Costa, McCrae and Arenberg (1980) conducted a longitudinal study of 460 males aged 17-85 over a 6 to 12 year period. They found correlations of .70+ over time for extraversion and high correlations for neuroticism.
Studies generally show decline in E and N as people age. Helson and Moane (1987) studied women from 27 to 43 in their longitudinal study; Helson and Wink (1993) then assessed them at age 52
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Big 5 Personality Factors
A strong consensus has emerged since the mid-1980's about the number and nature of personality traits. Five superordinate factors have emerged, often referred to to as the "Big Five" or the 5-factor model. These presence of these five factors is well supported by a wide variety of research.
Early evidence supporting a 5-factor model was published by Fiske, in 1949. During the 1980s and 1990s a vast array of research combined to support the five factor model. Not everyone however agrees in the naming of the five supertraits.
The 5-factor model is commonly measured by the NEO by McCrae and Costa (2003).
The Big 5 according to the NEO are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness
to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Remember OCEAN, or NEOAC):
Neuroticism (Emotional Stability)
Extraversion (Introversion)
Openness to experience (Closedness to experiences)
Agreeableness (Disagreeableness)
Conscientiousness (Lack of conscientiousness)
Each Supertrait is measured by 6 facets (or subordinate traits). These are:
N
E
O
A
C
Anxiety
Warmth
Fantasy
Trust
Competence
Angry hostility
Gregariousness
Aesthetics
Straightforward-ness
Order
Depression
Assertiveness
Feelings
Altruism
Dutifulness
Self-consciousness
Activity
Actions
Compliance
Achievement striving
Impulsiveness
Excitement-seeking
Ideas
Modesty
Self Discipline
Vulnerability
Positive emotion
Values
Tender-mindedness
Deliberation
The "big 5" model is not without its criticisms, e.g., see Criticisms (Wikipedia).
References
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood, a five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Early evidence supporting a 5-factor model was published by Fiske, in 1949. During the 1980s and 1990s a vast array of research combined to support the five factor model. Not everyone however agrees in the naming of the five supertraits.
The 5-factor model is commonly measured by the NEO by McCrae and Costa (2003).
The Big 5 according to the NEO are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness
to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Remember OCEAN, or NEOAC):
Neuroticism (Emotional Stability)
Extraversion (Introversion)
Openness to experience (Closedness to experiences)
Agreeableness (Disagreeableness)
Conscientiousness (Lack of conscientiousness)
Each Supertrait is measured by 6 facets (or subordinate traits). These are:
N
E
O
A
C
Anxiety
Warmth
Fantasy
Trust
Competence
Angry hostility
Gregariousness
Aesthetics
Straightforward-ness
Order
Depression
Assertiveness
Feelings
Altruism
Dutifulness
Self-consciousness
Activity
Actions
Compliance
Achievement striving
Impulsiveness
Excitement-seeking
Ideas
Modesty
Self Discipline
Vulnerability
Positive emotion
Values
Tender-mindedness
Deliberation
The "big 5" model is not without its criticisms, e.g., see Criticisms (Wikipedia).
References
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood, a five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Three Personality Supertraits:
Eysenck (1916-1997) believed initially that all people could be described in terms of two supertraits, which he believed had a biological basis:
Introversion-extraversion (continuum of sociability, dominance, liveliness etc)
Emotionality-stability (neuroticism) (continuum of upset and distress)
Psychoticism added later: less researched. This was a predisposition towards becoming either psychotic or sociopathic (psychologically unattached to other people). Also, a tendency to be hostile, manipulative, and impulsive.
Eysenck designed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).
A second-order Factor Analysis of Cattell's 16PF shows two factors: introversion/extraversion and anxiety. So the underlying factors of Cattell’s scales are very similar to Eysenck’s.
An example of the research supporting the supertraits was a 1968 study by Giese and Schmidt with a
group of college students over the age of 19 (reported by Eysenck, 1973) in which extraversion strongly predicted age of first experiencing sexual intercourse.
