta-analysis to resolve the
apparent discrepancy regarding intelligence and negotiations.
In examining the effect of cognitive ability in negotiations, we must be mindful that not all
negotiating situations will require the same level of cognitive involvement. The typical
negotiations class at the MBA level might build from very simple distributive negotiations in the
early weeks to complex, multi-party, integrative negotiations in the final weeks. There is a well-
established pool of negotiation cases used by many instructors, which list the time and skills
needed for each exercise. In these authors’ experience teaching negotiations, the truly skillful
negotiators often do not emerge from the pack until the later exercises. Based on these ideas, we
would expect cognitive ability to have a positive relationship with negotiation outcomes in more
complex (e.g. integrative) negotiations. A consistent finding of a positive relationship between
cognitive ability and outcomes would be useful in the selection and training of negotiators.
Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2: Cognitive ability will have a positive relationship with
negotiation success for all negotiations types.
Theoretical Moderators
We believe that a negotiator’s cognitive ability and personality may interact with the kind of
outcome sought to influence what is measured as “success” for that negotiation. For instance, a
more intelligent or conscientious negotiator may not rush to claim all the “pie” they can in a first
negotiation if they reason that they may have repeat negotiations with a partner. We expect that
a negotiator’s personality may have more salience in a more complex (e.g. integrative)
negotiation. Several studies examining joint outcomes of integrative negotiations have shown
positive effects of the positive Big Five traits. Other studies state that positive traits may have a

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
37
negative effect in distributive negotiations (e.g. extraversion is a liability because it leads to early
anchoring: Barry & Friedman, 1998). However, it is important to realize that from a practical
standpoint, most distributive negotiation exercises are shorter and less complex than integrative
negotiations. Trait activation theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000) tells us that a person may not
make a behavioral expression of a trait until they are in a situation that arouses trait-relevant
cues. For example, an aggressive person may not always act aggressively, but will do so when
confronted by another aggressive person. In the studies reviewed for this analysis, it may be that
individuals who possess higher levels of Extraversion, Agreeableness, or other traits do not
express these traits unless they find the negotiation sufficiently complex and engaging. A
negotiator’s positive or negative personality traits may not be very important in a simple
distributive negotiation, where the goal is essentially to meet between two price points. We
expect that the negotiator’s personality may interact with the goals of the negotiation, and have a
greater effect in more complex situations. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 3: The Big
Five personality traits will interact with negotiation type, such that the Big Five will have a
stronger positive relationship with negotiation success in more complex, integrative
negotiations.
A more intelligent negotiator should be better able to understand the complexity of an
integrative negotiation. Thus, a more intelligent negotiator should be able to create more
integrative potential or a better joint outcome if that is the stated goal. Thus, we would expect a
negotiator’s cognitive ability to be more salient in more complex, integrative negotiations
(Fulmer & Barry, 2004) than in simple, distributive negotiations.
In integrative negotiations, the negotiator may be required to “think on their feet,” craft or
abandon coalitions, or adapt to changing information (Fulmer & Barry, 2004). A more
intelligent negotiator should better be able to determine the underlying or hidden interests of
their negotiation partner, leading to better joint outcomes (Fulmer & Barry, 2004). While
cognitive ability is not a trait per se, it is reasonable to extrapolate that a tendency to use one’s
powers of advanced cognition will be activated by a more challenging or engaging puzzle, such
as a negotiation requiring joint outcomes and value creation. Thus, we expect that negotiators
higher in cognitive ability will have better outcomes overall, and better outcomes in integrative
negotiations than in distributive negotiations. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 4:
Cognitive ability will interact with negotiation type, such that cognitive ability will have a
stronger positive relationship with negotiation success in more complex, integrative
negotiations.
Methods
We analyzed our data using the Hunter and Schmidt (2004) meta-analysis random-effects
method. Meta-analyses synthesize the findings of many small sample individual studies. Thus,
the findings of meta-analyses are more precise and stable than primary studies alone (Schmidt,
Shaffer, & Oh, 2008). The Hunter and Schmidt (2004) meta-analysis method is a random-effects
model, which is preferable over fixed-effects models (Hunter & Schmidt, 2000). Fixed-effects
models often show Type I biases in significance tests for mean effect sizes and moderator
variables, and may generate confidence intervals for effect sizes narrower than their nominal
width (Hunter & Schmidt, 2000). The Hunter and Schmidt (2004) method allows us to correct
for the bias created by measurement error and the random variation created by sampling error.
Reliabilities of our independent variables were primarily reported as coefficient alpha. To

