View source for Conscientiousness

{{Short description|Personality trait of being orderly and following the rules}}
{{Distinguish|conscience|conscientious objector|consciousness}}

'''Conscientiousness''' is the [[personality trait]] of being responsible, [[:wikt:careful|careful]], or [[:wikt:diligent|diligent]]. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be [[Efficiency|efficient]] and organized as opposed to [[Relaxation (psychology)|easy-going]] and [[:wikt:disorderly|disorderly]]. They tend to show [[self-discipline]], act [[Duty|dutifully]], and [[need for achievement|aim for achievement]]; they display [[Planning|planned]] rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. Conscientiousness manifests in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, [[:wikt:systematic|systematic]], [[:wikt:carefulness|careful]], [[:wikt:thoroughness|thorough]], and [[:wikt:deliberate|deliberate]] (tending to think carefully before acting).<ref name="Thompson">{{cite journal|last=Thompson|first=E.R.|title=Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=October 2008|volume=45|issue=6|pages=542–548|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013}}</ref>

Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of both the [[Big Five personality traits|Five Factor Model]] and the [[HEXACO model of personality structure|HEXACO model]] of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having [[moral character|character]]. Conscientious individuals are generally [[:wikt:hard-working|hard-working]] and [[:wikt:reliable|reliable]]. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "[[workaholic]]s", [[Perfectionism (psychology)|perfectionists]], and [[Compulsive behavior|compulsive]] in their behavior.<ref name=downsides>{{cite journal|last1=Carter|first1=Nathan L.|last2=Guan|first2=Li|last3=Maples|first3=Jessica L.|last4=Williamson|first4=Rachel L.|last5=Miller|first5=Joshua D.|title=The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological wellbeing: The role of obsessive compulsive tendencies|journal=Journal of Personality|year=2015|volume=84 |issue=4|pages=510–522|doi=10.1111/jopy.12177|pmid=25858019}}</ref> People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success, if they also score high on Big Five Agreeableness; otherwise, they are also more likely to engage in [[Anti-social behaviour|anti-social]] behavior and commit [[Blue-collar crime|blue-collared crimes]] and [[Crime of passion|crimes of passion]].<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal | last1 = Ozer | first1 = D. J. | last2 = Benet-Martínez | first2 = V. | year = 2006 | title = Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes | journal = Annual Review of Psychology | volume = 57 | pages = 401–421 | doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127 | pmid=16318601| doi-access =  | s2cid = 20451934 }}</ref>

== Personality models ==
Conscientiousness is one of the five major [[Dimension (mathematics and physics)|dimensions]] in the [[Big Five personality traits|Big Five model]] of [[Personality psychology|personality]] (also called [[Five Factor Model]] or OCEAN), which consists of [[openness to experience]], conscientiousness, [[extraversion]], [[agreeableness]], and [[neuroticism]]. Two of many [[personality test]]s that assess these traits are Costa and McCrae's [[NEO PI-R]]<ref name="Costa, P. T. 1992">{{cite book|last1=Costa|first1=P.T.|last2=McCrae|first2=R.R.|year=1992|title=NEO personality Inventory professional manual|location=Odessa, Fla.|publisher=Psychological Assessment Resources}}</ref> and [[Lewis Goldberg|Goldberg]]'s NEO-IPIP.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ipip.ori.org/|title=International Personality Item Pool|website=ipip.ori.org}}</ref> According to these models, conscientiousness is a [[Continuous function|continuous]] dimension of personality, rather than a [[Categorization|categorical]] "[[Typification|type]]" of person.

In the NEO framework, Conscientiousness has six facets: [[Competence (human resources)|Competence]], Order, [[Duty|Dutifulness]], Achievement Striving, [[Discipline|Self-Discipline]], and [[Deliberation]]. Other models suggest a smaller set of two "[[:wikt:aspect|aspects]]": orderliness and [[:wikt:industrious|industriousness]] form {{clarify|text=an intermediate level of organization|date=July 2023}}, with orderliness associated with the desire to keep things organized and tidy and industriousness being more associated with [[productivity]] and [[work ethic]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=DeYoung|first1=C.G.|last2=Quilty|first2=L. C.|last3=Peterson|first3=J.B.|year=2007|title=Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=93|issue=5|pages=880–896|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880|pmid=17983306|s2cid=8261816 }}</ref>

Other Big Five personality traits such as low [[Extraversion and introversion|extraversion]], high [[agreeableness]], low [[Openness to experience|openness]], and low [[neuroticism]] are linked to high conscientiousness.<ref name="Costa, P. T. 1992" />

