More on the "Big Five" Five-Factor Model of Personality

[lpetrich]

A lot of the animal-personality measures may be unfamiliar by human standards, but some of them may be interpreted as facets of extraversion, neuroticism, etc. For extraversion: activity, dominance, exploration (possibly also openness) etc. For neuroticism: the  Startle response is found over a wide range of species.

• Serotonin transporter gene variation impacts innate fear processing: acoustic startle response and emotional startle | Molecular Psychiatry - human experiments
• Reduced brain serotonin activity disrupts prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex. Effects of 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine and p-chlorophenylalanine - PubMed - in rats
• Serotonergic Modulation of Walking in Drosophila: Current Biology - serotonin affects fruit flies' startle response
• Why Do We Freeze When Startled? New Study in Flies Points to Serotonin | Columbia | Zuckerman Institute
• Why do we freeze when startled? New study in flies points to serotonin -- ScienceDaily
• Human beings freeze when startled due to the nerves trigger of serotonin in the body- Technology News, Firstpost

The startle response is a response to possible threats, and serotonin being involved makes it fit with neuroticism.

 

[lpetrich]

So I find this phylogeny:

• Mammalia: (marsupials: kangaroo, placentals: (Afrothera: elephant, Boreoeutheria: all the others))
• Amniota: (Synapsida: Mammalia, Sauropsida: (turtle, lizard, birds: Neoaves: (rook, parrot)))
• Osteichthyes (bony vertebrates): (ray-finned (Actinopterygii): guppy, lobe-finned (Sarcopterygii): Amniota)
• Arthropoda: Pancrustacea: (Hexapoda: Pterygota: (cricket, aphid, paper wasp), Malacostraca: crab)
• Mollusca: (Gastropoda: snail, Cephalopoda: octopus))
• Eubilateria: (Deuterostomia: Vertebrata: Osteichthyes, Protostomia: (Ecdysozoa: Arthropoda, Lophotrochozoa: Mollusca))

I looked again at the highest-level phylogeny of the animal kingdom. It's still in an unsettled state, but some results seem evident.

Bilateria and Cnidaria are relatively close to each other, with Placozoa close to them, as clade Eumetazoa:
(Placozoa (Cnidaria, Bilateria))
((Placozoa, Cnidaria), Bilateria)

Placozoans are flattened blobs about 1 mm across. They have outer layers and an in-between part, but no nervous system, though they have plenty of cell-cell signaling. They feed by engulfing their food on one side.

Glycine as a signaling molecule and chemoattractant in Trichoplax...: Ingenta Connect -- Trichoplax adhaerens is a placozoan -- glycine is the smallest amino acid.
But neither dopamine nor serotonin was detected.

So we have:

(Placozoa --, (Cnidaria DS, Bilateria DS): DS)
(Placozoa lost DS, (Cnidaria DS, Bilateria DS): DS): DS
((Placozoa lost DS, Cnidaria DS): DS, Bilateria DS): DS

Looking further, we have
(Porifera, (Ctenophora, Eumetazoa))
(Ctenophora, (Porifera, Eumetazoa))
even
Porifera with offshoot (Ctenophora, Eumetazoa)

Ctenophores (comb jellies) seem to lack dopamine and serotonin, so D and S are likely only to eumetazoans.

 

[lpetrich]

Having shown that extraversion and neuroticism go back to very early in the history of nervous systems, let us return back to where we started: our species.


Physical Strength Partly Explains Sex Differences in Trait Anxiety in Young Americans - Nicholas Kerry, Damian R. Murray, 2021

Among the most consistent sex differences to emerge from personality research is that women score higher than men on the Big Five personality trait Neuroticism. However, there are few functionally coherent explanations for this sex difference. The current studies tested whether this sex difference is due, in part, to variation in physical capital. Two preregistered studies (total N = 878 U.S. students) found that sex differences in the anxiety facet of Neuroticism were mediated by variation in physical strength and self-perceived formidability. Study 1 (N = 374) did not find a predicted mediation effect for overall Neuroticism but found a mediation effect for anxiety (the facet of Neuroticism most strongly associated with grip strength). Study 2 (N = 504) predicted and replicated this mediation effect. Further, sex differences in anxiety were serially mediated by grip strength and self-perceived formidability. These findings add to a nascent literature suggesting that differences in physical attributes may partially explain sex differences in personality.

So if one is weaker and feels more vulnerable, one is more likely to be anxious.

Extroversion also had a correlation, with more perceived formidability correlating with being more assertive and energetic.

 

[lpetrich]

The impact of childhood lead exposure on adult personality: Evidence from the United States, Europe, and a large-scale natural experiment | PNAS

Childhood lead exposure causes lifelong psychological problems, which may be more extensive than previously thought. In a sample of over 1.5 million people, we found that US and European residents who grew up in areas with higher levels of atmospheric lead had less adaptive personality profiles in adulthood (lower conscientiousness, lower agreeableness, and higher neuroticism), even when accounting for socioeconomic status.

...
Childhood lead exposure has devastating lifelong consequences, as even low-level exposure stunts intelligence and leads to delinquent behavior. However, these consequences may be more extensive than previously thought because childhood lead exposure may adversely affect normal-range personality traits.

... Adjusting for age and socioeconomic status, US adults who grew up in counties with higher atmospheric lead levels had less adaptive personality profiles: they were less agreeable and conscientious and, among younger participants, more neurotic.

... Participants born after atmospheric lead levels began to decline in their county had more mature, psychologically healthy adult personalities (higher agreeableness and conscientiousness and lower neuroticism), but these findings were not discriminable from pure cohort effects.

... European participants who spent their childhood in areas with more atmospheric lead were less agreeable and more neurotic in adulthood.

The Big Five traits have Big Two supertraits: plasticity (extroversion, openness) and stability (conscientiousness, agreeableness, and inverse neuroticism (emotional stability)).

So lead exposure causes less mental stability, something manifested in all three of its Big Five subtraits.

 

[lpetrich]

SimilarMinds.com > Big 5 / Global 5 / SLOAN Multidimensional Typing System

• Extroversion - Social and Reserved type
  • Social types feel at ease interacting with to others
  • Reserved types are uncomfortable and/or disinterested with social interaction
• Emotional Stability - Limbic and Calm type
  • Limbic types are prone to moodiness
  • Calm types maintain level emotions
• Orderliness - Organized and Unstructured type
  • Organized types are focused
  • Unstructured types are scattered
• Accommodation - Accommodating and Egocentric type
  • Accommodating types live for others
  • Egocentric types live for themselves
• Intellect - Non-curious and Inquisitive type
  • Non-curious types are less intellectually driven
  • Inquisitive types are insatiable in their quest to know more

These are very obviously the Big Five traits under other names: extraversion, inverse neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness.

 

[lpetrich]

Chapter 3. Avian Personality from a book, "Animal Personalities" - Animal Personalities: Behavior, Physiology, and Evolution - vanOersandNaguibAvianPersonality2013.pdf
Here are all the species mentioned, along with rooks and parrots:

• Palaeognathae > Struthioniformes > greater rhea (Rhea americana)
• Neognathae:
  • Galloanserae:
    • Galliformes > domestic chicken (Gallus gallus), domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica)
    • Anseriformes > domestic goose (Anser anser), barnacle goose (Branta bernicla), domestic duck (Anas platyrhynchos)
  • Neoaves: many

Neoaves:

• Aequornithes
  • Ciconiiformes > European white stork (Ciconia ciconia)
  • Sphenisciformes > Yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes)
• Telluraves > Australaves
  • Falconiformes > European kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)
  • Psittaciformes: parrots
  • Passeriformes: many

Passeriformes:

• Corvides > Corvidae > common raven (Corvus corax), rook (Corvus frugilegus)
• Passerides
  • Sylviida
    • Sylviidae > garden warbler (Sylvia borin), Sardinian warbler (Sylvia melanocephala)
    • Acrocephalidae > sedge warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus)
      Paridae
      • Poecile > black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli)
      • Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)
      • Great tit (Parus major)
  • Muscicapida
    • Muscicapidae > collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis)
    • Turdidae > Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana)
    • Sturnidae > starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
  • Passserida
    • Fringillidae > chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs)
    • Estrildidae > zebra finch (Taenopygia guttata)
    • Icteridae > brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscala), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)

 

[lpetrich]

Most of the experiments were done on versions of extraversion: boldness, exploration, risk-taking, and aggressiveness. Some were done on versions of neuroticism: complacency, neophobia, and fearfulness, and one was on agreeableness: sociability. Some were done on handling (neuroticism?) and feeding habits (?).

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Unfortunately, the Big Five is not really a true inventory.

A true personality inventory should lead to results that actually sound to the subject of that inventory like the most ideal possible personality.

When a particular score is seen as inherently negative, people tend to cheat, which requires weights to be added in an attempt to improve the accuracy of those scores. However, the weights themselves lead to problems for people that tend to give profoundly honest answers: the honest subject, who has a high degree of straightforwardness, might be more prone to acknowledging fault.

I think this is why the MBTI still beats the Big Five in some ways.

In this paper we provide for the first time a com-
parison of Big Five and MBTI from a personality
computing perspective. To do so we use two mul-
tilingual Twitter datasets, one annotated with Big
Five classes and one with MBTI classes. For the
first time, we provide an evidence that algorithms
trained on MBTI could have better performances
than trained on the Big Five, although the Big Five
is much more informative and has great variability
in performance depending also on the algorithm
used for the prediction. We let available the files
used for the experiments2, in order to grant the
replicability or improvement of the results.

Elena Cabrio, Alessandro Mazzei and Fabio Tamburini (dir.)Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference onComputational Linguistics CLiC-it 201810-12 December 2018, Torino

http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2253/paper04.pdf

The problems with the Big Five could be remedied simply by making it appear, to the subject, to be a true inventory. Lead the subject to believe that low scores for agreeableness reflect personality characteristics that would be viewed as ideal by someone that really was a raging asshole. Just go along with how unpleasant people tend to explain away their behavior, and let them think that the same scores that prove they are assholes really prove what wonderful people they are.

If you must know, I get the highest possible scores on openness, and I get the lowest possible scores on neuroticism. I tend to get moderately high but not extraordinary scores on extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

At one point in my life I had shockingly low scores on the dimension of agreeableness, but I have mellowed out substantially as I have gotten older.

If you understand the relationships between the Big Five and the MBTI, then it would make sense to you that I was also a strong ENTP personality type when I was younger, but I have become more of an ENFP as I have gotten older. The thinking v. feeling dimension is linked with agreeableness.

This study sets out examine the relationship between two personality measures—most popularly used measure in the consultancy and training world (the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and one of the most heavily used measures in the academic research area on personality (the five factor NEO-PI). One hundred and sixty adults completed the NEO-PI and the MBTI. The NEO-PI Agreeableness score was correlated only with the thinking-feeling (T-F) dimension; the NEO-PI Conscientiousness score was correlated with both thinking-feeling and judging-perceiving (J-P) dimension; the NEO-PI Extraversion score was strongly correlated with the extraversion-introversion (E-I) dimensions, while the Neuroticism score from the NEO-PI was not related to any MBTI subscale score. The openness dimension was correlated with all four especially sensing-intuitive. These results were related to two other similar comparative studies. Results are discussed in terms of recent criticisms of the MBTI.

Personality and Individual Differences​

Volume 21, Issue 2, August 1996, Pages 303-307

The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality

This study sets out examine the relationship between two personality measures—most popularly used measure in the consultancy and training world (the M…

www.sciencedirect.com

I did a tremendous amount of research on the tests after a professor docked my grade for mentioning, on an essay, that I felt that the MBTI was really more like a true inventory. After I had fully demonstrated to her how wrong she was, she offered to regrade the paper. I had all but forgotten about the excremental grade over the course of the conversation, and when she brought the grade up, I was like, "You mean you're still on that?" I had gotten so caught up in the subject that I had all but forgotten about the grade.

Anyhow, all the creators of the Big Five thing have to do is phrase the "negative" result in a way that flatters the egos of the subjects that receive those scores. They will answer a lot more honestly, that way.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't know which MBTI description that SigmatheZeta was using, but I suspect the Forer effect. That's how horoscopes work. One makes general but flattering assessments of one's subject, and one's subject then finds it a very good fit for their personality.

It might be possible to induce the Forer effect by by making the Big Five binary or ternary, then coming up with general and flattering descriptions of each factor value. Ternary? That's to include states between the extremes. For extroversion, an ambivert is someone halfway between being an extrovert and being an introvert.

 

[lpetrich]

I've found a binary letter version of the Big Five factors, much like how MBTI is usually presented. SimilarMinds.com > Big 5 / Global 5 / SLOAN Multidimensional Personality Typing System

• + Extraversion
• Extroversion - Social and Reserved type
  • Social types feel at ease interacting with to others
  • Reserved types are uncomfortable and/or disinterested with social interaction
• - Neuroticism
• Emotional Stability - Limbic and Calm type
  • Limbic types are prone to moodiness
  • Calm types maintain level emotions
• + Conscientiousness
• Orderliness - Organized and Unstructured type
  • Organized types are focused
  • Unstructured types are scattered
• + Agreeableness
• Accommodation - Accommodating and Egocentric type
  • Accommodating types live for others
  • Egocentric types live for themselves
• + Openness
• Intellect - Non-curious and Inquisitive type
  • Non-curious types are less intellectually driven
  • Inquisitive types are insatiable in their quest to know more

In short -- S,R - L,C - O,U - A,E - N,I -- SLOAN vs. RCUEI[/LIST]

 

[lpetrich]

XenForo doesn't like some tables whose first statement is TABLE="class: grid"
It also doesn't like statements like td="colspan:5"
So I'm reposting those tables without that statement.

... But this team of researchers have found four concentrations of personality features, sort of like lumps in batter.

	Average	Reserved	Self-Centered	Role Model
Openness	---	---	---	+++
Conscientiousness			---	+++
Extroversion	+++		+++	+++
Agreeableness			---	+++
Neuroticism	+++	---		---

+++ high, --- low, (blank) in the middle
I'm like Role Model except for being very introverted

BFI-2 domains/facets	NEO PI-R facets	AB5C facets	Lexical subcomponents	Big Five aspects
Extraversion
Sociability	Gregariousness	Gregariousness	Sociability	Enthusiasm
Assertiveness	Assertiveness	Assertiveness	Assertiveness	Assertiveness
Energy Level	Positive Emotions/Activity	—	Activity-adventurousness	Enthusiasm
Agreeableness
Compassion	Altruism	Understanding	Warmth-affection	Compassion
Respectfulness	Compliance	Cooperation	Gentleness	Politeness
Trust	Trust	Pleasantness	—	—
Conscientiousness
Organization	Order	Orderliness	Orderliness	Orderliness
Productiveness	Self-Discipline	Efficiency	Industriousness	Industriousness
Responsibility	Dutifulness	Dutifulness	Reliability	—
Negative Emotionality
Anxiety	Anxiety	Toughness (R)	Emotionality	Withdrawal
Depression	Depression	Happiness (R)	Insecurity	Withdrawal
Emotional Volatility	Angry Hostility	Stability (R)	Irritability	Volatility
Open-Mindedness
Intellectual Curiosity	Ideas	Intellect	Intellect	Intellect
Aesthetic Sensitivity	Aesthetics	Reflection	—	Openness
Creative Imagination	Fantasy	Ingenuity	Imagination-creativity	—

 

[lpetrich]

Raymond Cattell (1905 - 1998) - he developed a 16-factor model.

Descriptors of Low Range	Primary Factor	Descriptors of High Range
Sizothymia	Warmth	Affectothymia
Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity	Reasoning	Higher Scholastic Mental Capacity
Lower Ego Strength	Emotional Stability	Higher Ego Strength
Submissiveness	Dominance	Dominance
Desurgency	Liveliness	Surgency
Low Super Ego Strength	Rule-Consciousness	High Super Ego Strength
Threctia	Social Boldness	Parmia
Harria	Sensitivity	Premsia
Alaxia	Vigilance	Protension
Praxernia	Abstractedness	Autia
Artlessness	Privateness	Shrewdness
Untroubled	Apprehension	Guilt Proneness
Conservatism	Openness to Change	Radicalism
Group Adherence	Self-Reliance	Self-Sufficiency
Low Integration	Perfectionism	High Self-Concept Control
Low Ergic Tension	Tension	High Ergic Tension

He used lots of arcane vocabulary, and I won't bother to track it down.

As I'd posted earlier, attempts to replicate this work yielded only 5 factors: the Big Five model. Reanalysis of RC's data also yielded the Big Five.

 

[lpetrich]

This comparison table was adapted from Digman 1990

Author(s)	I	II	III	IV	V
Fiske (1949)	Social Adaptability	Confomity	Will to Achieve	Emotional Control	Inquiring Intellect
Eysenck (1970)	Extraversion	Psychoticsm	Psychoticsm	Neuroticism
Tupes & Christal (1961)	Surgency	Agreeableness	Dependability	Emotionality	Culture
Norman (1963)	Surgency	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness	Emotionality	Culture
Cattell (1957)	Exvia	Cortertia	Superego Strength	Anxiety	Intelligence
Digman (1988)	Extraversion	Friendly Compliance	Will to Achieve	Neuroticism	Intellect
Hogan (1986)	Sociability & Ambition	Likeability	Prudence	Adjustment	Intellectance
Costa & McCrae (1985)	Extraversion	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness	Neuroticism	Openness to Experience
Buss & Plomin (1984)	Activity	Sociability	Impusivity	Emotionality
Tellegan (1985)	Positive Emotionality		Constraint	Negative Emotionality
Peabody & Goldberg (1989)	Power	Love	Work	Affect	Intellect

The study used DeYoung's two-way split of each of the five factors. Here is Table 2 from their results:

What, raw scores (m, f), residualized scores (m, f)

	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	d	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	d
Ext - Enthusiasm	3.40	0.66	3.56	0.68	0.23	−0.13	0.59	0.06	0.59	0.32
Ext - Assertiveness	3.34	0.64	3.28	0.68	−0.09	0.09	0.57	−0.05	0.58	−0.24
Agr - Compassion	3.78	0.60	4.04	0.56	0.45	−0.11	0.56	0.05	0.49	0.31
Agr - Politeness	3.52	0.61	3.74	0.61	0.36	−0.06	0.57	0.04	0.53	0.18
Con - Industriousness	3.25	0.68	3.21	0.73	−0.06	0.07	0.62	−0.03	0.66	−0.15
Con - Orderliness	3.38	0.61	3.49	0.63	0.18	−0.08	0.56	0.05	0.57	0.22
Neu - Volatility	2.63	0.75	2.86	0.77	0.30	−0.03	0.60	0.01	0.61	0.06
Neu - Withdrawal	2.73	0.69	3.02	0.71	0.40	−0.10	0.55	0.05	0.56	0.27
OI - Intellect	3.62	0.61	3.48	0.63	−0.22	0.14	0.57	−0.07	0.58	−0.36
OI - Openness	3.57	0.61	3.74	0.60	0.27	−0.14	0.56	0.07	0.54	0.39
Extraversion	3.37	0.55	3.42	0.59	0.08
Agreeableness	3.65	0.50	3.89	0.50	0.48
Conscientiousness	3.32	0.54	3.35	0.58	0.06
Neuroticism	2.68	0.65	2.94	0.67	0.39
Openness/Intellect	3.60	0.51	3.61	0.52	0.02

The d is a statistical measure of (female) - (male) difference.

The two sexes show some differences, but not great ones, and they have a *lot* of overlap. This study's results are consistent with previous studies' results about gender differences for the five factors.

 

[lpetrich]

Towards a taxonomy of personality facets - Paul Irwing, David J Hughes, Alexander Tokarev, Tom Booth, 2024 -- PDF version: Towards a taxonomy of personality facets - irwing-et-al-2023-towards-a-taxonomy-of-personality-facets.pdf -- supplementary material: sj-pdf-1-erp-10.1177_08902070231200919.pdf

Their results: 70 personality facets, their Facet-level Multidimensional Assessment of Personality or Facet MAP. These 70 facets cover most existing facet systems, like NEO-PI-R and SPI (SAPA Personality Inventory), though with plenty of facets outside of each one of them.

I count 15 outside of both of them: Affability, Courageous, Critical, Distractibility, Emotion-based decision-making, Envy, Extrospection, Fair, Gratitude, Hedonism, Indecisive, Intolerance, Rumination, Tolerance for ambiguity, Vengeful. The remaining 55 are an average of 11 facets per Big Five factor, though some of them overlap, like both Extraversion and Neuroticism having Positivity.

The authors mention some work on 6,000 to 17,000 personality items by another research group. What facets will that group find? How will they compare to Facet MAP?

Will any additional major factors emerge? Will Big Five vs. HEXACO be decided in any way? Big Five subfactor schemes? Like 2 or 3 subfactors per factor. Superfactor schemes like plasticity-stability?

Methods:

A problem with working from previous work is what the authors call jingle-jangle:

1. Jingle: same names, different content
2. Jangle: different names, same content

They first took 1,772 personality-scale items from 137 facets and sorted them out into 23 categories of related facets, to avoid having to do factor analysis on a huge set.

In each category, they looked for items with high correlation, like ‘I get lonely when I am left by myself’ and ‘I dislike eating alone’, and in cases like these, they used the more general one, like the first one here. They removed 355 items, 20% of the total, leaving 1,417 items.

They then did factor analysis, looking for factors that expressed strong correlations among the items, finding 121 factors over 969 items, some 55% of the original. With a more refined analysis, they found 136 factors with 9.6 items per factor. The authors then sent these factors to a review panel, a panel that removed 56 as redundant, merged 2 pairs, and retained 78. A second review panel trimmed the factors down further, judging 6 to be multidimensional, 7 synonymous, and 4 to be "bloated specifics", giving 61 factors: 61 personality facets.

The authors next searched the literature for facets outside these 61 facets. They chose factors using these four criteria: must be a personality factor and not anything similar, must be readily measurable, must be theoretically coherent, and must be open access, not restricted by copyright.

They found 706 factors, with 544 satisfying these criteria. Most of these had at least some overlap with the base 61 factors, and some of them with each other, leaving 16 new factors, for a total of 77. After some further assessment, they arrived at 70 factors.