• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

Extraversion. Bill Clinton.
Extroverts: very sociable. Introverts: reserved, independent.
Facets: Gregarious, Warm, Assertive, Active, Excitement-seeking, Positive Emotionality

High:
  • Excessive talking, leading to inappropriate social disclosure
  • Inability to spend time alone
  • Overly dramatic expression of emotions
  • Reckless excitement seeking
  • Inappropriate attempts to dominate and control others

Low:
  • Social isolation
  • Interpersonal detachment
  • Lack of social networks
  • Flattened affect
  • Lack of joy and interest in life
  • Reluctance to assert self or assume leadership roles
  • Social inhibition and shyness
 
Openness. Woman with red-and-black dyed hair, a small-portrait necklace, and a tattooed arm.
Active imagination, divergent thinking, intellectual curiosity.
Unconventional and independent thinking vs. preferring the familiar to the imaginative.
Facets: Fantasy prone, Open to feelings, Open to diverse behaviors, Open to new/different ideas, Open to various values and beliefs

High:
  • Preoccupation with fantasy and daydreaming
  • Lack of practicality
  • Eccentric thinking
  • Diffuse identity and changing goals
  • Susceptibility to nightmares and states of altered consciousness
  • Social rebelliousness and nonconformity that can interfere with social or vocational advancement

Low:
  • Difficulty adapting to social or personal change
  • Low tolerance for understanding of different points of view or lifestyles
  • Emotional blandness and inability to understand verbalize own feelings
  • Constricted range of interests
  • Insensitivity to art and beauty
  • Excessive conformity to authority
 
Agreeableness. A Pope.
Helpful, trusting, and sympathetic vs. antagonistic and skeptical
Facets: Straightforward, Altruistic, Compliant, Trusting, Modest, Tender-minded

High:
  • Gullibility
  • Indiscriminate trust of others
  • Excessive candor and generosity, to the detriment of one's own interest
  • Inability to stand up to others
  • Easily taken advantage of

Low:
  • Cynicism and paranoid thinking
  • Inability to be close even to friends or family
  • Quarrelsomeness
  • Ready to pick fights
  • Exploitative and manipulative
  • Lying
  • Lack of respect for social conventions
  • Inflated and grandiose sense of self esteem

Someone very agreeable may be vulnerable to a con artist. On the other side, US Presidents have generally been low on agreeableness, suggesting something unflattering about how to succeed in politics.
 
Conscientiousness. Someone doing archery at a target range.
Organized, plan oriented, and determined vs. careless, easily distracted from tasks, and undependable
Could be called will to achieve or work
Facets: Competent, Orderly, Dutiful, Achievement-oriented, Self-disciplined, Deliberate

High:
  • Overachievement
  • Workaholism
  • Compulsiveness
  • Excessive cleanliness
  • Attention to detail
  • Rigid self-discipline
  • Inability to set task aside
  • Lack of spontaneity
  • Overscrupulousness in moral behavior

Low:
  • Underachievement
  • Not reaching artistic or intellectual potential
  • Poor academic performance relative to ability
  • Disregard of rules and responsibilities
  • Unable to discipline oneself
  • Personal and occupational aimlessness

Though conscientiousness is usually considered a good thing to have, it can be taken to excess. US Presidents have generally been high in this trait, with only a few exceptions, like Ronald Reagan.

Credit for these ends of the trait ranges:
McCrae, R.R. (1994), A reformulation of axis II: personality and personality related problems. In Costa, P.T. & Widiger, P.A. (Eds.) Personality disorders in the five factor model of personality. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association
 