Conscientiousness also appears in other models of personality, such as [[C. Robert Cloninger|Cloninger]]'s [[Temperament and Character Inventory]], in which it is related to both [[self-directedness]] and [[persistence (psychology)|persistence]].<ref name="defruyt">{{cite journal|last1=De Fruyt|first1=F.|last2=Van De Wiele |first2=L. |last3=Van Heeringen |first3=C.|title=Cloninger's Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character and the Five-Factor Model of Personality|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|year=2000|volume=29|issue=3|pages=441–452|doi=10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00204-4}}</ref> The traits of ''[[rule consciousness]]'' and ''[[Perfectionism (psychology)|perfectionism]]'' are included in [[Raymond Cattell|Cattell's]] [[16 Personality Factors|16 PF model]]. It{{ambiguous|date=July 2023}} is negatively associated with ''[[Impulsiveness|impulsive]] [[sensation-seeking]]'' in Zuckerman's [[alternative five]] model.

[[Trait theory|Traits]] associated with conscientiousness are frequently assessed by self-report integrity tests given by various corporations to prospective employees.

== Origin ==
{{cite section|date=July 2023}}
Terms such as "hard-working", "reliable", and "persevering" describe desirable aspects of character. Because conscientiousness was once believed to be a moral evaluation, it was overlooked as a psychological attribute. The reality of individual differences in conscientiousness has now been clearly established by studies of cross-observer agreement. Peer and expert ratings confirm the self-reports that people make about their degrees of conscientiousness. Furthermore, both self-reports and observer ratings of conscientiousness predict real-life outcomes such as academic success.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Kim |first1=Lisa E. |title=Conscientiousness in Education: Its Conceptualization, Assessment, and Utility |date=2016 |work=The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality |pages=155–185 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-319-28604-4 |last2=Poropat |first2=Arthur E. |last3=MacCann |first3=Carolyn|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_7 }}</ref>

During most of the 20th century, psychologists believed that personality traits could be divided into two categories: [[temperament]] and [[moral character|character]]. Temperament traits were thought to be biologically based, whereas character traits were thought to be learned either during childhood or throughout life. With the advent of the [[Big Five personality traits|FFM]] (Five-Factor Model), behavior geneticists began systematic studies of the full range of personality traits, and it soon became clear that all five factors are substantially heritable. Identical twins showed very similar personality traits even when they had been separated at birth and raised apart, and this was true for both character traits and temperament traits. Parents and communities influence the ways in which conscientiousness is expressed, but they apparently do not influence its level.<ref name="McCrae">{{cite book|last=McCrae|first=Robert|year=2004|chapter=Conscientiousness|title=Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology|publisher=Academic Press|page=470}}{{volume needed|date=July 2023}}</ref>

== Measurement ==
A person's level of conscientiousness is generally assessed using self-report measures, although peer-reports and third-party observation can also be used. Self-report measures are either ''lexical''<ref name="Thompson" /> or based on ''statements''.<ref name="Goldbergetal">{{cite journal|last1=Goldberg|first1=L.R.|last2=Johnson|first2=J.A. |last3=Eber|first3=H.W. |title=The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|year=2006|volume=40|issue=1|pages=84–96|doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007|s2cid=13274640 |display-authors=etal}}</ref> Deciding which measure of either type to use in research is determined by an assessment of psychometric properties and the time and space constraints of the study being undertaken.

=== Lexical ===
[[Lexical hypothesis|''Lexical measures'']] use adjectives that reflect conscientiousness traits, such as "efficient" and "systematic", and are very space- and time-efficient for research purposes. Goldberg<ref>{{cite journal|last=Goldberg|first=L.R.|title=The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure|journal=Psychological Assessment|year=1992|volume=4|issue=1|pages=26–42|doi=10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26|s2cid=144709415 }}</ref> developed a 20-word measure as part of his 100-word Big Five markers. Saucier<ref>{{cite journal|last=Saucier|first=G|title=Mini-Markers – a brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers|journal=Journal of Personality Assessment|year=1994|volume=63|issue=3|pages=506–516|doi=10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8|pmid=7844738}}</ref> developed a briefer 8-word measure as part of his 40-word mini-markers. Thompson<ref name="Thompson" /> revised these measures to develop the International English Mini-Markers which has superior validity and reliability in populations both within and outside North America. Internal consistency reliability of the International English Mini-Markers for the Conscientiousness measure for native English-speakers is reported as .90, that for non-native English-speakers is .86.<ref name="Thompson" />

