1. The Five Factor Model of Personality Timothy C. Thomason Northern Arizona University

2. The Lexical Hypothesis How do we talk about personality and individual differences? We need a taxonomy of descriptors (traits). The lexical hypothesis says that most of the important personality characteristics have been encoded in the natural language. So the dictionary can be used as a starting point to identify how we talk about traits.

3. A Limitation of the Lexical Hypothesis Not all personality traits are encoded in language as adjectives. For example, the English language contains no single trait adjective for the traits “need for variety” or “tolerance of ambiguity.” So lexical studies confound differences in personality structure with differences with personality language.

4. The Search for Personality Factors In 1936 Allport conducted a lexical study of terms related to personality in an unabridged dictionary. He identified 18,000 terms. In 1943 Cattell selected 4,500 terms from Allport’s list and used statistical methods to reduce them to 35 variables. Factor analysis identified 12 factors. The 12 factors became part of Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors questionnaire (16PF).

5. The Discovery of the Big Five Researchers studied Cattell’s data and found five strong and recurrent factors. This five factor structure has been replicated many times. These factors became known as the Big Five. They are big in the sense that they are broad factors at a high level of abstraction.

6. The NEO Personality Inventory In the 1980s Costa and McCrae developed the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) to measure Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience. They added scales to measure Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and published the NEO Personality Inventory – Revised (NEO-PI-R) which had 240 items. Each of the five factors had six specific facets (subscales).

7. The Five Factors Openness to experience Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

8. Original Names for the Factors Openness to experience or Intellect, Imagination, or Culture Consciousness or Will to Achieve Extraversion or Surgency Agreeableness vs. Antagonism Neuroticism vs. Emotional Stability

9. Examples of Adjectives Defining the Five Factors Openness – Artistic, curious, imaginative, wide interests Consciousness – Efficient, organized, reliable, responsible Extraversion – Active, assertive, energetic, outgoing, talkative Agreeableness – Generous, sympathetic, kind, trusting, forgiving Neuroticism – Anxious, tense, touchy, unstable, worrying

10. High vs. Low Scorers Openness High: creative, imaginative, eccentric Low: practical, conventional Conscientiousness High: organized, self-directed Low: spontaneous, careless Extraversion High: outgoing, enthusiastic Low: aloof, quiet

11. High vs. Low, cont. Agreeableness High: trusting, empathetic Low: uncooperative, hostile Neuroticism High: prone to stress and worry Low: emotionally stable

12. Pros and Cons Openness Pro: artistic sensibility; divergent thought Con: unusual beliefs Conscientiousness Pro: planning and self-control Con: rigidity, lack of spontaneity Extraversion Pro: active pursuit of benefits; risk-taking Con: physical dangers; family instability

13. Pros and Cons, cont. Agreeableness Pro: harmonious social relationships Con: not putting self first; lost status Neuroticism Pro: vigilance; striving Con: anxiety, depression

14. Assessment of the FFM The NEO Personality Inventory – Revised (NEO-PI-R) has 240 items and is the standard instrument for assessing the five factors.

15. Briefer Tests to Measure the Big Five A briefer version of the NEO-PI-R called the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (the NEO-FFI) was developed for research purposes. The NEO-FFI has 60 items and has good reliability (.78) and good correlations with the NEO-PI-R, but provides less data on the facets. Another brief inventory was developed called the Big Five Inventory (BFI) with 44 items.

16. The SIMP The Single-Item Measures of Personality (SIMP) is the shortest instrument to measure the five factors that has acceptable reliability and validity. It has five items, one for each of the 5 factors.

17. Why Five? “There is nothing magic about the number 5; it is simply what the data seem to show.” “We believe it is an empirical fact, like the fact that there are seven continents.” The speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second, but we have no clue why. We don’t know why there are five factors instead of 3 or 6 or 7. McCrae & Costa

18. Are the Five Factors Too Broad? A common objection is that five dimensions cannot possibly capture all of the variation in human personality. But personality can be conceptualized at different levels of abstraction or breadth. Similar to how creatures can be categorized at different levels of abstraction: Eg. Vertebrate -- fish -- guppy The five factors are useful for some initial rough distinctions but of less value for predicting the behavior of a specific person.

19. Is the FFM “True”? The Five Factor Model is the most widely accepted model currently, but it is not the last word in the description of personality. It is well supported, but as more research is done the model may need to change. In the future it may turn out that evidence will be found to show that there are fewer factors than five or more factors than five.

20. Are the Factors Universal? Cross-cultural studies using translations of the NEO-PI-R have found that the factors exist in all of the cultures studied. This covers most of the earths inhabitants. Studies have not been done in preliterate societies, and Native Americans have not been studied. The existing evidence suggests that there is a common human structure of personality.

21. Are the Factors Universal?, cont. If the five factors are universal, it may be due to a common genetic basis for personality. Parent-child relations have little lasting effect on personality traits. Traits are generally stable across the adult lifespan. Personality traits are endogenous basic tendencies but interact with the environment.

