Big five model personality traits and job burnout: a systematic literature review - PMC

Big five model personality traits and job burnout: a systematic literature review - PMC
Official websites use .gov
.gov
website belongs to an official
government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
lock
) or
means you've safely
connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive
information only on official, secure websites.
Journal List
User Guide
PERMALINK
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with,
the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:
PMC Disclaimer
PMC Copyright Notice
. 2023 Feb 19;11:49. doi:
10.1186/s40359-023-01056-y
Big five model personality traits and job burnout: a systematic literature review
Giacomo Angelini
Giacomo Angelini
Department of Human Sciences, LUMSA University of Rome, 00193 Rome, Italy
Find articles by
Giacomo Angelini
1,
Department of Human Sciences, LUMSA University of Rome, 00193 Rome, Italy
Corresponding author.
Received 2022 Jun 23; Accepted 2023 Jan 18; Collection date 2023.
© The Author(s) 2023
Open Access
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
PMC Copyright notice
PMCID: PMC9938997  PMID:
36804929
Abstract
Background
Job burnout negatively contributes to individual well-being, enhancing public health costs due to turnover, absenteeism, and reduced job performance. Personality traits mainly explain why workers differ in experiencing burnout under the same stressful work conditions. The current systematic review was conducted with the PRISMA method and focused on the five-factor model to explain workers' burnout risk.
Methods
The databases used were Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and PsycINFO. Keywords used were: “Burnout,” “Job burnout,” “Work burnout,” “Personality,” and “Personality traits”.
Results
The initial search identified 3320 papers, from which double and non-focused studies were excluded. From the 207 full texts reviewed, the studies included in this review were 83 papers. The findings show that higher levels of neuroticism (r from 0.10** to 0.642***; β from 0.16** to 0.587***) and lower agreeableness (r from − 0.12* to − 0.353***; β from − 0.08*** to − 0.523*), conscientiousness (r from -0.12* to -0.355***; β from − 0.09*** to − 0.300*), extraversion (r from − 0.034** to − 0.33***; β from − 0.06*** to − 0.31***), and openness (r from − 0.18*** to − 0.237**; β from − 0.092* to − 0.45*) are associated with higher levels of burnout.
Conclusions
The present review highlighted the relationship between personality traits and job burnout. Results showed that personality traits were closely related to workers’ burnout risk. There is still much to explore and how future research on job burnout should account for the personality factors.
Keywords:
Personality, Personality traits, Burnout, Stress, Big five, PRISMA, Review
Introduction
Burnout: origin, evolution, and definition
Since the 1970s, when most research in occupational health psychology was focused on industrial workers, studies on burnout have seen a substantial increase. Initially considered a syndrome exclusively linked to helping professions [
], burnout has been adopted by a broader range of human services professionals [
]. Job burnout’s construct has undergone considerable conceptual and methodological attention in the last fifty years. Nowadays, job burnout is considered a multidimensional construct closely referred to as repeated exposure to work-related stress (e.g., [
]). According to the original theoretical framework, job burnout is defined chiefly as referring to feelings of exhaustion and emotional fatigue, cynicism, negative attitudes toward work, and reduced professional efficacy [
].
While the relationship between socio-demographic, organizational, and occupational factors and burnout syndrome have received significant attention, the relationship between burnout and individual factors, such as personality, is less explored (for a meta-analysis, see [
]).
Therefore, it is interesting to investigate whether there is sufficiently convincing evidence to indicate that personality factors play a role in predictors of job burnout. Investigating to what extent personality factors predict job burnout could include a measure of these factors in the selection processes of workers. At the same time, it could also allow preventive actions to support all those at risk of job burnout. This literature review involved a search for cohort studies published since 1993, which used self-report measures of personality traits and job burnout and investigated the relationships between these variables.
Personality and job burnout
In the past, research on this issue has been chiefly haphazard and scattered ([
10
] for a meta-analysis; [
11
]). Indeed, personality has often been evaluated in terms of positive or negative affectivity (respectively, e.g., [
12
13
]), adopting the type A personality model (e.g., [
14
]), or the concept of psychological hardiness [
15
]. More recently, burnout research focused on the relationship between workers’ personalities measured by the Big Five personality model and their burnout syndrome [
16
17
]. More specifically, neuroticism (e.g., [
18
19
]) and extraversion personalities (e.g., [
20
]) were abundantly investigated in the scientific panorama (for review; [
21
]).
Personality traits according to the five-factor model (FFM)
Since the twentieth century, scholars and researchers have increasingly dedicated themselves to studying this topic, given the importance assumed by personality in the psychological panorama. One of the most famous and relevant approaches to the study of character is the five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits (often referred to as the “Big Five”) proposed by McCrae & Costa [
22
23
]. As a multidimensional set, personality traits include individuals’ emotions, cognition, and behavior patterns [
23
26
]. Furthermore, the FFM is the most robust and parsimonious model adopted to understand personality traits and behavior reciprocal relationships [
27
] due to two main reasons: its reliability across ages and cultures [
28
29
] and its stability over the years [
30
]. According to several scholars, the FFM consists of five personality traits: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness [
23
25
26
31
]. Agreeableness refers to being cooperative, sympathetic, tolerant, and forgiving towards others, avoiding competition, conflict, pressuring, and using force [
32
]. Conscientiousness is reflected in being precise, organized, disciplined, abiding by principles and rules, and working hard to achieve success [
33
]. Extraversion is related to the quantity and intensity of individual social interaction characteristics. It is displayed through higher degrees of sociability, assertiveness, talkativeness, and self-confidence [
32
]. Neuroticism reflects people’s loss of emotional balance and impulse control. It is characterized by a prevalence of negative feelings and anxiety that are attempted to cope with through maladaptive coping strategies, such as delay or denial [
29
34
]. Openness is reflected in intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, untraditionality and creativity, the preference for independence, novelty, and differences [
33
35
]. In the last thirty years, the Big Five model has been recognized as a primary representation of salient and non-pathological aspects of personality, the alteration of which contributes to the development of personality disorders [
36
40
], such as antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic personality disorders [
41
].
Objectives
Although the role of the work environment as a predictor of burnout has been broadly documented (e.g., [
11
]), it cannot be neglected the effect that personality has on the development of this syndrome. Even reducing or eliminating stressors related to the work environment, some people may still experience high levels of burnout (e.g., [
42
]). For this reason, it is necessary to know the associations between personality traits and job burnout to identify the workers most prone to burnout and implement more risk-protection activities. Consequently, based on the literature presented above, this PRISMA review aimed to shed some light on the role that personality traits according to the Five Factors Model—Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness—play in the development of job burnout.
Methods
Protocol and registration
The systematic analysis of the relevant literature for this review followed procedures based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) process [
43
45
], a checklist of 27 items which together with a flow-chart (see Fig.
) constitute the most rigorous guide to systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. The systematic analysis of the relevant literature for this review followed procedures based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) process [
43
45
].
Fig. 1.
Open in a new tab
Diagram flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review
The PRISMA method intends to provide a checklist tool for creating systematic reviews of quality literature.
Eligibility criteria
The study was conducted by extensively searching articles published before June 30th, 2021 (time of research), limited to papers in journals published in English. Review articles, meta-analyses, book chapters, and conference proceedings were excluded. Articles investigating the relationship between personality traits and job burnout in any field of employment, except athletic and ecclesiastical, were included.
Information sources
The databases PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, were used for the systematic search of relevant studies applying the following keywords:
* Burnout * AND * Personality *
* Burnout * AND * Personality traits *
* Job burnout * AND * Personality *
* Work burnout * AND * Personality *
* Job burnout * AND * Personality traits *
* Work burnout * AND * Personality traits *
The initial search identified 3320 papers. The details (title; author/s; year of publication; journal) of the documents identified for inclusion across all inquiries were placed in a separate excel document. After removing duplicates, reviewing titles, and reading abstracts (see Fig.
), the papers were reduced to 207, of which full-text records were read. Studies selected in total for inclusion in this review were limited to the five dimensions of the Big Five Factor model [
46
] and were 83 papers.
Results
Study selection
As shown by the Prisma Diagram flow (Fig.
), a total of 83 studies were identified for inclusion in the review. Via the initial search process have been identified total of 3320 studies (Scopus, n = 1339; PubMed, n = 515; ScienceDirect, n = 181; PsycInfo, n = 1285). After excluding duplicates, the remaining studies were 1455 of these 1421 records analyzed, and 1195 were discarded. After reviewing the abstracts, these papers did not meet the criteria. Of the remaining 226 full texts, the 207 papers available were examined in more detail, and it emerged that 112 studies did not meet the inclusion criteria as described. Furthermore, to ensure that only studies that had received peer review and met certain quality indicators were included, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) was inspected. SCImago considers the reputation and quality of a journal on citations, based on four quartiles used to classify journals from the highest (Q1) to the lowest (Q4). As suggested by Peters and colleagues [
47
], SCImago represents a widely accepted measure of the quality of journals and reduces the possibility of including in systematic reviews papers that do not meet certain quality indices. Based on this, 12 papers were excluded. Finally, 83 studies were included in the systematic review that met the inclusion criteria. Of the articles included in the review, more than half (60%) are published in journals indexed as Q1. The others were in Q2 (28%), Q3 (5%), and finally Q4 (7%).
Study characteristics
Participants
The included studies have involved 36,627 participants. Based on the inclusion criteria, all reviewed studies included (1) adult samples (18 years or older), (2) workers from the general population rather than clinical samples, (3) regardless of the type of work, and for most studies (4) more female participants than male (female, 57.79%; male, 42.21%). Six studies did not include participants’ demographic information [
48
53
]. The above percentages refer to the available data (n = 33,299).
The sample consisted of about 26% Teachers or Professors, 22% Nurses, 11% Physicians with various specializations, 10% Policemen, 10% Health professionals, 8% Clerks, of which about 5% worked with IT. Furthermore, the sample was made up of almost 3% Drivers, and less than 2% ICT Manager and Firefighters. Finally, about 9% of the sample carried out different types of jobs.
Countries of collecting data
The 83 articles included in this review have been published between 1993 and 2021 (see Fig.
). In terms of geographic dispersion, more than half of the studies (n = 45; 54.21%) were conducted in Europe (France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK). In contrast, the others were conducted either in America (n = 18; Canada, Jamaica, and the USA), Asia (n = 13; China, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, and Singapore), Africa (n = 6; Nigeria, South Africa, and Turkey) and Oceania (n = 1; Australia).
Fig. 2.
Open in a new tab
Research records achieving the inclusion criteria from 1993 to June 30th, 2021
A summary of information about the general characteristics and main methodological properties of all included 83 studies is reported in Table
Table 1.