=== Statement ===
''Statement measures'' tend to comprise more words than lexical measures, so consume more research instrument space and more respondent time to complete. Respondents are asked the extent to which they, for example, often forget to put things back in their proper place, or are careful to avoid making mistakes.<ref name="Goldbergetal" /> Some statement-based measures of conscientiousness have similarly acceptable psychometric properties in North American populations to lexical measures, but their generally [[Emic and etic|emic]] development makes them less suited to use in other populations.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Piedmont|first1=R.L.|last2=Chae|first2=J.H.|title=Cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality – Development and validation of the NEO PI-R for Koreans|journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology|year=1997|volume=28|issue=2|pages=131–155|doi=10.1177/0022022197282001|s2cid=145053137}}</ref> For instance, statements in colloquial North American English like ''Often forget to put things back in their proper place'' or ''Am careful to avoid making mistakes'' can be hard for non-native English-speakers to understand, suggesting internationally validated measures might be more appropriate for research conducted with non-North Americans.

== Behavior ==

=== Development ===
Currently,{{When|date=June 2021}} little is known about conscientiousness in young children because the self-report inventories typically used to assess it are not appropriate for that age group. There are likely individual differences in this factor at an early age. It is known, for example, that some children have [[Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder|attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder]], which is characterized in part by problems with concentration, organization, and persistence.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Neurodevelopmental Disorders|url=https://neuronup.us/neurorehabilitation/neurodevelopmental-disorders/|access-date=2021-03-09|website=NeuronUP|language=en-US}}</ref> Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies suggest that conscientiousness is relatively low among adolescents but increases between 18 and 30 years of age. Conscientiousness generally increases with age from 21 to 60, though the rate of increase is slow.

Individual differences are strongly preserved, meaning that a careful, neat, and scrupulous 30-year-old is likely to become a careful, neat, and scrupulous 80-year-old.<ref name="McCrae" />

=== Daily life ===
People who score high on the trait of conscientiousness tend to be more organized and less cluttered in their homes and offices. For example, their books tend to be neatly shelved in alphabetical order, or categorized by topic, rather than scattered around the room. Their clothes tend to be folded and arranged in drawers or closets instead of lying on the floor. The presence of planners and to-do lists are also signs of conscientiousness. Their homes tend to have better lighting than the homes of people who score low on this trait.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gosling|first=S.|year=2008|title=Snoop: What your stuff says about you?|location=New York|publisher=Basic Books}}</ref>

=== Academic and workplace performance ===
Conscientiousness correlates with successful academic performance in students and workplace performance among managers and workers.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Higgins | first1 = D.M. | last2 = Peterson | first2 = J.B. | last3 = Lee | first3 = A. | last4 = Pihl | first4 = R.O. | year = 2007 | title = Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality and the prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 93 | issue = 2| pages = 298–319 | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.298| pmid = 17645401 }}</ref> Low levels of conscientiousness are strongly associated with [[procrastination]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Dewitt | first1 = S. | last2 = Schouwenburg | first2 = H. C. | year = 2002 | title = Procrastination, temptations, and incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators and the punctual | journal = European Journal of Personality | volume = 16 | issue = 6| pages = 469–489 | doi=10.1002/per.461| s2cid = 7065818 }}</ref> Conscientiousness has a moderate to large positive correlation with performance in the workplace,<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal |last1=Judge |first1=Timothy |title=The Big Five Personality Traits, General Mental Ability, And Career Success Across The Life Span |journal=Personnel Psychology |year=1999 |volume=52 |issue=3 |pages=621–652 |doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x |s2cid=1601484 |url=https://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge,%20Higgins,%20Thoresen,%20&%20Barrick%20PPsych.pdf |access-date=8 August 2019}}
|2={{Cite journal
 | author = J. F. Salgado
 | date=February 1997
 | title = The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community
 | journal = [[Journal of Applied Psychology]]
 | volume = 82
 | pages = 30–43
 | pmid = 9119797
 | issue = 1
 | doi = 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30}}
}}</ref> and in contrast, after [[intelligence|general mental ability]] is taken into account, the other four [[Big Five personality traits]] do not aid in predicting career success.<ref>{{Cite journal
 | first1 = Frank L.
 | last1 = Schmidt
 | first2 = John
 | last2 = Hunter
 | year = 2004
 | title = General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance
 | journal = [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]]
 | pmid = 14717634
 | volume = 86
 | pages = 162–173
 | issue = 1
 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162
 | url = http://faculty.washington.edu/mdj3/MGMT580/Readings/Week%202/Schmidt.pdf
 | access-date = 2010-07-12
 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111028012335/http://faculty.washington.edu/mdj3/MGMT580/Readings/Week%202/Schmidt.pdf
 | archive-date = 2011-10-28
 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.394.8878
 }}</ref>{{rp|169}}{{Verify source|date=August 2019|reason=Citation doesn't say that}}