Last edited:
This comparison table was adapted from Digman 1990
[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]Author(s)[/td][td]I[/td][td]II[/td][td]III[/td][td]IV[/td][td]V[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Fiske (1949)[/td][td]Social Adaptability[/td][td]Confomity[/td][td]Will to Achieve[/td][td]Emotional Control[/td][td]Inquiring Intellect[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Eysenck (1970)[/td][td]Extraversion[/td][td]Psychoticsm[/td][td]Psychoticsm[/td][td]Neuroticism[/td][td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tupes & Christal (1961)[/td][td]Surgency[/td][td]Agreeableness[/td][td]Dependability[/td][td]Emotionality[/td][td]Culture[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Norman (1963)[/td][td]Surgency[/td][td]Agreeableness[/td][td]Conscientiousness[/td][td]Emotionality[/td][td]Culture[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Cattell (1957)[/td][td]Exvia[/td][td]Cortertia[/td][td]Superego Strength[/td][td]Anxiety[/td][td]Intelligence[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Digman (1988)[/td][td]Extraversion[/td][td]Friendly Compliance[/td][td]Will to Achieve[/td][td]Neuroticism[/td][td]Intellect[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hogan (1986)[/td][td]Sociability & Ambition[/td][td]Likeability[/td][td]Prudence[/td][td]Adjustment[/td][td]Intellectance[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Costa & McCrae (1985)[/td][td]Extraversion[/td][td]Agreeableness[/td][td]Conscientiousness[/td][td]Neuroticism[/td][td]Openness to Experience[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Buss & Plomin (1984)[/td][td]Activity[/td][td]Sociability[/td][td]Impusivity[/td][td]Emotionality[/td][td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tellegan (1985)[/td][td]Positive Emotionality[/td][td][/td][td]Constraint[/td][td]Negative Emotionality[/td][td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Peabody & Goldberg (1989)[/td][td]Power[/td][td]Love[/td][td]Work[/td][td]Affect[/td][td]Intellect[/td][/tr]
[/table]
 
P154 Five Factor Model of Personality Discussion Part 3 of 3 - YouTube

Prof. Botwin then discusses how various activities correlated with the five factors.
  • Good Grades in School: C+ N-
  • Educational Attainment and Earnings: N- O+ C+
  • Risky Sexual Behaviors: E+ N+ C- A-
  • Pathological Gambling: N+ C-
Conscientiousness is correlated with academic and career success -- not surprising.

Ratings by oneself, one's employer, and strangers tend to agree.

IQ could qualify as an additional factor of personally. Prof. Botwin didn't mention the HEXACO model, however, and there are numerous traits that have been proposed in addition to the Big Five. I also have not come across a consensus about what facets the traits have. Schemes like 2, 3, or 6 facets seem too schematic to me -- there is no reason to expect the same number for each trait.
 
The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. - PsycNET
Reprint of "Next Big Five Inventory"
How they did it:
Previous work has found that approximately two to four lower-level traits consistently replicate across alternative hierarchical models of the Big Five (John et al., 2008), and that this relatively small number of traits can capture a large amount of specific personality information (DeYoung et al., 2007).
Click to expand...
So they selected three facets per trait. The first one they selected as an anchoring facet, one with essentially no correlation to other traits. The others were selected for their prominence in the literature and approximate orthogonality. Here is what they selected, with analogous facets in others' work:

[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]BFI-2 domains, facets[/td][td]NEO PI-R facets[/td][td]AB5C facets[/td][td]Lexical subcomponents[/td][td]Big Five aspects[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][/td][td](McCrae & Costa, 2010)[/td][td](Goldberg, 1999; Hofstee et al., 1992)[/td][td](Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999)[/td][td](DeYoung et al., 2007)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td="colspan:5"]Extraversion[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sociability[/td][td]Gregariousness[/td][td]Gregariousness[/td][td]Sociability[/td][td]Enthusiasm[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Assertiveness[/td][td]Assertiveness[/td][td]Assertiveness[/td][td]Assertiveness[/td][td]Assertiveness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Energy Level[/td][td]Positive Emotions/Activity[/td][td]--[/td][td]Activity-adventurousness[/td][td]Enthusiasm[/td][/tr]
[tr][td="colspan:5"]Agreeableness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Compassion[/td][td]Altruism[/td][td]Understanding[/td][td]Warmth-affection[/td][td]Compassion[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Respectfulness[/td][td]Compliance[/td][td]Cooperation[/td][td]Gentleness[/td][td]Politeness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Trust[/td][td]Trust[/td][td]Pleasantness[/td][td]--[/td][td]--[/td][/tr]
[tr][td="colspan:5"]Conscientiousness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Organization[/td][td]Order[/td][td]Orderliness[/td][td]Orderliness[/td][td]Orderliness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Productiveness[/td][td]Self-Discipline[/td][td]Efficiency[/td][td]Industriousness[/td][td]Industriousness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Responsibility[/td][td]Dutifulness[/td][td]Dutifulness[/td][td]Reliability[/td][td]--[/td][/tr]
[tr][td="colspan:5"]Negative Emotionality[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Anxiety[/td][td]Anxiety[/td][td]Toughness (R)[/td][td]Emotionality[/td][td]Withdrawal[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Depression[/td][td]Depression[/td][td]Happiness (R)[/td][td]Insecurity[/td][td]Withdrawal[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Emotional Volatility[/td][td]Angry Hostility[/td][td]Stability (R)[/td][td]Irritability[/td][td]Volatility[/td][/tr]
[tr][td="colspan:5"]Open-Mindedness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Intellectual Curiosity[/td][td]Ideas[/td][td]Intellect[/td][td]Intellect[/td][td]Intellect[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Aesthetic Sensitivity[/td][td]Aesthetics[/td][td]Reflection[/td][td]--[/td][td]Openness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Creative Imagination[/td][td]Fantasy[/td][td]Ingenuity[/td][td]Imagination-creativity[/td][td]--[/td][/tr]
[/table]
 