Introversion-extraversion (continuum of sociability, dominance, liveliness etc)
Emotionality-stability (neuroticism) (continuum of upset and distress)
Psychoticism added later: less researched. This was a predisposition towards becoming either psychotic or sociopathic (psychologically unattached to other people). Also, a tendency to be hostile, manipulative, and impulsive.
Eysenck designed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).
A second-order Factor Analysis of Cattell's 16PF shows two factors: introversion/extraversion and anxiety. So the underlying factors of Cattell’s scales are very similar to Eysenck’s.
An example of the research supporting the supertraits was a 1968 study by Giese and Schmidt with a
group of college students over the age of 19 (reported by Eysenck, 1973) in which extraversion strongly predicted age of first experiencing sexual intercourse.
Needs as Personality:
Henry Murray (1893 - 1988) was active in developing a theory of motivation throughout the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s. He believed that a need is a
potentiality or readiness to respond in a certain way under certain given circumstances… It is a noun which stands for the fact that a certain trend is apt to recur.
(Murray, et al. 1938, p. 124).
A major assumption of Murray’s theory was that behaviour is driven by an internal state of disequilibrium. In other words we have a LACK of something and this drives us. We are dissatisfied and we desire something.
Murray classified needs as being either:
Primary needs (which are biologically based): food, water, air, sex, avoidance of pain
Secondary needs (which either derive from our biological needs or are inherent in our psychological nature):
achievement, recognition, acquisition
dominance, aggression, autonomy
affiliation, rejection
nurturance, play, cognizance (asking questions of others)
Murray believed that stronger needs are expressed more often over time and lead to more intense behaviour.
The main contribution from Murray’s was that he understand personality as being driven by the secondary needs: Achievement, Dominance, Affiliation and Nurturance. The extent to which each of these needs was felt by an individual shaped their personality and behavior.
Since the 60s and 70s the main needs studies have examined Achievement, Power, Affiliation and Intimacy.
For example, the need for achievement (or Achievement Motivation) was studied extensively by
David McLelland in the 70s, and is the single most researched need. Achievement motivation refers to the desire to do things well, overcome obstacles, to do things better. A person high in achievement motivation tends to choose more difficult tasks than a person low in achievement motivation, because they want to find out more about their ability to achieve.
The need for power was studied intensely by David Winter in the 70s. The need for power is the desire to have dominance, impact on others, prestige, position, and influence over others. Those who have a need for power are often concerned about controlling the image of themselves that is portrayed to others. If the need for power can be combined with taking on responsibility, then "acceptable" displays of power can be experienced.
The need for affiliation has been studied by McAdam in the 80s. The need for affiliation refers to the desire to desire to spend time with other people. It can be more useful to look at subcomponents such as social comparison, emotional support, positive stimulation, and attention from others.
The need for intimacy is the desire to experience warm, close, and communicative exchanges with
another person. Ultimately, it is the desire to merge self with another. The need for intimacy correlates .58 (medium correlation) with the need for affiliation, but focuses more on one to one interactions, particularly self-disclosure and listening.
Murray’s Needs theory is sometime studied as part of the trait perspective as “needs” are seen as akin to traits. But probably more often, you’ll see Needs’ theory studied within the psychoanalytic
perspective as it is seen as a DRIVE theory of personality. We’ll return to this when you look at the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) in the psychoanalytic section of the course. The TAT was derived from Murray’s Needs theory.
potentiality or readiness to respond in a certain way under certain given circumstances… It is a noun which stands for the fact that a certain trend is apt to recur.
(Murray, et al. 1938, p. 124).
A major assumption of Murray’s theory was that behaviour is driven by an internal state of disequilibrium. In other words we have a LACK of something and this drives us. We are dissatisfied and we desire something.
Murray classified needs as being either:
Primary needs (which are biologically based): food, water, air, sex, avoidance of pain
Secondary needs (which either derive from our biological needs or are inherent in our psychological nature):
achievement, recognition, acquisition
dominance, aggression, autonomy
affiliation, rejection
nurturance, play, cognizance (asking questions of others)
Murray believed that stronger needs are expressed more often over time and lead to more intense behaviour.
