290 likes | 311 Views
Chapter 8. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL & APPLICATIONS AND EVALUATION OF TRAIT APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY . QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS CHAPTER. Is it possible for trait researchers to agree on one model of the organization of personality?
E N D
Chapter 8 THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL & APPLICATIONS AND EVALUATION OF TRAIT APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY
QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS CHAPTER • Is it possible for trait researchers to agree on one model of the organization of personality? • How many and which trait dimensions are necessary for a basic description of personality? • Can a trait model derived from factor analysis be universal across cultures? • What are the implications of individual differences in traits for physical health and psychological well-being? • How stable or variable are traits over time and across situations?
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL • Taxonomies guide research and facilitate the communication of research findings • Personality psychology can benefit from an agreed-upon taxonomy of traits • Many psychologists believe that individual differences can be organized in terms of five dimensions – the five-factor model or BIG 5 • Like the models of Cattell and Eysenck, the factor-analytic approach to traits underlies the five-factor model • The five-factor model is supported by evidence showing that five factors are necessary and sufficient for a taxonomy of individual differences
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE Evidence for the five-factor model rests on factor analyses of 3 types of data • Trait terms found in language • Cross-cultural research • The correlation of trait questionnaires with other questionnaires and ratings
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE ANALYSIS OF TRAIT TERMS IN LANGUAGE • Research procedure (lexical approach) • Individuals rate themselves or others on many different trait-terms sampled from the dictionary • Ratings are then factor-analyzed to discover how many factors are needed to account for the resulting patterns of correlations
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE ANALYSIS OF TRAIT TERMS IN LANGUAGE • Norman (1963) showed that • Five-factors were repeatedly found using different measures and samples • Five factors possess reliability and validity (e.g., are relatively stable throughout adulthood and reflected in various indices of functioning) • OCEAN of traits Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE IS THE BIG FIVE UNIVERSAL? • Hofstede et al. (1997) identified 126 trait words that they could translate fairly directly across English, Dutch, and German • Compared the meanings of the five factors across three languages • Found agreement except on all but Openness • German and English were very similar; the Dutch factor of Openness included expected subtraits related to fantasy and ideas, but also emphasized subtraits related to rebelliousness
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE IS THE BIG FIVE UNIVERSAL? • Translation may impose structural problems • Di Blasi & Forzi (1999) explored the structure of traits by selecting trait words from the Italian language • Asked participants to rate themselves on these words and used factor analysis to determine whether the BIG 5 would replicate in Italian • Found a three-factor solution fit the data better: extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness • Neuroticism and openness were not identified as traits in Italian
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE IS THE BIG FIVE UNIVERSAL? • Unique personality traits may exist in certain cultures (e.g., “Chinese tradition” factor) • In some cultures, people do not think of others using trait words • Work in cultural psychology suggests that in Asian cultures people are more attuned to an individual’s social embeddedness (e.g., relationship position, community status) than to a person’s traits
THE SIX-FACTOR MODEL: MAYBE WE MISSED ONE • Multiple data sets from diverse nations suggest the presence of a sixth factor - honesty or honesty/humility • Findings across seven languages show consistent individual differences in the tendency to be truthful and sincere versus cunning and disloyal • The six-factor model has not been incorporated into theory or applied research
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: MEASURES The NEO Personality Inventory - Revised (NEO PI-R) • Measures five broad domains (factors) and 30 narrower facets (6 subtraits comprise each of the BIG 5 domains) • Each facet is measured by 8 items • Scales have good reliability and validity across different data sources (e.g., ratings by peers or spouses) • NEO-PI-R correlated with other BIG 5 measures
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: MEASURES INTEGRATION OF THE BIG 5 WITH CATETELL AND EYSENCK • Scores on the NEO-PI-R correlate with Cattell’s 16 PF and Eysenck’s EPI • Cattell’s Stability-Emotionality and Eysenck’s N are virtually identical to the BIG 5 domain of Neuroticism • Cattell’s Reserved-Outgoing and Eysenck’s I-E are virtually identical to the BIG 5 domain of Extraversion • Cattell’s Tough-minded –Tender-minded is similar to the BIG 5 domain of Agreeableness • Eysenck’s P corresponds to a combination of low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness • Correlations permit the synthesis of earlier models within the BIG 5 – a single, unified theory!