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
38
correct for measurement error, we used Hunter and Schmidt’s method (2004) along with the
corrections suggested by Schmidt, Le, and Ilies (2003) when dealing with individual differences
variables. More information about the variables in our studies and the corrections made will be
found below.
Description of the Database
We reviewed both published and unpublished literature from the 1970’s through 2012 for
articles on personality and negotiations to locate as many studies as possible for this analysis. In
addition, we searched for any negotiation articles that reported correlations between cognitive
ability and negotiation outcomes. We searched Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge, EBSCO,
PsycINFO, and ABInform. Our keyword search included, but was not limited to, these
keywords: Big Five, five factor model, FFM, personality, individual differences, cognitive
ability, negotiations, and negotiation outcomes. We also searched the Social Science Research
Network for working papers or unpublished manuscripts. We reviewed the reference sections of
reviews and book chapters on the topic of personality and negotiations to find any studies we
overlooked in the electronic searches. Finally, we sent a call for unpublished studies, works in
progress, or raw data to both the OB listserv of the Academy of Management and the HR
Division listserv. In order to be included, the study had to have measureable negotiation
outcomes corresponding to our dependent variables (individual economic gain, joint gain, or
integrativeness) correlated with any of the Big Five traits and/or cognitive ability. Studies which
lacked these correlations, used unquantifiable dependent variables, or consisted solely of theory
or review, were not included. Each of the studies were coded by the first author. We also coded
information on the Big Five measure used, its reliability and descriptive statistics, its correlation
with several dependent variables (economic gain, joint utility, and integrativeness). We also
coded information regarding potential moderators and reliability measures for independent and
dependent variables.
To check the reliability of coding, the first and second authors both coded all studies from the
sample and we computed percentage agreement between raters for the relevant quantitative data.
We had 460 pieces of information for agreement comparison, and found that the two raters
agreed on 458 pieces of information, for an agreement rate of 99.6%. The discrepancy between
the two raters was based on two miscoded values (one by each rater) which were resolved after
discussion. The final database included 14 samples and 148 correlations across 1,920
negotiators or negotiation dyads. Studies included in our meta-analysis are marked with an
asterisk in the references section.
Range Restriction and Corrections for
Measurement Error
We carefully decided whether we should correct for range restriction in our studies. Range
restriction is a statistical artifact of the measurement process. It arises where researchers can
only measure data from a restricted population, but wish to generalize results to the general
population (Schmidt, Oh, & Le, 2006). Range restriction has the effect of attenuating, or
dampening, the reported results of actual relationships. Because of this, effect sizes are often
underestimated (Schmidt, et al. 2006). However, using the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis
procedures, researchers can correct for the effects of range restriction (Schmidt, et al. 2006).

