3. Five Factor Model Flashcards
Five Factor Model (Paul T Costa Jnr & Robert R McCrae)
Questionnaire items
Neuroticism
▪ Anxiety, anger, depression, self-consciousness, impulsivity, vulnerability
Extraversion
▪ Warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions
Openness
▪ Fantasy, Aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values
Agreeableness
▪ Trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness
Conscientiousness
▪ Competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation
Big 5 (Lewis R Goldberg)
Lexical approach
Emotional stability
▪ Calm, relaxed, stable, at ease, contented, unemotional, not envious
Extraversion
▪ Extraverted, energetic, talkative, bold, active, assertive, adventurous
Intellect
▪ Intelligent, analytical, reflective, curious, imaginative, creative,
Agreeableness
▪ Warm, kind, cooperative, unselfish, agreeable, trustful, generous
Conscientiousness
Organized, responsible, conscientious, practical, thorough, hardworking, thrifty
Structure differences
FFM has trait hierarchy: domain –> facet –> behaviour
Big 5 has no hierarchy not measuring behaviour Descriptive model
Measurement differences
FFM is measured via questionnaire items to reflect the causal role in behaviour at the facet levels
6 facets underlie each of the domains
Big 5 is measured via adjectives
how adjective relates to how they feel about themselves
Empirical basis differences
FFM: exploratory factor analysis —> go from lots of individual item responses to shared dimensions based on shared variance
Aims to see what traits are the same
Big 5: Lexical approach —> correlated traits are clustered in terms of how people respond to them
Causality differences
FFM: Traits cause behaviours
Bio model of personality
Big 5: No formal causal statement
Descriptive model of personality
Represent natural language
Origins differences
FFM: Biology
Traits are derived from biological process that have genetic basis and are stable over time and across cultures
Big 5: Natural language
Evolved a rich corpus of adjectives we use to describe our own and others behaviour.
Analysis provides a description of the main domain of personality
McCrae & Terracciano 2005
Cross cultural evidence of stability of FFM indicating each facet is a marker of the domain i.e anxiety is a marker of neuroticism but not any other FFM domains
FFM and Eysenck’s PEN model Costa & McCrae (1995)
Eysenck believes C and A is just a conflation of Eysenck’s P
Also questions if O is really part of FFM or part of the domain of intelligence
Behavioural Genetics - Loehlin et al (1998), Bouchard & McGue (2003)
- Twin Studies used to estimate the degree of genetic and environmental influence on a trait
- E = .57 (G) .00 (S) & .44 (N)
- A = .51 (G) .00 (S) & .49 (N)
- C = .52 (G) .00 (S) & .48 (N)
- N = .58 (G) .00 (S) & .42 (N)
- O = .56 (G) .00 (S) & .44 (N)
- Where G = genetic, S = shared environment and N, non-shared environment
- Even recent studies using more elaborate designs, have found effect of S small, if not zero (Hahn et al., 2012)
Genome-Wide Associations with the FFM - Terracciano et al (2010)
- N (SNAP25 – rs362584)
- Region linked to ADHD and psychiatric disorder
- E (CHD13 & CHD23)
- (Calcuim dependent adhesion genes) – 13 – Heart and 23 = neuro-sensory
- O (CNTNAP2 – re10251794)
- Linked to autism and complex schizophrenia phenotype
- A (CLOCK– encode for circadian rhythms)
- A is linked to morningness
- C (DYRK1A0)
- Linked to Alzheimers and Downs Syndrome
Structural MRI of the FFM - DeYoung et al (2010)
Trait
Associated Behaviour
Brain Region
Neuroticism
Sensitivity to Punishment
Amygdala, mPFC. Mid-cingulate
Extraversion
Sensitivity to Rewards
Amygdala, Orbito-frontal cortex
Agreeableness
Altruism and Cooperation
Superior temporal Sulcus
Openness
Working memory
Dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex
Conscientiousness
Impulse Control
Lateral pre-frontal cortex
Srivastava et al (2003)
Set like Plaster
Some differences in personality in genders and over the life course. Neurotics - high in women which decreases over time, constant and low in men
People in average stay in average - overall rank doesn’t change
The WEIRD problem (Gurven et al 2013)
- Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) (Henrich et al., 2010).
- All cross-cultural FFM work on WEIRD sample
- If it true Universal we should see the FFM in preliterate, hunter-gather tribes
The Tsimane
- Gurven et al (2013) examined the FFM in the Tsimane are forager-horticulturalist in lowland Bolivia
- Live in extended family clusters (villages of 30 to 500)
- No evidence for the FFM
- Reliabilities are low
- No stable factor structure
