The intriguing "conscientiousness paradox" emerges when we observe that nations recognized for their high levels of conscientiousness often rank among the poorest globally. Conscientiousness, a key trait within the Big Five personality model, is generally viewed as beneficial. Individuals exhibiting high conscientiousness typically experience improved health, well-being, and productivity. Thus, one might logically assume that countries with a populace characterized by high conscientiousness would also demonstrate elevated societal health and wealth. However, research indicates otherwise. Studies comparing personality traits across nations reveal that countries with elevated conscientiousness levels often face challenges such as lower GDP, reduced democratic freedoms, and shorter life expectancies compared to their less conscientious counterparts. This contradiction has led some scholars to label it a "conscientiousness paradox," questioning the validity of cross-national conscientiousness comparisons. Others argue that it is overly simplistic to expect that national trends will always mirror individual patterns. Notably, conscientiousness may be more beneficial in nations facing harsher living conditions.

Conscientiousness encompasses an individual's tendency to regulate their behavior according to societal norms (Roberts et al., 2009). Individuals with high conscientiousness are typically self-disciplined, deliberate in their actions, and goal-oriented, adhering to societal rules and expectations. Conversely, those with lower conscientiousness may exhibit spontaneity, impulsivity, and non-conformity, potentially fostering greater creativity due to their lesser adherence to conventions. Generally, higher conscientiousness correlates with favorable outcomes, such as improved health, life satisfaction, success in academic and professional endeavors, as well as reduced substance abuse and criminal activity. While many view these outcomes positively, the desirability of other associated traits, such as social conservatism and deference to authority, can be subjective based on personal values (Gerber et al., 2010; Saroglou, 2010; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). Individuals high in conscientiousness often prioritize security, conformity, and tradition, sometimes leading to support for authoritarian measures in the name of safety (Kandola & Egan, 2014; Swami et al., 2012; Vecchione et al., 2011). Their stringent behavioral standards may foster intolerance toward those who do not conform.

As previously discussed, various political, economic, social, and health factors influence personality traits and their geographical distribution. Researchers have begun exploring whether these regional personality differences correlate with societal outcomes. A review by Meisenberg (2015) highlighted that some correlations between national personality traits and relevant indicators align with those seen at the individual level; for instance, extraversion positively correlates with national happiness levels. However, conscientiousness showed unexpected associations with lower GDP, reduced political freedoms, and higher homicide rates. Further studies indicate that national conscientiousness not only correlates with lower GDP but also with diminished human development, lower life expectancy, and more authoritarian governance, though these correlations often weaken when GDP is factored in (Mõttus et al., 2010). Interestingly, nations with lower conscientiousness reported higher rates of atheism and alcohol consumption, aligning more with individual-level findings.

Critics argue that these unexpected results challenge the validity of comparing nations based on self-reported conscientiousness. They present two main arguments. Firstly, self-assessment of personality traits often reflects local community standards, known as the reference group effect. Consequently, individuals in communities with stringent conscientious norms may rate themselves more modestly compared to those in less demanding environments. For instance, Japan consistently reports low self-rated conscientiousness despite its industrious culture, where overwork is so prevalent that it has a specific term, "Kar?shi," meaning "death from overwork" (Schmitt et al., 2007). This suggests that individuals in Japan may feel inadequate relative to their culture's high expectations.

While the reference group effect appears to offer an explanation, evidence supporting it is limited. One study investigated this concept by comparing responses to vignettes across 21 countries (Mõttus et al., 2012). Participants rated individuals described in various scenarios regarding conscientious behavior while also self-assessing their own conscientiousness. If cultural standards influenced ratings, significant variations would have emerged, but results showed consistent ratings across cultures. High conscientiousness was rated similarly everywhere, suggesting a universal understanding of conscientious behavior. Moreover, adjusting for the reference group effect minimally impacted cross-national self-reported conscientiousness rankings, indicating that cultural standards are not the sole explanation for the paradoxical relationship between national conscientiousness and significant outcomes like life expectancy and GDP.

