COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY
The Five Factor Model of Personality
LECTURE OUTLINE
• Background• Five Factor Model• Is the FFM universal?
– Etic research– Emic research
• Is the FFM sufficient?
LECTURE OUTLINE (cont)
• Cross-cultural Validity of the FFM– Age and gender differences across
cultures– Convergent validity
• Cross-cultural comparisons• Interpretations and implications
BACKGROUND
• Trait theories
• Comparative approaches and taxonomies
FIVE FACTOR MODEL
• Costa and McRae
• Psycho-lexical approach
• 4000 trait names in English
• Reduced to five factors
NEUROTICISM
• Vs. adjustment
• Inclination to construct, perceive and feel reality as problematic, threatening, and difficult
EXTRAVERSION
• Vs. introversion
• Quantity and intensity of social relationships with the environment
• Tendency to engage or seek contact
OPENNESS
• Active search for and love of new experiences
• Eagerness for novelty without anxiety
AGREEABLENESS
• Concerns nature of one’s relationships with others
• Dimension of compassion to antagonism
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
• Persistency of behaviour and control of impulses
• Dynamic (e.g., task orientation) and control (e.g., organization) elements
NEO PI
• Neuroticism– Anxiety– Angry hostility – Depression– Self consciousness– Impulsiveness– Vulnerability
NEO PI
• Extraversion– Warmth– Gregariousness – Assertiveness– Activity– Excitement-seeking– Positive emotions
NEO PI
• Openness– Fantasy– Aesthetics– Feelings– Actions– Ideas– Values
NEO PI
• Agreeableness– Trust– Straightforwardness– Altruism– Compliance– Modesty– Tendermindedness
NEO PI
• Conscientiousness– Competence– Order– Dutifulness– Achievement striving– Self discipline– Deliberation
SAMPLE ITEMS
• I am not a worrier.• I like to have a lot of people around me.• I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.• I like to keep my belongings neat and clean.• I don’t like to waste my time on day-dreaming.
FACTOR STRUCTURE: NEUROTICISM
N E O A C
Anxiety .86 -05 .04 -.07 -.14
Angry hostility .74 -.03 -.03 -.55 -.04
Depression .83 -.21 -.25 -.05 -.25
Self-consciousness .64 -.42 -.14 -.11 -.08
Impulsiveness .28 .66 .25 -.16 -.47
Vulnerability .70 -.33 -.11 -.16 -.40
FACTOR STRUCTURE: EXTRAVERSION
N E O A C
Warmth -.13 .64 .34 .29 .07
Gregariousness -.14 .75 -.07 -.13 -.02
Assertiveness -.13 .61 .19 -.31 .08
Activity .11 .70 .05 -.36 .27
Excitement Seeking .11 .65 -.22 -.43 .09
Positive Emotions -.34 .71 .34 -.11 -.05
FACTOR STRUCTURE: OPENNESS
N E O A C
Fantasy .20 .45 .61 -.30 -.35
Aesthetics .31 -.23 .70 -.27 .22
Feelings .25 .58 .66 -.08 -.08
Actions -.26 .09 .67 .25 -.18
Ideas -.08 -.09 .83 -.03 .27
Values -.06 .60 .42 -.02 -.33
FACTOR STRUCTURE: AGREEABLENESS
N E O A C
Trust -.55 .10 -.16 .49 .02
Straightforwardness -.21 -.11 -.17 .70 .08
Altruism -.09 .66 .12 .34 .35
Compliance -.38 -.43 -.08 .67 .02
Modesty .26 .36 -.25 .63 -.02
Tender-mindedness .03 .07 -.13 .63 .32
FACTOR STRUCTURE: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
N E O A C
Competence -.44 .51 .09 .02 .50
Order -.15 -.22 -.04 .18 .69
Dutifulness -.05 .13 -.14 .28 .73
Achievement-striving
-.04 -.26 .12 -.14 .76
Self-discipline -.45 .11 -.03 .22 .64
Deliberation -.01 -.33 -.51 .22 .54
COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE
SAMPLE N E O A C
Chinese .97 .93 .92 .94 .97
Croatian .95 .80 .92 .86 .94
Dutch .96 .98 .97 .98 .97
Estonian .95 .90 .95 .92 .96
French .89 .96 .97 .97 .97
Hebrew .98 .92 .96 .94 .95
Icelandic .93 .94 .95 .98 .96
COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE
SAMPLE N E O A C
Italian .92 .80 .94 .81 .98
Korean .97 .94 .94 .95 .96
Malay .94 .93 .83 .94 .97
Norwegian .96 .93 .90 .96 .94
Philippine .96 .86 .95 .89 .97
Portuguese .98 .89 .89 .93 .96
Russian .92 .93 .92 .96 .95
Spanish .94 .90 .92 .86 .95
EMIC STUDIES
• In some psycho-lexical emic studies (e.g., Italy, Hungary) Openness cannot be extracted
• In some instances more than 5 factors emerge
IS THE FFM SUFFICIENT?
• Cheung and Leung CPAI and NEO PI research with Chinese
• Additional factors: Interpersonal Relatedness (harmony, face, relationship orientation)
• IR factor replicated in Hawaii
AGE DIFFERENCES ON NEO-PI
• N,E,and O decline from adolescence to 30
• A and C increase from adolescence to 30
• Same trends apparent after 30 but at slower rate
CORRELATIONS WITH EPQ AND HOFSTEDE DIMENSIONS
EPQ N E O A C
Neuroticism .80* -.40 -.38 -.42 -.04
Extraversion -.24 .51* .18 .22 .03
Psychoticism .18 -.28 .12 -.11 .22
Hofstede
PD .28 -.58* -.40* .19 .52*
UA .58* .03 .31 -.56* -.25
Individualism -.12 .64* .34* -.07 -.30
Masculinity .55* -.27 .37* -.32 .06
CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCESN E O A C
Indonesians 48.6 43.3 49.9 51.9 50.3
PRC Chinese 53.1 44.5 48.3 47.8 50.3
Canadians 50.5 51.7 51.6 51.9 49.2
Indians (Telugu) 52.3 43.5 44.0 55.9 54.0
Germans 52.8 47.3 56.7 49.1 46.7
South Africans (bl) 49.1 41.4 47.7 50.4 47.9
Czechs 54.2 47.4 52.3 50.7 47.5
Turks 50.9 50.3 50.8 48.5 50.4
Peruvians 50.8 45.5 50.0 48.6 49.0
INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
• Issues of structural and metric equivalence
• Issue of comprehensiveness
• Issue of “traitedness”
• Issue of theoretical rationale
QUESTION
• Is the comparative approach to personality a useful endeavour?
Top Related