The included studies
References
Study design
Study sample
Country
Job
Female
age
SD
age
Burnout measures
Personality measures
Years
Manlove [
111
CSS
188
USA
Child care workers
98.94%
34
DNA
MBI
EPI
1993
Deary et al. [
48
CSS
375
UK
Medical staff
DNA
DNA
DNA
MBI
NEO-PI-R
1996
Deary et al. [
112
CSS
188
UK
Physicians/surgeons
9.4%
47.0
1.2
MBI
NEO-FFI
1996
Mills et al. [
60
LS
225
USA
School psychologists
73.4%
40.3
9.3
MBI
NEO-FFI
1998
Zellars et al. [
113
CSS
188
USA
Hospital nurses
89.9%
40
8.0
MBI
NEO-FFI
2000
Zellars et al. [
53
CSS
296
USA
Hospital nurses for acute care
DNA
42.2
9.5
MBI
NEO-FFI
2001
De Vries et al. [
114
CSS
765
Netherland
Workers
46.5%
40.3
9.7
MBI
FFPI
2002
McManus et al. [
50
LS
1668
UK
Doctors
DNA
30.4
1.86
MBI
BFQ
2004
Zellars et al. [
52
CSS
290
USA
Hospital nurses for acute care
DNA
42.19
9.45
MBI
NEO-FFI
2004
Cano-García et al. [
115
CSS
99
Spain
Teachers
74%
42.5
8.5
MBI
NEO-PI-R
2005
Burke et al. [
116
CSS
496
Norway
Nursing home employees
89.1%
DNA
DNA
BBI
BFI
2006
Goddard et al. [
57
LS
79
Australia
Beginning teachers
84%
26
7.46
MBI-ES
EPQ-RS
2006
Langelaan et al. [
117
CSS
572
Netherland
Employees
17%
42
8.0
MBI-GS
NEO-FFI
2006
Mostert et al. [
118
CSS
1749
South Africa
Policeman
18.1%
34.53
6.23
MBI-GS
PCI
2006
Bahner et al. [
119
CSS
115
USA
BIP workers
56%
43
11.77
MBI
COPAS
2007
Ghorpade et al. [
120
CSS
265
USA
Professors
46.39%
50
10.24
MBI-ES
Mini-Markers Inventory
2007
Kim et al. [
121
CSS
191
USA
Hotels employees
62.3%
36
DNA
MBI-GS
IPIP
2007
Teven [
122
CSS
48
USA
Professors
43.75%
51.15
9.86
MBI
Big Five measure-SF
2007
Leon et al. [
123
CSS
203
USA
Children’s RTCs
63.50%
31.64
9.41
MBI
BFI
2008
Chung et al. [
124
CSS
103
UK
Residential community staff
70%
37.51
10.97
MBI
NEO-FFI
2009
De Hoogh et al. [
125
CSS
91
190
Netherlands
Clients of a human resource Employees
43%
59%
42
36
DNA
DNA
MBI-GS
IPIP
2009
Gandoy-Crego et al. [
126
CSS
42
Spain
Geriatric nurses
84%
31
5.7
MBI
BFQ
2009
Kim et al. [
127
CSS
187
USA
Subway employees
67%
22
DNA
MBI-GS
IPIP
2009
Taormina et al., [
128
CSS
172
China
Casino workers
40.12%
27.87
5.17
MBI
NEO-PI-R
2009
Barford et al. [
129
CSS
94
Canada
Child and youth care workers
69.1%
32.82
9.75
MBI-GS
NEO-FFI
2010
Perry et al. [
51
CSS
252
392
USA
Customer service providers
Manual laborers for repair and construction services
83%
DNA
34.7
DNA
9.83
DNA
Exhaustion scale
MBI-GS
Personal Characteristics Inventory
Big Five factor markers
2010
Ghorpade et al. [
130
CSS
263
USA
Professors
46.4%
50.14
10.24
MBI
Mini-Markers Inventory
2011
Hudek-Knežević et al. [
59
LS
118
Croatia
Hospital nurses
100%
36.47
7.02
MBI
BFI
2011
Salami [
131
CSS
340
Nigeria
Teachers
29.42%
36.70
4.50
MBI-GS
NEO-FFI
2011
Sterud et al. [
61
LS
298
Norway
Ambulance workers
16.9%
38.2
8.9
MBI-HSS
BCI
2011
Armon et al. [
54
LS
1105
Israel
Health workers
37%
DNA
DNA
SMBM
Big-Five mini markers scale
2012
Zimmerman et al. [
132
CSS
587
USA
Employees
11%
49
DNA
MBI
Big-Five mini markers scale
2012
De la Fuente Solana et al. [
133
CSS
747
Spain
Policeman
11.8%
35.7
8.33
MBI
NEO-FFI
2013
Garbarino et al. [
134
CSS
289
Italy
Policeman
0%
35.4
7.5
MBI
BFQ
2013
Hurt et al. [
135
CSS
113
USA
ABA therapists
95.6%
DNA
DNA
MBI-GS
M5-120
2013
Lin et al. [
136
CSS
228
China
Employees
19.79%
27.9
3.9
MBI
EPQ
2013
Gan et al. [
56
LS
160
China
IT employees
36.2%
27.78
3.91
MBI-GS
NEO-FFI-SF
2014
Reinke et al. [
137
CSS
201
UK
Workers
51.74%
34.78
9.49
OLBI
TIPI
2014
Taycan et al. [
138
CSS
139
Turkey
Physicians
33.1%
31.05
4.84
MBI-HSS
EPQ-RS
2014
Yilmaz, [
139
CSS
303
Turkey
Teachers
53.5%
DNA
DNA
MBI
Mini-IPIP
2014
Cañadas-De la Fuente et al. [
140
CSS
676
Spain
Nurses
66%
44.58
8.18
MBI
NEO-FFI
2015
Srivastava et al. [
141
CSS
152
Europe and Asia
Senior organizational managers who regularly use ICT
23.7%
37,96
6,73
MBI
TIPI
2015
Ang et al. [
142
CSS
1826
Singapore
Nurses
61.5%
DNA
DNA
MBI
NEO-FFI
2016
Iorga et al. [
143
CSS
37
Romania
Forensic physicians
54.05%
39.13
11.78
MBI
BFI
2016
Vaulerin et al. [
144
CSS
220
France
Firefighters
0%
36.23
6.94
SMBM
BFI
2016
Zhou et al. [
145
CSS
1129
China
Physicians
58.17%
38.04
7.74
MBI
EPQ-RS
2016
De la Fuente-Solana et al. [
146
CSS
101
Spain
Oncology nurses
69.3%
DNA
DNA
MBI
NEO-FFI
2017
Geuens et al. [
147
CSS
587
Belgium
Nurses
82%
40
10.8
MBI
NEO-FFI
2017
Iorga et al. [
148
CSS
116
Romania
Obstetrics and gynecology physicians
69.83%
DNA
DNA
MBI
BFI
2017
Lovell et al. [
149
CSS
120
UK
Prison officers
40.7%
41.72
10.73
MBI-HSS
NEO-PI
2017
Ntantana et al. [
150
CSS
149
320
Greece
Physicians
ICU nurses
33.4%
19.2%
DNA
DNA
DNA
DNA
MBI
EPQ
2017
Al Shbail et al. [
151
CSS
187
Jordan
Internal auditors
7.5%
DNA
DNA
BM
NEO-PI-R
2018
Bergmüller et al. [
152
CSS
97
Germany
Ambulance doctors
41.24%
37.0
12.21
MBI-GS
FPI
2018
Bianchi et al. [
153
CSS
257
Switzerland
Teachers
76%
44.84
10.46
SMBM
NEO-FFI
2018
Bianchi, [
19
CSS
1759
France
Teachers
77%
40.81
9.63
SMBM
NEO-FFI
2018
Harizanova et al. [
49
CSS
307
Bulgaria
Correctional officers
DNA
DNA
DNA
MBI
EPQ
2018
Hildenbrand et al. [
58
LS
148
Germany
Employees of a manufacturing company
22%
DNA
DNA
OLBI
MRS-30
2018
Iorga et al. [
154
CSS
78
Romania
Hospital pharmacists
89.7%
45.57
10.12
MBI
BFI
2018
Tang et al. [
155
CSS
862
China
Clinical health professionals
80.4%
DNA
DNA
MBI-HSS
Brief Big five Personality Scale
2018
Tatalović Vorkapić et al. [
156
CSS
203
Croatia
Educators
100%
38.73
10.69
Scale of professional burnout of educators
BFI
2018
Yao et al. [
157
CSS
860
China
Nurses
94.42%
DNA
DNA
MBI-GS
EPQ-RS
2018
Zaninotto et al. [
158
CSS
215
Italy
Mental health professionals
59.1%
46.98
8.09
MBI
TIPI
2018
Bahadori et al. [
159
CSS
308
Iran
Technicians of emergency medical personnel
0%
30
5.43
MBI
NEO-FFI
2019
Brown et al. [
160
CSS
77
Canada and Jamaica
Primary care physicians
79%
DNA
DNA
MBI-HSS
BFI
2019
Castillo-Gualda et al. [
62
CSS
LS
237
59
Spain
Teachers
65.4%
66.10%
44.32
41.12
10.54
9.91
MBI-ES
BFI
2019
De la Fuente-Solana et al. [
161
CSS
96
Spain
Oncology nurses
68.8%
45.5
8.02
MBI
NEO-FFI
2019
De Looff et al. [
55
LS
110
Netherland
Nurses for forensic psychiatric hospitals
59%
35.5
10.0
MBI
NEO-FFI
2019
Farfán et al. [
162
CSS
237
Spain
Workers of State Security Forces and Corps
24.05%
37.72
DNA
MBI-GS
NEO-PI-R
2019
Khedhaouria et al. [
163
CSS
161
France
Senior managers who regularly use ICT
49.61%
39
DNA
SMBM
TIPI
2019
Pérez-Fuentes et al. [
17
CSS
1236
Spain
Nurses
85.5%
31.50
6.18
CBB
BFI-10
2019
Ye et al. [
164
CSS
622
China
HSR drivers
0%
37.2
DNA
2.31
DNA
MBI-GS
BFI
2019
Banasiewicz et al. [
165
CSS
181
Poland
Midwives participating and non-participating in pregnancy terminations
100%
40.79
8.55
OLBI
EPQ-R
2020
Bhowmick et al. [
166
CSS
152
India
Policeman
2%
43.4
9.34
MBI
Big-Five mini markers scale
2020
De Vine et al. [
167
CSS
127
South Africa
Workers
64%
33.21
12.17
MBI-GS
BTI
2020
Dionigi, [
168
CSS
160
Italy
Clown doctors
72,5%
38.63
11.42
MBI
BFI
2020
Farfán et al. [
169
CSS
971
Spain
Workers
56.95%
37.58
DNA
MBI
Mini-IPIP
2020
Liu et al. [
170
CSS
451
China
Employee-supervisor dyads
19.82%
33.16
9.49
MBI-GS
IPIP
2020
Mahoney et al. [
171
CSS
246
USA
Nurse anesthetists
60%
48.03
11.34
OLBI
TIPI
2020
Malka et al. [
172
CSS
311
Israel
Social workers
90%
42.8
8.9
SBM
BFI
2020
Tasic et al. [
173
CSS
302
Serbia
Nursery teachers
100%
38
9.2
MBI-GS
Big Five Plus Two questionnaire-SF
2020
Bianchi et al. [
174
CSS
4394
611
514
France
Spain
Swiss
Teachers
86%
70%
68%
44.78
45.98
44.95
9.35
9.39
10.54
MBI-ES
NEO-FFI
2021
De la Fuente-Solana, Pradas-Hernández, González-Fernández, et al. [
175
CSS
94
Spain
Paediatric nurses
78.7%
43.89
10.50
MBI-HSS
NEO-FFI
2021
De la Fuente‐Solana, Suleiman‐Martos, Velando‐Soriano, et al.,[
176
CSS
150
Spain
Midwives and nurses
78.7%
44.85
11.563
MBI
NEO-FFI
2021
Open in a new tab
ABA Applied Behaviour Analysis; BBI Bergen Burnout Indicator; BCI Basic Character Inventory; BFI, Big Five Inventory; BFQ, Big Five Questionnaire; BIP, Batterer Intervention Program; BM, Burnout Measure; BTI, Basic Traits Inventory; CBB, Brief Burnout Questionnaire; COPAS, Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales; CSS, Cross-sectional study; DNA, Data Not Available; EPI, Eysenck Personality Inventory; EPQ-R, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised; EPQ-RS, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised Short Scale; EPQ, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; FFPI, Five-Factor Personality Inventory; FPI, Freiburg Personality Inventory; ICT, Information and Communication Technologies; ICU, Intensive Care Unit; IPIP, International Personality Item Pool; IT, information technology; LS, Longitudinal study; M, Mean; MBI-ES, Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey; MBI-GS, Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey; MBI-HSS, Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey; MBI, Maslach Burnout Inventory; MRS, Minimal Redundant Scales; NEO-FFI-PI-R, Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Five Factor Inventory Personality Inventory-Revised; NEO-FFI-PI, Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Five Factor Inventory Personality Inventory; NEO-FFI, Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Five-Factor Inventory; NEO-PI, Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory; NEO-PI-R, Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory Revised; OLBI, Oldenburg Burnout Inventory; PCI, Personality Characteristics Inventory; RTC, Residential Treatment Center; SD; Standard Deviation; SF, Short Form; SMBM, Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure; TIPI, Ten-Item Personality Inventory
Study selection
Concerning the key methodological features of studies, all studies reviewed involved empirical and quantitative research design. Most of the papers included (n = 73; 88%) in this review were cross-sectional and descriptive studies, except nine (11%) papers presenting longitudinal studies [
50
54
61
]. Furthermore, one paper (1%; [
62
]) presented two different studies within it, one cross-sectional and the other longitudinal.
Most of the studies, 84% (n = 70), assessed job burnout via the Maslach Burnout Inventory, both in the original version (MBI; [
63
]), and in the subsequent versions [
64
65
], or its adaptation [
66
]. The other studies, 16% (n = 13), used tools other than MBI, but which share with it the theoretical approach to job burnout and the dimensions of (emotional) exhaustion, depersonalization or cynicism, and reduced personal or professional accomplishment (see Table
). Five papers used the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure (SMBM; [
67
]), four the Oldenburg burnout inventory (OLBI; [
68
69
]), one the Bergen Burnout Indicator (BBI; [
70
]), one the Brief Burnout Questionnaire (CBB; [
71
]), one the Burnout Measure [
72
] and one the Short Burnout Measure (SBM; [
73
]).
Outcomes
According to the Big Five model, the outcome of the analyzed studies was the correlational and regressive between work burnout and personality traits. The data of the models in which the personality traits mediated or moderated the relationships with other variables, which were not the study’s object, were not considered in this review. Concerning personality, all included studies were compatible with the "Big Five" model [
74
75
] and investigated traits of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness.
In detail, about 28% (n = 23) of the studies used the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; [
33
76
79
]), 17% (n = 14) have used the Big Five Inventory (BFI; [
31
75
80
83
]), one of which is the 10-item version [
84
]. Yet, 10% (n = 8) used the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; [
85
86
]), with one study with the revised version [
87
], and four studies with the revised and short version [
88
]. Furthermore, 7% (n = 6) involved the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; [
89
90
]), with two studies adopting the mini version [
91
], while another 7% (n = 6) involved the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; [
81
]), with five studies adopting the revised version. About 5% (n = 4) has used the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; [
92
]), 4% (n = 3) has used the Big Five mini markers scale [
93
], and 4% (n = 3) involved the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; [
94
]) Finally, about 2% (n = 2) has submitted the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI; [
95
]), and 2% (n = 2) used the Mini Markers Inventory [
93
].
The remaining studies, about 14% (n = 12), used the following tools: the Basic Character Inventory (BCI; [
96
]), the Big Five factor markers [
90
], the Big Five measure-Short version [
32
97
], the Big Five Plus Two questionnaire-Short version [
98
], the Brief Big five Personality Scale [
92
], the Basic Traits Inventory (BTI; [
99
]), the Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales (COPAS; [
100
]), the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; [
101
]), the Freiburg Personality Inventory (FPI; [
102
]), the M5-120 Questionnaire [
103
], the Minimal Redundant Scales (MRS-30; [
104
][
104
]), and the Personality Characteristics Inventory (PCI; [
105
106
]).
All instruments included in the studies were in line with the “Big Five” domains [
26
], such as e.g., the NEO-FFI and the NEO-PI, widely used measures of the Big Five [
81
], the dimensions of the TIPI and the IPIP [
89
92
], or the factors of the EPQ and the EPI, compatible with the Big Five model [
107
108
].
Risk of bias in individual studies
Study design, sampling, and measurement bias were assessed regarding the evaluation risk of bias in each study. Table
summarizes the limits reported in each study. Where not registered, no limitations related to the study were referred by the authors of the original studies.
Table 2.