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
39
In this study, we are attempting to draw inferences about actual business negotiation
behavior. Thus, we were hoping to find studies which sampled actual experienced negotiators,
or at least businesspeople for whom negotiation was a part of their job. Unfortunately, the vast
majority of negotiations studies are conducted as experiments, often with undergraduate or
graduate students. We were only able to locate one article which measured personality and
behavior of business negotiators. However, of the student samples, many were at least MBA
students, who may have had some work experience. Fulmer & Barry (2004) noted that range
restriction can be a problem when measuring cognitive ability with the GMAT exam, because
resultant samples are drawn from students already admitted to business schools who are above
average in cognitive ability. Because our target population was businesspeople, we made the
decision that the samples in our studies, which included primarily businesspeople-in-training
(MBA students), did not justify a correction for range-restriction. If our samples had heavy
numbers of specialized negotiators (attorneys, contract administrators, etc.) we would have
strongly considered a correction for range restriction.
Our correlations of interest are between the personality and cognitive ability variables and
negotiations outcome variables. In most cases, reliabilities were reported for the Big Five
personality measures as coefficient alpha. One study did not report reliabilities for these
measures, and so we conducted a meta-analysis of the remaining studies to determine an
appropriate mean value for each of these measures, and used that value. The mean alpha
reliabilities reported were as follows: Extraversion = .89, Agreeableness = .79,
Conscientiousness = .85, Emotional Stability = .86, and Openness to Experience = .84. These
reliabilities were corrected in the meta-analysis for the known overestimation of reliability given
by coefficient alpha (Schmidt, Le, & Ilies, 2003). Our cognitive ability measures were taken
from the Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT) and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).
There is some debate in the literature about the reliability and validity of these tests.
Unreliability in these measures could lead to attenuated relationships being reported between
cognitive ability and performance measures in negotiations. Therefore, we used corrections for
attenuation based on test reliabilities reported by the test manufacturers. The reliability of the
GMAT composite is reported as 0.92. Reliabilities for various subparts of the SAT (but not the
composite) are reported, so we performed a meta-analysis of these subparts and found a
composite reliability of 0.91 for this test. These values were also corrected for their known
overestimation of reliability (Schmidt, Le, & Ilies, 2003). Because no measures of reliability for
negotiations outcomes were available, we did not correct for measurement error in any of the
dependent variables. We do note that negotiations with the goal of individual economic gains
are shorter in duration than joint outcomes negotiations. This may mean that the individual
economic gain outcomes reported contain more unreliability in the measure, thereby reducing
their correlations with cognitive ability and the Big Five traits. Because we did not correct any
of the dependent variables for measurement error, all meta-analytic correlations in Table 1
should be viewed as underestimates.
Certain studies reported more than one dependent variable (e.g. joint utility, integrativeness)
that was related to a measure of the negotiators’ joint outcomes. Where these constructs were
conceptually similar, we combined them into our joint outcomes variable by using the average
correlation of the related items from the studies. This was done in order to ensure statistical
independence of the meta-analysis. Ideally, we would have computed composite correlations
(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), but interrelations between the component correlations were not
reported in the underlying studies.

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
40
Results
We made our meta-analytic calculations using the software package developed by Schmidt & Le
(2004). In Table 1, we present results for predictor-criterion combinations across a variety of
negotiation types and outcomes. We first report results for all negotiation outcomes. Then, as
appropriate for our moderator analysis, we report predictor-criterion relationships by subgroups
and performed separate meta-analyses for each group (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In our Table
1, we report mean observed correlation (
r
); mean true score correlations (

); standard deviation
of the true score correlation (SD

); and the 80% credibility intervals and 95% confidence
intervals for the mean true score correlations. When the 95% confidence interval around the true
score correlation does not include zero, the mean true correlation is taken to be meaningfully
non-zero, whether it be positive or negative. Where 95% confidence intervals do not overlap
between subgroups, we assume the presence of a moderator variable. In terms of
generalizability, when the 80% credibility interval does not include zero, then we know that 80%
of the individual correlations in the population will be nonzero, and we consider the results
generalizable to the population.
When we group all negotiations together, there is little support for a relationship between the
Big Five traits and negotiation outcomes. The effect sizes are small, and only one of the 95%
confidence intervals excludes zero (Emotional Stability; 95% CI: [.05, .11]). Therefore, the
results from this part of Table 1 are inconclusive as to whether a relationship exists between the
Big Five and negotiation outcomes as a whole. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.
Our next finding relates to the effect of cognitive ability on negotiation outcomes. In the first
part of Table 1, we find that cognitive ability does have a positive association with negotiation
outcomes ( = .14) with a confidence interval that excludes zero (95% CI: [.05, .25]). The 80%
credibility interval, however, does not exclude zero. Therefore, we find that while cognitive
ability does appear to have an overall positive effect on all negotiation outcomes in our sample of
studies, this result may not be generalizable to the population. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was
supported, but we urge caution in interpreting this result.
We next examine whether the relationship between the Big Five and negotiation outcomes is
moderated by the goal of the negotiation (individual economic gain, i.e. distributive, versus joint
outcomes, i.e. integrative). There are considerable differences in correlations between Big Five
traits and negotiation outcomes between the two subgroups. In the first subgroup, individual
economic gain, there are weak negative or zero correlations between Agreeableness, Emotional
Stability, Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness and outcomes. In each of these cases,
the 95% confidence interval excludes zero. Extraversion has a negative correlation with
negotiation outcomes ( = -.17), and its 95% confidence interval also excludes zero. Therefore,
in the first subgroup, our results suggest that Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, Openness to
Experience, and Conscientiousness do not have a positive relationship with negotiation outcomes
where success is measured as individual economic gain. We also found that Extraversion has a
negative relationship with individual economic gain in these negotiations. In the second
subgroup, in which the goal of the negotiation is a favorable joint outcome, we obtained different
results. All of the Big Five traits have a positive association with joint outcomes (Extraversion,
 = .20, Agreeableness,  = .17, Emotional Stability,  = .16, Openness to Experience,  = .18,
Conscientiousness,  = .15), although the 95% confidence intervals for Openness to Experience
(95% CI: [.00, .36]) and Conscientiousness (95% CI: [.00, .30]) do include zero. The 80%
credibility intervals include zero for Openness to Experience (80% CrI: [-.05, .41]),

