1 / 21

From Big Five to Big One: Higher-order structural hierarchy of personality

From Big Five to Big One: Higher-order structural hierarchy of personality. Janek Musek University of Ljubljana SLOVENIA. Outline of presentation. Introduction: New proposal of personality structure Two studies Methods Results General factor of personality (GFP)

Download Presentation

From Big Five to Big One: Higher-order structural hierarchy of personality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. From Big Five to Big One: Higher-order structural hierarchy of personality Janek Musek University of Ljubljana SLOVENIA ALPS ADRIA PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE LJUBLJANA 2008

  2. Outline of presentation • Introduction: New proposal of personality structure • Two studies • Methods • Results • General factor of personality (GFP) • Cross-cultural stability of GFP • Psychological meaning of GFP • Conclusions

  3. Models of personality structure • A great variety of structural models in psychology • Intelligence • Personality (outside cognitive abilities domain) • Other domains (e.g. well-being, values…) • Debate in personality structure domain • 16 (Cattell), 5 (Big Five), 3 (Eysenck) or 2 (Digman)? • Question of possible general factor of personality largely ignored • Notable exceptions (Saucier & Goldberg, 2003; Stankov, 2005) • Yet… • The evidence for GFP in Five Factor Model

  4. GFP considered seriously • Strategic correlations among B5 • Typical example below (-N, A, C, E; O, E) • These correlations cannot be reduced to the evaluation, social desirability or methodological artifacts • On the other hand, GFP correlates very substantially with psychologically meaningful variables like self-esteem, self-concept, well-being, emotionality (positive, negative affect), motivation (approach-avoidance) and others even if partialized for social desirability • Support from evolutionary oriented research (Rushton, Figuereido)

  5. Method: Study I • Research design: multivariate (exploratory and confirmatory FA in first line; other multivariate analyses as well) • Three samples in first research: • Sample 1: N=301 (120 F, 181 M; mean age=36.95; SD=10.37) • Sample 2: N=185 (100 F, 85 M; mean age=39.11; SD=13.26) • Sample 3: N=285 (165 F, 120 M; mean age=16.37; SD=1.24) • More samples and subsamples (Slovenian and other) in further investigations (not published yet) • Measures (all Slovenian translated versions): • BFI (John, 1990; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John & Srivastava, 1999) • IPIP-300 (Goldberg, 1999) • BFO (Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. & Perugini, M., 1993; Caprara, Barbaranelli & Borgogni, 1994) • Data from other studies supported the strength of first factor and consequently yielded GFP (practically all available results including cross-cultural studies with nationally aggregated data /Musek, 2008/; also data collected by Rushton and colleagues, 2008)

  6. Exploratory results • Results for scales BFI, IPIP, BFO), facets (IPIP) and items (BFI, BFO) • Factorizability of BF scales and items • Direct extraction of one single factor • GFP explained • 50,20% of variance in 5 BFI scales • 23,58% of variance in 44 BFI items • 40,18% of variance in 5 IPIP scales • 25,13% of variance in 30 IPIP facets • 44,84% of variance in BFO SCALES • Practically identical factors in scale and non-scale solutions

  7. Confirmatory results • All selected indices confirmed the underlying models

  8. Proposed final model of personality structure

  9. Method: Study II • How stable or universal is GFP? • 5 different studies on culturally different samples (omitted for the sake of space, yet focused on the following) • Aggregated data • On 56 national samples from the study of Schmitt et al. (2006) • Instruments: • BFI, NEO-FFI, NEO-PI

  10. 56 nations data (Schmitt et al., 2006) • Correlations • Factorizability (acceptable; KMO=0,655) • Suggested 1 factor extraction (all indices including Kaiser criterion, scree test and parallel test)

  11. 56 nations data (Schmitt et al., 2006), cont. • Scree plot • Factor loadings • Confirmed meaning of GFP in B5 terms: high versus low conscientiousness (C), agreeableness (A), stability (-N), extraversion (E) and openness (O)

  12. Main issues for discussion • Psychological nature of GFP • Connections with other major psychological variables • Possible biological bases of GFP • Evolutionary • Genetic • Neurophysiological