Why am I reminded of teats on wart hogs?

Case histories of psychopathology, 4th ed. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97669-000


Abstract The primary purpose of this text is to present a descriptive psychopathology, that is, a careful and detailed description of the symptoms that are exhibited by a person suffering from a particular type of abnormal behavior. Comprehensive information about the individual and family history of each patient or client and the current reactions of persons in the social milieu highlight the development of the psychopathological disorder described and its impact on current functioning.
The student of abnormal psychology is able to gain a comprehensive picture of the family and peer context of each of the disorders covered in this text, as well as an understanding of the development of symptoms over time and the meaning of psychological test findings. The treatment methods used are covered in detail; behavior therapy or cognitive behavioral treatment approaches were employed in the majority of cases, and pharmacological treatments were used in some. The treatment outcome literature related to these procedures is surveyed and their efficacy examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Click to expand...


Something about classifying peas by shape and size ...
 
lpetrich said:
fromderinside said:
Why am I reminded of teats on wart hogs?
Click to expand...
What do you mean?


Something about classifying peas by shape and size ...
Click to expand...
I don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

Words on a chart derived by successive applications of factor analysis then putting words to resulting successive groupinga. Been there rejected that. This stuff is supported by method more than science therefore the warthog uselessness analogy.

The problem is everyone sees different connections in what you presented.
 
fromderinside said:
Words on a chart derived by successive applications of factor analysis then putting words to resulting successive groupinga. Been there rejected that. This stuff is supported by method more than science therefore the warthog uselessness analogy.
Click to expand...
 Factor analysis is a recognized statistical technique and  Principal component analysis is a common method of it.

If you think that the Big Five advocates are chasing statistical artifacts, then make your case. Like point to numbers that are easily in the range of random-number simulations.
 
First, I'm much more comfortable with working with psychiatrists who apply neuroscientific methods, yano, this drug that hormone sorts of work, to clinical study. With this paper pencil, interview stuff, It's easy enough to follow up such with selective path analysis to show that intercorrelations among labels are way too high for statistical independence presumptions. Besides it's correlation, not deterministic method. What I enjoy is all the fictional reports, based on variance of interpretations, which are soooo different among users of such methods.

GIGO. For your enjoyment .... here is an academic 'free lunch' study on the subject.

From: What Do We Assess When We Assess a Big 5 Trait? : A ContentAnalysis of the Aff Analysis of the Affective, Behavioral, and, and Cognitive Processes ocessesRepresented in Big 5 Personality Inventories https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=psychfacpub


Assume for the moment that there is some very basic coreor-reality to Big 5–level traits, that the ABC dimensions are highly meaningful constructs for assessing that core, and that the operational definitions of traits on ABC dimensions in major inventories reasonably reflect those underlying latent traits. Given those assumptions, our findings suggest that abstract arguments (and conceptual definitions of traits, such as found in personality texts) about the basic nature of traitsmay miss the mark. The Big 5 traits seem to be very different from each other in basic dimensions of structure and substance, not merely in which facets they subsume. Abstract arguments about whether “traits” should include motivation orbe conceptualized as behavioral dispositions rather than as affective or cognitive in nature, and so forth, are largely irrelevant if these major broad traits are substantially different in underlying substance and structure.

In addition, if the Big 5 traits are vastly different from each other in underlying structure and substance, then different traits may require different types of measurement models and instruments (as previously noted by Hirschberg, 1978). For example, if observers are better judges ofbehavior and self-reports are most accurate for more covertthoughts and feelings (as argued by Johnson, 1997), then—judging from the current fndings— peer reports may bemore accurate assessments of Conscientiousness, whereasself-reports may be more accurate for assessing Neuroticismand Openness. Finer-grained analyses aimed at identifyingthe types or subsets of ABC constructs related to individual traits might be particularly useful for further reflectionon and refinement of trait assessments (Hirschberg, 1978).For example, the cognitive items used to assess Agreeableness may include more belief statements, whereas the cognitive items assessing other traits may focus more on cognitive processes (e.g., the tendency to be inclusive in one’sthinking [Openness]).

