Openness to Experience (2009). Robert R. McCrae & Angelina R. Sutin. McCrae, R.R. & Sutin, A.R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M.R. Leary and R.H. Hoyle (Eds) Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, 257-273. New York: Guilford. Openness: An orientation.
Robert R. McCrae
Angelina R. Sutin
McCrae, R.R. & Sutin, A.R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M.R. Leary and R.H. Hoyle (Eds) Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, 257-273. New York: Guilford.
Difficulty in Conceptualization
Open people admire openness, closed people despise it.
Changes over time
Correlations with Intelligence: about 0.4 with divergent thinking
0.3 with verbal and facial emotion recognition task
0.26 with verbal score
Authoritatianism -0.29 ~ 0.63
Need for Closure (the desire for definite and final answers) -0.42
Need for Cognition High, with high C
Thought Complexity -0.36
Emotional Intelligence Modest
Person presentation and perception
Observers are fairly good at picking up on these behavioral indicators of openness.
However, these lay conceptions can be inaccurate.
to the individual’s actual level of openness.
on personal web pages or in chatroom
1. Multiple judges do agree with each other on the individual’s level of openness, which suggests that lay conceptions of openness are not idiosyncratic.
2. Accuracy also depends on the task observed.
1. A very narrow sliver of time for perceivers to form a judgment of Openness.
2. Correlational studies among people who have know each other, not for seconds or minutes, but for up to 70s.
Marriage and family
“At each stage, from deciding whether to get married to parenting, Openness shapes these choices, interactions, and consequences” (McCrae & Sutin, 2009)
1. There is often social pressure to “find someone, settle down, and start a family”;
2. People want their ideal partner to be “just like themselves” especially on Openness (Figueredo, Sefcek, & Jones, 2006);
3. However at the stage of marriage it is slightly more important to be similar on Conscientiousness (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997);
4. “Despite preferences, people settle for much less” (Figueredo et al., 2006);
5. Physical attractiveness, proximity, or availability may be more important than ideal personality;
- Watson and colleagues (2004) found no similarity correlations for any of the FFM personality traits (r=-.03), but the highest similarity correlations for age, religiousness and political conservatism (r=.71);
- Neyer and Voigt (2004) found significant correlations for both O (r=.25) and C (r=.39), but not for N, E, or A;
- McRae and colleagues (in press) found that O had the largest correlation (r=.22). In addition:
a) Facet-level analysis showed that mostly O to Values brings people together
b) People also tend to choose and marry partners who are similar on O2:Aesthetics
7. However “discrepancies between ideal partner personality and actual partner personality do not predict dissatisfaction” (Botwin et al., 1997);
8.Communication is also an important key in healthy and satisfying relationships
- Couples high in O are more likely to communicate effectively in order to solve their marital problems;
10.In some context low O may be associated with better outcomes;
11. O shapes daily life and especially the parenting style:
- Open parents are more open-minded and tolerant whilst closed parents demand obedience (Metsapelto and Pulkkinen, 2003).
Strangers and friends
O correlates with a measure of sexism -0.32; all facets except Ideas and Fantasy (-0.18 - -0.43)
(Ekehammer & Akrami, 2007)
Values correlates with political ideology in all groups (-0.37- -0.57)
Surprisingly, Ideas was associated with membership of an extreme right-wing political party
(Van Hiel, Kossowska & Mervielde, 2000)
More strongly related to cultural than economic conservatism
(Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004)