The main contribution from Murray’s was that he understand personality as being driven by the secondary needs: Achievement, Dominance, Affiliation and Nurturance. The extent to which each of these needs was felt by an individual shaped their personality and behavior.
Since the 60s and 70s the main needs studies have examined Achievement, Power, Affiliation and Intimacy.
For example, the need for achievement (or Achievement Motivation) was studied extensively by
David McLelland in the 70s, and is the single most researched need. Achievement motivation refers to the desire to do things well, overcome obstacles, to do things better. A person high in achievement motivation tends to choose more difficult tasks than a person low in achievement motivation, because they want to find out more about their ability to achieve.
The need for power was studied intensely by David Winter in the 70s. The need for power is the desire to have dominance, impact on others, prestige, position, and influence over others. Those who have a need for power are often concerned about controlling the image of themselves that is portrayed to others. If the need for power can be combined with taking on responsibility, then "acceptable" displays of power can be experienced.
The need for affiliation has been studied by McAdam in the 80s. The need for affiliation refers to the desire to desire to spend time with other people. It can be more useful to look at subcomponents such as social comparison, emotional support, positive stimulation, and attention from others.
The need for intimacy is the desire to experience warm, close, and communicative exchanges with
another person. Ultimately, it is the desire to merge self with another. The need for intimacy correlates .58 (medium correlation) with the need for affiliation, but focuses more on one to one interactions, particularly self-disclosure and listening.
Murray’s Needs theory is sometime studied as part of the trait perspective as “needs” are seen as akin to traits. But probably more often, you’ll see Needs’ theory studied within the psychoanalytic
perspective as it is seen as a DRIVE theory of personality. We’ll return to this when you look at the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) in the psychoanalytic section of the course. The TAT was derived from Murray’s Needs theory.
The Essential Personality Trait Approach
Many psychologists have tried to reduce the many traits to a few essential ones. Amongst the best known essential trait approaches are:
Murray 1938 (20+ “needs”)
Cattell (16 traits): 16 Personality Factors questionnaire
Eysenck (3 traits): Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) - Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychotocism
Costa & McCrae (5 traits): NEO - Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
Murray 1938 (20+ “needs”)
Cattell (16 traits): 16 Personality Factors questionnaire
Eysenck (3 traits): Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) - Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychotocism
Costa & McCrae (5 traits): NEO - Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
The Single Personality Trait Approach
The Single Personality Trait Approach
Much personality research has studied the origin, nature and consequences of single traits, such as introversion. Funder (2001) focuses on three single traits that have received wide attention and have been the subject of investigation in hundreds of studies:
conscientiousness
self-monitoring
authoritarianism
To illustrate the single trait approach, let's take a look at authoritarianism.
Single Trait: Authoritarianism
The personality trait of authoritarianism has been extensively studied since the 1950's. Much initial research was done as a reaction to the outrages which occurred in Nazi Germany during WWII. Authoritarianism began to be studied in order to try to understand its nature and its origin. Authoritarianism is felt to lie at the heart of racial prejudice.
Think of the stereotypical "Hitler", and you have the authoritarian personality.
The Authoritarian personality may be described a person who is unthinking and inflexible, aggressive, worshipful of authority above, contemptuous of those below, fascinated by power, cynical, and may be sexually repressed.
The origins of authoritarianism have been studied but it has been difficult to determine whether adult authoritarianism is attributable to:
Much personality research has studied the origin, nature and consequences of single traits, such as introversion. Funder (2001) focuses on three single traits that have received wide attention and have been the subject of investigation in hundreds of studies:
conscientiousness
self-monitoring
authoritarianism
To illustrate the single trait approach, let's take a look at authoritarianism.
Single Trait: Authoritarianism
The personality trait of authoritarianism has been extensively studied since the 1950's. Much initial research was done as a reaction to the outrages which occurred in Nazi Germany during WWII. Authoritarianism began to be studied in order to try to understand its nature and its origin. Authoritarianism is felt to lie at the heart of racial prejudice.
Think of the stereotypical "Hitler", and you have the authoritarian personality.