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
41
Conscientiousness (95% CI: [-.04, .34]), and Extraversion (95% CI: [-.01, .41]) and thus these
relationships may not be wholly generalizable. The 95% confidence intervals for Agreeableness,
Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness do not overlap between the
two subgroups, indicating that the negotiation goal did moderate the relationships. Therefore,
Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Finally, we found that negotiation goal moderates the relationship between cognitive ability
and outcomes. Cognitive ability has a strong positive association with negotiation success ( =
.33) when joint outcomes are the measure of success, compared to a weak positive association
for individual economic gains ( = .06). In each case, the 95% confidence intervals excluded
zero (95% CI: [.02, .10] for economic gain; .95% CI: [21, .45] for joint outcomes). The 80%
credibility interval for joint outcomes also excludes zero (80% CrI: [.19, .46]), indicating this
finding is generalizable to the population. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
Table 1: Effects of Personality and Cognitive Ability on Negotiation Outcomes
Variable
k
N
r


SD
80%

CV
95%

CI
% Var.
Overall Negotiation Results
Extraversion
14
1,795
-.03
-.04
.21
-.30,.23
-.15,.07
18.34
Agreeableness
14
1,949
.02
.02
.10
-.11,.16
-.03,.07
47.76
Emotional Stability
8
1,317
.07
.08
.04
.03,.14
.05,.11
81.29
Openness to Experience
8
1,317
.06
.06
.17
-.15,.28
-.06,.18
20.81
Conscientiousness
8
1,317
.06
.07
.12
-.08,.23
-.01,.15
34.59
Cognitive Ability
7
818
.14
.15
.14
-.03,.33
.05,.25
32.11
Individual Economic Gain
Extraversion
10
1,112
-.16
-.17
.03
-.22,-.13
-.19,.15
89.85
Agreeableness
10
1,266
-.05
-.05
0
-.05,-.05
-.05,-.05
100
Emotional Stability
4
634
0
-.01
0
0,0
-.01,-.01
100
Openness to Experience
4
634
-.05
-.05
0
-.05,-.05
-.05,-.05
100
Conscientiousness
4
634
0
-.01
0
-.01,-.01
-.01,-.01
100
Cognitive Ability
4
551
.06
.06
.04
0,.12
.02,.10
80.87
Joint Outcomes
Extraversion
4
683
.18
.20
.16
-.01,.41
.04,.36
20.46
Agreeableness
4
683
.15
.17
.11
.03,.31
.06,.28
39.14
Emotional Stability
4
683
.14
.16
0
.16,.16
.16,.16
100
Openness to Experience
4
683
.16
.18
.18
-.05,.41
0,.36
17.58
Conscientiousness
4
683
.13
.15
.15
-.04,.34
0,.3
25.51
Cognitive Ability
3
267
.30
.33
.11
.19,.46
.21,.45
48.89
Note. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size;
r
= sample-size weighted mean uncorrected correlation;

= estimated true-score correlation; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval; %Var = Percent variance in
corrected correlations attributable to all artifacts.