Main study limitations and risk of biases in the 83 studies reviewed
References
CSS
PM
SSS
NPS
LRR
SIM
PMFS
PRS
TLSL
CGB
SSOWS
SVL
Other limitations
Years
Manlove [
111
1993
Deary et al. [
48
The use of zero-order statistics for the evaluation of multifactorial constructs, such as psychological issues, has been recognized as being inappropriate
1996
Deary et al. [
112
1996
Mills et al. [
60
The exclusion of the personality measure at Time 2 did not allow for a complete analysis of the effects of personality differences on burnout dimensions
1998
Zellars et al. [
113
2000
Zellars et al. [
53
2001
De Vries et al. [
114
2002
McManus et al. [
50
2004
Zellars et al. [
52
2004
Cano-García et al. [
115
2005
Burke et al. [
116
2006
Goddard et al. [
57
Participants may have different characteristics from those of those who did not participate
No comparison with a control group
2006
Langelaan et al. [
117
2006
Mostert et al. [
118
2006
Bahner et al. [
119
The focus of the study was on the male batterer intervention program in the context of heterosexual relationships, not that of same-sex relationships
It is not known whether the results may reflect the different nature and structure of the working environments of the batterer intervention programs
2007
Ghorpade et al. [
120
2007
Kim et al. [
121
2007
Teven [
122
The data comes from a sample with only the level of education university
Respondents may have tried fatigue because many of the measures overlap conceptually
2007
Leon et al. [
123
There are missing data and differences between the samples for age and education
No specific job characteristics to RTCs were explored that might be associated with the client presentations measured
It is possible that this study's moderation findings will not generalize to other samples of front line staff
2008
Chung et al. [
124
Challenging behavior has been measured in terms of the level of challenging behavior of the clients with whom they worked most intensively, and this does not accurately or reliably reflect exposure to challenging behavior
No data on staff views of their job, on assaults or witnessed violence by staff, or on the kind of recent significant life events of the staff
2009
De Hoogh et al. [
125
In Sample 1 ratings of independent and dependent variables were provided by the same subordinates
In Sample 2 the selection of raters may have selected employees who share attitudes and opinions
2009
Gandoy-Crego et al. [
126
2009
Kim et al. [
127
Focus limited to individual differences
2009
Taormina et al. [
128
2009
Barford et al. [
129
Different methods of data collection were used
2010
Perry et al. [
51
The distinct contexts across the two samples and lower variance across variables in Sample 1 may have affected the results
2010
Ghorpade et al. [
130
2011
Hudek-Knežević et al. [
59
Burnout at Time 1 was not measured
Sample attrition due to drop-out at Time 2
Significant differences (age, agreeableness, and continuance commitment) were found between the sample included and the one that in both Times and the one that dropped out
2011
Salami, [
131
2011
Sterud et al. [
61
2011
Armon et al. [
54
The findings could be biased because of the "healthy worker effect"
Longitudinal design was based on only two waves of measurement
The personality scale only return a total score and do not evaluate the influence of the personality variables on each of the burnout factors
The possibility that the factors of the personality may interact in affecting burnout levels has not been tested
2012
Zimmerman et al. [
132
The sample was composed exclusively of high-level professionals
Only neuroticism and extraversion and not all personality traits were evaluated
2012
De la Fuente Solana et al. [
133
2013
Garbarino et al. [
134
2013
Hurt et al. [
135
2013
Lin et al. [
136
The sample was relatively young
Questionnaires used are not popular therefore the comparison with other studies (also of other nationalities) may be limited
The employees who did not respond to our questionnaire might have been those who were busier
2013
Gan et al. [
56
Could not examine the reciprocal relationship (burnout/engagement to demands/resources) using panel data
2014
Reinke et al. [
137
2014
Taycan et al. [
138
Lack of an urban physician sample for comparison
2014
Yilmaz, [
139
2014
Cañadas-De la Fuente et al. [
140
2015
Ang et al. [
142
2015
Iorga et al. [
143
2016
Vaulerin et al. [
144
2016
Zhou et al. [
145
Some scales have been adapted to the sample under study and their construct validity and temporal stability have not been confirmed
The questionnaire was completed on workdays and may have caused additional stress for the firefighters
2016
De la Fuente-Solana et al. [
146
2016
Geuens et al. [
147
2017
Iorga et al. [
148
The study was conducted from November 2012 to July 2013 and could lead to different results than a recent one
The focus was only on individual factors, leaving out job-related and organizational factors
2017
Lovell et al. [
149
The access to medical facilities and the small distance from patients who live in urban areas may have diminished the physicians' professional exhaustion
2017
Ntantana et al. [
150
Methods based on measuring physiological parameters are not objective
2017
Al Shbail et al. [
151
Causal factors have not been investigated
2017
Bergmüller et al. [
152
Only companies that were part of the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) were included in the study and not the others
All types of shareholding companies were included in the study, regardless of sub-sectors
2018
Bianchi et al. [
153
2018
Bianchi, [
19
It was used only one measure of burnout
The role of organizational and work-contextualized factors may have been overemphasized in burnout research, to the detriment of the role of generic dispositional factors
Burnout's discriminant validity is unsatisfactory
2018
Harizanova et al. [
49
An exhaustion-centered measure of burnout was used
Only neuroticism and extraversion and not all personality traits were evaluated
2018
Hildenbrand et al. [
58
2018
Iorga et al. [
154
The correlation between thriving and burnout at Time 1 and Time 2 was rather high
Despite large groups of employees sharing the same supervisor, it was not possible to collect information on group composition and therefore take into account the variance due to team membership
2018
Tang et al. [
155
2018
Tatalović Vorkapić et al. [
156
The psychological distress of the participants was not measured and also the fitting degrees of both logistic regression modes are low, suggesting that there are other unknown risk factors
2018
Yao et al. [
157
2018
Zaninotto et al. [
158
The participants of the sample, coming from the municipal hospitals, had heavy patient loads and therefore more exposed to burnout
2018
Bahadori et al. [
159
A large number of correlations increases the risk of type 1 errors
2018
Brown et al. [
160
2019
Castillo-Gualda et al. [
62
2019
De la Fuente-Solana et al. [
161
2019
De Looff et al. [
55
2019
Farfán et al. [
162
Methods based on measuring physiological parameters are not objective
2019
Khedhaouria et al. [
163
2019
Pérez-Fuentes et al. [
17
Organizational factors that reduce stress, the effect of technostress, and personality traits on job burnout among employees, nor cases that could have specific antecedent conditions predisposing job burnout were not evaluated
2019
Ye et al. [
164
Some information is lost due to some scales, which are too short to adequately evaluate the personality construct, or they only return a total burnout score and do not evaluate the influence of the personality variables on each of the burnout factors
2019
Banasiewicz et al. [
165
The Baron and Kenny method to examine the mechanism of the mediator is too simple
2019
Bhowmick et al. [
166
The questionnaire contained closed-ended type questions
The questionnaire required a long duration of completion
Pregnancy terminations are performed only at several facilities in Poland
2020
De Vine et al. [
167
2020
Dionigi, [
168
2020
Farfán et al. [
169
The predictors evaluated accounted for only a part of the burnout dimensions
2020
Liu et al. [
170
Sample with high concentration of people with a high education level
2020
Mahoney et al. [
171
The study focuses on negative workplace gossip and does not include positive workplace gossip
The scale of negative workplace gossip is based on frequency, but the perception of negative workplace gossip may have different influences
The mean score for negative workplace gossip is relatively lower than those of other studies with Chinese samples
2020
Malka et al. [
172
2020
Tasic et al. [
173
The issue of work supervisors who wanted to leave the job was not evaluated
Being a quantitative study, it lacks the interpretive perspective of the participants
It is not clear to what degree participants related to their role as fieldwork supervisor compared to their experiences workers in general
2020
Bianchi et al. [
174
2020
Fuente-Solana et al. [
175
French sample was considerably larger than Spanish and Swiss samples
2021
Fuente–Solana et al. [
176
Methods based on measuring physiological parameters are not objective
There was the impression that a sample with a certain level of burnout was more prone to participate
2021
Manlove [
111
Methods based on measuring physiological parameters are not objective
2021
Open in a new tab
CSS, Cross-Sectional; PM, Perceptual Measures; SSS, Small Sample Size; NPS, Non-Probabilistic Sampling; LRR, Low Response Rate; SIM, Single-Item Measures; PMFS, Predominantly Male/Female Sample; PRS, Poor reliability scale; TLSL, Time Lag too Short/Long; CGB, Cultural/Geographical Bias; SSOWS, Sample of a Single Organization/Work/State; SVL, Study Variables were Limited
Study design bias
Although most of the studies (89%) have a cross-sectional design, this review reported in the table (see Table
) this bias only on the studies that highlighted this as a weakness (50%). Cross-sectional methods are cheap to conduct, agile for both the researcher and the participant, and can give answers to many research questions [
109
]. At the same time, however, since it is a one-time measurement, it does not allow us to test dynamic and progressive effects to conclude the causal relationships among variables.
Three longitudinal studies reported a shortness [
56
58
] or longness [
55
] time-lag between the first and successive administrations. The time length between the study’s waves is an essential issue in longitudinal research methodology. The time interval between the first and following measurements should correspond with the underlying causal lag (e.g., [
110
]). If the time lag is too short, probably the antecedent variable does not affect the outcome variable. If, on the contrary, the time lag is too long, the effect of the antecedent variable may already have disappeared. In both cases, the possibility of detecting the impact of the antecedent variable on the outcome variable may decrease.
Furthermore, it is possible that in the period between the first and subsequent measurements, several events may occur affecting the outcome. Finally, the same participant in the sample could change the condition under study (to know more, [
177
]). Especially in work-related studies, employees may be subject to changes in context, needs, and working hours [
178
]. Despite this, longitudinal designs offer substantial advantages over cross-sectional methods in examining the causal links between the variables [
177
].
Sampling bias
About 29% of the studies (n = 24) reported the small samples as limitation. Among these, one study that had two different samples reported a small sample only in second one [
62
], while another study, in investigating differences, highlighted that certain groups have a relatively small sample size and reported this as a limitation [
140
]. Additionally, about 10% of the studies reported having received an inadequate response rate. About 18% of the studies reported a non-probabilistic sampling as a limitation, and 6% of studies examined reported having a gender-biased sample (male/female). Other studies (13%) reported collecting data in a single organization, country, or an imbalance among workers’ categories. Finally, three studies [
154
168
170
] reported a cultural or geographical bias. To sum up, studies’ limitations regarding the sample characteristics may significantly impact scores’ reliability [
179
180
]. Specifically, this research’s limits prevent to generalize the findings.
Measurement and response bias
Since inclusion evaluated burnout and personality traits through self-reports that respected the previously illustrated models, all the studies examined used self-report measures. Again, only 40% report this as a limitation. Using perceptual measures, one could be subject to the Common Method Bias (CMB; [
181
]). The CMB occurs when the estimated relationships among variables are biased due to a unique-measure method [
182
]. This bias may be due to several factors, including response trends due to social desirability, similar responses of respondents due to proximity and wording of items, and similarity in the conditions of time, medium, and place of measurements [
183
185
]. These variations in responses are artificially attributed to the instrument rather than to the basic predispositions of the participants [
181
186
187
]. Suppose the systematic method variance is not contained. In that case, it can result in an incorrect evaluation of the scale's reliability and convergent validity, inflating the reliability estimates of correlations [
188
] and distorting the estimates of the effects of the predictors in the regressions [
184
].
Furthermore, about 5% of studies reported using single-item measures. Personality characteristics were often measured through self-reports with single items and assessed through a Likert scale [
189
]. This type of assessment is susceptible to social desirability (SDR; [
184
185
]), i.e., the tendency to respond coherently with what others perceive as desirable [
190
]. Furthermore, this type of assessment is also susceptible to acquiescent responding (ACQ; [
191
]), i.e., the tendency to prefer positive scores on the Likert scale, regardless of the meaning of the item [
192
]. Response-style-induced errors can influence reliability estimates (e.g., [
193
194
]) and overestimate or underestimate the relationships between the variables examined [
195
]. Despite these response biases, widely documented in the literature [
184
186
196
198
], it appears that this bias is overstated in psychological research [
185
]. Indeed, self-reports would seem to be the most valid measurement method for evaluating personality factors because the same participant is the most suitable person to report their personality and level of burnout [
42
]. Other studies (10%) reported using a poor reliability scale: employing imprecise psychometric procedures in a study is likely to distort the outcome, therefore not allowing to make inferences about an individual and creating a response bias [
199
]. Finally, about 16% of the studies examined reported that the study did not review all the variables relating to the constructs investigated. Table
also identifies some specific limitations of the studies examined, such as, e.g., the comparison between non-numerically equivalent samples [
174
], the long compilation time required [
165
], and the lack of a control group [
57
138
]. Furthermore, some studies have used tools that evaluate only a total score of burnout [
17
] or personality [
54
] Finally, other studies have focused only on individual factors, leaving out job-related and organizational factors [
147
].
This systematic review was conducted to identify, categorize, and evaluate the studies investigating the relationship between job burnout and personality traits addressed to date. Specifically, the interest of this review was to explore the role of personality traits as individual factors related to job burnout. To do this, only studies that analyzed the direct relationship between personality traits and job burnout were included, leaving out all those studies that investigated additional variables that could in any way mediate or moderate this relationship.
Results of the studies included
Table
summarizes the results, the correlation and regression indices, and the power of significance of the studies included in this review.
Table 3.
