Big Five personality traits In psychology, the Big five personality traits are five broad factors or dimensions of personality discovered through empirical research.[1] The first public mention of the model was in 1933, by L. L. Thurstone in his presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Thurstone's comments were published in Psychological Review the next year.[2] The five factors are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN, or CANOE if rearranged). They are also referred to as the Five Factor Model (FFM). However, some discussion remains about how to interpret the Openness factor, which is sometimes called "Intellect." [3] Each factor consists of a cluster of more specific traits that correlate together. For example, extraversion includes such related qualities as sociability, excitement seeking, impulsiveness, and positive emotions. The Five Factor Model is a purely descriptive model of personality, but psychologists have developed a number of theories to account for the Big Five. [edit] Overview The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:
Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour. Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others. Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the fifth percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet. Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures. Yet he or she might have no great interest in art or poetry. Situational influences also exist, as even extraverts may occasionally need time away from people. [edit] History [edit] Early trait research Sir Francis Galton was the first scientist to recognize what is now known as the Lexical Hypothesis. This is the idea that the most salient and socially relevant personality differences in people’s lives will eventually become encoded into their language. The hypothesis further suggests that by sampling language, it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits. Carl Jung explicated the concepts of extraversion and introversion in his book "Psychological Types" the 1920's. In 1936, Gordon Allport and H. S. Odbert expanded on the hypothesis.[4] They worked through two of the most comprehensive dictionaries of the English language available at the time and extracted 17,953 personalitydescribing words. They then reduced this gigantic list to 4500 adjectives which they considered to describe observable and relatively permanent traits. Raymond Cattell obtained the Allport-Odbert list and eliminated synonyms to reduce the total to 171.[5] He then asked subjects to rate people whom they knew by the adjectives on the list and analyzed their ratings. Cattell identified 35 major clusters of personality traits, and then added ten more traits obtained from a review of the psychiatric literature. Cattell and his
associates constructed personality tests for these 45 traits, and the data they obtained from these tests was analyzed with the emerging technology of computers combined with the statistical method of factor analysis. This resulted in sixteen major personality factors, which led to the development of the 16PF Personality Questionnaire. In 1961, two Air Force researchers, Tupes and Christal analyzed personality data from eight large samples. Using Cattell's trait measures, they found five recurring factors.[6] This work was replicated by Norman, who also found that five major factors were sufficient to account for a large set of personality data. Norman named these factors Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Culture.[7] [edit] Hiatus in research For the next two decades, the changing zeitgeist made publication of personality research difficult. In his 1968 book Psychological Assessment, Walter Mischel asserted that personality tests could not predict behavior with a correlation of more than 0.3. Social psychologists like Mischell argued that attitudes and behavior were not stable, but varied with context. Predicting behavior by personality tests was considered to be impossible. Radical situationists in the 1970s went so far as to argue that personality is merely a perceived construct that people impose on others in order to maintain an illusion of consistency in the world. Emerging methodologies challenged this point of view during the 1980s. Instead of trying to predict single instances of behavior, which was unreliable, researchers found that they could predict patterns of behavior by aggregating large numbers of observations. As a result correlations between personality and behavior increased substantially, and it was clear that ―personality‖ did in fact exist. Personality and social psychologists now generally agree that both personal and situational variables are needed to account for human behavior. Trait theories became justified, and there was a resurgence of interest in this area. By 1980, the pioneering research by Tupes, Christal, and Norman had been largely forgotten by psychologists. Goldberg started his own lexical project with a new set of adjectives from the dictionary and independently found the five factors once again.[8] [edit] Consensus on the Big Five