The second argument against the validity of cross-cultural conscientiousness comparisons relates to cultural differences in survey response styles. In some cultures, respondents tend to provide extreme ratings, inflating conscientiousness scores, while others favor moderate responses. This pattern is often associated with economic development, with less extreme responding prevalent in more developed nations like Japan, whereas extreme responses are more common in less developed regions. This discrepancy might reflect variations in societal development and education levels (Mõttus et al., 2012). Consequently, extreme responding could elucidate why less developed nations score higher in conscientiousness compared to wealthier nations with more moderate responding norms. In another study, researchers adjusted for response style across 20 countries, revealing correlations between response styles and self-reported conscientiousness scores. Adjustments slightly altered country rankings; for example, Japan and South Korea shifted from the bottom rankings to slightly higher positions. However, while correcting for response styles reduced some negative correlations between national conscientiousness and GDP and life expectancy, it did not eradicate them. This suggests that cultural response styles partially explain the counterintuitive relationship between national conscientiousness scores and significant societal metrics but do not account for the entire phenomenon.

Given that the "conscientiousness paradox" cannot be wholly attributed to cultural biases in responses, it warrants exploration of deeper reasons for its existence. Some scholars posit that the collective character of a society influences its overall character (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002, cited in Stolarski et al., 2013). However, others argue this perspective oversimplifies the issue by neglecting alternative explanations (Mõttus et al., 2010). Meisenberg (2015) contends it is improbable that a high proportion of conscientious individuals detracts from a nation's economic productivity; rather, it is more plausible that a society's developmental level shapes personality traits. Individuals typically lack control over large-scale societal factors affecting living conditions, suggesting that certain traits, like conscientiousness, may be more suited to specific societal contexts. The relationship between personality and culture remains poorly understood, necessitating cautious interpretations.

At the individual level, conscientiousness correlates with a strong preference for security, conformity, and tradition. These values may be more beneficial in challenging environments than in affluent societies. Research from the World Values Survey indicates that a nation’s economic development correlates with its societal values, which can be categorized into two dimensions: survival versus self-expression values and traditional versus secular-rational values. Survival values prioritize economic and physical security, while self-expression values emphasize liberal democratic ideals such as environmental concerns and political engagement. Traditional values focus on religion and nationalism, whereas secular-rational values advocate for individual autonomy. Countries tend to transition from survival and traditional values to self-expression and secular-rational values as they develop. As noted, conscientious individuals often uphold security and tradition, making them more compatible with poorer, traditionally religious nations and authoritarian regimes than with non-conformists. In contrast, individuals high in openness to experience align more with liberal, non-conformist values, thriving in modernized, secular societies that promote personal freedoms.

If the premise that high conscientiousness is more adaptive in underdeveloped countries holds true, while high openness to experience is more advantageous in prosperous nations, this suggests potential implications for understanding varying life history strategies across nations. Life history theory posits that individuals and populations exhibit traits linked to health and vitality along a continuum (Dunkel et al., 2014). In harsh environments where life expectancy is limited, a fast life history strategy emphasizing reproductive effort is preferable, whereas in more favorable conditions conducive to longevity, a slow life history strategy is beneficial, fostering human development. Some interpretations of this theory suggest that life history strategies may align with a general personality factor encompassing the Big Five traits in socially desirable configurations. A slow life history is thought to connect with higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability, while a fast life history aligns with lower levels of these traits. Attempts to apply this general personality factor to national traits have yielded surprising results, revealing a combination of high extraversion, openness, and neuroticism, alongside low agreeableness and conscientiousness at the national level (Dunkel et al., 2014). This contrasts with the proposed individual general factor of personality characterized by high agreeableness and conscientiousness. This anomalous pattern might stem from data sampling issues, but it also implies that national personality traits do not adhere to a universal structure where all traits are positively correlated. Specifically, high conscientiousness often correlates with lower openness to experience, reflecting the tension between differing societal values.