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: BIOLOGICAL BASIS The BIG 5 are more than descriptions of individual differences • Each factor is a universal psychological structure that everyone has in varying amounts and which influences psychological development • BIG 5 factors have a biological basis • Differences on BIG 5 factors are determined by genetic influences on neural structures and brain chemistry • BIG 5 factors are not influenced by the environment; extreme “nature” position (intrinsic maturation)
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN • Research strategy - study people over a long period and administer the same personality measures at different points • Stability over time (i.e., high correlations between scores on personality measures administered at different times) • In spite of stability, change is found
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN • McCrae & Costa studied age differences in Conscientiousness across five cultures • Found an increase with age in each culture, although cultures varied in political, economic, and religious conditions • Changes in domain level reflect intrinsic maturation, just like other biological systems
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN • Srivastava et al. (2003) conducted an Internet survey of a adults who completed a five-factor measure • Results revealed significant age-linked changes on most of BIG 5 factors (e.g., Agreeableness increased from 31-50 years when adults raise children) • These findings contradict the claim that trait levels are entirely inherited and unaffected by social experience
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN • Overall, research suggests that • Personality is more stable over short periods than over long periods • Personality is more stable and less complex in adulthood than in childhood • There are individual differences in stability across the lifespan • The limits of environmental influence on personality change remain to be determined
THE FACTOR MODEL: APPLICATIONS HEALTH • Adults who are conscientious as children live longer and are about 30% less likely to die in any given year, even when ruling out environmental variables • What explains the relationship? • Conscientious individuals take fewer risks and are less likely to smoke and drink heavily
THE FACTOR MODEL: APPLICATIONS CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS • The five-factor model is a useful diagnostic tool • Compulsive personality can be viewed in terms of very high Conscientiousness and very high Neuroticism • Antisocial personality can be seen as very low Agreeableness and very low Conscientiousness
THE PERSON-SITUATION CONTROVERSY • Since the 1960s, researchers have questioned whether there is enough consistency in behavior to support trait concepts • Variability may reflect an adaptive capacity to discriminate between situations and adjust behavior accordingly
THE PERSON-SITUATION CONTROVERSY • 2 aspects of consistency must be distinguished: • Longitudinal stability = people high on a trait at one point in time are high on that same trait at another point in time • Cross-situational consistency = people high on a trait in some situations are high on that trait in other situations • Trait theorists suggest both are true • Critics of trait theory disagree with cross-situational stability
THE PERSON-SITUATION CONTROVERSY LONGITUDINAL STABILITY • Why do traits have longitudinal stability? • Genetically based biological tendencies may ensure the durability of traits • Environmental conditions may also contribute to the stability of traits • Others interact with he person in ways that perpetuate traits and trait stereotypes • People select and create environments that serve to strengthen their traits
THE PERSON-SITUATION CONTROVERSY CROSS-SITUATIONAL STABILITY • A defining feature of trait theory is that individuals are characterized by the degree to which they possess a given trait on average • There may be variability around the average • Methods exist for describing variations around the average
THE PERSON-SITUATION CONTROVERSY CROSS-SITUATIONAL STABILITY • Fleeson et al. had participants record their current thoughts and feelings several times daily over several days • Rather than reporting overall level of a trait, participants reported how much they exhibited a trait-related behavior during the past hour • This method can be used to determine average levels of behavior as well as the degree to which behavior varies around the average • The results revealed that • People show dramatic short-term variability in behavior not accounted for by trait measures