In a 1981 symposium in Honolulu, four prominent researchers, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available personality tests of the day. They concluded that the tests which held the most promise measured a subset of five common factors, just as Norman had discovered in 1963. This event was followed by widespread acceptance of the five factor model among personality researchers during the 1980s, as well as the publication of the NEO PI-R five-factor personality inventory by Costa and McCrae in 1985. One of the most significant advances of the five-factor model was the establishment of a common taxonomy that demonstrates order in a previously scattered and disorganized field. What separates the five-factor model of personality from all others is that it is not based on the theory of any one particular psychologist, but rather on language, the natural system that people use to understand one another. A number of meta-analyses have confirmed the predictive value of the Big Five across a wide range of behaviors. Saulsman and Page examined the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and each of the 10 personality disorder categories in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Across 15 independent samples, the researchers found that each disorder displayed a unique and predictable fivefactor profile. The most prominent and consistent personality predictors underlying the disorders were positive associations with Neuroticism and negative associations with Agreeableness.[9] In the area of job performance, Barrick and Mount reviewed 117 studies utilizing 162 samples with 23,994 participants. They found that conscientiousness showed consistent relations with all performance criteria for all occupational groups. Extraversion was a valid predictor for occupations involving social interaction (e.g. management and sales). Furthermore, extraversion and openness to experience were valid predictors of training proficiency criteria.[10] [11] [edit] Agreeableness Main article: Agreeableness Agreeableness reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony. Agreeable individuals have an optimistic view of human nature, and value getting along with others; they are therefore
considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise with others. Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well-being, and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others’ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. Agreeableness reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others’. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy. [edit] Sample Agreeableness items
I am interested in people. I feel others’ emotions. I have a soft heart. I make people feel at ease. I sympathize with others’ feelings. I take time out for others. I am not interested in other people’s problems. (reversed) I am not really interested in others. (reversed) I feel little concern for others. (reversed) I insult people. (reversed) [12]
[edit] Conscientiousness Main article: Conscientiousness Conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. Impulsive individuals can be seen by others as colorful, fun-to-be-with, and zany. Conscientiousness includes the factor known as Need for Achievement (NAch). The benefits of high conscientiousness are obvious. Conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through
purposeful planning and persistence. They are also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. Furthermore, extremely conscientious individuals might be regarded as stuffy and boring. Unconscientious people may be criticized for their unreliability, lack of ambition, and failure to stay within the lines, but they will experience many short-lived pleasures and they will never be called stuffy (i.e. dull, boring, unimaginative). [edit] Sample Conscientiousness items
I am always prepared. I am exacting in my work. I follow a schedule. I get chores done right away. I like order. I pay attention to details. I leave my belongings around. (reversed) I make a mess of things. (reversed) I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reversed) I shirk my duties. (reversed) [13]
[edit] Correlates of Conscientiousness Conscientiousness shows a modest correlation with conservative as opposed to liberal political ideology.[14] [edit] Extraversion Main article: Extraversion and introversion Extraversion (also "extroversion") is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves. Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less dependent on the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness
or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and more time alone. A simple explanation is that an extravert gains energy by associating with others and loses energy when alone for any period of time. An introvert is the opposite, as they gain energy from doing individual activities such as watching movies or reading and lose energy, sometimes to the point of exhaustion, from social activities. [edit] Sample Extraversion items
I am the life of the party. I don't mind being the center of attention. I feel comfortable around people. I start conversations. I talk to a lot of different people at parties. I am quiet around strangers. (reversed) I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reversed) I don't talk a lot. (reversed) I have little to say. (reversed)[15]
[edit] Biology of Extraversion Extraversion has been linked to higher sensitivity of the mesolimbic dopamine system to potentially rewarding stimuli.[16] This in part explains the high levels of positive affect found in Extraverts, since they will more intensely feel the excitement of a potential reward. One consequence of this is that Extraverts can more easily learn the contingencies for positive reinforcement, since the reward itself is experienced as greater. [edit] Neuroticism Main article: Neuroticism Neuroticism, also known inversely as Emotional Stability, refers to the tendency to experience negative emotions. Those who score high on Neuroticism may experience primarily one specific negative feeling such as anxiety, anger, or depression, but are likely to experience several of these emotions. People high in Neuroticism are emotionally reactive. They respond emotionally to events that would not affect most people, and their reactions tend to be more intense than normal. They are more likely to
interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish a neurotic's ability to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress. At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in Neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings; frequency of positive emotions is a component of the Extraversion domain. [edit] Sample Neuroticism items
I am easily disturbed. I change my mood a lot. I get irritated easily. I get stressed out easily. I get upset easily. I have frequent mood swings. I often feel blue. I worry about things. I am relaxed most of the time. (reversed) I seldom feel blue. (reversed) [17]
[edit] Openness to Experience Main article: Openness to experience Openness to Experience describes a dimension of personality that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Open people are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They therefore tend to hold unconventional and individualistic beliefs, although their actions may be conforming (see agreeableness). People with low scores on openness to experience tend to have narrow, common interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no
practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change. [edit] Sample Openness items
I am full of ideas. I am quick to understand things. I have a rich vocabulary. I have a vivid imagination. I have excellent ideas. I spend time reflecting on things. I use difficult words. I am not interested in abstract ideas. (reversed) I do not have a good imagination. (reversed) I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (reversed) [18]
[edit] Correlates of Openness Openness is correlated weakly (≤.3) with measures of creativity, and with intelligence test scores. Current analyses suggest that the correlation with IQ is due to a subset of Openness measures acting as self-report IQ measures. It is possible that openness is a mechanism facilitating access to novel thoughts — this would explain the correlation of openness (O) to responses on creativity measures such as imagining different uses for common objects. Openness is also correlated with liberal as opposed to conservative political ideology. [19] [20] Openness is often presented as healthier or more mature by psychologists. However, open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different environments. The intellectual style of the open person may serve a professor well, but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in police work, sales, and a number of service occupations which require a minimum of cortical processing. [edit] Biology of Openness Higher levels of Openness have been linked to activity in the ascending dopaminergic system and the functions of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Openness is the only personality trait that correlates with neuropsychological
tests of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical function, supporting the link between Openness and IQ. Introduction to Personality Traits Allport and Odbert (1936, cited in Funder, 2001) found 17,953 words to describe the way people are psychologically different from each other (e.g. shy, trustworthy, laconic, phlegmatic, kind, conscientious, anxious, etc.). All these words describe personality traits. Trait approach tries to synthesize and formalize these traits in order to explain and predict behaviour. Underlying questions driving the trait approaches to personality include:
What traits are basic/essential to personality? How many are there? How do we find out?
Note that labeling of traits is subjective: hence different theorists label similar or same traits using different words. Also, look for the meaning that underlies the trait, rather than simply at the name. Similar traits have been given different labels by different theorists (e.g., neuroticism and emotional stability usually refer to the same trait). What are Personality Traits? Definitions Traits are distinguishing qualities or characteristics of a person. Traits are a readiness to think or act in a similar fashion in response to a variety of different stimuli or situations. In general, trait theory assumes that people differ on variables or dimensions that are CONTINUOUS. People are seen to differ in the AMOUNTS or QUANTITIES of a characteristic rather than differ in the QUALITY of their characteristics. Traits are now more in favour than types. Remember, traits are continuous; types are categorical. Category Types Character discontinuous, discrete, qualitative Number Few
Traits
continuous, degree, quantitative
Many
Personality Traits: Idiographic vs. Nomothetic However the whole issue of whether a trait exists in all people to a greater or lesser degree is complicated by different views of the trait perspective. There are two different views as to whether all traits exist in all people:
Idiographic: people have unique personality structures; thus some traits (cardinal traits) are more important in understanding the structure of some people than others Nomothetic: people's unique personalities can be understood as them having relatively greater or lesser amounts of traits that are consistently across people (e.g., the NEO is nomothetic)
The Idiographic view emphasizes that each person has a unique psychological structure and that some traits are possessed by only one person; and that there are times when it is impossible to compare one person with others. This viewpoint also emphasizes that traits may differ in importance from person to person (cardinal, central and secondary traits). It tends to use case studies, bibliographical information, diaries etc for information gathering. The Nomothetic view, on the other hand, emphasizes comparability among individuals but sees people as unique in their combination of traits. This viewpoint sees traits as having the same psychological meaning in everyone. The belief is that people differ only in the amount of each trait. It is this which constitutes their uniqueness. This approach tends to use self-report personality questions, factor analysis etc. People differ in their positions along a continuum in the same set of traits. Most contemporary psychologists tend towards a nomothetic approach (and the trait approach is often viewed solely as a nomothetic approach these days), but they are aware of how a trait may be slightly different from person to person in the way that it is expressed. The Big Five Personality Factors
A strong consensus has emerged since the mid-1980's about the number and nature of personality traits. Five superordinate factors have emerged, often referred to to as the "Big Five" or the 5-factor model. These presence of these five factors is well supported by a wide variety of research. Early evidence supporting a 5-factor model was published by Fiske, in 1949. During the 1980s and 1990s a vast array of research combined to support the five factor model. Not everyone however agrees in the naming of the five supertraits. The 5-factor model is commonly measured by the NEO by McCrae and Costa (2003). The Big 5 according to the NEO are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Remember OCEAN, or NEOAC):
Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) Extraversion (Introversion) Openness to experience (Closedness to experiences) Agreeableness (Disagreeableness) Conscientiousness (Lack of conscientiousness)
Each Supertrait is measured by 6 facets (or subordinate traits). These are: N Anxiety Angry hostility Depression E Warmth O Fantasy Trust A C Competence
Gregariousness Aesthetics Assertiveness Feelings Actions Ideas Values
StraightforwardOrder ness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tendermindedness Dutifulness Achievement striving Self Discipline Deliberation
SelfActivity consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Excitementseeking Positive emotion
How stable are personality traits? Costa, McCrae and Arenberg (1980) conducted a longitudinal study of 460 males aged 17-85 over a 6 to 12 year period. They found correlations of .70+ over time for extraversion and high correlations for neuroticism. Studies generally show decline in E and N as people age. Helson and Moane (1987) studied women from 27 to 43 in their longitudinal study; Helson and Wink (1993) then assessed them at age 52 and found women become more dominant, independent, and self-confident over time Individual differences in stability/consistency The Many Personality Traits Approach Some theorists look at many traits at once when investigating personality. They try to determine which traits are correlated with certain behaviours, thereby gaining understanding of the underpinnings of various behaviours as well as the more general workings of personality. For example, personality research has investigated the relationship between personality traits and the ability to delay gratification, political orientation and drug taking. For example, a study (cited in Carver & Scheier, 2000) found young children rated as being emotionally unstable, disobedient, domineering, aggressive, teasing, fidgety, restless, and susceptible to stress were found nearly a decade later at age 14 years to be more likely to be using illegal drugs. The implication of using this many trait approach is you can get to have an understanding of what sort of personality underpins a certain type of behaviour (in this case drug-taking). The practical implications of this are that instead of anti-drug campaigns targeted at 14 year olds we should have campaigns at helping problem behaviours and susceptibility to stress at an earlier age The Single Personality Trait Approach Much personality research has studied the origin, nature and consequences of single traits, such as introversion. Funder (2001) focuses on three single traits that have received wide attention and have been the subject of investigation in hundreds of studies:
conscientiousness
self-monitoring authoritarianism
To illustrate the single trait approach, let's take a look at authoritarianism. Single Trait: Authoritarianism The personality trait of authoritarianism has been extensively studied since the 1950's. Much initial research was done as a reaction to the outrages which occurred in Nazi Germany during WWII. Authoritarianism began to be studied in order to try to understand its nature and its origin. Authoritarianism is felt to lie at the heart of racial prejudice. Think of the stereotypical "Hitler", and you have the authoritarian personality. The Authoritarian personality may be described a person who is unthinking and inflexible, aggressive, worshipful of authority above, contemptuous of those below, fascinated by power, cynical, and may be sexually repressed. The origins of authoritarianism have been studied but it has been difficult to determine whether adult authoritarianism is attributable to:
early childhood experiences learned attitudes oppressive parental child-rearing styles genes
The Essential Personality Trait Approach Many psychologists have tried to reduce the many traits to a few essential ones. Amongst the best known essential trait approaches are:
Murray 1938 (20+ ―needs‖) Cattell (16 traits): 16 Personality Factors questionnaire Eysenck (3 traits): Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychotocism
Costa & McCrae (5 traits): NEO - Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors I occasionally get questions about how to measure the Big Five personality factors, probably because I co-wrote a Handbook of Personality chapter on the Big Five with Oliver John. I have created this page to address a few of the more common nuts-and-bolts questions I get about measuring the Big Five. I have written this page in a fairly informal style, and I have not attempted to be comprehensive. For a fuller treatment of measurement and theoretical issues, I recommend that you look at the chapter. (Note: This page was written to help researchers who want to measure the Big Five as part of their research programs. If you came across this page out of curiosity about your own personality, you can fill out a free questionnaire and get instant, personalized feedback at www.outofservice.com. Two longer versions, offering more detailed feedback, are available from John Johnson's webpage.) Contents:
What are the Big Five? What is the difference between the terms Big Five, Five-Factor Model, and Five-Factor Theory? Where can I learn more about the Big Five? Where do I get the Big Five Inventory (BFI)? What are other ways of measuring the Big Five? Do I need anybody's permission to use these instruments? How do I cite this page? Acknowledgments
What are the Big Five? The Big Five are five broad factors (dimensions) of personality traits. They are:
Extraversion (sometimes called Surgency). The broad dimension of Extraversion encompasses such more specific traits as talkative, energetic, and assertive. Agreeableness. This dimension includes traits like sympathetic, kind, and affectionate. Conscientiousness. People high in Conscientiousness tend to be organized, thorough, and planful. Neuroticism (sometimes reversed and called Emotional Stability). Neuroticism is characterized by traits like tense, moody, and anxious. Openness to Experience (sometimes called Intellect or Intellect/Imagination). This dimension includes having wide interests, and being imaginative and insightful.
As should be evident, each of the Big Five factors covers a lot of ground and consists of a variety of more specific traits. The Big Five structure were derived from statistical analyses of which traits tend to co-occur in the population, but the underlying correlations are probabilistic and thus exceptions are possible. For example, talkativeness and assertiveness are both traits associated with Extraversion, but they do not go together by logical necessity: you could imagine somebody that is assertive but not talkative (the "strong, silent type"). However, numerous studies indicate that people who are assertive are typically also talkative (and vice versa), which is why they go together under the broader Extraversion factor. For this reason, you should be clear about your goals when choosing your measures. If you expect that you might need to make finer distinctions (such as between talkativeness and assertiveness), a broad-level Big Five instrument might not be enough. You could use one of the longer inventories that make facet-level distinctions (like the NEO PI-R or the IPIP scales - see below), or you could supplement a shorter inventory (like the Big Five Inventory) with additional scales that measure the specific dimensions that you are interested in. It is also worth noting that there are many aspects of personality that are not subsumed within the Big Five. The phrase personality trait has a special meaning in personality psychology that is narrower than the everyday usage of the term. Motivations, emotions, attitudes, abilities, self-concepts, social roles, autobiographical memories, and life stories are just a few of the other "units" that personality psychologists study. Some of these other units may
have theoretical or empirical relationships with the Big Five traits, but they are conceptually distinct. What is the difference between the terms Big Five, Five-Factor Model, and Five-Factor Theory? The Big Five are, collectively, a taxonomy of personality traits: a framework for understanding which traits go together. The Big Five are an empirically based phenomenon, not a theory of personality. The Big Five factors were discovered through a statistical procedure called factor analysis, which was used to analyze how various personality traits are correlated in humans. The original derivations relied heavily on American and Western European samples, and researchers are still examining the extent to which the Big Five structure generalizes across cultures. Some researchers use the term Five-Factor Model instead of "Big Five." In scientific usage, the word "model" can refer either to a descriptive framework of what has been observed, or to a theoretical explanation of causes and consequences; the Five-Factor Model (like the Big Five) is a model in the first sense only. The term "Big Five" was coined by Lew Goldberg and was originally associated with studies of personality traits used in natural language. The term "Five-Factor Model" has been more commonly associated with studies of traits using personality questionnaires. The two research traditions yielded largely consonant models (in fact, this is one of the strengths of the Big Five/Five-Factor Model as a common taxonomy of personality traits), and in current practice the terms are often used interchangeably. A subtle but sometimes important area of disagreement between the lexical and questionnaire approaches is over the definition and interpretation of the fifth factor, called Intellect/Imagination by many lexical researchers and Openness to Experience by many questionnaire researchers. This issue is discussed in the aforementioned chapter. Five-Factor Theory, formulated by Robert (Jeff) McCrae and Paul Costa (see, for example, their 1999 Handbook of Personality chapter), is an explanatory account of the role of the Big Five factors in personality. FiveFactor Theory includes a number of propositions about the nature, origins, and developmental course of personality traits, and about the relation of traits to many of the other personality variables mentioned earlier. Five-