Conscientious employees are generally more reliable, more motivated, and harder working. They have lower rates of absenteeism and [[counterproductive work behavior]]s such as stealing and fighting with other employees.<ref name=handbook /> Furthermore, conscientiousness is the personality trait that  correlates the most with performance across all categories of jobs.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Which Personality Traits Are Most Important to Employers?|url=https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/which-personality-traits-are-most-important-to-employers.html|date=2014-09-25|access-date=2021-03-16|website=Association for Psychological Science - APS|language=en-US}}</ref>
[[Agreeableness]] and emotional stability may also be important, particularly in jobs that involve a significant amount of social interaction.<ref>{{Cite journal |first1=M.K.|last1=Mount|first2=M.R.|last2=Barrick|first3=G.L.|last3=Stewart
 | year = 1998
 | title = Five-factor model of personality and Performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions
 | journal = Human Performance
 | volume = 11
 | pages = 145–165
 | doi = 10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029
 | issue = 2
 }}</ref>
Of all manager/leader types, top executives show the lowest level of rule-following, a conscientious trait.<ref>{{cite web|last1=MacNab|first1=Donald|title=New research shows leaders are persuasive rule-breakers|url=https://www.psychometrics.com/docs/leaders_persuasive_rule-breakers.pdf|publisher=Psychometrics Canada}}{{deadlink|date=September 2023}}</ref> Conscientiousness is not always positively related to [[job performance]]; sometimes the opposite is true. Being too conscientious could lead to taking too much time in making urgent decisions and to being too attached to the rules and lacking innovation.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Tett|first1=Robert P.|title=Is Conscientiousness ''Always'' Positively Related to Job Performance?|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288166009|date=1 July 1998|publisher=Wright State University}}</ref>

=== Subjective well-being ===
{{Main|Subjective well-being}}
A 2008 meta-analysis found that conscientiousness has a positive relationship with subjective well-being, particularly satisfaction with life. Highly conscientious people tend to be happier with their lives than those who score low on this trait.<ref name=Steel>{{cite journal|last1=Steel|first1=Piers|last2=Schmidt|first2=Joseph|last3=Shultz|first3=Jonas|title=Refining the relationship between personality and Subjective well-being|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=2008|volume=134|pages=138–161|url=http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y4person/3_happiness/Steel2008_5FM_and_happiness_psych_bull.pdf|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138|pmid=18193998|issue=1|hdl=1880/47915|access-date=2012-07-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190214201913/http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y4person/3_happiness/Steel2008_5FM_and_happiness_psych_bull.pdf|archive-date=2019-02-14|url-status=usurped|hdl-access=free}}</ref>
Although conscientiousness is generally seen as a positive trait to possess, research suggests that in some situations it may be harmful for well-being. In a prospective study of 9,570 people over four years, highly conscientious people suffered{{how|date=July 2023}} more than twice as much if they became unemployed.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Boyce | first1=Christopher J. | last2=Wood | first2=Alex M. | last3=Brown | first3=Gordon D.A. | title=The dark side of conscientiousness: Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following unemployment | journal=Journal of Research in Personality | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=44 | issue=4 | year=2010 | issn=0092-6566 | doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.001 | pages=535–539 |url=http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/alex.wood/cons.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110224093743/http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/alex.wood/cons.pdf |archive-date=2011-02-24 }}</ref> The authors suggested this may be due to conscientious people making different attributions about why they became unemployed, or through experiencing stronger reactions following failure. This finding is consistent with perspectives which see no trait as inherently positive or negative, but rather the consequences of the trait being dependent on the situation and concomitant goals and motivations.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Wood | first1=Alex M. | last2=Tarrier | first2=Nicholas | title=Positive Clinical Psychology: A new vision and strategy for integrated research and practice | journal=Clinical Psychology Review | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=30 | issue=7 | year=2010 | issn=0272-7358 | doi=10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.003 | pages=819–829 | pmid=20655136 | s2cid=11952756 |url=http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/alex.wood/PCP.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717135623/http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/alex.wood/PCP.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-17 }}</ref>