In summary, while higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability are typically deemed socially desirable, not all these traits contribute positively to societal well-being. Although conscientiousness benefits individuals, its societal utility may be context-dependent, particularly thriving in harsher environments while being less advantageous in wealthier settings. As previously suggested, personality traits likely evolved in a complex interplay of interacting factors, indicating that there is no single set of traits universally optimal for all contexts, applicable at both individual and national levels.

© Scott McGreal. Please do not reproduce without permission. Brief excerpts may be quoted as long as a link to the original article is provided.

Image Credit

Photo by Duncan Hull, poster designed by Despair, Inc.

Other posts about related topics

• The General Factor of Personality
• Personality’s “Big One”: Reality or Artifact?
• Personality’s Big One Revisited: The Allure of the Dark Side — critiques life history theory
• What Is An Intelligent Personality?
• Personality, Intelligence and “Race Realism” — discusses conscientiousness specifically
• The relationship between traits and values
• Do Personality Traits and Values Form a Coherent Whole?
• Geographical variation in personality
• Regional Differences in Personality: Surprising Findings — The Big Five in America and the UK

References

Dunkel, C. S., Cabeza De Baca, T., Woodley, M. A., & Fernandes, H. B. F. (2014). The General Factor of Personality and general intelligence: Testing hypotheses from Differential-K, Life History Theory, and strategic differentiation-integration effort. Personality and Individual Differences, 61–62(0), 13–17. doi: http://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-hub.tw%2F10.1016%2Fj.paid.2013.12.017

Dunkel, C. S., Stolarski, M., van der Linden, D., & Fernandes, H. B. F. (2014). A reanalysis of national intelligence and personality: The role of the general factor of personality. Intelligence, 47(0), 188–193. doi: http://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-hub.tw%2F10.1016%2Fj.intell.2014.09.012

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. American Political Science Review, 104(01), 111–133. doi: doi:10.1017/S0003055410000031

Kandola, S. S., & Egan, V. (2014). Individual differences underlying attitudes to the death penalty. Personality and Individual Differences, 66(0), 48–53. doi: http://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-hub.tw%2F10.1016%2Fj.paid.2014.03.005

Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Meisenberg, G. (2015). Do We Have Valid Country-Level Measures of Personality? Mankind Quarterly, 55(3), 360–382.

Mõttus, R., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2010). An attempt to validate national mean scores of Conscientiousness: No necessarily paradoxical findings. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(5), 630–640. doi: http://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-hub.tw%2F10.1016%2Fj.jrp.2010.08.005

Mõttus, R., Allik, J., Realo, A., Pullmann, H., Rossier, J., Zecca, G., . . . Ng Tseung, C. (2012). Comparability of Self-Reported Conscientiousness Across 21 Countries. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 303–317. doi: 10.1002/per.840

Mõttus, R., Allik, J., Realo, A., Rossier, J., Zecca, G., Ah-Kion, J., . . . Johnson, W. (2012). The Effect of Response Style on Self-Reported Conscientiousness Across 20 Countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(11), 1423–1436. doi: 10.1177/0146167212451275

Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009). Conscientiousness In M. L. R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 369–381). New York, NY: Guilford.

Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a Cultural Adaptation of Basic Traits: A Five-Factor Model Perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 108–125. doi: 10.1177/1088868309352322

Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The Geographic Distribution of Big Five Personality Traits: Patterns and Profiles of Human Self-Description Across 56 Nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. doi: 10.1177/0022022106297299

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279. doi: 10.1177/1088868308319226

Stolarski, M., Zajenkowski, M., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). National intelligence and personality: Their relationships and impact on national economic success. Intelligence, 41(2), 94–101. doi: http://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-hub.tw%2F10.1016%2Fj.intell.2012.11.003

Swami, V., Nader, I. W., Pietschnig, J., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Voracek, M. (2012). Personality and individual difference correlates of attitudes toward human rights and civil liberties. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 443–447. doi: http://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-hub.tw%2F10.1016%2Fj.paid.2012.04.015

Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. (2011). Higher-order factors of the big five and basic values: Empirical and theoretical relations. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 478–498. doi: 10.1111/j.2044–8295.2010.02006.

Originally published at https://www.psychologytoday.com.