  13. The meaning of GFP in terms of the Big Five • Irrespective of the perspective of data (within or across cultural milieus) • High versus low emotional stability (-N), conscientiousness (C), agreeableness (A), extraversion (E) and openness (O) • GFP formula: • -N,+C,+A,+E,+O

  14. GFP, emotionality, well-being and self-esteem • Substantial and relatively high association • About 60% common variance between GFP and these measures Table 7. Correlations and squared multiple correlation between GFPs and the measures of emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem *P<0.05, **P<0.01 (two-tailed) a GFP obtained by direct extraction of single factor. b GFP obtained by stepwise hierarchical higher-order factoring.

  15. Correlations (N=301) • All correlations are significant • The highest correlations between general factors of personality and well-being domain (including self-esteem)

  16. Psychological meaning of GFP • Evaluation and social desirability certainly contribute to the correlations among items and scales of B5 measures • Some other factors can also affect the correlations between items • Correlations between lexically short expressions (e.g. adjectives) are bigger than correlations between lalrger contextual questions or statements • Faking tendency increases the correlations (Ziegler, 2006) • Yet all these factors do not reduce the correlations essentially • For instance in our investigations (N=108) the social desirability (SDS) explained about 18 percent of GFP, and that is much less than general well-being (gFB; see the regression model below) • It seems that GFP has a definite psychological content, which is strongly associated with well-being and is also remarkably heritable (Musek, 2007; Rushton, 2008)

  17. More speculations about the nature of GFP • Probable existence of a common dimensions unifying basic dimensions of personality, emotionality, motivation, psychological or subjective well-being and self-esteem • Evolutionary, genetic and neurophysiological basis of that dimension • GFP is a personality representative of it

  18. Evolutionary and genetic aspects of GFP • Evolutionary advantages of those personal, emotional and motivational characteristics that are more prone to the social approval and more promoting better well-being • Moving toward the big equation in psychology, at least in personality domain?

  19. GFP correlates in personality, emotionality, motivation, self, well-being, culture, and biology (Musek, 2007)

  20. Some important references • Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550. • Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 511–530. • Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T., Poehlmann, K. M.,& Ito, T. A. (2000). The psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 173–191). New York: Guilford Press. • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678. • Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K.,& Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741-751. • Carver, C. S.,& White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333. • DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2001). Higher-order factors of the big five predict conformity: are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533-552. • Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough--Lessons from subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389-399. • Diener, E. (1998). Subjective well-being and personality. In D. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality, (pp. 311-334). New York: Plenum Press. • Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999a). Temperament, personality, and subjective well-being. In Kahneman, D., Diener, E. & Schwarz, N. (Eds.) Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213-229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. • Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999b). Personality, and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology ( pp. 213-229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. • Diener, E., Smith, & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1, 130-141. • Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256. • Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82,  No. 5,  804-818. • Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S. M. R. (2004). The heritability of life history strategy: The K-factor, covitality, and personality. • Social Biology, 51, 121–143. • Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S. M. R. (2007). The K-factor, covitality, and personality: A psychometric test of life history theory. • Human Nature, 18, 47–73. • Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T.,& Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1135-1149. • Panksepp, J. (1999). Affective neuroscience. Oxford University Press. • Assessment, 5, 164-172. • Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J. & Davis, M. (2003). Dimensions of Affect Relationships: Models and Their Integrative Implications. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7,  No. 1,  66-83. • Rushton, J. P., Bons, T. A., & Hur, Y. M. (2008). The genetics and evolution of the General factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, In Press. March 3, 2008. • Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 1-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. • Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2003). Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 100-106. • Spoont, M. R. (1992). Modulatory role of serotonin in neural information processing, implications for human psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 330–350 • Stankov, L. (2005). g Factor. Issues of design and interpretation. In O. Wilhelm & R. W.Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 279-293). Thousand Oaks, Ca., London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. • Tork, I. (1990). Anatomy of the serotonergic system. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 600, 9–35. • Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505. • Yik, M. S. M., & Russell, J. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of Affect from the Big Five of Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 247–277.

  21. GFP related BFI items

More Related