Results of the variables reviewed in the 83 studies reviewed
Correlation
Regression
References
Years
Manlove [
111
+ EE
(r, 0.40**)
+ D
(r, 0.38**)
− PA
(r, − 0.25**)
+ EE***
+ D***
− PA**
1993
Deary et al. [
48
+ EE
(r, 0.56**)
+ D
(r, 0.40**)
− PA
(r, − 0.35**)
+ PA
(r, 0.27**)
− D
(r, − 0.21**)
+ PA
(r, 0.20**)
+ PA
(r, 0.15**)
1996
Deary et al. [
112
+ EE
(r, 0.76***)
+ D
(r, 0.71***)
1996
Mills et al. [
60
+ EE (T1)
(r, 0.50**)
+ EE (T2)
(r, 0.43**)
+ D (T1)
(r, 0.34**)
+ D (T2)
(r, 0.23**)
− rPA (T1)
(r, − 0.31**)
− rPA (T2)
(r, − 0.29**)
− EE (T1)
(r, − 0.24**)
− EE (T2)
(r, − 0.22**)
+ rPA (T1)
(r, 0.48**)
+ rPA (T2)
(r, 0.42**)
− EE (T1)
(r, − 0.24**)
− EE (T2)
(r, − 0.23*)
− D (T1)
(r, − 0.36**)
− D (T2)
(r, − 0.25*)
− EE (T1)
(r, − 0.37*)
− EE (T2)
(r, − 0.12*)
+ rPA
(r, 0.19*)
− EE (T1)
(β, − 0.26*)
+ rPA (T1)
(β, 0.45*)
− D (T1)
(β, − 0.31*)
1998
Zellars et al. [
113
+ EE
(r, 0.50*)
+ D
(r, 0.23*)
− rPA
(r, 0.23*)
− EE
(r, − 0.25*)
−D
(r, − 0.30*)
− rPA
(r, − 0.28*)
− EE
(r, − 0.29*)
−D
(r, − 0.37*)
− rPA
(r, − 0.19*)
−rPA
(r, − 0.24*)
+ EE
(β, 0.32***)
− D
(β, − 0.20***)
− rPA
(β, − 0.18**)
− D
(β, − 0.32***)
−D
(β, −0.11*)
−rPA
(β, −0.25***)
2000
Zellars et al. [
53
+ EE
(r, 0.48**)
+ D
(r, 0.38**)
+ rPA
(r, 0.30**)
−EE
(r, −0.24**)
−D
(r, −0.19**)
−rPA
(r, −0.37**)
−EE
(r, −0.24**)
−D
(r, −0.39**)
−rPA
(r, −0.29**)
+ EE
(β, 0.34**)
+ D
(β, 0.24**)
−rPA
(β, −0.21**)
− D
(β, −0.28**)
−rPA
(β, −0.11**)
2001
De Vries et al. [
114
−EE
(r, −0.34**)
−EE
(r, −0.13**)
2002
McManus et al. [
50
+ EE
(r, 0.47**)
+ D
(r, 0.38**)
+ rPA
(r, 0.30**)
− EE
(r, − 0.24**)
− D
(r, − 0.19**)
− rPA
(r, − 0.37**)
+ EE
(β, 0.37**)
+ D
(β, 0.30**)
− rPA
(β, − 0.28**)
2004
Zellars et al. [
52
T1 + EE (T2)
(r, 0.233***)
T1 + D (T2)
(r, 0.103***)
T2 + EE (T2)
(r, 0.378***)
T2 + D (T2)
(r, 0.235***)
T2 + PA (T2)
(r, 0.090***)
T1−EE (T2)
(r, − 0.190***)
T1−D (T2)
(r, − 0.137***)
T1−PA (T2)
(r, − 0.077***)
T2−EE (T2)
(r, − 0.262***)
T2−D (T2)
(r, − 0.171***)
T2−PA (T2)
(r, − 0.152***)
T1−D (T2)
(r, − 0.240***)
T1−PA
(r, − 0.091***)
T2−EE (T2)
(r, − 0.094***)
T2−D (T2)
(r, − 0.322***)
T2−PA
(r, − 0.082***)
T1−EE (T2)
(r, − 0.088**)
T1−D (T2)
(r, − 0.121***)
T2−EE
(r, − 0.129***)
T2−D
(r, − 0.165***)
T1 + PA
(r, 0.096**)
T2 + PA
(r, 0.127***)
2004
Cano-García et al. [
115
+ EE
(β, 0.71***)
−D
(β, − 0.37*)
+ PA
(β, 0.58***)
2005
Burke et al. [
116
−EE
(r, − 0.19*)
−C
(r, − 0.19*)
−EE
(r, − 0.12*)
−C
(r, − 0.18*)
−EE
(r, − 0.23*)
−C
(r, − 0.31*)
− EE
(β, − 0.05*)
− EE
(β, − 0.18***)
− C
(β, − 0.28***)
2006
Goddard et al. [
57
+ B
(r, 0.45***)
− B
(r, − 0.16***)
− B
(r, − 0.24***)
− B
(r, − 0.12*)
+ B
(β, 0.24***)
− B
(β, − 0.08***)
− B
(β, − 0.09***)
+ B
(β, 0.11***)
2006
Langelaan et al. [
117
+ EE
(r, 0.50**)
+ C
(r, 0.48**)
+ EE
(r, − 0.33**)
+ C
(r, − 0.37**)
+ EE
(β, 0.81***)
2006
Mostert et al. [
118
+ EE (T4)
(β, 0.19**)
− PA
(β, − 0.17*)
2006
Bahner et al. [
119
+ EE
(r, 0.44**)
+ C
(r, 0.39**)
− EE
(r, − 0.24**)
− C
(r, − 0.20**)
+ PA
(r, 0.23**)
− EE
(r, − 0.24**)
− C
(r, − 0.33**)
+ PA
(r, 0.41**)
+ PA
(r, 0.34**)
+ PA
(r, 0.23**)
+ EE
(β, 0.32**)
+ C
(β, 0.30**)
− EE
(β, − 0.13*)
− C
(β, − 0.24**)
+ PA
(β, 0.28**)
+ PA
(β, 0.24**)
2007
Ghorpade et al. [
120
− EE
(r, − 0.213***)
+ PA
(r, 0.221***)
− EE
(r, − 0.135***)
− D
(r, − 0.438***)
+ PA
(r, 0.356***)
− D
(r, − 0.164***)
+ PA
(r, 0.307***)
+ PA
(r, 0.251***)
− EE
(M2; β, − 1.600**; M7; β, − 1.563**)
+ PA
(M2; β, − 1.479***; M7; β, − 0.961**)
− EE
(M4; β, − 2.685**)
− D
(M4; β, − 3.134***; M7; β, − 2.732***)
− PA
(M4; β, − 3.209***; M7; β, − 1.903***)
+ PA
(M3; β, − 2.119***; M7; β, − 1.398***)
+ EE
(M7; β, 1.960**)
+ PA
(M5; β, − 2.011***)
2007
Kim et al. [
121
− D
(β, − 3.77*)
2007
Teven, [
122
+ EE
(r, 0.50*)
+ D
(r, 0.39*)
+ rPA
(r, 0.38*)
− D
(r, − 0.13*)
− rPA
(r, − 0.40*)
− D
(r, − 0.37*)
− EE
(r, − 0.41*)
− D
(r, − 0.54*)
+ EE
(r, 0.08*)
2007
Leon et al. [
123
+ EE
(r, 0.38**)
+ D
(r, 0.38**)
− PA
(r, − 0.31**)
− EE
(r, − 0.18**)
− D
(r, − 0.14*)
+ PA
(r, 0.30**)
2008
Chung et al. [
124
− rPA
(r, − 0.442***)
− PA
(β, − 0.395**)
2009
De Hoogh et al. [
125
+ EE
(r, 0.40**)
+ C
(r, 0.38**)
− PA
(r, − 0.17*)
+ C
(r, 0.21**)
− C
(r, − 0.28**)
− C
(r, − 0.24**)
+ PA
(r, 0.41**)
+ B
(β, 0.35**)
+ EE
(β, 0.38**)
+ C
(β, 0.24*)
2009
Gandoy− Crego et al. [
126
+ EE
(r, 0.41***)
+ D
(r, 0.50***)
+ EE
(β, 0.20**)
+ D
(β, 0.34***)
2009
Kim et al. [
127
+ EE
(β, 0.33***)
− PA
(β, − 0.27**)
− EE
(β, − 0.20*)
+ PA
(β, 0.26*)
+ D
(β, 0.24*)
2009
Taormina et al. [
128
+ B (S1)
(r, 0.56**)
+ B (S2)
(r, 0.65**)
2009
Barford et al. [
129
− EE
(r, − 0.25**)
− EE (S1)
(β, − 0.20**)
2010
Perry et al. [
51
+ EE
(β, 0.27**)
+ D
(β, 0.21*)
− PA
(β, − 0.27*)
+ PA
(β, 0.27*)
− D
(β, − 0.23*)
+ PA
(β, 0.25*)
2010
Ghorpade et al. [
130
+ EE
(r, 0.35*)
+ D
(r, 0.24*)
− PA
(r, − 0.23*)
− EE
(r, − 0.20*)
+ PA
(r, 0.30*)
− D
(r, − 0.30*)
+ PA
(r, 0.32*)
− D
(r, − 0.19*)
− PA
(r, − 0.20*)
+ EE
(β, 0.20*)
+ D
(β, 0.23*)
+ PA
(β, 0.20*)
+ EE
(β, 0.25*)
+ PA
(β, 0.18*)
+ EE
(β, 0.23*)
+ D
(β, 0.25*)
+ PA
(β, 0.22*)
+ EE
(β, 0.18*)
+ D
(β, 0.18*)
2011
Hudek− Knežević et al. [
59
+ EE (T1)
(r, 0.39*)
+ EE (T2)
(r, 0.34*)
+ EE (T2)
(M1; β, 0.31***; M2; β, 0.15**)
2011
Salami, [
131
− EE
(r, − 0.21**)
+ PA
(r, 0.22**)
− EE
(r, − 0.14*)
− D
(r, − 0.44**)
+ PA
(r, 0.36**)
− D
(r, − 0.16**)
+ PA
(r, 0.31**)
+ PA
(r, 0.25**)
− EE
(β, − 1.24*)
+ PA
(β, 2.02**)
2011
Sterud et al. [
61
− rPA (T2)
(r, − 0.27**)
− rPA (T2)
(r, − 0.19*)
− rPA (T2)
(β, − 0.28**)
− rPA (T2)
(β, 0.10*)
2011
Armon et al. [
54
+ B
(r, 0.35*)
2012
Zimmerman et al. [
132
+ B (T1)
(r, 0.25*)
+ B (T2)
(r, 0.20*)
+ EE (T1)
(r, 0.28*)
+ EE (T2)
(r, 0.21*)
+ B (T1)
(r, 0.28*)
+ B (T2)
(r, 0.25*)
+ EE (T1)
(r, 0.23*)
+ EE (T2)
(r, 0.22*)
− B (T1)
(r, − 0.07*)
− EE (T1)
(r, − 0.21*)
− EE (T2)
(r, − 0.18*)
− B (T1)
(r, − 0.12*)
− B (T2)
(r, − 0.12*)
− EE (T2)
(r, − 0.09*)
+ EE (T1)
(r, 0.08*)
+ EE (T2)
(r, 0.07*)
+ B (T1)
(β, 0.21*)
− EE (T1)
(β, − 0.18*)
− EE (T2)
(β, − 0.21*)
− B (T1)
(β, − 0.16*)
+ B (T1)
(β, 0.16*)
− EE (T1)
(β, − 0.83*)
− EE (T2)
(β, − 0.48*)
− B (T1)
(β, − 0.21*)
+ EE (T1)
(β, 0.34*)
+ EE (T2)
(β, 0.18*)
2012
De la Fuente Solana et al. [
133
+ EE
(r, 0.50***)
+ D
(r, 0.39***)
− PA
(r, − 0.45***)
− EE
(r, − 0.36***)
− D
(r, − 0.29***)
+ PA
(r, 0.43***)
− EE
(r, − 0.45***)
− D
(r, − 0.45***)
+ PA
(r, 0.33***)
− EE
(r, − 0.34***)
− D
(r, − 0.31***)
+ PA
(r, 0.51***)
+ PA
(r, 0.14***)
+ EE
(β, 0.50***)
+ D
(β, 0.18***)
+ PA
(β, 0.30***)
− EE
(β, − 0.48***)
− D
(β, − 0.27***)
+ PA
(β, 0.22**)
+ PA
(β, 0.40***)
2013
Garbarino et al. [
134
+ PA
(M2; β, 0.15**; M3; β, 0.14**; M4; β, 0.15**; M5; β, 0.14**)
− D
(M2; β, − 0.23***; M3; β, − 0.24***; M4; β, − 0.24***; M5; β, − 0.24***)
+ PA
(M2; β, 0.26***; M3; β, 0.27***; M4; β, 0.26***; M5; β, 0.27***)
+ PA
(M2; β, 0.23***; M3; β, 0.24***; M4; β, 0.23***; M5; β, 0.24***)
+ PA
(M2; β, 0.17**; M3; β, 0.16**; M4; β, 0.17**; M5; β, 0.16**)
2013
Hurt et al. [
135
+ EE
(r, 0.380***)
+ C
(r, 0.254**)
− PA
(r, − 0.338***)
− C
(r, − 0.315***)
+ PA
(r, 0.413***)
+ PA
(r, 0.322***)
− C
(r, − 0.208*)
+ PA
(r, 0.369***)
2013
Lin et al. [
136
+ EE
(r, 0.432***)
+ D
(r, 0.266***)
− PA
(r, − 0.197**)
− EE
(r, − 0.174**)
+ PA
(r, 0.137*)
+ EE
(β, 0.25***)
2013
Gan et al. [
56
+ B
(r, 0.418**)
− B
(r, − 0.173*)
− B
(r, − 0.181*)
− B
(r, − 0.237**)
2014
Reinke et al. [
137
+ EE (T1)
(r, 0.18)
+ EE (T2)
(r, 0.20)
+ EE (T3)
(r, 0.20)
+ C (T1)
(r, 0.21)
+ rPA(T1)
(r, 0.23)
+ rPA(T2)
(r, 0.18)
+ rPA(T3)
(r, 0.17)
− EE (T1)
(r, − 0.25)
− EE (T2)
(r, − 0.21)
− EE (T3)
(r, − 0.22)
− C (T1)
(r, − 0.36)
− C (T2)
(r, − 0.25)
− C (T3)
(r, − 0.24)
− rPA(T1)
(r, − 0.35)
− rPA(T2)
(r, − 0.20)
− rPA(T3)
(r, − 0.17)
− rPA(T1)
(r, − 0.40)
− rPA(T2)
(r, − 0.33)
− rPA(T3)
(r, − 0.30)
− EE (T3)
− PA (T1)
− PA (T2)
− PA (T3)
2014
Taycan et al. [
138
+ EE
(r, 0.43***)
+ D
(r, 0.35***)
− PA
(r, − 0.28***)
− EE
(r, − 0.20*)
− D
(r, − 0.25**)
+ PA
(r, 0.27***)
+ EE
(β, 0.36***)
+ D
(β, 0.30***)
2014
Yilmaz, [
139
− EE
(r, − 0.14*)
− D
(r, − 0.17**)
− rPA
(r, − 0.28**)
− EE
(r, − 0.17**)
− D
(r, − 0.25**)
− rPA
(r, − 0.38**)
− EE
(r, − 0.18**)
− D
(r, − 0.33**)
− rPA
(r, − 0.37**)
− D
(r, − 0.15**)
− rPA
(r, − 0.45**)
2014
Cañadas− De la Fuente et al. [
140
+ EE
(r, 0.58***)
+ D
(r, 0.41***)
− PA
(r, − 0.41***)
− EE
(r, − 0.41***)
− D
(r, − 0.30***)
+ PA
(r, 0.45***)
− EE
(r, − 0.37***)
− D
(r, − 0.48***)
+ PA
(r, 0.42***)
− EE
(r, − 0.30***)
− D
(r, − 0.37***)
+ PA
(r, 0.53***)
− EE
(r, − 0.11**)
− D
(r, − 0.19***)
+ PA
(r, 0.24***)
+ EE
(β, 0.63***)
+ D
(β, 0.13***)
− PA
(β, − 0.12**)
− EE
(β, − 0.24***)
− EE
(β, − 0.24***)
− D
(β, − 0.31***)
+ PA
(β, 0.22***)
− D
(β, − 0.11**)
+ PA
(β, 0.38***)
2015
Srivastava et al. [
141
+ B
(St1; β, 0.378**; St2; β, 0.390**)
2015
Ang et al. [
142
+ B
(r, 0.10**)
2016
Iorga et al. [
143
+ EE
+ D
+ rPA
− EE
− D
− rPA
+ EE
+ D
+ rPA
+ EE
+ D
+ rPA
+ rPA
2016