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
42
To provide further clarity, we conducted relative weights (RW) analyses (Johnson, 2000) on
the joint outcomes criterion. RW analyses provide an estimate of the proportion of the total R2
accounted for by each predictor in the model. Because the Big Five are moderately to highly
correlated with each other (Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005), RW analyses provides a
better estimate of the relative importance of each trait in relation to each other and to cognitive
ability. For the Big Five intercorrelations, we used those meta-analytically derived in Mount, et
al. (2005). For the correlations between the Big Five and cognitive ability, we used those derived
in Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich (2007). As shown in Table 2, the Big Five and cognitive
ability jointly accounted for 17% of the variance in joint negotiation outcomes, with the Big Five
accounting for about 7% of the variance and cognitive ability accounting for about 10% of the
variance. In terms of the individual relative weights, only Agreeableness (RW = .014; %R2 =
8.1%), Openness (RW = .011; %R2 = 6.5%), Conscientiousness (RW = .012; %R2 = 7.2%)
accounted for over 5% of the explained variance in joint outcomes. In sum, cognitive ability was
more strongly related to positive joint negotiation outcomes than the Big Five.
Table 2: Relative Weights Analysis Predicting Joint Outcomes
Variable
RW
%R2
Extraversion
.024
4.0%
Agreeableness
.014
8.1%
Emotional Stability
.007
4.0%
Openness
.011
6.5%
Conscientiousness
.012
7.2%
Cognitive Ability
.103
60.1%
Total FFM
.068
30.9%
Total R2
.17
Note. 
 = 264. Intercorrelations between the FFM are from Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds (2005).
Correlations between cognitive ability and the FFM are from Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich,
2007. RW = relative weight (Johnson, 2000); %RW: Percentages of relative weights were calculated by
dividing individual relative weights (RWs) by their sum (Total R2) and multiplying by 100. RWs add up
to R2 and %RWs add up to 100%, respectively
Discussion
Our major objective for the meta-analysis was to determine the nature of the relationships
between the Big Five personality traits and cognitive ability with negotiation success. One
prevailing opinion in existing empirical research and reviews is that good negotiators are “made,
not born” (Zartman & Berman, 1983) and that personality and cognitive ability have little effect
on negotiating skill. Our results suggest that cognitive ability has an important effect on
negotiation success where the goal is a favorable joint outcome for the parties. Agreeableness
and Emotional Stability, and possibly Extraversion, also have positive effects on joint outcomes.
The most important finding is that regarding cognitive ability. Our results showed that this
ability was more important when the negotiation required consideration of a joint outcome. This
supports the theoretical rationale that cognitive ability will become more salient when the
situation demands more cognitive processing, as in the case of a more complex negotiation.
Cognitive ability did not have a strong effect in negotiations calling only for individual economic
gain. One reason could be that these negotiations are shorter, less complex, and require less

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
43
learning, adapting, and thinking on one’s feet. In these situations, we believe negotiators may
not have been stimulated to unleash the potential of their greater cognitive ability. As a practical
matter, the business world offers very few zero-sum, individual gain negotiations. More
intelligent negotiators should have a significant advantage in real-life negotiations.
Our findings regarding personality traits are also important. In our overall (non-moderated)
analysis, there were small correlations for the Big Five traits with negotiation outcomes. In
accordance with findings indicating that Extraversion may lead negotiators to anchor their bids
early, Extraversion had a negative effect on outcomes in the overall analysis and in the individual
economic gain situation. More importantly, when joint outcomes were the goal, Extraversion
had a fairly strong positive relationship with outcomes. This makes sense, as the Extraversion
trait is more likely to be activated in a more complex, interactive negotiation where the
negotiator needs to communicate to determine his or her partner’s needs. An extroverted
negotiator should be more likely to ask probing questions to uncover interests.
Some authors have theorized, without much evidence, that Agreeableness should be a
liability in negotiations. We show that this is not necessarily the case. While Agreeableness has
a weak negative effect on outcomes for individual economic gain, it has a stronger positive effect
on joint outcomes ( = .17, 95% CI: [06, .28]). Again, Agreeableness is more likely to be
activated in a joint outcome negotiation, and Agreeableness would be useful in successfully
conducting a long, complex negotiation while keeping the other party at the table. Emotional
Stability is another trait that has been conceptualized as unimportant in negotiations. Our
findings in the overall group and the individual economic gains group show a weak positive and
weak negative effect, respectively. However, in joint outcomes negotiations, we find that
Emotional Stability has a stronger positive effect on success ( = .16, 95% CI: [16, .16]). We
expected to find that Conscientiousness, and possibly Openness to Experience, would have a
positive effect on joint outcomes. While we did find positive effects ( = .15;  = .18,
respectively) the 95% confidence intervals and 80% credibility intervals for each of these
included zero. It is possible that additional moderators exist. For example, Fulmer & Barry
(2004) suggested that emotional intelligence may help negotiators identify emotions of their
negotiating partner, which could interact with Conscientiousness to help negotiators achieve
desired outcomes. It is also possible that our small number of studies for these variables (k = 4)
was insufficient to test for moderators of these relationships.
Implications for Theory and Practice
This meta-analysis has important implications for the negotiations literature. First, our results
contribute to theory development in the stream of research around negotiations by responding to
debates in the literature (Klein & Zedeck, 2004). Specifically, we have synthesized the literature
to show the relationships between important negotiator characteristics and multiple negotiation
outcomes. While doing so, we have highlighted important moderators that merit future research
in this literature. Additionally, we have applied trait-activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), a
widely-used theoretical perspective (e.g., Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010), to the realm of negotiations.
An entire industry survives on the assumption that great negotiators are made, not born.
While we do not dispute the effectiveness of negotiations training and practice, our meta-analysis
shows that personality and intelligence are important, too. We take no position on whether an
intelligent, extroverted, agreeable, and emotionally stable (but untrained) negotiator is superior to
a trained negotiator with lower levels of these positive traits. However, as companies select