22. Evolution and the Five Factor Model Personality traits relate to social adaptation. – Eg., To retain their mates, extraverts show off; agreeable men express affection; men low in conscientiousness try to make their mates jealous. The five factors relate to the tasks people have evolved to solve. – People notice individual differences in personality and base their choices of friends and mates partly on inferred personality characteristics.

23. Hypotheses Re. the Evolution of Traits Some traits may be adaptively neutral. – Eg. Openness may have dubious adaptive value. Traits may be the result of stabilizing selection; extreme values were selected out. – Eg. People who were too introverted to find a mate did not reproduce. Traits may have evolved to solve problems.

24. H: The Five Factors are Evolved Mechanisms to Solve Problems Extraversion motivates people to approach sources of reward. Introversion is an advantage when tasks require being alone. Agreeableness makes it easier to get friends. Openness and exploration leads to finding new resources. Low conscientiousness is good if risk-taking leads to new resources.

25. Evolution and the FFM, cont. Evolutionary theories about the FFM refer to “adaptive problems confronted by ancestral human populations” but the FFM has also been found in chimpanzees to some extent. So precursors of the five factors may have evolved in ancestors common to all primates. Eg. Maybe Extraversion evolved when fish first formed schools!

26. Trait Terms are Evaluative 97% of trait terms are evaluative; 3% neutral Trait terms reflect evaluations of others as potential contributors to, or exploiters of, the group’s resources. – Consciousness: who can you trust with tasks? – Agreeableness: who will suspend their own needs to contribute to the group?

27. The Five Factors Have 30 Facets Costa and McCrae’s 30 facets represent the most widely used and empirically validated model of a trait taxonomy. Example: Facets within Extraversion: – Gregariousness – Assertiveness – Activity – Excitement seeking – Positive emotions – Warmth

28. Do Traits Predict Life Outcomes? The assumption is that personal factors (such as the individual’s traits) and environmental factors (such as aspects of a job or a relationship partner) interact to jointly produce behavioral outcomes. Personality traits are important because they influence the way individuals interact with particular environments.

29. Health and Longevity Conscientiousness predicts good health habits, health outcomes, and longevity. Low Conscientiousness predicts the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors. Eg. smoking, substance abuse, poor diet. When diagnosed with an illness, highly Conscientious people are more likely to adhere to treatment and live longer.

30. Health, cont. Low Agreeableness predicts heart disease. High Neuroticism predicts less successful coping with illness. People high in Extraversion have more social support available to help them cope with illness.

31. FFM and Adjustment Problems Low Agreeableness and low Conscientousness in adolescents predicts delinquency. High neuroticism and low Conscientousness predicts depression and anxiety. Low Conscientousness predicts ADHD in adults.

32. FFM and Coping Strategies Extraversion – Positive thinking; direct action; substitution Neuroticism – Escapist fantasy; hostility; passivity; withdrawal Openness – High openness: humor (see the humor in it) – Low openness: faith (put your faith in God)

33. FFM & Academic & Work Outcomes Conscientiousness predicts higher GPAs. Conscientiousness predicts good job performance across a wide range of jobs. Highly Neurotic people are more likely to experience burnout and to change jobs.

34. FFM and Work Outcomes Extraversion predicts success in sales and management jobs. Openness predicts success in artistic jobs. Conscientiousness predicts success in conventional jobs. Agreeableness and low Neuroticism predicts success in jobs where people work in groups.

35. FFM and Well-Being Personality is the strongest predictor of high subjective well-being. Personality relates to life satisfaction more than economic factors. Personality is responsible for 35% of life satisfaction differences; 4% is due to employment status; 4% is due to income; and 1% to 4% is due to marital status.

36. FFM and Well-Being Extraversion has a direct, positive effect on well-being. Neuroticism has a negative effect on well- being.

37. FFM and Infidelity Who is most likely to be unfaithful to their relationship partner? Someone who has High Extraversion High Neuroticism High Openness Low Agreeableness Low Conscientiousness

38. Traits are Not the Whole Story People have the ability to change their patterns of behavior, thoughts, and feelings (eg., as a result of psychotherapy). Links between the Big Five and life outcomes are neither fixed nor inevitable for the individual. The Big Five may point to areas people can focus on for change (eg. conscientiousness).

39. Personality is Stable for Most People Personality traits have long-term stability. Four-fifths of the variance is stable across the adult lifespan. There are some changes after age 30 in all five factors, but they are very gradual. The 30 year old extravert is still likely to be an extravert at age 70, though not quite as active or keen on excitement.

40. Changes in Traits in Adulthood The traits described by the five factors change more during young adulthood than any other period of life. Openness typically increases in the 20s and goes into a gradual decline after that. People tend to become more reliable and agreeable with age. These patterns seem to hold across cultures.

41. Summary: The Five Factor Model Currently, the Five Factor Model, with the 30 facets, represents the most widely used and empirically validated model of personality structure.

42. Limitations of the FFM The FFM is not (and was never intended to be) a comprehensive theory of personality. It was developed to account for the structural relations among personality traits. It is more descriptive than explanatory.

43. Resources Handbook of Personality, 2008, by John, Robins, & Pervin, NY: Guilford Press. Articles by R. McCrae & P. Costa Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1-30.