Vaulerin et al. [
144
+ EE
(r, 0.19**)
2016
Zhou et al. [
145
+ EE
(r, 0.506*)
+ D
(r, 0.368*)
− D
(r, − 0.401*)
− PA
(r, − 0.372*)
− D
(r, − 0.588**)
+ PA
(r, 0.390*)
− EE
(r, − 0.387*)
− D
(r, − 0.348*)
− PA
(r, − 0.554***)
− D
(β, − 0.380*)
+ PA
(β, 0.389*)
2016
De la Fuente− Solana et al. [
146
+ EE
(r, 0.472***)
− D
(r, 0.298**)
+ PA
(r, − 0.270**)
− EE
(r, − 0.293***)
− D
(r, − 0.229*)
− PA
(r, − 0.361***)
− EE
(r, − 0.380***)
− D
(r, − 0.583***)
+ PA
(r, 0.531***)
− EE
(r, − 0.343***)
− D
(r, − 0.405***)
+ PA
(r, 0.612***)
− EE
(r, − 0.276**)
− D
(r, − 0.278**)
+ PA
(r, 0.286**)
2017
Geuens et al. [
147
+ EE
(r, 0.56***)
− PA
(r, − 0.28***)
− EE
(r, − 0.25***)
+ PA
(r, 0.47***)
− D
(r, − 0.25***)
+ PA
(r, 0.37***)
+ PA
(r, 0.22***)
+ EE (T1)
(β, − 0.56***)
+ EE (T2)
(β, − 0.54***)
− PA (T2)
(β, − 0.23**)
− D (T1)
(β, − 0.22*)
2017
Iorga et al. [
148
+ EE
(r, 0.475***)
+ D
(r, 0.231*)
− PA
(r, − 0.456***)
− EE
(r, − 0.330***)
− D
(r, − 0.221*)
+ PA
(r, 0.388***)
− D
(r, − 0.313***)
+ PA
(r, 0.368***)
− D
(r, − 0.239**)
+ PA
(r, 0.315***)
− D
(r, − 0.218*)
+ PA
(r, 0.363***)
+ EE
(β, 0.377***)
2017
Lovell et al. [
149
+ EE
(β, 0.618***)
+ D
(β, 0.220***)
− PA
(β, − 0.124*)
− D
(β, − 0.171***)
+ PA
(β, 0.172***)
+ PA
(β, 0.094*)
2017
Ntantana et al. [
150
+ EE***
− EE***
2017
Al Shbail et al. [
151
− B
(r, 0.382**)
− EE
(r, 0.335**)
+ rPA
(r, 0.346**)
− B
(r, − 0.203*)
− EE
(r, − 0.171*)
− B
(r, − 0.219**)
− EE
(r, − 0.223**)
− rPA
(r, − 0.316**)
+ B
(β, 0.325**)
+ EE
(β, 0.299**)
+ rPA
(β, − 0.236**)
2018
Bergmüller et al. [
152
+ B (T1; r, 0.24**)
+ B (T2; r, 0.29**)
2018
Bianchi et al. [
153
+ B
(r, 0.589***)
+ B
(β, 0.219**)
2018
Bianchi, [
19
− EE
(β, − 0.374**)
− D
(β, − 0.282*)
− EE
(β, − 0.261*)
− D
(β, − 0.440***)
2018
Harizanova et al. [
49
+ B
(r, 0.63***)
− B
(r, − 0.33***)
+ B
(β, 0.40***)
− B
(β, − 0.11*)
2018
Hildenbrand et al. [
58
+ B
(r, 0.56*)
− B
(r, − 0.24*)
+ B
(β, 0.43***)
− B
(β, − 0.06***)
2018
Iorga et al. [
154
+ EE
(r, 0.266*)
− PA
(r, − 0.289*)
+ PA
(r, 0.458**)
− D
(r, − 0.272*)
+ PA
(r, 0.374***)
− D
(r, − 0.318**)
+ PA
(r, 0.257*)
+ PA
(r, 0.341**)
+ PA
(β, 0.480)
2018
Tang et al. [
155
+ EE
(r, 0.76**)
+ D
(r, 0.59**)
− PA
(r, − 0.49**)
− EE
(r, − 0.45**)
− D
(r, − 0.41**)
+ PA
(r, 0.55**)
+ EE
(β, 0.575**)
+ D
(β, 0.514**)
− EE
(β, − 0.096*)
− D
(β, − 0.134**)
2018
Tatalović Vorkapić et al. [
156
− D
(r, − 0.24***)
− D
(r, − 0.19**)
2018
Yao et al. [
157
+ B
(r, 0.35**)
− B
(r, − 0.23**)
+ B
(β, 0.587***)
2018
Zaninotto et al. [
158
+ EE
(r, 0.35**)
+ D
(r, 0.30**)
2018
Bahadori et al. [
159
− B
(r, − 0.275**)
− B
(r, − 0.034**)
− B
(r, − 0.260**)
− B
(r, − 0.283**)
− B
(r, − 0.187**)
− B
(M1; β, − 0.388**; M2; β, − 0.142*)
− B
(M1; β, − 0.359**; M2; β, − 0.523*)
− B
(M1; β, − 0.310**; M2; β, − 0.092*)
2019
Brown et al. [
160
− EEf
(r, − 0.380**)
− EEs
(r, − 0.321**)
− Df
(r, − 0.126*)
− rPAf
(r, − 0.370**)
− rPAs
(r, − 0.428**)
− EEf
(r, − 0.162**)
+ rPAf
(r, 0.246**)
+ rPAs
(r, 0.490**)
+ EEf
(r, 0.162**)
+ EEs
(r, 0.129*)
− Ds
(r, − 0.265**)
+ rPAf
(r, 0.119*)
+ rPAf
(r, 0.162**)
+ rPAs
(r, 0.394**)
+ Df
(r, 0.185**)
+ rPAf
(r, 0.162**)
+ rPAs
(r, 0.326**)
− B
(β, − 0.66***)
− B
(β, − 0.31***)
− B
(β, − 0.284***)
2019
Castillo− Gualda et al. [
62
+ B
(r, 0.36**)
2019
De la Fuente− Solana et al. [
161
+ EE
(β, 0.092**)
− D
(β, − 0.187***)
− PA
(β, − 0.164**)
2019
De Looff et al. [
55
+ B
(r, 0.20***)
− B
(r, − 0.14***)
− B
(r, − 0.15***)
− B
(r, − 0.20***)
− B
(r, − 0.18***)
2019
Farfán et al. [
162
+ B
(r, 0.42**)
− B
(r, − 0.26**)
+ B
(M4; β, 0.16**; M5; β, 0.16*)
2019
Khedhaouria et al. [
163
+ EE
(r, 0.353**)
+ D
(r, 0.303**)
− PA
(r, − 0.376**)
2019
Pérez− Fuentes et al. [
17
+ EE
(r, 0.59***)
+ D
(r, 0.42**)
− PA
(r, − 0.39**)
− D
(r, − 0.40**)
+ PA
(r, 0.35*)
− D
(r, − 0.32*)
+ PA
(r, 0.36*)
2019
Ye et al. [
164
Study 1:
+ EE
(r, 0.43***)
+ D
(r, 0.23***)
− rPA
(r, − 0.25***)
Study 2:
+ EE (T1)
(r, 0.34**)
− EE (T2)
(r, 0.32*)
+ D (T1)
(r, 0.28*)
− PA (T1)
(r, − 0.40**)
− PA (T2)
(r, − 0.29*)
Study 1:
− EE
(r, − 0.23***)
− D
(r, − 0.16*)
+ rPA
(r, 0.32***)
Study 2:
+ PA (T1)
(r, 0.29*)
Study 1:
− EE
(r, − 0.31***)
− D
(r, − 0.43***)
(r, − 0.40**)
+ rPA
(r, 0.51***)
Study 2:
− EE (T2)
(r, − 0.38**)
− D (T1)
(r, − 0.39**)
+ PA (T1)
(r, 0.36***)
+ PA (T2)
(r, 0.27*)
Study 1:
− EE
(r, − 0.20**)
− D
(r, − 0.35***)
+ rPA
(r, 0.38***)
Study 1:
− D
(r, − 0.23***)
+ rPA
(r, 0.44***)
Study 1:
+ EE
(β, 0.62***)
+ D
(β, 0.18*)
− PA
(β, − 0.16*)
Study 1:
− EE
(β, − 0.32*)
− D
(β, − 0.39**)
+ PA
(β, 0.46***)
Study 2:
− EE
(β, − 0.49*)
− D
(β, − 0.48*)
Study 1:
− D
(β, − 0.22*)
+ PA
(β, 0.22*)
Study 1:
+ PA
(β, 0.43***)
2019
Banasiewicz et al. [
165
− EE
(r, − 0.19**)
− EE
(r, − 0.18**)
− EE
(r, − 0.17**)
− EE
(M1; β, − 0.15*; M2; β, − 0.16**; M3; β, − 0.14*; M4; β, − 0.14*)
2020
Bhowmick et al. [
166
− B
(r, − 0.250**)
− B
(r, − 0.167**)
− B
(r, − 0.231**)
− B
(β, − 0.33*)
− B
(β, − 0.45*)
2020
De Vine et al. [
167
+ EE
(r, 0.418*)
+ C
(r, 0.287*)
− PA
(r, − 0.208*)
− EE
(r, − 0.278*)
+ C
(r, 0.291*)
+ PA
(r, 0.274*)
− EE
(r, − 0.303*)
− C
(r, − 0.250*)
+ PA
(r, 0.275*)
− EE
(r, − 0.265*)
− C
(r, − 0.170*)
+ PA
(r, 0.274*)
+ EE
(β, 0.365***)
+ C
(β, 0.196*)
+ EE
(β, 0.220**)
+ C
(β, 0.222*)
+ PA
(β, 0.221**)
+ EE
(β, − 0.193*)
2020
Dionigi, [
168
+ B
(r, 0.285***)
− B
(r, − 0.180***)
− B
(r, − 0.353***)
− B
(r, − 0.355***)
+ B
(β, 0.215***)
− B
(β, − 0.300***)
2020
Farfán et al. [
169
− EE
(r, − 0.209**)
− EE
(r, − 0.239**)
+ EE***
− EE***
2020
Liu et al. [
170
+ EE
(r, 0.28**)
− PA
(r, − 0.17*)
+ PA
(r, 0.24**)
+ PA
(r, 0.26**)
− EE
(r, − 0.20*)
+ PA
(r, 0.38**)
+ PA
(r, 0.21**)
+ EE
(β, 0.24*)
+ PA
(β, 0.31***)
2020
Mahoney et al. [
171
+ EE
(r, 0.16*)
− EE
(r, − 0.23**)
− D
(r, − 0.34**)
+ PA
(r, 0.27**)
− EE
(r, − 0.37**)
− D
(r, − 0.43**)
+ PA
(r, − 0.23**)
− EE
(β, 0.362**)
− D
(β, 0.362**)
2020
Malka et al. [
172
+ EE (S1)
(r, 0.343***)
+ EE (S2)
(r, 0.331***)
2020
Tasic et al. [
173
+ B
(r, 0.452***)
− B
(r, − 0.202*)
2020
Bianchi et al. [
174
+ B
(S1; r, 0.552***)
(S2; r, 0.562***)
(S3; r, 0.642***)
+ B
(S1; β, 0.373***; S2, β, 0.318***; S3, β, 0.409***)
2021
Fuente-Solana et al. [
175
+ EE
(r, 0.610**)
+ D
(r, 0.372**)
− PA
(r, − 0.285**)
− EE
(r, − 0.407**)
− D
(r, − 0.351**)
+ PA
(r, 0.422**)
− EE
(r, − 0.276**)
− D
(r, − 0.439**)
+ PA
(r, 0.269***)
− EE
(r, − 0.318**)
− D
(r, − 0.441**)
+ PA
(r, 0.497**)
+ PA
(r, 0.280**)
+ EE
(β, 0.350***)
+ PA
(β, 0.268**)
− D
(β, − 0.305**)
− D
(β, − 0.236*)
+ PA
(β, 0.391***)
2021
Fuente–Solanaet al. [
176
+ EE
(r, 0.565**)
+ D
(r, 0.432**)
− PA
(r, − 0.270**)
− EE
(r, − 0.304**)
− D
(r, − 0.199***)
+ PA
(r, 0.419**)
− EE
(r, − 0.323**)
− D
(r, − 0.377**)
+ PA
(r, 0.332**)
− EE
(r, − 0.290**)
− D
(r, − 0.309**)
+ PA
(r, 0.371**)
+ PA
(r, 0.407**)
+ EE
(β, 0.250**)
+ D
(β, 0.324***)
− D
(β, − 0.242**)
+ PA
(β, 0.205**)
+ PA
(β, 0.324***)
2021
Open in a new tab
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
, significant value, but the degree of significance is not reported in the original paper; -, negative; + , positive; B, Burnout; C, Cynicism; D, Depersonalization; EE, Emotional Exhaustion; f, frequency; PA, Personal/Professional Accomplishment; rPA, Reduced Personal or Professional Accomplishment; s, severity; S1, Sample 1; S2, Sample 2; S3, Sample 3; St, Step; T1, Time 1; T2, Time 2; T3, Time 3; T4, Time 4. When the index of r or β is not reported, it means that it was not present in the original paper
r < 0.19, very weak; 0.20–0.39, weak; 0.40–0.59, moderate; 0.60–0.79 strong; > 0.80, very strong correlation [
205
The results of the included studies based on the five personality traits and the association with a dimension of job burnout are discussed below. The correlations between the personality trait and the size of the job burnout report first, while subsequently those of the regressions, presenting the cross-sectional studies first, which are most of them, and then also the longitudinal ones.
Discussion
As seen previously, job burnout is a multidimensional construct that consists of the individual response to stressors at work [
]. The literature has long investigated the association between organizational and occupational factors and burnout. However, a recent meta-analysis shows that there is a bidirectional relationship between occupational stressors and burnout [
200
]. Because the research on individual factors has been less systematic, partial, and contradictory [
113
], this review aimed to synthesize research evidence about the role that FFM personality traits play in the development of job burnout. To do this, 83 independent studies that used different tools to assess both job burnout and personality traits while maintaining the same reference theory were identified. The most investigated personality traits were, in order, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.