However, we remain conscious that the most obviouslimitation to this study is that although it describes how traitsare currently measured, it leaves unanswered the question ofhow traits should be measured. If we are right in identifyingthe importance of ABC constructs for defining the structureof traits, but wrong in assuming that the operational definitions of traits in the inventories we have studied reflect theunderlying traits, then the missing components, such as thecognitive components of Extraversion and Neuroticism andthe affective component of Conscientiousness, suggest thatmore balanced inventories need to be developed.
Click to expand...

I get seasick with all the interlocking handwave technology here.
 
Last edited:
APA PsycNet - DeYoung_2007_BFAS_JPSP.pdf - "Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five"

Finds a split in two for each of the Big Five traits or domains.
  • Neuroticism
    • Volatility ... Get angry easily. ... Rarely get irritated. (R) ... Get upset easily. ... Keep my emotions under control. (R) ... Change my mood a lot. ... Rarely lose my composure. (R) ... Am a person whose moods go up and downeasily. ... Am not easily annoyed. (R) ... Get easily agitated. ... Can be stirred up easily.
    • Withdrawal ... Seldom feel blue. (R) ... Am filled with doubts about things. ... Feel comfortable with myself. (R) ... Feel threatened easily. ... Rarely feel depressed. (R) ... Worry about things. ... Am easily discouraged. ... Am not embarrassed easily. (R) ... Become overwhelmed by events. ... Am afraid of many things.
  • Agreeableness
    • Compassion ... Am not interested in other people’s problems. (R) ... Feel others’ emotions. ... Inquire about others’ well-being. ... Can’t be bothered with other’s needs. (R) ... Sympathize with others’ feelings. ... Am indifferent to the feelings of others. (R) ... Take no time for others. (R) ... Take an interest in other people’s lives. ... Don’t have a soft side. (R) ... Like to do things for others.
    • Politeness ... Respect authority. ... Insult people. (R) ... Hate to seem pushy. ... Believe that I am better than others. (R) ... Avoid imposing my will on others. ... Rarely put people under pressure. ... Take advantage of others. (R) ... Seek conflict. (R) ... Love a good fight. (R) ... Am out for my own personal gain. (R)
  • Conscientiousness
    • Industriousness ... Carry out my plans. ... Waste my time. (R) ... Find it difficult to get down to work. (R) ... Mess things up. (R) ... Finish what I start. ... Don’t put my mind on the task at hand. (R) ... Get things done quickly. ... Always know what I am doing. ... Postpone decisions. (R) ... Am easily distracted. (R)
    • Orderliness ... Leave my belongings around. (R) ... Like order. ... Keep things tidy. ... Follow a schedule. ... Am not bothered by messy people. (R) ... Want everything to be “just right.” ... Am not bothered by disorder. (R) ... Dislike routine. (R) ... See that rules are observed. ... Want every detail taken care of.
  • Extraversion
    • Enthusiasm ... Make friends easily. ... Am hard to get to know. (R) ... Keep others at a distance. (R) ... Reveal little about myself. (R) ... Warm up quickly to others. ... Rarely get caught up in the excitement. (R) ... Am not a very enthusiastic person. (R) ... Show my feelings when I’m happy. ... Have a lot of fun. ... Laugh a lot.
    • Assertiveness ... Take charge. ... Have a strong personality. ... Lack the talent for influencing people. (R) ... Know how to captivate people. ... Wait for others to lead the way. (R) ... See myself as a good leader. ... Can talk others into doing things. ... Hold back my opinions. (R) ... Am the first to act. ... Do not have an assertive personality. (R)
  • Openness/Intellect
    • Intellect ... Am quick to understand things. ... Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (R) ... Can handle a lot of information. ... Like to solve complex problems. ... Avoid philosophical discussions. (R) ... Avoid difficult reading material. (R) ... Have a rich vocabulary. ... Think quickly. ... Learn things slowly. (R) ... Formulate ideas clearly.
    • Openness ... Enjoy the beauty of nature. ... Believe in the importance of art. ... Love to reflect on things. ... Get deeply immersed in music. ... Do not like poetry. (R) ... See beauty in things that others might not notice. ... Need a creative outlet. ... Seldom get lost in thought. (R) ... Seldom daydream. (R) ... Seldom notice the emotional aspects of paintings and pictures. (R)
(R) means reversed
 
Some stuff on Big-Five supertraits: stability and plasticity.