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
44
employees for negotiation roles, we do advise that they consider selecting more intelligent
employees who test higher on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability. This is
good practice on multiple levels, as these employees would likely already be demonstrating
higher job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Schmidt 2002), and thus would be good
choices to represent the company in negotiations. Also, employees with higher cognitive ability
should be able to better learn and apply negotiations training (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000).
Finally, once these employees have been trained and are deployed into negotiations, they should
have a meaningful advantage over counterparts from other companies who have not undergone
this selection process.
Limitations and Future Research
The present study has its limitations, as do all studies. First, the number of empirical studies
available which examined the Big Five traits and cognitive ability on negotiation outcomes is
small compared to some other meta-analyses (k = 14). There is no accepted “magic” (Arthur,
Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003) or “minimum” number of studies for a meta-analysis (Rosenthal,
1995). Some methodologies require a minimum of 10 studies (Chetty & Hamilton, 1993), or 5
data points (Arthur, et al. 2003) which our study surpasses. However, it could be argued that the
relatively small number of studies creates issues of validity and reliability. However, there are
good reasons for the size of our sample, beginning with our stringent inclusion criteria. We
intentionally limited our search to articles that explicitly used the Big Five and psychometrically
valid measures of cognitive ability (Wonderlic, GMAT, and SAT). These measures, particularly
the Big Five, are relatively recently defined constructs. We did find articles from before the
1970s which used different, and less valid, measures of cognitive ability and personality traits.
We chose not to force these studies into our analysis. These older measures were so dissimilar
that we could not readily adapt them to our measures of the Big Five and cognitive ability.
Additionally, we note that our overall sample size of participants is very good (up to 1,949 for
certain correlations). We also reported confidence intervals and credibility intervals for each of
our effect size measures, and interpreted these findings in the Results section. This allows the
reader to make educated decisions concerning the reliability and validity of each finding.
We considered additional reasons that there are relatively few recent empirical studies on
personality, cognitive ability, and negotiations. Much of the prevailing literature and many
review articles, until now, have stated that the Big Five and intelligence do not play an important
role in negotiation success. Therefore, researchers may have been primed to make these
findings, or they may have been discouraged from doing new studies on this topic. Also,
teaching negotiations is big business, whether at the university level or in private courses. Those
who sell negotiation training stand to benefit from the idea that training, rather than personality
traits and cognitive ability, matter most in negotiations.
While negotiation training is very important, and no doubt effective in most cases, our meta-
analytic results show that personality and cognitive ability also matter in negotiations. Thus,
researchers may be motivated to explore the issue further. We have also provided a framework
for moderators that may allow researchers to set up appropriate experiments on individual
economic gain and joint outcomes. We also call for researchers to utilize samples of more
experienced negotiators, such as actual businesspeople. Many companies have a stable of
employees familiar with negotiation, in the marketing, sales, and legal departments. There is
nothing inherently wrong with a student sample, particularly in a graduate business school, but it