The present review extracted data from the reviewed studies, including (1) main characteristics of participants (including job type), (2) data collected country, (3) personality traits related to job burnout, (4) risk of bias in individual studies, and (5) methodological features of studies. As for the participants, all reviewed studies included (1) adult samples, (2) workers from the general population rather than clinical samples, (3) regardless of the type of work, and for most studies (4) more female participants than male. Based on these observations, future studies examining personality traits and work burnout should employ other samples (e.g., clinical samples) to enhance external validity.
This systematic review focused exclusively on personality traits and the relationship between them and job burnout. Results of the included studies confirmed a relationship between job burnout and the five distinct personality traits of the Big Five model [
46
] and that some of these were risk factors for job burnout (although not always in the same direction). A descriptive picture of the relationship between the five personality traits and job burnout will be discussed.
Agreeableness
A negative association between Agreeableness and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.12* to − 0.353***; β from − 0.08*** to − 0.523*). Longitudinal studies also suggest a role of Agreeableness as a protective factor of dimensions of Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and reduced Professional Accomplishment (EE; β, − 0.83*; β, − 0.48*; D; β, − 0.31*; PA; β, − 0.22*; rPA; β, − 0.28**). As seen previously, the Agreeableness trait has been described as a sense of cooperation, tolerance, and avoidance of conflict on problematic issues [
32
]. Agreeable individuals are warm, supportive, and good-natured [
201
202
], protecting them from feelings of frustration and emotional exhaustion [
113
]. Indeed, their tendency towards a positive understanding of others, coupled with interpersonal relationships based on feelings of affection and warmth [
201
], could protect them from developing job burnout and greater depersonalization [
203
]. Although most of the studies found a negative relationship between Agreeableness and job burnout, in some studies Agreeableness was positively correlated with Emotional exhaustion [
159
], and reduced Professional Accomplishment [
50
62
].
Conscientiousness
A negative association between Conscientiousness and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.12* to − 0.355***; β from − 0.09*** to − 0.300*). Longitudinal studies also suggest the role of Conscientiousness as a protective factor against Burnout (B; β, -0.21*). As seen previously, the Conscientiousness trait is reflected in precise, organized, and disciplined individuals who respect the rules and work hard to achieve success [
33
]. Their perseverance in work and success orientation would protect these people from developing emotional exhaustion [
76
204
] and poor personal accomplishment, as they are unlikely to perceive themselves as unproductive. Although most studies found a negative relationship between Conscientiousness and job burnout dimensions, some studies pointed out an unexpected inverse correlation between Conscientiousness and reduced Professional Accomplishment [
60
62
143
159
166
]. Furthermore, Conscientiousness was positively associated with Emotional exhaustion and Depersonalization [
131
]. This result would be due to the greater commitment and effort employed in their work, which would have greater levels of exhaustion and depersonalization [
131
]. Finally, another longitudinal study [
56
] attributes Conscientiousness as a negative predictor role for the dimensions of Personal/Professional Accomplishment. However, the authors do not provide reasons for this discordant result from the literature.
Extraversion
A negative association between Extraversion and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.034** to − 0.33***; β from − 0.06*** to − 0.31***). Longitudinal studies also suggest the role of Extraversion as a protective factor against burnout and its dimension of Exhaustion (B; β, − 0.16*; EE; β, − 0.26*). As seen previously, the Extraversion trait has been identified as the intensity of social interaction and the level of self-esteem of individuals [
32
]. People with higher levels of extraversion appear positive, cheerful, optimistic, and have more likely to experience positive emotions [
206
]. This positive view of their level of job-related self-efficacy [
207
], often associated with the interpersonal bonds they tend to create [
208
] can protect outgoing individuals from experiencing high levels of emotional exhaustion. On the contrary, introverted individuals tend to experience greater feelings of helplessness and lower levels of ambition [
204
], which instead results in a risk factor for job burnout. Although the negative association is the most frequent, some studies have found a directly proportional association between Burnout and Extraversion [
54
], Cynicism [
127
173
], and reduced Professional Accomplishment [
50
60
62
143
146
159
]. Again, the authors do not provide reasons for this discordant result from the literature.
Neuroticism
A positive association between Neuroticism and job burnout was reported (range, r from 0.10** to 0.642***; β from 0.16** to 0.587***). Longitudinal studies also suggest a role of Neuroticism as a predictor of Burnout and its extent of Exhaustion, while predicting a decrease in Professional Accomplishment (B; β, 0.21*; EE; β, 0.31***; β, 0.15**; β, 0.19**; PA; β, − 0.23**). As seen previously, it is possible to define Neuroticism as the inability of people to control their impulses and manage their emotional balance. Neurotic people experience a series of feelings of insecurity, anxiety, anger, and depression [
25
76
204
] that they try to manage through maladaptive coping strategies, such as delay or denial [
29
34
]. These characteristics of the personality trait of Neuroticism would interfere with job functioning and satisfaction, operating a negative "filter" that magnifies the impact of adverse events (see [
209
]) and constitutes a significant risk factor for job burnout [
174
]. Feelings of anxiety and nervousness could lead them more easily to experience higher levels of emotional exhaustion, and by focusing on more aspects of their work, they are more likely to manifest depersonalization. Although most studies report a positive association between Neuroticism and Burnout [
164
], Burnout [
159
169
], Depersonalization [
133
159
], and reduced Professional Accomplishment [
60
62
126
]. Ye and colleagues [
164
] tie this result to the Chinese cultural situation, whereby the observed greater sense of responsibility and discipline could reduce the effects of extroversion on job burnout. Farfán and colleagues [
169
], on the contrary, link this result to the tendency of the neurotic personality trait to use rationalization as a defense against job burnout. Unlike most of the studies included in this review, some results show a negative association between Neuroticism and Burnout [
159
164
], Emotional exhaustion, and Depersonalization [
155
]. Furthermore, a study indicates that Neuroticism is positively associated with reduced Personal/Professional Accomplishment [
131
]. Finally, in the longitudinal study by Armon and colleagues [
54
], Neuroticism even seems to protect against Emotional exhaustion. The authors explain the association over time of Neuroticism with job burnout as due to an underrepresentation in the measurement scales used or the moderating effect of gender on these associations [
159
].
Openness
A negative association between Openness and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.18*** to − 0.237**; β from − 0.092* to − 0.45*). Longitudinal studies have suggested the role of Openness as a protective factor of reduced Professional Accomplishment (rPA; β, 0.10*). As seen previously, individuals with high levels of Openness tend to be more intellectually curious about novelty and open-minded and have a predisposition to independence [
35
76
202
]. These characteristics protect individuals from experiencing discomfort, experiencing novelty and failures as opportunities [
203
], and protecting them from job burnout from emotional exhaustion. Conversely, when faced with stressors at work, less open individuals can adopt quick but suboptimal strategies, such as depersonalization [
]. Although most of the studies found a negative relationship between Openness and job burnout, five studies found a positive correlation between Openness and Emotional exhaustion [
54
122
] and Depersonalization [
159
], while negative with Personal/Professional Accomplishment [
62
131
159
]. The authors do not provide reasons for this discordant result from the literature. Other studies instead have found a positive association between Openness and all dimensions of Burnout [
116
]: Exhaustion [
131
173
], Depersonalization [
131
], and reduced Personal/Professional Accomplishment [
142
]. Finally, the longitudinal study by Ghorpade and colleagues [
120
] attributes Openness to the role of the positive predictor of Emotional exhaustion. According to the authors, this result could be attributed to the work of the professors (Professors) which, requiring a greater openness to listening to students' different problems and encouraging different positions in them, could increase emotional exhaustion.
The findings of most of the studies reviewed indicate that individuals who have higher levels of neuroticism and lower agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience are more prone to experiencing job burnout. However, the few studies that show other results than this theoretical line cannot explain the conflicting results. Some authors adduce these results to a measurement bias (e.g., [
159
]) or sample characteristics (e.g., [
120
]) but fail to explain the reason for this relationship and believe that it is due to further variables to be explored.
Limitations
Although the literature review was conducted as rigorously as possible, the search strategy was limited to four scientific search engines. Furthermore, it was impossible to find all the relevant studies if the search terms were not mentioned in the articles' titles, abstracts, or keywords. Therefore, some related papers might be missed due to the selected terms. Furthermore, the search included only studies published in English, thus excluding relevant studies in other languages. Additionally, gray literature was not included in the study, and therefore, it may not have been considered essential data contained in non-peer-reviewed studies, unpublished theses, and dissertation studies. Furthermore, one of the exclusion criteria was the journal ranking of SCImago. Although this is a widely accepted and recognized measure to reduce the possibility of including in systematic reviews papers that do not meet certain quality indices [
47
], they may not have been considered relevant data. In addition, the Big Five model [
46
] was used as a conceptual model of reference to compare the results of the studies on job burnout. Studies that did not include the Big Five models or that explored the relationship between Burnout and personality disorders (e.g., Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, etc.) were therefore not examined in this study. Restricting studies to a single conceptual model of personality was necessary to focus the review, but at the same time, it limited our investigation. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the study samples' work type, burnout measurement tools, and personality traits prevented comparing results across studies. Finally, despite precautions to reduce selection bias, confounding, and measurement bias, no studies have addressed reverse causality problems in the relationship between personality traits and burnout. Although the cross-sectional research design does not allow us to investigate the causal links between personality and burnout, an answer to the existence of this link is offered by the longitudinal studies included in the review. This type of study demonstrates that personality traits play a role in the development of burnout, but future research must investigate this relationship, especially with the help of longitudinal studies that can reduce the problems related to reverse causality.
Conclusions
The findings obtained in the present review highlight the importance of examining the role of personality traits in the development of job burnout syndrome. At the same time, it is possible to observe how scientific evidence places us in front of a picture that is not fully defined. In line with Guthier's meta-analysis [
200
], the findings of this review highlight the need for expanding job stress theories focusing more on the role that personality plays in burnout.
I am convinced of the value of this review in directing future empirical research on job burnout, especially in the light of new approaches to burnout as a multi-component factor (see [
210
211
]). Even more future research will have the task of encouraging the use of methodologies that evaluate personality traits in work contexts. An assessment of personality traits and continuous monitoring of occupational stress levels (e.g., [
212
]) could help identify the people who are most likely to develop burnout syndrome to prevent or limit its damage. Future research should improve understanding and intervention on burnout, too often limited by universal approaches that have neglected the uniqueness of the antecedents of burnout [
213
]. Some traits related to burnout predict work outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and turnover [
203
214
218
]. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate the antecedents of Burnout to provide implications practices for jobs and organizations.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author contributions
GA contributed to the conception and design of the study, and the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. The author read and approved the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work ensuring integrity and accuracy. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Availability of data and materials
As this is a systematic review of the literature, this study indicates the information to obtain all data analyzed in the databases used. However, the datasets used during the current study remain available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1.
Freudenberger HJ. Staff burn-out. J Soc Issues. 1974;30:159–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
2.
Freudenberger HJ. The staff burn-out syndrome in alternative institutions. Psychother Theory Res Pract. 1975;12:73–82. doi: 10.1037/h0086411.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
3.
Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ Behav. 1981;2:99–113. doi: 10.1002/job.4030020205.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
4.
Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T. Professional burnout: recent developments in theory and research. 2017. 10.1201/9780203741825
5.
Maslach C, Leiter MP. The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. 1997.
6.
Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397–422. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
7.
Demerouti E, Bakker A, Nachreiner F, Ebbinghaus M. From mental strain to burnout. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2002;11:423–441. doi: 10.1080/13594320244000274.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
8.
Swider BW, Zimmerman RD. Born to burnout: a meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. J Vocat Behav. 2010;76:487–506. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.003.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
9.
Cordes CL, Dougherty TW. A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Acad Manag Rev. 1993;18:621–656. doi: 10.5465/amr.1993.9402210153.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
10.
Kahill S. Symptoms of professional burnout: a review of the empirical evidence. Can Psychol. 1988;29:284–297. doi: 10.1037/h0079772.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
11.
Lee RT, Ashforth BE. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81:123–133. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
12.
Iverson RD, Olekalns M, Erwin PJ. Affectivity, organizational stressors, and absenteeism: a causal model of burnout and its consequences. J Vocat Behav. 1998;52:1–23. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.1556.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
13.
Bellani ML, Furlani F, Gnecchi M, Pezzotta P, Trotti EM, Bellotti GG. Burnout and related factors among HIV/AIDS health care workers. AIDS Care. 1996;8:207–222. doi: 10.1080/09540129650125885.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
14.
Ganster DC, Type A. Behavior and occupational stress. J Organ Behav Manage. 1987;8:61–84. doi: 10.1300/J075v08n02_05.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
15.
Rush MC, Schoel WA, Barnard SM. Psychological resiliency in the public sector: “hardiness” and pressure for change. J Vocat Behav. 1995;46:17–39. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1995.1002.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
16.
Ruggieri RA, Crescenzo P, Iervolino A, Mossi PG, Boccia G. Predictability of big five traits in high school teacher burnout. Detailed study through the disillusionment dimension. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2018 doi: 10.2427/12923.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
17.
Pérez-Fuentes M, Molero Jurado M, Martos Martínez Á, Gázquez LJ. Burnout and engagement: personality profiles in nursing professionals. J Clin Med. 2019;8:286. doi: 10.3390/jcm8030286.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
18.
Azeem SM. Conscientiousness, neuroticism and burnout among healthcare employees. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2013 doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i7/68.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
19.
Bianchi R. Burnout is more strongly linked to neuroticism than to work-contextualized factors. Psychiatry Res. 2018;270:901–905. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.11.015.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
20.
Sulea C, van Beek I, Sarbescu P, Virga D, Schaufeli WB. Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students: basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits. Learn Individ Differ. 2015;42:132–138. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.018.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
21.
Hartmann É, Mathieu C. The relationship between workaholism, burnout and personality: a literature review. Sante Ment Que. 2017;42:197–218. doi: 10.7202/1041923ar.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
22.
McCrae RR, Costa PT. Discriminant validity of NEO-PIR facet scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1992;52:229–237. doi: 10.1177/001316449205200128.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
23.
McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality in adulthood: a five-factor theory perspective. 2003.
24.
Barrick MR, Mount MK. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 1991;44:1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
25.
Digman JM. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu Rev Psychol. 1990;41:417–440. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
26.
Goldberg LR. An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59:1216–1229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
27.