The Authoritarian personality may be described a person who is unthinking and inflexible, aggressive, worshipful of authority above, contemptuous of those below, fascinated by power, cynical, and may be sexually repressed.
The origins of authoritarianism have been studied but it has been difficult to determine whether adult authoritarianism is attributable to:
The Many Personality Traits Approach
Some theorists look at many traits at once when investigating personality. They try to determine which traits are correlated with certain behaviours, thereby gaining understanding of the underpinnings of various behaviours as well as the more general workings of personality. For example, personality research has investigated the relationship between personality traits and the ability to delay gratification, political orientation and drug taking.
For example, a study (cited in Carver & Scheier, 2000) found young children rated as being emotionally unstable, disobedient, domineering, aggressive, teasing, fidgety, restless, and susceptible to stress were found nearly a decade later at age 14 years to be more likely to be using illegal drugs.
The implication of using this many trait approach is you can get to have an understanding of what sort of personality underpins a certain type of behaviour (in this case drug-taking). The practical implications of this are that instead of anti-drug campaigns targeted at 14 year olds we should have campaigns at helping problem behaviours and susceptibility to stress at an earlier age.
For example, a study (cited in Carver & Scheier, 2000) found young children rated as being emotionally unstable, disobedient, domineering, aggressive, teasing, fidgety, restless, and susceptible to stress were found nearly a decade later at age 14 years to be more likely to be using illegal drugs.
The implication of using this many trait approach is you can get to have an understanding of what sort of personality underpins a certain type of behaviour (in this case drug-taking). The practical implications of this are that instead of anti-drug campaigns targeted at 14 year olds we should have campaigns at helping problem behaviours and susceptibility to stress at an earlier age.
Gordon Allport:Father of Personality Theory
Gordon Allport: Father of personality theory
Gordon Allport (1897-1967) is often called the father of personality theory: He was very much a trait theorist and believed in the individuality and uniqueness of the person and that people have consistent personalities.
Allport attempted to blend nomothetic and idiographic perspectives: he called this blend the morphogenic approach.
Allport believed that each person had traits of various types:
Individual: traits possessed by one person
Common: traits possessed by many people
Cardinal traits: One trait that dominates the person
Central traits: small number of traits important traits that may affect many behaviours
Secondary traits: many consistent traits which are not often exhibited
Motivational traits: Very strongly felt traits
Stylistic traits: Less strongly felt traits.
Allport believed that through autobiographies, letters and diaries an understanding of an individual’s personality could be gained. He studied 301 letters written by Jenny Gove Masterson and was able to describe Jenny in terms of 8 traits.
Gordon Allport (1897-1967) is often called the father of personality theory: He was very much a trait theorist and believed in the individuality and uniqueness of the person and that people have consistent personalities.
Allport attempted to blend nomothetic and idiographic perspectives: he called this blend the morphogenic approach.
Allport believed that each person had traits of various types:
Individual: traits possessed by one person
Common: traits possessed by many people
Cardinal traits: One trait that dominates the person
Central traits: small number of traits important traits that may affect many behaviours
Secondary traits: many consistent traits which are not often exhibited
Motivational traits: Very strongly felt traits
Stylistic traits: Less strongly felt traits.
Allport believed that through autobiographies, letters and diaries an understanding of an individual’s personality could be gained. He studied 301 letters written by Jenny Gove Masterson and was able to describe Jenny in terms of 8 traits.
Personality Traits: Idiographic vs. Nomothetic
Personality Traits: Idiographic vs. Nomothetic
However the whole issue of whether a trait exists in all people to a greater or lesser degree is complicated by different views of the trait perspective.
There are two different views as to whether all traits exist in all people:
Idiographic: people have unique personality structures; thus some traits (cardinal traits) are more important in understanding the structure of some people than others
Nomothetic: people's unique personalities can be understood as them having relatively greater or lesser amounts of traits that are consistently across people (e.g., the NEO is nomothetic)
The Idiographic view emphasizes that each person has a unique psychological structure and that some traits are possessed by only one person; and that there are times when it is impossible to compare one person with others. This viewpoint also emphasizes that traits may differ in importance from person to person (cardinal, central and secondary traits). It tends to use case studies, bibliographical information, diaries etc for information gathering.
