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?