Poropat AE. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:322–338. doi: 10.1037/a0014996.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
28.
Digman JM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1246–1256. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
29.
McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am Psychol. 1997;52:509–516. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
30.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:853–863. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.853.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
31.
John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA. Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York; 2008.
32.
McCrae RR, Costa PT. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:81–90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
33.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. Neo personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R). Odessa; 1992.
34.
Carver CS, Connor-Smith J. Personality and coping. Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61:679–704. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
35.
Johnson JA, Ostendorf F. Clarification of the five-factor model with the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:563–576. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.563.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
36.
Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med. 2012;42:1879–1890. doi: 10.1017/S0033291711002674.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
37.
Trull TJ, Widiger TA. Dimensional models of personality: the five-factor model and the DSM-5. Dialog Clin Neurosci. 2013;15:135–46. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2013.15.2/ttrull.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
38.
Widiger TA, Costa PT. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: rationale for the third edition. In: Widiger TA, Costa PT, editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. 3. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 3–11.
Google Scholar
39.
Widiger TA, Simonsen E. Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground. J Pers Disord. 2005;19:110–30. doi: 10.1521/pedi.19.2.110.62628.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
40.
Watson D, Clark LA, Chmielewski M. Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: ii. Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure. J Pers. 2008;76:1545–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00531.x.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
41.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). Arlington; 2013.
42.
Alarcon G, Eschleman KJ, Bowling NA. Relationships between personality variables and burnout: a meta-analysis. Work Stress. 2009;23:244–263. doi: 10.1080/02678370903282600.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
43.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;151(4):264–269. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
44.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
45.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–e34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
46.
McCrae RR, Costa PT, Wiggins JS. The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press; 1996.
Google Scholar
47.
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2119–26. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
48.
Deary IJ, Blenkin H, Agius RM, Endler NS, Zealley H, Wood R. Models of job-related stress and personal achievement among consultant doctors. Br J Psychol. 1996;87:3–29. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996.tb02574.x.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
49.
Harizanova S, Stoyanova R, Mateva N. Do personality characteristics constitute the profile of burnout-prone correctional officers? Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6:1912–1917. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.328.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
50.
McManus I, Keeling A, Paice E. Stress, burnout and doctors’ attitudes to work are determined by personality and learning style: a twelve year longitudinal study of UK medical graduates. BMC Med. 2004;2:29. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-2-29.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
51.
Perry SJ, Witt LA, Penney LM, Atwater L. The downside of goal-focused leadership: the role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:1145–1153. doi: 10.1037/a0020538.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
52.
Zellars KL, Hochwarter WA, Perrewe PL, Hoffman N, Ford EW. Experiencing job burnout: the roles of positive and negative traits and states. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2004;34:887–911. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02576.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
53.
Zellars KL, Perrewé PL. Affective personality and the content of emotional social support: coping in organizations. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:459–467. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.459.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
54.
Armon G, Shirom A, Melamed S. The big five personality factors as predictors of changes across time in burnout and its facets. J Pers. 2012;80:403–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00731.x.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
55.
de Looff P, Didden R, Embregts P, Nijman H. Burnout symptoms in forensic mental health nurses: results from a longitudinal study. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28:306–317. doi: 10.1111/inm.12536.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
56.
Gan T, Gan Y. Sequential development among dimensions of job burnout and engagement among IT employees. Stress Health. 2014;30:122–133. doi: 10.1002/smi.2502.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
57.
Goddard R, O’Brien P, Goddard M. Work environment predictors of beginning teacher burnout. Br Educ Res J. 2006;32:857–874. doi: 10.1080/01411920600989511.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
58.
Hildenbrand K, Sacramento CA, Binnewies C. Transformational leadership and burnout: the role of thriving and followers’ openness to experience. J Occup Health Psychol. 2018;23:31–43. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000051.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
59.
Hudek-Knežević J, Kalebić Maglica B, Krapić N. Personality, organizational stress, and attitudes toward work as prospective predictors of professional burnout in hospital nurses. Croat Med J. 2011;52:538–549. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.538.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
60.
Mills LB, Huebner ES. A prospective study of personality characteristics, occupational stressors, and burnout among school psychology practitioners. J Sch Psychol. 1998;36:103–120. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00053-8.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
61.
Sterud T, Hem E, Lau B, Ekeberg Ø. A comparison of general and ambulance specific stressors: predictors of job satisfaction and health problems in a nationwide one-year follow-up study of Norwegian ambulance personnel. Jo Occup Med Toxicol. 2011;6:10. doi: 10.1186/1745-6673-6-10.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
62.
Castillo-Gualda R, Herrero M, Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Brackett MA, Fernández-Berrocal P. The role of emotional regulation ability, personality, and burnout among Spanish teachers. Int J Stress Manag. 2019;26:146–158. doi: 10.1037/str0000098.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
63.
Maslach C, Jackson SE. MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory; manual. research. Palo Alto: University of California; 1986.
Google Scholar
64.
Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. MBI: Maslach burnout inventory. Sunnyvale: Scarecrow Education; 1996.
Google Scholar
65.
Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C, Jackson SE. The Maslach burnout inventory-general survey. In: Consulting psychologists, editor. MBI manual. 3rd ed. Palo Alto; 1996.
66.
Friedman IA. Turning our schools into a healthier workplace: bridging between professional self-efficacy and professional demands. In: Understanding and preventing teacher burnout. Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 166–75. 10.1017/CBO9780511527784.010
67.
Shirom A, Melamed S. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. Int J Stress Manag. 2006;13:176–200. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.13.2.176.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
68.
Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Vardakou I, Kantas A. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: a multitrait-multimethod analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2003;19:12. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.19.1.12.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
69.
Demerouti E, Mostert K, Bakker AB. Burnout and work engagement: a thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010;15:209–222. doi: 10.1037/a0019408.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
70.
Matthiesen SB, Dyregrov A. Empirical validation of the Bergen burnout indicator. Int J Psychol. 1992;27:497–497.
Google Scholar
71.
Jiménez BM, Rodríguez RB, Alvarez AM, Caballero TM. La evaluación del burnout: problemas y alternativas: el CBB como evaluación de los elementos del proceso. 1997.
72.
Pines A, Aronson E. Career burnout: causes and cures. 1988.
73.
Malach-Pines A. The burnout measure, short version. Int J Stress Manag. 2005;12:78–88. 10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78.
74.
Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am Psychol. 1993;48:26–34. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
75.
John OP, Srivastava S. The Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. (1999).
76.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa; 1985.
77.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI/FFI manual supplement for use with the NEO Personality Inventory and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. 1989.
78.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa; 1992.
79.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI-R manual: klinisk. København; 2004.
80.
John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. Big five inventory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 doi: 10.1037/t07550-000.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
81.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. J Pers Disord. 1992;6:343–359. doi: 10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
82.
Benet-Martínez V, John OP. Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75:729–750. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
83.
John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ. Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In: Handbook of personality: theory and research. The Guilford Press; 2008. p. 114–58.
84.
Rammstedt B, John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five inventory in English and German. J Res Pers. 2007;41:203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
85.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality inventory. London; 1964.
86.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire (junior & adult). 1975.
87.
Eysenck HJ. Creativity, personality and the convergent-divergent continuum. In: Critical creative processes. Hampton Press; 2003. p. 95–114.
88.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality scales (EPS Adult). London; 1991.
89.
Goldberg LR. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Pers psychol Eur. 1999;7:7–28.
Google Scholar
90.
Goldberg LR. International personality item pool. 2001.
91.
Donnellan MB, Oswald FL, Baird BM, Lucas RE. The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol Assess. 2006;18:192–203. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
92.
Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Pers. 2003;37:504–528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
93.
Saucier G. Mini-markers: a brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. J Pers Assess. 1994;63:506–516. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
94.
Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Borgogni L, Perugini M. The, “big five questionnaire”: a new questionnaire to assess the five factor model. Pers Individ Dif. 1993;15:281–288. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
95.
Hendriks AJ, Hofstee WKB, De Raad B. The five-factor personality inventory (FFPI) Pers Individ Dif. 1999;27:307–325. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00245-1.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
96.
Torgersen S. Hereditary-environmental differentiation of general neurotic, obsessive, and impulsive hysterical personality traits. ACTA Genet Med et Gemellol Twin Res. 1980;29:193–207. doi: 10.1017/S0001566000007935.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
97.
Sager KL, Gastil J. Exploring the psychological foundations of democratic group deliberation: personality factors, confirming interaction, and democratic decision making. Commun Res Rep. 2002;19:56–65. doi: 10.1080/08824090209384832.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
98.
Benet V, Waller NG. The Big Seven factor model of personality description: evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69:701–718. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.701.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
99.
Taylor N, de Bruin GP. Basic traits inventory. Johannesburg; 2006.
100.
Lubin B, van Whitlock R. Development of a measure that integrates positive and negative affect and personality: the comprehensive personality and affect scales. J Clin Psychol. 2002;58:1135–1156. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10042.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
101.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality inventory. San Diego; 1968.
102.
Fahrenberg J, Hampel R, Selg H. Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar. Göttingen; 1970.
103.
Johnson JA. Screening Massively Large Data Sets For Non-Responsiveness. In: Group University of Groningen, editor. Web-Based Personality Inventories Invited talk to the joint Bielefeld-Groningen Personality Research. Netherlands; (2001).
104.
Ostendorf F. Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validität des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit. Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur [Language and structure of personality: The validity of the Five Factor Model of personality]. Regensburg; (1990).
105.
Mount MK, Barrick MR. Manual for the personal characteristics inventory. Libertyville; 1995.
106.
Mount MK, Barrick MR. The personal characteristics inventory manual. Libertyville; 2002.
107.
Goldberg LR, Rosolack TK. The Big Five factor structure as an integrative framework: an empirical comparison with Eysenck’s PEN model. In: Halverson CF Jr, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP, Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, editors. The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. East Sussex: Psychology Press; 1994. pp. 7–35.
Google Scholar
108.
Markon KE, Krueger RF, Watson D. Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005;88:139–157. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.139.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
109.
Spector PE. Do Not cross me: optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34:125–137. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
110.
Ployhart RE, Vandenberg RJ. Longitudinal research: the theory, design, and analysis of change. J Manage. 2010;36:94–120. doi: 10.1177/0149206309352110.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
111.
Manlove EE. Multiple correlates of burnout in child care workers. Early Child Res Q. 1993;8:499–518. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80082-1.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
112.
Deary IJ, Agius RM, Sadler A. Personality and stress in consultant psychiatrists. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1996;42:112–123. doi: 10.1177/002076409604200205.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
113.
Zellars KL, Perrewe PL, Hochwarter WA. Burnout in health care: the role of the five factors of personality. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30:1570–1598. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02456.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
114.
de Vries J, van Heck GL. Fatigue: relationships with basic personality and temperament dimensions. Pers Individ Dif. 2002;33:1311–1324. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00015-6.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
115.
Cano-García FJ, Padilla-Muñoz EM, Carrasco-Ortiz MÁ. Personality and contextual variables in teacher burnout. Pers Individ Dif. 2005;38:929–940. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.018.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
116.
Burke RJ, Berge Matthiesen S, Pallesen S. Workaholism, organizational life and well-being of Norwegian nursing staff. Career Dev Int. 2006;11:463–477. doi: 10.1108/13620430610683070.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
117.
Langelaan S, Bakker AB, van Doornen LJP, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Pers Individ Dif. 2006;40:521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
118.
Mostert K, Rothmann S. Work-related well-being in the South African Police Service. J Crim Justice. 2006;34:479–491. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.003.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
119.
Bahner AD, Berkel LA. Exploring burnout in batterer intervention programs. J Interpers Violence. 2007;22:994–1008. doi: 10.1177/0886260507302995.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
120.
Ghorpade J, Lackritz J, Singh G. Burnout and personality. J Career Assess. 2007;15:240–256. doi: 10.1177/1069072706298156.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
121.
Kim HJ, Shin KH, Umbreit WT. Hotel job burnout: the role of personality characteristics. Int J Hosp Manag. 2007;26:421–434. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.03.006.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
122.
Teven JJ. Teacher temperament: correlates with teacher caring, burnout, and organizational outcomes. Commun Educ. 2007;56:382–400. doi: 10.1080/03634520701361912.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
123.
Leon SC, Visscher L, Sugimura N, Lakin BL. Person-job match among frontline staff working in residential treatment centers: the impact of personality and child psychopathology on burnout experiences. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2008;78:240–248. doi: 10.1037/a0013946.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
124.
Chung MC, Harding C. Investigating burnout and psychological well-being of staff working with people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour: the role of personality. J Appl Res Intell Disabil. 2009;22:549–560. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00507.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
125.
de Hoogh AHB, den Hartog DN. Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94:1058–1067. doi: 10.1037/a0016253.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
126.
Gandoy-Crego M, Clemente M, Mayán-Santos JM, Espinosa P. Personal determinants of burnout in nursing staff at geriatric centers. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;48:246–249. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2008.01.016.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
127.
Kim HJ, Shin KH, Swanger N. Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. Int J Hosp Manag. 2009;28:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.001.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
128.
Taormina RJ, Kuok ACH. Factors related to casino dealer burnout and turnover intention in Macau: implications for casino management. Int Gambl Stud. 2009;9:275–294. doi: 10.1080/14459790903359886.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
129.
Barford SW, Whelton WJ. Understanding burnout in child and youth care workers. Child Youth Care Forum. 2010;39:271–287. doi: 10.1007/s10566-010-9104-8.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
130.
Ghorpade J, Lackritz J, Singh G. Personality as a moderator of the relationship between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2011;41:1275–1298. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00763.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
131.
Salami SO. Job stress and burnout among lecturers: personality and social support as moderators. Asian Soc Sci. 2011 doi: 10.5539/ass.v7n5p110.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
132.
Zimmerman RD, Boswell WR, Shipp AJ, Dunford BB, Boudreau JW. Explaining the pathways between approach-avoidance personality traits and employees’ job search behavior. J Manage. 2012;38:1450–1475. doi: 10.1177/0149206310396376.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
133.
de la Fuente-Solana EI, Extremera RA, Pecino CV, de La Fuente GRC. Prevalence and risk factors of burnout syndrome among Spanish police officers. Psicothema. 2013;25:488–493. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2013.81.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
134.
Garbarino S, Cuomo G, Chiorri C, Magnavita N. Association of work-related stress with mental health problems in a special police force unit. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002791. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002791.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
135.