Higher-order factors of the Big Five.
Estimated factor correlations from 14 studies supporting the 5 factor, Big Five model of personality trait organization—5 studies based on children and adolescents, 9 on adults—were factor analyzed. Two higher-order factors were clearly evident in all studies. One was principally related to the Big Five trait dimensions Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability; the other, the dimensions Extraversion and Intellect. Two models, one for children and adolescents, the other for adults, were tested by confirmatory factor analysis with generally excellent results. Many personality theorists appear to have considered one or both of these 2 metatraits, provisionally labeled α and β. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Click to expand...

Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? - ScienceDirect - Higher-order_factors_of_the_Big_Five_pre20160116-9161-13v4vou.pdf
We present a biologically predicated model of these two personality factors, relating them to serotonergic and dopaminergic function, and we label them Stability (Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and Plasticity (Extraversion and Openness). Based on this model, we hypothesize that Stability will positively predict conformity (as indicated by socially desirable responding) and that Plasticity will negatively predict conformity. A structural equation model indicates that conformity is indeed positively related to Stability (university sample: β=0.98; community sample: β=0.69; P<0.01 for both) and negatively related to Plasticity (university sample: β=−0.48, P<0.07; community sample: β=−0.42, P<0.05). These findings suggest that there are pros and cons of conformity, such that the most thorough conformists will tend to be stable but also rigid, less able to adjust to novelty or change.
Click to expand...
  • Stability - serotonin
    • Emotional: Neuroticism (R)
    • Social: Agreeableness
    • Motivational: Conscientiousness
  • Plasticity - dopamine
    • Extraversion
    • Openness/Intellect

APA PsycNet - Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five in a Multi-Informant Sample
The shared variance of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness appears to reflect the individual’s ability and tendency to maintain stability and avoid disruption in emotional, social, and motivational domains, whereas the shared variance of Extraversion and Openness/Intellect appears to reflect the ability and tendency to explore and engage flexibly with novelty, in both behavior and cognition (DeYoung et al.,2002; DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005).

... factors bearing an obvious resemblance to Stability and Plasticity appear in lexical studies when only two factors are extracted (Saucier, 2003; Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis, & Goldberg, 2005). These two lexical factors, often labeled Social Propriety and Dynamism, show greater cross-language replicability than do the Big Five (Saucier et al., 2005).

... Stability seems likely to make a child easier to socialize (and socialization may encourage Stability), whereas Plasticity seems likely (though not inevitably) to lead to personal growth (DeYoung et al., 2002, 2005).

... We have argued that Stability and Plasticity might be related to two fundamental human concerns (DeYoung et al., 2005): (a) the need to maintain a stable organization of psychosocial function and (b) the need to explore and incorporate novel information into that organization, as the state of the individual changes bothi nternally (developmentally) and externally (environmentally).
Click to expand...

The Big Five personality traits, Big Two metatraits and social media: A meta-analysis - ScienceDirect - The Big Five Personality Traits, Big Two Metatraits and Social Media: A Meta-Analysis (PDF)
In the DeYoung’s cybernetic model, these two metatraits respectively fulfill two basic needs of any complex self-regulating organism existing in the unpredictable environment: plasticity is associated with exploration and goal creation, and stability with goal maintenance in the face of threat and distraction (DeYoung, 2015). To expand: the meta-trait plasticity, defined as the shared variance of extraversion and openness/intellect, appears to reflect an exploratory tendency and ability to actively engage with the possibilities of the environment, both generating and attending to novel aspects of experience (DeYoung, 2015). Plasticity can be described as the degree to which the personality system is prone to generating new goals, new interpretations of the present state, and new strategies to pursue existing goals. People high in plasticity are not only prone to respond to environmental anomalies more flexibly and eagerly, they also tend to seek out the unknown voluntarily. Plasticity should also be associated with dopamine because of the link to approach and reward. In terms of actual behavior, plasticity is associated with interpersonal warmth, parties, jokes, and travel (see Hirsh, DeYoung and Peterson, 2009 Table 2 for fuller account). Stability, in contrast, reflects the capacity to resist goal disruption. Following encounter with anomaly, people high in stability will resist replacing their operative goal with immediate goals (like expressing anger or pursuing a distraction) that interfere with longer-term goals; whereas people low in stability are frequently interrupted by emotions, impulses, and doubts. Stability should also be associated with serotonin because of the link to (low) anxiety and calm.In terms of actual behavior, stability is associated with resisting impulsive behaviors –it is associated with less anger and nervousness, less joking, less overeating and less sex (Hirsh et al., 2009).
Click to expand...
 