Factor Theory presents a biological account of personality traits, in which learning and experience play little if any part in influencing the Big Five. Five-Factor Theory is not the only theoretical account of the Big Five. Other personality psychologists have proposed that environmental influences, such as social roles, combine and interact with biological influences in shaping personality traits. For example, Brent Roberts has recently advanced this approach under the name Social Investment Theory. Finally, it is important to note that the Big Five are used in many areas of psychological research in ways that do not depend on the specific propositions of any one theory. For example, in interpersonal perception studies a researcher may find the Big Five to be a useful model for organizing people's perceptions of one another's personalities; such research does not always depend on any particular theoretical account of what traits "really" are. Regardless of whether you endorse any particular theory of personality traits, it is still quite possible that you will benefit from measuring and thinking about the Big Five in your research. Where can I learn more about the Big Five? For an introduction to the conceptual and measurement issues surrounding the Big Five personality factors, a good place to start is the Handbook of Personality chapter that I wrote with Oliver John. (Yes, I am self-promoting here. Shoot me.) The chapter covers a number of important issues:
The scientific origins and history of the Big Five Theoretical accounts of the Big Five Comparisons of different measurement instruments
The chapter includes a conceptual and empirical comparison of three measurement instruments: Oliver John's Big Five Inventory (BFI), Paul Costa and Jeff McCrae's NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), and Lew Goldberg's set of 100 trait-descriptive adjectives. There is no one-size-fitsall measure, but the chapter includes our recommendations on which instrument(s) you should use for different applications. Where do I get the Big Five Inventory (BFI)? The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a self-report inventory designed to measure the Big Five dimensions. It is quite brief for a multidimensional personality
inventory (44 items total), and consists of short phrases with relatively accessible vocabulary. A copy of the BFI, with scoring instructions, is reprinted in the chapter as an appendix. Oliver John is the copyright holder for the BFI. If after weighing the fair use implications (see below) you decide that you want or need formal permission, you will need to contact Oliver John, not me. What are other ways of measuring the Big Five? The BFI is not your only option for measuring the Big Five... The International Personality Item Pool, developed and maintained by Lew Goldberg, has scales constructed to work as analogs to the commercial NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI scales (see below). IPIP scales are 100% public domain no permission required, ever. If you want items that are single adjectives, rather than full sentences (like the NEO) or short phrases (like the BFI and IPIP), you have several options. For starters, there is Lew Goldberg's set of 100 trait-descriptive adjectives (published in Psychological Assessment, 1992). Gerard Saucier reduced this set to 40 Big Five mini-markers that have excellent reliability and validity (Journal of Personality Assessment, 1994). More recently, Saucier has developed new trait marker sets that maximize the orthogonality of the factors (Journal of Research in Personality, 2002). Saucier's mini-markers are in the public domain. The NEO PI-R is a 240-item inventory developed by Paul Costa and Jeff McCrae. It measures not only the Big Five, but also six "facets" (subordinate dimensions) of each of the Big Five. The NEO PI-R is a commercial product, controlled by a for-profit corporation that expects people to get permission and, in many cases, pay to use it. Costa and McCrae have also created the NEO-FFI, a 60-item truncated version of the NEO PI-R that only measures the five factors. The NEO-FFI is also commercially controlled. If you need a super-duper-short measure of the Big Five, you can use the Ten Item Personality Inventory, recently developed by Sam Gosling, Jason Rentfrow, and Bill Swann. But read their journal article first (it is on Sam Gosling's web page). There are substantial measurement tradeoffs associated with using such a short instrument, which the article discusses
Personality Traits Intrinsic differences that remain stable throughout most of our life
Personality traits are intrinsic differences that remain stable throughout most of our life. They constant aspects of our individuality. Personality Theories
Personalities are distinctive. Each individual behaves according to certain distinctive patterns a variety of situations. Humans are finely tuned to observe these behavior patterns of acquaint to notice behavior differences among people.