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
45
would be helpful to see how these traits affect situations where the negotiators are more familiar
with the negotiation process.
Another possible criticism is that, with the exception of the cognitive ability finding, our
correlations are considered to be only between “small” and “medium” under Cohen’s effect size
conventions. However, as Judge & LePine (2007) point out, “the same is true of virtually any
meaningful predictor of broad, complex criteria such as job performance” (p. 332). Negotiation
success is a broad, complex criterion, as shown by the various dependent variables in our studies
which attempt to measure it. We should also be mindful that, as in selection, an incremental
advantage in negotiation is directly tied to economic advantages that could be quite large. If a
negotiator bargains over billions of dollars during his or her career, and has a “small to medium”
advantage due to personality and intelligence, this could translate into millions of dollars of
utility to his or her company. If the negotiator engages in high-stakes deals in law or politics,
this incremental skill could literally mean the difference between life and death for their
constituencies. Therefore, it is misleading to use a purely numerical heuristic without examining
the larger context.
In conclusion, we believe our meta-analysis represents an important next step in how
businesses should select negotiators. Some negotiators may be born, some may be made. But, if
companies can select the best “born” negotiators, and train them to become better, they may be
able to claim considerable advantage.
References
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict
management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355.
Arthur Jr, W., Bennett Jr, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in
organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 234.
Barrick, M.M. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job
Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44:1-26.
Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative
negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 345.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training
motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 678.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, 396, 653-65.
DeRue, D. S., Conlon, D. E., Moon, H., & Willaby, H. W. (2009). When is straightforwardness a
liability in negotiations? The role of integrative potential and structural power. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1032.
Dimotakis, N., Conlon, D. E., & Ilies, R. (2012). The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator:
Personality and contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes in
negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 183.
Fulmer, I. S., & Barry, B. (2004). The smart negotiator: Cognitive ability and emotional
intelligence in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 245-272.
Graham, J. L. (1984). A comparison of Japanese and American business negotiations.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1(1), 51-68.

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
46
Harris, E. G., & Mowen, J. C. (2001). The influence of cardinal, central, and surfacelevel
personality traits on consumers' bargaining and complaint intentions. Psychology and
Marketing, 18(11), 1155-1185.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects MetaAnalysis Models:
Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 8(4), 275-292.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor
variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(1), 1-19.
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and
work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(1), 107-127.
Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: implications for
personnel selection in individual and team contexts. Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms, 332.
Klein, K. J., & Zedeck, S. (2004). Introduction to the special section on theoretical models and
conceptual analyses. Theory in applied psychology: Lessons (re) learned. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(6), 931-933.
Kong, D.T. & Bottom, W.P. (2010). Emotional intelligence, negotiation outcome, and
negotiation behavior. Paper presented at the 2010 Academy of Management Meeting,
available at: http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/cres/research/calendar/files/Kong2010.pdf
Kurtzberg, T. R. (1998). Creative thinking, a cognitive aptitude, and integrative joint gain: A
study of negotiator creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 283-293.
Li, N., Liang, J., & Michael Crant, J. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction
and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(2), 395.
Liu, L. A., Friedman, R. A., & Chi, S. C. (2005). ‘Ren Qing’versus the ‘Big Five’: The Role of
Culturally Sensitive Measures of Individual Difference in Distributive Negotiations.
Management and Organization Review, 1(2), 225-247.
Ma, Z. (2005, June). Exploring the relationships between the big five personality factors, conflict
styles, and bargaining behaviors. In IACM 18th Annual Conference, available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=735063
Ma, Z. (2008). Personality and negotiation revisited: toward a cognitive model of dyadic
negotiation. Management Research News, 31(10), 774-790.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higherorder dimensions of
the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology,
58(2), 447-478.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 183.
Schmidt, F.L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there
cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15(1-2), 187-210.

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
47
Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects
of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual-
differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 206.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods.
University of Iowa, Department of Management & Organizations, Iowa City, IA. 52242.
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Le, H. (2006). Increasing the accuracy of corrections for range
restriction: Implications for selection procedure validities and other research results.
Personnel Psychology, 59(2), 281-305.
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & OH, I. S. (2008). Increased accuracy for range restriction
corrections: Implications for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and
training performance. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 827-868.
Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (2006). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A
metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653-677.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500-517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-
situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34(4), 397-423.
Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical
issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 515.
Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Meyer, L. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator
competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
76(1), 1-29.
Zartman, I. W., & Berman, M. R. (1983). The practical negotiator. Yale University Press.
GMAT Reliabilities: http://www.gmac.com/gmat/the-gmat-advantage/validity-reliability-
fairness.aspx
SAT Reliabilities: http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables
Appendix 1:
Main Codes and Input Values for the Primary Studies
Included in the Meta-Analysis
Source
FFM traits/Cognitive
Ability
Negotiation Type
n
r
rxx
Antonioni (1998)
Extraversion
Joint Outcomes
351
0.29
0.78
Antonioni (1998)
Extraversion
Joint Outcomes
120
0.28
0.83
Antonioni (1998)
Agreeableness
Joint Outcomes
351
0.22
0.77
Antonioni (1998)
Agreeableness
Joint Outcomes
120
0.26
0.76
Antonioni (1998)
Emotional Stability
Joint Outcomes
351
0.13
0.85
Antonioni (1998)
Emotional Stability
Joint Outcomes
120
0.16
0.85
Antonioni (1998)
Openness
Joint Outcomes
351
0.31
0.75
Antonioni (1998)
Openness
Joint Outcomes
120
0.17
0.76
Antonioni (1998)
Conscientiousness
Joint Outcomes
351
0.19
0.82
Antonioni (1998)
Conscientiousness
Joint Outcomes
120
0.32
0.84
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Extraversion
Economic Gain
180
-0.26
0.93

