260 likes | 328 Views
Predicting performance from personality: Fewer factors produce feebler forecasts. Rob Bailey, OPP Ltd Fiona Young, Oxford University Leonie Nicks, Oxford University BPS DOP, January 2014. Presentation overview. What is the Single Factor of Personality?
E N D
Predicting performance from personality: Fewer factors produce feebler forecasts Rob Bailey, OPP Ltd Fiona Young, Oxford University Leonie Nicks, Oxford University BPS DOP, January 2014
Presentation overview • What is the Single Factor of Personality? • Our attempts to find a single factor in 16PF data • Broad factors or specific ones: which predict more? • Discussion and implications RB
Introduction • The 5-Factor structure of personality as the most parsimonious structure of personality has been questioned, given observations of inter-correlations among the traits (Digman, 1997) • A two-factor structure has been argued by some researchers: - Alpha / Beta model (Digman, 1997) - Stability / Plasticity (DeYoung et al, 2001) • Researchers have recently proposed a universal single-factor structure to personality (The General Factor of Personality, GFP, e.g. Musek, 2007; van der Linden, Nijenhuis, & Bakker, 2010) RB
What’s in the general factor of personality? Individuals high on the GFP: • Altruistic • Relaxed • Sociable • Intellectually open • High levels of well-being • Satisfied with life • High self-esteem • Emotional intelligence Individuals low on the GFP: • Not altruistic • Tense • Reserved • Tough-minded • Low well-being • Dissatisfied with life • Low self-esteem • Lack of emotional intelligence Good? Bad? RB
Is this any use in practice? • Two criteria which should be considered: • Conceptual considerations and empirical evidence • A good theory, with supporting data? • Utility for practitioner and value for respondent • Practical use? RB
Criticisms of the SFP • It is due to socially desirable responding (diminishes significantly in non-applicant samples) (Ziegler, 2012) • It diminishes when problematic questionnaire items are corrected so that they are not disproportionally more attractive to endorse than others (Björklund & Bäckström, 2013) • Broad descriptors obscure relationships between personality and criterion measures (Hough, 1992). FFM too broad to be helpful in understanding behaviour (Block, 1995). RB
Our studies • Looking for the SFP in the 16PF • Investigating the role of Impression Management (Social Desirability) in the SFP • Using broad or specific factors to predict work-related criteria FY
Datasets FY
Measures • Personality: European English and US English Versions of the 16 Personality Factor (16PF) 5th Edition Questionnaire (Cattell, & Cattell, 1995) • Engagement at work questions • Self-reported salary and promotions • Competencies: Benchmarks 360 Competency questionnaire (CCL) in US English FY
Study 1: Looking for the SFP • Factor Analysis (PCA) of: • UK/Ireland standardisation set • US & UK HR sets • Same pattern of factors in all datasets • No SFP • Applicants vs. non applicants did not make a difference • Adding Impression Management (social desirability) did not create an SFP FY
Results • Factor 1: • Introverted • Tough-minded (not open) • Accommodating (agreeable) • Self-controlled (conscientious) • Factor 2: • Extraverted • Stable (not neurotic) • Tough-minded (not open) • Self-controlled (conscientious) 37.2% variance Total 62.8% variance 25.5% variance FY
Study 2: splitting the 16PF by IM • Perhaps we could get a SFP by choosing the questionnaire items showing most IM? • Datasets: as before • Answer: No • This still produces a 2 Factor model LN
Results: r LN
Results LN
Discussion RB
Discussion • No adequate single factor in UK or US data • IM did not bind a single factor • Increased predictive power when using more granular personality data RB
Implications • Trade-off between questionnaire length and validity • Impact on high-stakes applications • Under-estimation of the relevance of personality when conducting research on the Big Five • Diminished credibility of psychology and psychometrics RB
Recommendations • Move away from convenient Big Five studies • Investigate specific personality variables and their relationship with specific criteria • Job analysis and detailed assessment are essential for high-stakes decisions such as recruitment RB
Conclusion • The single factor of personality is of interest in improving our understanding of personality measurement • The predictive power of personality is not in broad/generic concepts, but in the specifics • Use of 5 only factors is unforgivable in selection RB
References • Cattell, R.B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book • Cattell, H.E.P., & Cattell, R.B. (1995) Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16PF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 926-937. • Costa, Jr, P.T. And McCrae, R.R. (1989) The NEO-FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FLA: Psychological Assessment Resources. • DeYoung, C.G., Peterson, J.B., & Higgins, D.M. (2002). Higher order factors of the big five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533-552. • Digman, J.M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256. • Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. RB
References • Judge, T.A., Heller, D. and Mount, M.K. (2002) Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 530-541. • McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90. • Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence of the Big One in the Five Factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213-1233. • van der Linden, D., Nijenhuis, J., Bekker, A.B. (2010). The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five inter-correlations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315-327. RB
Copy of slides www.opp.com/bps_dop_2014 RB
Thank you! Any questions? RB