You might use words such as talkative, cheerful, cold, disorganized, compulsive, intellectual, shortsighted, flirtatious, or ruthless to describe various people you know. Also, you have prob observed that these various behaviors stay with the person consistently over time and through variety of circumstances. These persistent behavior patterns, called personality traits, are stab time, consistent in a variety of situations, and differ from one individual to the next. Personali defined as the psychological qualities that bring continuity to an individual’s behavior in diffe situations and at different times. [zimbardo]
Over the years several efforts have helped to understand and develop a common vocabulary to personality traits. The most fruitful begin with the simple idea that humans introduce words in language to describe interesting aspects of the world around them. This idea forms the basis f lexical hypothesis, which states: [DeRaad]
Those individual differences that are of most significance in the daily transactions of persons other will eventually become encoded into their language. The more important is such a differ more people will notice it and wish to talk of it, with the result that eventually they will invent it.
Beginning with a list of more than 18,000 descriptive terms extracted from unabridged diction researchers first selected then extensively studied a list of adjectives describing stable persona Subjects were asked to rate each term according to how well it described the behavior of parti people they knew well. Common factors were extracted from this data and the result is the ―T Personality Factors‖ which is very similar to the ―Five Factor Model of Personality‖. The American-English form of the structure identifies these five personality factors: Factor I Trait Characteristics Talkative, extroverted Inverse Trait Characteristics Shy, quiet
Extraversion/Surgency Aggressive, verbal Sociable, bold Assertive, social Unrestrained, confident Sympathetic, kind II Agreeableness Warm, understanding Soft-hearted, helpful Considerate, cooperative Trustful, affectionate Organized, neat III Orderly, systematic Conscientiousness Efficient, responsible Precise, through Practical, dependable Unenvious, relaxed IV Emotional Unexcitable, patient Stability Undemanding, imperturbable Unselfconscious, uncritical Masculine, optimistic Creative, intellectual V Intellect Imaginative, philosophical Artistic, complex Inventive, intelligent Innovative, deep
Introverted, silent Untalkative, bashful Reserved, withdrawn Timid, unaggressive Cold, unsympathetic Unkind, rude Harsh, inconsiderate Insensitive, insincere Hard, uncharitable Disorganized, disorderly Careless, unsystematic Inefficient, sloppy Haphazard, inconsistent Impractical, negligent Moody, temperamental Jealous, touchy Envious, irritable Fretful, emotional Self-pitying, nervous
Uncreative, unimaginative Unintellectual, unintelligent Simple, unreflective Shallow, imperceptive Unsophisticated, uniquisitive.