=== Problematic life outcomes ===
Low conscientiousness is linked to anti-social behavior, blue-collared crimes, and crimes of passion,<ref name="ReferenceA" /> as well as unemployment and homelessness.<ref name=handbook /> Low conscientiousness and low agreeableness taken together are also associated with [[substance use disorder]]s.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Walton | first1 = K.E. | last2 = Roberts | first2 = B.W. | year = 2004 | title = On the relationship between substance use and personality traits: abstainers are not maladjusted | journal = J. Res. Personal | volume = 38 | issue = 6| pages = 515–35 | doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.002}}</ref> People low in conscientiousness have difficulty saving money and their risky borrowing practices make them fall prey to subprime and [[predatory lending]] more often than conscientious people. High conscientiousness is associated with more careful planning of shopping trips and less impulse buying of unneeded items.<ref name=handbook /> While conscientiousness is generally linked to a lower level of anti-social behaviour, it is not always the case, and conscientiousness is not always negatively correlated with criminality. It has been shown that conscientiousness is positively correlated with business, [[White-collar crime|white-collared]], and [[Malice aforethought|premeditated]] criminal behavior.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Blickle | first1 = G. | last2 = Schlegel | first2 = A. | year = 2006 | title = Some Personality Correlates of Business White-Collar Crime | journal = Applied Psychology | volume = 55 | issue = 2 | pages = 220–233 | doi=10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00226.x}}</ref>

=== Health and longevity ===

According to a multi-decade study begun in 1921 by psychologist [[Lewis Terman]] on over 1,500 gifted adolescent Californians, "The strongest predictor of long life was conscientiousness."<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite magazine |title=Psychological Predictors of Long Life: An 80-year study discovers traits that help people to live longer|url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201206/psychological-predictors-long-life |magazine=[[Psychology Today]] |date=June 5, 2012 }}
|2={{Cite journal|date=March 2012|first1=Howard S.|last1=Friedman|first2=Leslie R.|last2=Martin| title=The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study|journal=Population and Development Review|volume=38|issue=1|pages=175–176|doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00481.x|issn=0098-7921}}
}}</ref> Specific behaviors associated with low conscientiousness may explain its influence on [[longevity]]. Nine different behaviors that are among the leading causes of mortality—alcohol use, disordered eating (including obesity), drug use, lack of exercise, [[risky sexual behavior]], risky driving, tobacco use, violence, and suicide—are all predicted by low conscientiousness. Health behaviors are more strongly correlated with the "conventionality" rather than the "impulse-control" aspect of conscientiousness. Apparently, social norms influence many health-relevant behaviors, such as healthy diet, exercise, not smoking, and moderate drinking, and highly conscientious people adhere the most strongly to these norms.<ref name="handbook">{{cite book|title=Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior|year=2009|publisher=The Guildford Press|location=New York/London|isbn=978-1-59385-647-2|pages=257–273|last1=Roberts|first1= B.W.|last2=Jackson|first2=J.J. |last3=Fayard|first3=J.V. |last4=Edmonds|first4=G. |last5=Meints|first5=J.|editor-first1=Mark R.|editor-last1=Leary|editor-first2=Rick H.|editor-last2=Hoyle|chapter=25. Conscientiousness}}</ref> Conscientiousness is positively related to health behaviors<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kern|first1=Margaret L.|last2=Friedman|first2=Howard S.|date=2008–2009|title=Do conscientious individuals live longer? A quantitative review|journal=Health Psychology|language=en|volume=27|issue=5|pages=505–512|doi=10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.505|pmid=18823176|issn=1930-7810}}</ref> such as regular visits to a doctor, checking smoke alarms, and adherence to medication regimens. Such behavior may better safeguard health and prevent disease.<ref name="handbook" />{{Better source needed|date=February 2016}} The only known health benefits of low conscientiousness are relaxation and reduced anxiety.