Hurt AA, Grist CL, Malesky LA, McCord DM. Personality traits associated with occupational ‘burnout’ in ABA therapists. J Appl Res Intell Disabil. 2013;26:299–308. doi: 10.1111/jar.12043.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
136.
Lin Q, Jiang C, Lam TH. The relationship between occupational stress, burnout, and turnover intention among managerial staff from a Sino-Japanese joint venture in Guangzhou, China. J Occup Health. 2013;55:458–467. doi: 10.1539/joh.12-0287-OA.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
137.
Reinke K, Chamorro-Premuzic T. When email use gets out of control: Understanding the relationship between personality and email overload and their impact on burnout and work engagement. Comput Human Behav. 2014;36:502–509. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.075.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
138.
Taycan O, Taycan SE, Çelik C. Relationship of burnout with personality, alexithymia, and coping behaviors among physicians in a semiurban and rural area in Turkey. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2014;69:159–166. doi: 10.1080/19338244.2013.763758.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
139.
Yilmaz K. The relationship between the teachers’ personality characteristics and burnout levels. Anthropologist. 2014;18:783–792. doi: 10.1080/09720073.2014.11891610.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
140.
Cañadas-De la Fuente GA, Vargas C, San Luis C, García I, Cañadas GR, de la Fuente EI. Risk factors and prevalence of burnout syndrome in the nursing profession. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:240–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.07.001.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
141.
Srivastava SC, Chandra S, Shirish A. Technostress creators and job outcomes: theorising the moderating influence of personality traits. Inf Syst J. 2015;25:355–401. doi: 10.1111/isj.12067.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
142.
Ang SY, Dhaliwal SS, Ayre TC, Uthaman T, Fong KY, Tien CE, et al. Demographics and personality factors associated with burnout among nurses in a Singapore tertiary hospital. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:1–12. doi: 10.1155/2016/6960184.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
143.
Iorga M, Soponaru C, Hanganu B, Ioan B-G. The burnout syndrome of forensic pathologists. The influences of personality traits, job satisfaction and environmental factors. Rom J Legal Med. 2016;24:325–32. doi: 10.4323/rjlm.2016.325.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
144.
Vaulerin J, Colson SS, Emile M, Scoffier-Mériaux S, d’Arripe-Longueville F. The big five personality traits and french firefighter burnout. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58:e128–e132. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000679.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
145.
Zhou J, Yang Y, Qiu X, Yang X, Pan H, Ban B, et al. Relationship between anxiety and burnout among Chinese physicians: a moderated mediation model. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0157013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157013.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
146.
de la Fuente-Solana EI, Gómez-Urquiza JL, Cañadas GR, Albendín-García L, Ortega-Campos E, Cañadas-De la Fuente GA. Burnout and its relationship with personality factors in oncology nurses. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017;30:91–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2017.08.004.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
147.
Geuens N, van Bogaert P, Franck E. Vulnerability to burnout within the nursing workforce—the role of personality and interpersonal behaviour. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26:4622–4633. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13808.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
148.
Iorga M, Socolov V, Muraru D, Dirtu C, Soponaru C, Ilea C, et al. Factors influencing burnout syndrome in obstetrics and gynecology physicians. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2017/9318534.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
149.
Lovell B, Brown R. Burnout in U.K. prison officers: the role of personality. Prison J. 2017;97:713–28. doi: 10.1177/0032885517734504.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
150.
Ntantana A, Matamis D, Savvidou S, Giannakou M, Gouva M, Nakos G, et al. Burnout and job satisfaction of intensive care personnel and the relationship with personality and religious traits: an observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2017;41:11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2017.02.009.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
151.
al Shbail M, Salleh Z, Mohd Nor MN. Antecedents of burnout and its relationship to internal audit quality. Bus Econ Horiz. 2018;14:789–817. doi: 10.15208/beh.2018.55.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
152.
Bergmueller A, Zavgorodnii I, Zavgorodnia N, Kapustnik W, Boeckelmann I. Relationship between burnout syndrome and personality characteristics in emergency ambulance crew. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2018;48:404–408. doi: 10.1007/s11055-018-0578-4.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
153.
Bianchi R, Mayor E, Schonfeld IS, Laurent E. Burnout and depressive symptoms are not primarily linked to perceived organizational problems. Psychol Health Med. 2018;23:1094–1105. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2018.1476725.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
154.
Iorga M, Dondas C, Sztankovszky L-Z, Antofie I. Burnout syndrome among hospital pharmacists in Romania. Farmacia. 2018;66:181–186.
Google Scholar
155.
Tang L, Pang Y, He Y, Chen Z, Leng J. Burnout among early-career oncology professionals and the risk factors. Psychooncology. 2018;27:2436–2441. doi: 10.1002/pon.4847.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
156.
Tatalovic Vorkapic S, Skocic Mihic S, Josipovic M. Early childhood educators’ personality and competencies for teaching children with disabilities as predictors of their professional burnout. Socijal Psihijatr. 2018;46:390–405. doi: 10.24869/spsih.2018.390.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
157.
Yao Y, Zhao S, Gao X, An Z, Wang S, Li H, et al. General self-efficacy modifies the effect of stress on burnout in nurses with different personality types. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:667. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3478-y.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
158.
Zaninotto L, Rossi G, Danieli A, Frasson A, Meneghetti L, Zordan M, et al. Exploring the relationships among personality traits, burnout dimensions and stigma in a sample of mental health professionals. Psychiatry Res. 2018;264:327–333. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.076.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
159.
Bahadori M, Ravangard R, Raadabadi M, Hosseini-Shokouh SM, Behzadnia MJ. Job stress and job burnout based on personality traits among emergency medical technicians. Trauma Mon. 2019;24:24–31. doi: 10.30491/TM.2019.104270.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
160.
Brown PA, Slater M, Lofters A. Personality and burnout among primary care physicians: an international study. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:169–177. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S195633.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
161.
de la Fuente-Solana E, Cañadas G, Ramirez-Baena L, Gómez-Urquiza J, Ariza T, Cañadas-De la Fuente G. An explanatory model of potential changes in burnout diagnosis according to personality factors in oncology nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030312.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
162.
Farfán J, Peña M, Topa G. Lack of group support and burnout syndrome in workers of the state security forces and corps: moderating role of neuroticism. Medicina (B Aires) 2019 doi: 10.3390/medicina55090536.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
163.
Khedhaouria A, Cucchi A. Technostress creators, personality traits, and job burnout: a fuzzy-set configurational analysis. J Bus Res. 2019;101:349–361. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.029.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
164.
Ye L, Liu S, Chu F, Zhang Q, Guo M. Effects of personality on job burnout and safety performance of high-speed rail drivers in China: the mediator of organizational identification. J Transp Saf Secur. 2021;13:695–713. doi: 10.1080/19439962.2019.1667931.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
165.
Banasiewicz J, Zaręba K, Rozenek H, Ciebiera M, Jakiel G, Chylińska J, et al. Adaptive capacity of midwives participating in pregnancy termination procedures: polish experience. Health Psychol Open. 2020;7:205510292097322. doi: 10.1177/2055102920973229.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
166.
Bhowmick S, Mulla Z. Who gets burnout and when? the role of personality, job control, and organizational identification in predicting burnout among police officers. J Police Crim Psychol. 2021;36:243–255. doi: 10.1007/s11896-020-09407-w.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
167.
de Vine JB, Morgan B. The relationship between personality facets and burnout. SA J Ind Psychol. 2020 doi: 10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1786.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
168.
Dionigi A. The relationship between, burnout, personality, and emotional intelligence in clown doctors. Humor. 2020;33:157–174. doi: 10.1515/humor-2018-0018.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
169.
Farfán J, Peña M, Fernández-Salinero S, Topa G. The moderating role of extroversion and neuroticism in the relationship between autonomy at work, burnout, and job satisfaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:8166. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218166.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
170.
Liu X-Y, Kwan HK, Zhang X. Introverts maintain creativity: a resource depletion model of negative workplace gossip. Asia Pac J Manag. 2020;37:325–344. doi: 10.1007/s10490-018-9595-7.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
171.
Mahoney CB, Lea J, Schumann PL, Jillson IA. Turnover, burnout, and job satisfaction of certified registered nurse anesthetists in the United States: role of job characteristics and personality. AANA J. 2020;88:39–48.
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
172.
Malka M, Kaspi-Baruch O, Segev E. Predictors of job burnout among fieldwork supervisors of social work students. J Soc Work. 2021;21:1553–1573. doi: 10.1177/1468017320957896.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
173.
Tasic R, Rajovic N, Pavlovic V, Djikanovic B, Masic S, Velickovic I, et al. Nursery teachers in preschool institutions facing burnout: are personality traits attributing to its development? PLoS One. 2020;15:e0242562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242562.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
174.
Bianchi R, Manzano-García G, Rolland J-P. Is burnout primarily linked to work-situated factors? A relative weight analytic study. Front Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.623912.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
175.
de la Fuente-Solana EI, Pradas-Hernández L, González-Fernández CT, Velando-Soriano A, Martos-Cabrera MB, Gómez-Urquiza JL, et al. Burnout syndrome in paediatric nurses: a multi-centre study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1324. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18031324.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
176.
de la Fuente-Solana EI, Suleiman-Martos N, Velando-Soriano A, Cañadas-De la Fuente GR, Herrera-Cabrerizo B, Albendín-García L. Predictors of burnout of health professionals in the departments of maternity and gynaecology, and its association with personality factors: a multicentre study. J Clin Nurs. 2021 doi: 10.1111/jocn.15541.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
177.
Taris TW, Kompier MAJ. Cause and effect: optimizing the designs of longitudinal studies in occupational health psychology. Work Stress. 2014;28:1–8. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.878494.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
178.
Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26:179–201. doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.4378011.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
179.
Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Hillsdale; 1983.
Google Scholar
180.
Henson RK, Kogan LR, Vacha-Haase T. A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001;61:404–420. doi: 10.1177/00131640121971284.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
181.
Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56:81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
182.
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manage. 1986;12:531–544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
183.
Edwards JR. To prosper, organizational psychology should … overcome methodological barriers to progress. J Organ Behav. 2008;29:469–491. doi: 10.1002/job.529.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
184.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
185.
Spector PE. Method variance in organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2006;9:221–232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
186.
Doty DH, Glick WH. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organ Res Methods. 1998;1:374–406. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
187.
Jakobsen M, Jensen R. Common method bias in public management studies. Int Public Manag J. 2015;18:3–30. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2014.997906.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
188.
Le H, Schmidt FL, Putka DJ. The multifaceted nature of measurement artifacts and its implications for estimating construct-level relationships. Organ Res Methods. 2009;12:165–200. doi: 10.1177/1094428107302900.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
189.
Kreitchmann RS, Abad FJ, Ponsoda V, Nieto MD, Morillo D. Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of likert items. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
190.
Kuncel NR, Tellegen A. A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: implications for detecting desirable response style and sale development. Pers Psychol. 2009;62:201–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
191.
Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991. pp. 17–59.
Google Scholar
192.
Weijters B, Baumgartner H, Schillewaert N. Reversed item bias: an integrative model. Psychol Methods. 2013;18:320–334. doi: 10.1037/a0032121.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
193.
Navarro-González D, Lorenzo-Seva U, Vigil-Colet A. How response bias affects the factorial structure of personality self-reports. Psicothema. 2016;28:465–470. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.113.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
194.
Abad FJ, Sorrel MA, Garcia LF, Aluja A. Modeling general, specific, and method variance in personality measures: results for ZKA-PQ and NEO-PI-R. Assessment. 2018;25:959–977. doi: 10.1177/1073191116667547.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
195.
Soto CJ, John OP. Optimizing the length, width, and balance of a personality scale: How do internal characteristics affect external validity? Psychol Assess. 2019;31:444–459. doi: 10.1037/pas0000586.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
196.
Antonakis J. On doing better science: from thrill of discovery to policy implications. Leadersh Q. 2017;28:5–21. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
197.
Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ. Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res. 2016;69:3192–3198. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
198.
Spector PE, Brannick MT. Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem and possible solutions. In: Buchanan D, Bryman A, editors. The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication; 2009. pp. 346–362.
Google Scholar
199.
Furr M. Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. 2011.
200.
Guthier C, Dormann C, Voelkle MC. Reciprocal effects between job stressors and burnout: a continuous time meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2020;146:1146–1173. doi: 10.1037/bul0000304.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
201.
Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol Assess. 1992;4:26–42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
202.
Peabody D, Goldberg LR. Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57:552–567. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
203.
Zimmerman RD. Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decision: a meta-analytic path model. Pers Psychol. 2008;61:309–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00115.x.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
204.
Saucier G, Ostendorf F. Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: a cross-language replication. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76:613–627. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.613.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
205.
Evans JD. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. 1996.
206.
Clark LA, Watson D. Temperament: a new paradigm for trait psychology. 1999.
207.
Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:797–807. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
208.
Lucas RE, Diener E, Grob A, Suh EM, Shao L. Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:452–468. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.452.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
209.
Semmer NK. Personality, stress, and coping. In: Vollrath ME, editor. Handbook of personality and health. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006. pp. 73–113.
Google Scholar
210.
Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)—development, validity, and reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9495. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249495.
DOI
] [
PMC free article
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
211.
Angelini G, Buonomo I, Benevene P, Consiglio P, Romano L, Fiorilli C. The Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT): A contribution to Italian validation with teachers’. Sustainability. 2021;13(16):9065. doi: 10.3390/su13169065.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
212.
Voelkle MC, Oud JHL. Continuous time modelling with individually varying time intervals for oscillating and non-oscillating processes. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2013;66:103–126. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02043.x.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
213.
Halbesleben JR, Osburn HK, Mumford MD. Action research as a burnout intervention: reducing burnout in the Federal Fire Service. J Appl Behav Sci. 2006;42:244–266. doi: 10.1177/002188630528503.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
214.
Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Int J Sel Assess. 2001;9:9–30. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
215.
Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:530–41. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
216.
Salgado JF. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. J Appl Psychol. 1997;82:30–43. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30.
DOI
] [
PubMed
] [
Google Scholar
217.
Salgado JF. The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. Int J Sel Assess. 2002;10:117–125. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00198.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
218.
Salgado JF. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2003;76:323–346. doi: 10.1348/096317903769647201.
DOI
] [
Google Scholar
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
As this is a systematic review of the literature, this study indicates the information to obtain all data analyzed in the databases used. However, the datasets used during the current study remain available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ACTIONS
PERMALINK
RESOURCES
Cite
Download .nbib
.nbib
Format:
Add to Collections