These five factors can be further understood by looking at the following two tables of single p markers for each trait. The table of trait markers lists the top 10 adjectives that correlate most with each factor. The table of inverse trait markers lists the top 10 adjectives that correlate mo negatively with each factor. Trait Markers: Surgency Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Extraverted Kind Organized Unenvious Intellect Intellectual
Talkative Assertive Verbal Energetic Bold Active Daring Vigorous Unrestrained
Cooperative Sympathetic Warm Trustful Conscientious Pleasant Agreeable Helpful Generous
Systematic Through Practical Neat Efficient Careful Steady Conscientious Prompt
Unemotional Relaxed Imperturbable Unexcitable Undemanding
Creative Complex Imaginative Bright Philosophical Artistic Deep Innovative Introspective
Inverse Trait Markers: Surgency Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Introverted Cold Disorganized Emotional Shy Unkind Careless Irritable Quiet Unsympathetic Unsystematic Fretful Reserved Distrustful Inefficient Jealous Untalkative Harsh Undependable Touchy Inhibited Demanding Impractical Nervous Withdrawn Rude Negligent Insecure Timid Selfish Inconsistent Fearful Bashful Uncooperative Haphazard Self-pitying Unadventurous Uncharitable Sloppy High-strung
Intellect Unintellectual Uninitellegent Unimaginative Uncreative Simple Unsophisticated Unreflective Imperceptive Uninquisitive Shallow
Anyone’s personality can be measured along these five dimensions using a variety of question assessment instruments designed for this. The result can be displayed in a chart showing wh personality falls between the extreme poles for each trait. The following chart is an example, triangle marker represents the degree each of the five factors is present for a particular individ factor numbers are in the first column, followed by the factor names. In this chart the names h chosen so that their first letters (E, A, C, N, O) can be rearranged to spell OCEAN, which pro useful mnemonic for remembering the factor names. Factor IV is listed with reverse polarity t this mnemonic. The last column names each inverse trait. Your Personality Profile Extraverted –––––––▲–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– – Agreeable ––––––––––––––––––––––––––▲––––––––––– –
I II
Introverted Antagonistic
III IV V
Conscientious –––▲–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– – Neurotic ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––▲––––––––– – Open ––––––––––––▲––––––––––––––––––––––––– –
Disorganized Emotionally Stable Closed
In this example the person is more extroverted than introverted, but not extremely so. Note th I marker is not all the way to the left. People vary in the strength with which their personalitie each trait. Most people fall somewhere between the extremes of each pole, and are neither pu nor pure introvert, for example. This person is somewhat antagonistic (not agreeable), quite conscientious, rather emotionally stable and somewhat more open to experience (high intellec closed to experience.
Personality is stable over very long periods of time; personality traits do not change. They for stable second layer in the architecture for interaction model. Understanding, accepting, and ap your personality traits is an important part of knowing yourself.
Another study focused on descriptive nouns. [Saucier] An analysis of the results extracted eig Their names, along with the five nouns having the highest correlation for each factor are show following table. Factor 1 Social Unacceptability Trash Dumbbell Dummy Twit Moron Factor 2 Intellect Philosopher Nonconformist Pioneer Poet Artist Factor 3 Egocentrism Snob Gossip Eavesdropper Critic Materialist
Factor 4 Ruggedness Tough Jock Sportsman Machine Aggressor
Factor 5 Delinquency Lawbreaker Pothead Drunk Alcoholic Rebel
Factor 6 Attractiveness Babe Darling Sweetie Honey Beauty
Factor 7 Liveliness Joker Clown Goof Comedian Comic
Factor 8 Disorientati Klutz Worrywart Sleepyhead Daydreamer Speculator
These factors may relate directly to the primal concerns of people as follows:
Factor 1: Social Unacceptability, relates to inclusion or exclusion from a social group. This i decision humans make as social animals. The poles, or underlying primal decision, can be tho Exclude < > Include
Factor 2: Intellect, relates to human intelligence and higher levels of cognition. Smart is sexy been said that the brain is the most important sex organ. Many believe that intelligence disting as humans, and it may be interpreted as an indicator of evolutionary advancement. Intelligenc important indicator of stature. The poles can be described as: Bright < > Dull
Factor 3: Egocentrism, relates to a lack of empathy and respect for others. It may be related t overzealous display of status, a generous or false self-image, failure to counterbalance the firs viewpoint, or a counterfeit display of stature. Its poles can be labeled: Arrogant < > Humble o Narcissistic < > Empathetic.
Factor 4: Ruggedness, relates to dominance, aggression, and power. Its poles can be labeled: < > Submissive
Factor 5: Delinquency, relates to cheating. The theory of reciprocal altruism describes the im and effectiveness of ―cheater detectors‖ for the social interaction of humans. The poles can b Cheater < > Plays fair Factor 6: Attractiveness, relates directly to sex and procreation. The poles can be labeled as: Repulsive, ugly, disgusting.
Factor 7: Liveliness, relates to attracting attention, perhaps as a strategy for attracting a mate seem to describe a real party animal. Possible labels for the poles are: Loud < > Quiet, reserve
Factor 8: Disorientation, relates to competence and reliability. Poles can be labeled: Incompe Competent