=== Relationships ===
Relationship quality is positively associated with partners' levels of conscientiousness. Highly conscientious people are less likely to get divorced due to their own fault. Conscientiousness is associated with lower rates of behavior associated with at-fault divorce, such as extramarital affairs, spousal abuse, and alcohol use disorder. Conscientious behaviors may have a direct influence on relationship quality, as people low in conscientiousness are less responsible, less responsive to their partners, more condescending, and less likely to hold back offensive comments. More conscientious people are better at managing conflict and tend to provoke fewer disagreements, perhaps because they elicit less criticism due to their well-controlled and responsible behavior.<ref name=handbook />{{Better source needed|date=February 2016}}

=== Intelligence ===
Conscientiousness has distinct sub-components, including two major branches (i.e., orderliness and industriousness). The largest set of meta-analyses found that these branches of conscientiousness have disparate connections with cognitive abilities. Orderliness has negative correlations with some cognitive abilities (e.g., fluid reasoning abilities, math knowledge, lexical knowledge, and science knowledge) whereas industriousness has strikingly positive correlations with multiple abilities (e.g., general mental ability, memory, processing speed, and knowledge).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Stanek |first1=Kevin C. |last2=Ones |first2=Deniz S. |date=2023-06-06 |title=Meta-analytic relations between personality and cognitive ability |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=120 |issue=23 |article-number=e2212794120 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2212794120 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=10266031 |pmid=37252971|bibcode=2023PNAS..12012794S }}</ref>

Some previous studies in selected samples (e.g., job candidates,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Moutafi |first1=Joanna |last2=Furnham |first2=Adrian |last3=Crump |first3=John |date=January 2003 |title=Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: a study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1002/per.471 |journal=European Journal of Personality |language=en |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=79–94 |doi=10.1002/per.471 |s2cid=143599504 |issn=0890-2070|url-access=subscription }}</ref> university students) have found negative correlations between conscientiousness and intelligence. One potential explanation is that these negative correlations may be artificially [[Berkson's paradox|created by the selection]] of the sample. For example, with students who are low on one trait and high on the other (negative relationship) using the strong one to compensate and pass the selection, while students who are low on both (positive relationship) are removed by the selection.<ref name="Murray2014">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.014| title = How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis| journal = Personality and Individual Differences| volume = 70| pages = 17–22| year = 2014| last1 = Murray | first1 = A.L. | last2 = Johnson | first2 = W. | last3 = McGue | first3 = M. | last4 = Iacono | first4 = W.G. }}</ref>

=== Political attitudes ===
Conscientiousness correlates with conservative political attitudes.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal|last=Soto|first=C.J.|year=2019|title=How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The life outcomes of personality replication project|journal=Psychological Science|volume=30|issue=5 |pages=711–727|doi=10.1177/0956797619831612 |pmid=30950321 |s2cid=96436304 }}
|2={{cite journal|last1=Carney|first1=D.R.|last2=Jost|first2=J.T.|last3=Gosling|first3=S.D.|last4=Potter|first4=J.|year=2008|title=The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind|journal=Political Psychology|volume=29|issue=6 |pages=807–840|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x |doi-access=free}}
|3={{cite journal|last1=Sibley|first1=Chris G.|last2=Osborne|first2=Danny|last3=Duckitt|first3=John|title=Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a Threat-Constraint Model|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|year=2012|volume=46|issue=6|pages=664–677|doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002}}
}}</ref> 

Because conscientiousness is positively related to job performance,<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal | last1=Brown | first1=Tom J. | last2=Mowen | first2=John C. | last3=Donavan | first3=D. Todd | last4=Licata | first4=Jane W. | title=The Customer Orientation of Service Workers: Personality Trait Effects on Self-and Supervisor Performance Ratings | journal=Journal of Marketing Research | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=39 | issue=1 | year=2002 | issn=0022-2437 | doi=10.1509/jmkr.39.1.110.18928 | pages=110–119| s2cid=144095642 }}
|2={{cite journal | last1=Neal | first1=Andrew | last2=Yeo | first2=Gillian | last3=Koy | first3=Annette | last4=Xiao | first4=Tania | title=Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits | journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior | publisher=Wiley | volume=33 | issue=2 | date=2011-01-26 | issn=0894-3796 | doi=10.1002/job.742 | pages=175–192}}
}}</ref> conservative service workers have been shown to earn higher ratings, evaluations, and tips than their liberal counterparts.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Davidson | first1=Alexander | last2=Theriault | first2=Derek A. | title=How Consumer Experience Is Shaped by the Political Orientation of Service Providers | journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology | publisher=Wiley | volume=31 | issue=4 | date=2021-03-25 | issn=1057-7408 | doi=10.1002/jcpy.1233 | pages=792–800| s2cid=233791649 }}</ref>