The Nomothetic view, on the other hand, emphasizes comparability among individuals but sees people as unique in their combination of traits. This viewpoint sees traits as having the same psychological meaning in everyone. The belief is that people differ only in the amount of each trait. It is this which constitutes their uniqueness. This approach tends to use self-report personality questions, factor analysis etc. People differ in their positions along a continuum in the same set of traits.
Most contemporary psychologists tend towards a nomothetic approach (and the trait approach is often viewed solely as a nomothetic approach these days), but they are aware of how a trait may be slightly different from person to person in the way that it is expressed.
However the whole issue of whether a trait exists in all people to a greater or lesser degree is complicated by different views of the trait perspective.
There are two different views as to whether all traits exist in all people:
Idiographic: people have unique personality structures; thus some traits (cardinal traits) are more important in understanding the structure of some people than others
Nomothetic: people's unique personalities can be understood as them having relatively greater or lesser amounts of traits that are consistently across people (e.g., the NEO is nomothetic)
The Idiographic view emphasizes that each person has a unique psychological structure and that some traits are possessed by only one person; and that there are times when it is impossible to compare one person with others. This viewpoint also emphasizes that traits may differ in importance from person to person (cardinal, central and secondary traits). It tends to use case studies, bibliographical information, diaries etc for information gathering.
The Nomothetic view, on the other hand, emphasizes comparability among individuals but sees people as unique in their combination of traits. This viewpoint sees traits as having the same psychological meaning in everyone. The belief is that people differ only in the amount of each trait. It is this which constitutes their uniqueness. This approach tends to use self-report personality questions, factor analysis etc. People differ in their positions along a continuum in the same set of traits.
Most contemporary psychologists tend towards a nomothetic approach (and the trait approach is often viewed solely as a nomothetic approach these days), but they are aware of how a trait may be slightly different from person to person in the way that it is expressed.
What are Personality Traits?
Traits are distinguishing qualities or characteristics of a person. Traits are a readiness to think or act in a similar fashion in response to a variety of different stimuli or situations.
In general, trait theory assumes that people differ on variables or dimensions that are CONTINUOUS. People are seen to differ in the AMOUNTS or QUANTITIES of a characteristic rather than differ in the QUALITY of their characteristics.
Traits are now more in favour than types. Remember, traits are continuous; types are categorical.
Category
Character
Number
Types
discontinuous, discrete, qualitative
Few
Traits
continuous, degree, quantitative
Many
In general, trait theory assumes that people differ on variables or dimensions that are CONTINUOUS. People are seen to differ in the AMOUNTS or QUANTITIES of a characteristic rather than differ in the QUALITY of their characteristics.
Traits are now more in favour than types. Remember, traits are continuous; types are categorical.
Category
Character
Number
Types
discontinuous, discrete, qualitative
Few
Traits
continuous, degree, quantitative
Many
Introduction to Personality Traits
Allport and Odbert (1936, cited in Funder, 2001) found 17,953 words to describe the way people are psychologically different from each other (e.g. shy, trustworthy, laconic, phlegmatic, kind, conscientious, anxious, etc.). All these words describe personality traits.
Trait approach tries to synthesize and formalize these traits in order to explain and predict behaviour.
Underlying questions driving the trait approaches to personality include:
What traits are basic/essential to personality?
How many are there?
How do we find out?
Note that labeling of traits is subjective: hence different theorists label similar or same traits using different words. Also, look for the meaning that underlies the trait, rather than simply at the name. Similar traits have been given different labels by different theorists (e.g., neuroticism and emotional stability usually refer to the same trait).
Trait approach tries to synthesize and formalize these traits in order to explain and predict behaviour.
Underlying questions driving the trait approaches to personality include:
What traits are basic/essential to personality?
How many are there?
How do we find out?
Note that labeling of traits is subjective: hence different theorists label similar or same traits using different words. Also, look for the meaning that underlies the trait, rather than simply at the name. Similar traits have been given different labels by different theorists (e.g., neuroticism and emotional stability usually refer to the same trait).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)