Journal of Conflict Management 2014 Volume 2, Number 1
48
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Extraversion
Economic Gain
180
-0.11
0.93
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Extraversion
Joint Outcomes
76
0.025
0.94
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Agreeableness
Economic Gain
180
-0.07
0.87
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Agreeableness
Economic Gain
180
-0.06
0.79
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Agreeableness
Joint Outcomes
76
0.02
0.88
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Emotional Stability
Economic Gain
180
0.07
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Emotional Stability
Economic Gain
180
-0.04
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Emotional Stability
Joint Outcomes
76
0.25
0.87
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Openness
Economic Gain
180
0.01
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Openness
Economic Gain
180
-0.13
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Openness
Joint Outcomes
76
-0.15
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Conscientiousness
Economic Gain
180
0.03
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Conscientiousness
Economic Gain
180
-0.09
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Conscientiousness
Joint Outcomes
76
-0.05
0.86
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Cognitive Ability
Economic Gain
180
0.09
0.92
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Cognitive Ability
Economic Gain
180
0.02
0.92
Barry & Friedman (1998)
Cognitive Ability
Joint Outcomes
76
0.48
0.92
Dimotakis al. (2012)
Agreeableness
Economic Gain
124
.03
0.72
Dimotakis al. (2012)
Agreeableness
Economic Gain
112
.03
0.72
Graham (1984)
Cognitive Ability
Joint Outcomes
55
.40
.92
Graham (1984)
Cognitive Ability
Economic Gain
55
.30
.92
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Extraversion
Economic Gain
136
-0.06
0.89
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Extraversion
Joint Outcomes
136
-0.09
0.89
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Agreeableness
Economic Gain
136
-0.04
0.79
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Agreeableness
Joint Outcomes
136
-0.04
0.79
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Emotional Stability
Economic Gain
136
-0.01
0.86
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Emotional Stability
Joint Outcomes
136
0.11
0.86
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Openness
Economic Gain
136
0.01
0.84
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Openness
Joint Outcomes
136
-0.04
0.84
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Conscientiousness
Economic Gain
136
0.04
0.85
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Conscientiousness
Joint Outcomes
136
-0.1
0.85
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Cognitive Ability
Economic Gain
136
-0.04
0.91
Kong & Bottom (2010)
Cognitive Ability
Joint Outcomes
136
0.17
0.91
Liu et al. (2005)
Extraversion
EG
95
-.31
0.89
Liu et al. (2005)
Extraversion
EG
105
-.31
0.86
Liu et al. (2005)
Extraversion
EG
95
-.18
0.88
Liu et al. (2005)
Extraversion
EG
101
-.11
0.85
Liu et al. (2005)
Agreeableness
EG
95
-.08
0.82
Liu et al. (2005)
Agreeableness
EG
105
-.08
0.78
Liu et al. (2005)
Agreeableness
EG
95
-.08
0.83
Liu et al. (2005)
Agreeableness
EG
101
-.06
0.79
Ma (2005)
Extraversion
Economic Gain
138
-0.05
0.86
Ma (2005)
Agreeableness
Economic Gain
138
-0.05
0.78
Ma (2005)
Emotional Stability
Economic Gain
138
-0.05
0.85
Ma (2005)
Openness
Economic Gain
138
-0.07
0.8
Ma (2005)
Conscientiousness
Economic Gain
138
0.01
0.82