Although right-wing authoritarianism is one of the most powerful predictors of prejudice, a large scale meta-analysis found that conscientiousness itself is uncorrelated with general prejudice.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal|last1=Sibley|first1=Chris|last2=Duckitt|first2=John|title=Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review|journal=Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.|volume=12|issue=3|pages=248–79|year=2008|doi=10.1177/1088868308319226|pmid=18641385|s2cid=5156899}}
|2={{cite journal | last1=Chen | first1=Philip G. | last2=Palmer | first2=Carl L. | title=The Prejudiced Personality? Using the Big Five to Predict Susceptibility to Stereotyping Behavior | journal=American Politics Research | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=46 | issue=2 | date=2017-08-04 | issn=1532-673X | doi=10.1177/1532673x17719720 | pages=276–307| s2cid=142142664}}
}}</ref> Rebellion against control is significantly negatively correlated with conscientiousness.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Watson|first1=David|title=Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|year=2001|volume=30|pages=149–158|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257044687|doi=10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00019-2}}</ref>

Hence, conscientiousness is associated only with rule compliance, obedience, and integrity, not necessarily with right-wing authoritarianism, which requires reduced Big Five Agreeableness as well.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hogan|first1=Robert|last2=Johnson|first2=John|last3=Briggs|first3=Stephen|title=Handbook of Personality Psychology|year=1997|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=978-0-12-134645-4|page=856|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gTdWltAv_scC&q=Conscientiousness%20conformity&pg=PR4}}</ref>

Conscientiousness plays an important role in mitigating the spread of misinformation. Across multiple studies, conscientious individuals were less likely to share fake news stories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lawson |first1=M. Asher |last2=Kakkar |first2=Hemant |date=2024-12-06 |title=Resolving conflicting findings in misinformation research: A methodological perspective |url=https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00031/ |journal=Advances.in/Psychology |language=en |volume=2 |pages=e235462 |doi=10.56296/aip00031 |issn=2976-937X|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Furthermore, conscientiousness weakened the positive relationship between right-wing political ideology and sharing fake news. However, some research suggests that this evidence may be inconclusive.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lin |first1=Hause |last2=Rand |first2=David G. |last3=Pennycook |first3=Gordon |date=March 2023 |title=Conscientiousness does not moderate the association between political ideology and susceptibility to fake news sharing. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xge0001467 |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: General |language=en |volume=152 |issue=11 |pages=3277–3284 |doi=10.1037/xge0001467 |pmid=37602992 |issn=1939-2222|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

High conscientiousness does not always lead to prosocial behaviour. In a [[Milgram experiment]], conscientious and agreeable people, when advised by an ill-intending authority, are more willing to administer high-intensity electric shocks to a victim, because conscientious and agreeable people are less capable of resistance.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bègue|first1=Laurent|last2=Beauvois|first2=Jean-Léon|last3=Courbert|first3=Didier|last4=Oberblé|first4=Dominique|last5=Lepage|first5=Johan|last6=Duke|first6=Aaron|title=Personality Predicts Obedience in a Milgram Paradigm|journal=Journal of Personality|volume=83|issue=3|pages=299–306|date=2014|doi=10.1111/jopy.12104|pmid=24798990|s2cid=13868371 |url=https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_01158395/file/Begue%2C%20Beauvois%2CCourbet%20J%20of%20personality%202015%20paru.pdf}}</ref>

=== Creativity ===
The orderliness/dependability subfactors (order, dutifulness, and deliberation) of conscientiousness correlate negatively with creativity while the industriousness/achievement subfactors (competence, achievement striving, and self-discipline) correlate positively.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Reiter-Palmon|first1=Roni|last2=Illies|first2=Jody|last3=Kobe-Cross|first3=Lisa|title=Conscientiousness Is Not Always a Good Predictor of Performance: The Case of Creativity|journal=The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving|year=2009|volume=19|pages=27–45|url=https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=psychfacpub}}</ref> People who score high on the order subfactor of conscientiousness show less innovative behavior, especially if coupled with a low score on the industrious subfactor.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Bakx|first1=Nina|title=Which personality traits do innovative people possess?|url=http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=53286|publisher=Universiteit van Amsterdam|access-date=2015-04-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160131044312/http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=53286|archive-date=2016-01-31}}</ref> Group conscientiousness{{Definition needed|date=July 2023}} has a negative effect on group performance during creative tasks.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Robert|first1=Christopher|last2=Cheung|first2=Yu Ha|title=An examination of the relationship between conscientiousness and group performance on a creative task|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|date=April 2010|volume=44|issue=2|pages=222–231|doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2010.01.005}}</ref> Groups with only conscientious members have difficulty solving open-ended problems.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Colarelli|first1=Stephen|title=No best way: an evolutionary perspective on human resource management|year=2003|location=Westport, Conn. |publisher=Praeger|isbn=978-0-275-95739-1|page=159|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d-Y4T70Ws5UC&q=conscientiousness&pg=PA159}}</ref>