I've even seen some reports of a "Big One" personality factor: a General Factor of Personality.

The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study - ScienceDirect - The_General_Factor_of_Personality_A_meta20161123-19132-6ck0c6.pdf

GFP
  • +0.83 Stability
    • -0.63 Neuroticism
    • +0.60 Agreeableness
    • +0.68 Conscientiousness
  • +0.69 Plasticity
    • +0.82 Extraversion
    • +0.52 Openness/Intellect
It's not very clear what brain-structure correlates GFP might have.
 
Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and implications - ScienceDirect
  • First meta-analysis of other-rated, FFM-specific measures with academic performance
  • FFM has some of the strongest correlations with academic performance ever reported.
  • GPA correlations with Conscientiousness exceeded those with intelligence.
  • Teacher-rated personality is as valid as parent- or peer-rated personality.
  • Teacher- and peer-rated personality should be used to guide education & development.
Click to expand...

It used Emotional Stability, the inverse of Neuroticism. Order: Agr, Con, EmS, Ext, Opn

Correlations with academic performance:
  • Combined self-other: 0.10, 0.38, 0.18, 0.05, 0.28
  • (Different method): 0.11, 0.46, 0.24, 0.03, 0.36
  • Self: 0.06, 0.22, 0.00 -0.02, 0.09
  • Self-other correlation: 0.43, 0.54, 0.48, 0.55, 0.53
  • Est. other w/o self: 0.08, 0.31, 0.21, 0.07, 0.27
  • Correlation with intelligence: 0.10, 0.16, 0.12, 0.05, 0.37
  • Intelligence effects removed: 0.08, 0.35, 0.16, 0.04, 0.21
What do the results mean?

Conscientiousness has the highest correlation with academic performance, even more than intelligence. Being diligent is very helpful, it seems.

Next is openness. One has to be interested in ideas to do well in a lot of academia.

Next is emotional stability. Worrying over one's performance will get in the way of actually performing.

Next is agreeableness. Willingness to do one's assignments, but that effect is weak.

Least of all is extroversion. It has a little bit of correlation in the earlier grades, but not later.
 
If you want a very quick Big Five test, Sam Gosling has one for you: Ten-Item Personality Inventory-(TIPI) | Gosling

SG specifies this numerical scale:
1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly
But one can shrink it down to 5 or 3 items if one desires.

I see myself as:
1. _____ Extraverted, enthusiastic.
2. _____ Critical, quarrelsome.
3. _____ Dependable, self-disciplined.
4. _____ Anxious, easily upset.
5. _____ Open to new experiences, complex.
6. _____ Reserved, quiet.
7. _____ Sympathetic, warm.
8. _____ Disorganized, careless.
9. _____ Calm, emotionally stable.
10. _____ Conventional, uncreative.

Reverse every even-numbered score and average the scores as follows:
Extraversion: 1, 6R; Agreeableness: 2R, 7; Conscientiousness; 3, 8R; Emotional Stability: 4R, 9; Openness to Experiences: 5, 10R.

Emotional stability = reverse of neuroticism
 
Understanding the Dark Triad – From MindTools.com
notes
The Dirty Dozen: A Concise Measure of the Dark Triad
  • Narcissism
    • I tend to want others to admire me.
    • I tend to want others to pay attention to me.
    • I tend to seek prestige or status.
    • I tend to expect special favors from others
  • Psychopathy
    • I tend to lack remorse.
    • I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.
    • I tend to be callous or insensitive.
    • I tend to be cynical.
  • Machiavellianism
    • I tend to manipulate others to get my way.
    • I have use flattery to get my way.
    • I have used deceit or lied to get my way.
    • I tend to exploit others towards my own end.
 