=== Adaptability ===
A study from 2006 found that those scoring low on conscientiousness make better decisions after unanticipated changes in the context of a task. Specifically, the subfactors order, dutifulness, and deliberation negatively correlated with decision-making quality, but not{{ambiguous|reason="X is with Y, but not Z" could mean "X is with Y but X is not with Z" or "X is with Y, but Z is not with Y"|date=July 2023}} competence, achievement striving, and self-discipline.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Lepine|first1=Jeffrey|last2=Colquitt|first2=Jason|last3=Erez|first3=Amir|title=Adaptability to changing task context: effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience|journal=Personnel Psychology|year=2000|volume=53|issue=3|pages=563–593|doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00214.x}}</ref>

=== Religiosity ===
General religiosity was mainly correlated with high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness among the Big Five traits.<ref name=Saroglou>{{cite journal|last=Saroglou|first=Vassilis|title=Religion and the five-factors of personality: A meta-analytic review.|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|volume=32|year=2002|pages=15–25|doi=10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00233-6}}</ref>

===Conscience===
Conscientiousness in psychology is defined, as noted above, by notions such as "orderliness and industriousness", not by reference to the ordinary language notion of [[conscience]], or such as is referred to in the legal doctrine of [[equity (law)#History of equity in common law jurisdictions|equity]], by concern with preventing unconscionable actions.

== Geography ==

=== United States ===
Average levels of conscientiousness vary by [[U.S. state|state in the United States]]. People living in the central part, including the states of [[Kansas]], [[Nebraska]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Missouri]], on average have higher scores than people living in other regions. People in the southwestern states of [[New Mexico]], [[Utah]], and [[Arizona]] also have relatively high average scores on conscientiousness. Among the eastern states, [[Florida]] is the only one that scores in the top ten for this personality trait. The four states with the lowest scores on conscientiousness on average were, in descending order, [[Rhode Island]], [[Hawaii]], [[Maine]], and [[Alaska]].<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite news | url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122211987961064719?mod=yhoofront | title = The United States of Mind. Researchers Identify Regional Personality Traits Across America | first = Stephanie |last=Simon | work = [[WSJ.com]] | date = 2008-09-23 }}
|2=Original research article: {{Cite journal
 | first1 = Peter J. |last1=Rentfrow|first2= Samuel D. |last2=Gosling|first3= Jeff |last3=Potter
 | title = A Theory of the Emergence, Persistence, and Expression of Geographic Variation in Psychological Characteristics
 | journal = Perspectives on Psychological Science
 | volume = 3
 | issue = 5
 | pages = 339–369
 | year = 2008
 | doi = 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00084.x
 | pmid = 26158954
 | s2cid = 17059908
 }}
}}</ref>

=== Great Britain ===
A large scale survey of residents of Great Britain found that average levels of all the Big Five, including conscientiousness, vary across regional districts in England, Wales, and Scotland. High levels of conscientiousness were found throughout much of Southern England, scattered areas of the Midlands, and most of the Scottish Highlands. Low levels of conscientiousness were observed in London, Wales, and parts of the North of England. Higher mean levels of regional conscientiousness were positively correlated with voting for Toryism and the Conservative Party, and negatively correlated with voting for the Labour Party, in the 2005 and 2010 elections, and also correlated with a higher proportion of married residents, with higher life expectancy for men and women, fewer long-term health problems, and with lower rates of mortality from stroke, cancer, and heart disease. Higher regional conscientiousness was also correlated with lower median annual income in 2011.<ref name="Great Britain">{{cite journal|last1=Rentfrow|first1=Peter J.|last2=Jokela|first2=Markus|last3=Lamb|first3=Michael E.|s2cid=14827579|title=Regional Personality Differences in Great Britain|journal=PLOS ONE|date=March 24, 2015|volume=10|issue=3|article-number=e0122245|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0122245|pmid=25803819|pmc=4372610|bibcode=2015PLoSO..1022245R|doi-access=free}}</ref>

== See also ==
*{{annotated link|[[Personality psychology]]}}

== References ==
{{reflist|32em}}

{{Big Five}}
{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Personality traits]]
[[Category:Personality psychology]]