Narcissism is not a peg or nail. It is an aggregated product of expectancies around certain behavioral parameters. Not something one can put down nail in and expect it to keep out weather. It's based on expectations not facts. As is everything factor analyzed, Big 5 is sorted into mindful coherence, a conceptual model, not even a simulation. When this kind of stuff becomes things then let's talk.
 
Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five

Of the 2643 participants, 69% were from "a large Canadian metropolitan area", 18% were from Eugene-Springfield, Oregon, United States, and the remaining 13% were recruited online with Amazon's Mechanical Turk service. By gender, 66% were female and 34% were mail. By racial/ethnic identity, 40% were White, 28% Asian, <1% others, and the rest unstated (about 30%).

The study used DeYoung's two-way split of each of the five factors. Here is Table 2 from their results:
[table="class: grid"]
[tr][td][/td][td="colspan: 5"]Raw scores[/td][td="colspan: 5"]Residualized scores[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][/td][td="colspan: 2"]Males[/td][td="colspan: 3"]Females[/td][td="colspan: 2"]Males[/td][td="colspan: 3"]Females[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][/td][td]Mean[/td][td]SD[/td][td]Mean[/td][td]SD[/td][td]d[/td][td]Mean[/td][td]SD[/td][td]Mean[/td][td]SD[/td][td]d[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ext - Enthusiasm[/td][td]3.40[/td][td]0.66[/td][td]3.56[/td][td]0.68[/td][td]0.23[/td][td]−0.13[/td][td]0.59[/td][td]0.06[/td][td]0.59[/td][td]0.32[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ext - Assertiveness[/td][td]3.34[/td][td]0.64[/td][td]3.28[/td][td]0.68[/td][td]−0.09[/td][td]0.09[/td][td]0.57[/td][td]−0.05[/td][td]0.58[/td][td]−0.24[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Agr - Compassion[/td][td]3.78[/td][td]0.60[/td][td]4.04[/td][td]0.56[/td][td]0.45[/td][td]−0.11[/td][td]0.56[/td][td]0.05[/td][td]0.49[/td][td]0.31[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Agr - Politeness[/td][td]3.52[/td][td]0.61[/td][td]3.74[/td][td]0.61[/td][td]0.36[/td][td]−0.06[/td][td]0.57[/td][td]0.04[/td][td]0.53[/td][td]0.18[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Con - Industriousness[/td][td]3.25[/td][td]0.68[/td][td]3.21[/td][td]0.73[/td][td]−0.06[/td][td]0.07[/td][td]0.62[/td][td]−0.03[/td][td]0.66[/td][td]−0.15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Con - Orderliness[/td][td]3.38[/td][td]0.61[/td][td]3.49[/td][td]0.63[/td][td]0.18[/td][td]−0.08[/td][td]0.56[/td][td]0.05[/td][td]0.57[/td][td]0.22[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Neu - Volatility[/td][td]2.63[/td][td]0.75[/td][td]2.86[/td][td]0.77[/td][td]0.30[/td][td]−0.03[/td][td]0.60[/td][td]0.01[/td][td]0.61[/td][td]0.06[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Neu - Withdrawal[/td][td]2.73[/td][td]0.69[/td][td]3.02[/td][td]0.71[/td][td]0.40[/td][td]−0.10[/td][td]0.55[/td][td]0.05[/td][td]0.56[/td][td]0.27[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]OI - Intellect[/td][td]3.62[/td][td]0.61[/td][td]3.48[/td][td]0.63[/td][td]−0.22[/td][td]0.14[/td][td]0.57[/td][td]−0.07[/td][td]0.58[/td][td]−0.36[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]OI - Openness[/td][td]3.57[/td][td]0.61[/td][td]3.74[/td][td]0.60[/td][td]0.27[/td][td]−0.14[/td][td]0.56[/td][td]0.07[/td][td]0.54[/td][td]0.39[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Extraversion[/td][td]3.37[/td][td]0.55[/td][td]3.42[/td][td]0.59[/td][td]0.08[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Agreeableness[/td][td]3.65[/td][td]0.50[/td][td]3.89[/td][td]0.50[/td][td]0.48[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Conscientiousness[/td][td]3.32[/td][td]0.54[/td][td]3.35[/td][td]0.58[/td][td]0.06[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Neuroticism[/td][td]2.68[/td][td]0.65[/td][td]2.94[/td][td]0.67[/td][td]0.39[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Openness/Intellect[/td][td]3.60[/td][td]0.51[/td][td]3.61[/td][td]0.52[/td][td]0.02[/td][/tr]
[/table]
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom