Big 5 Flashcards
Five Factor model and the Big 5 both argue which 5 traits make up both models?
Neuroticism Emotional stability (Big 5)
Extraversion
Openness
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
FFM and Big 5: Same Analyses
Both models are heavily reliant on Exploratory factor analysis
Explain factor analysis:
Statistical approach to go from lots of individual item responses to shared dimensions based on shared variance
Both FFM and Big Five scales converge on a five-factor structure
Findings are then used to create subscales/ subscores for each trait.
What are Factor loadings?
You run factor analysis:
It is the extent to which the items fit onto a latent factor
Range from -1 to 1
All PGSI items load very highly onto single factor.
Name the 5 domains for the Big 5:
(Lexical approach)
Lewis R Goldberg
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,hardworking
Name the 5 domains for the Five Factor model:
FFM (questionnaire items)
Paul T Costa Jnr
Robert R McCrae
Neuroticism
Anxiety, anger, depression, self-consciousness, impulsivity, vulnerability
Extraversion
Warmth, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions
Openness
Fantasy, Aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values
Agreeableness
Trust, straightforwardness
Conscientiousness
Competence, order, achievement striving, self-discipline,
goal driven
Differences in FFM and Big 5:
Structure
Trait hierarchy (FFM) or no hierarchy (Big 5)
Trait: Neuroticism
Facets: Anxiety, anger, depression, self-consciousness, impulsivity, vulnerability
FFM makes greater assumptions about behaviour and personality:
It makes a specific claim in which direction you go from trait to personality
FFM states that its origination is genetic biologically determined behaviour
Domains lead to facets lead to behaviour
Big 5 only sates domains, limited to a description
But in practice they are used interchanagely
Differences of measurement of FFm and Big 5:
Questionaires:
FFM
Via questionnaire items designed to reflect the casual role in behaviour at the facet levels
6 facets underlie each of the domains
‘I am easily frightened’,
‘I rarely feel fearful of anxious’
Big 5
Via adjectives
Calm, agreeable
more specific and detailed
Differences in Empirical basis of FFM and Big 5:
Lexical approach- subset of adjectives from the dictionary chosen by P to determine their trait
Big 5: Lexical approach
Natural language used to identify personality traits
Bottom up, originates from Galton
FFM: Personality theory
Questionnaires designed to tap into behaviours
Influenced by Eysenck, Cattell, Jung
But lack of sufficiently comprehensive model (McCrae & John, 1992)
synthesis of different approaches
Differences in the causality of FFM and Big 5:
(Hierarchical structure)
Causality
FFM
States how traits influence and cause behaviour via genetics
Big 5
No formal causal statement. They just represent natural language.
Not about how behaviour occurs but just that it occurs
Differences in the origins of FFM and Big 5:
Biology (FFM) – genetic, neurology, evolution
Traits are derived from biological (neurological) process,
that have a genetic basis and are stable over time and across cultures (human universal)
Natural Language (Big 5)
Evolved a rich corpus of adjectives we use to describe our own and others’ behaviour.
Analysis of this should describe the main domain of personality
Does not make the same strength claims universality compared to FFM
What are the 5 differences between the FFM and the Big 5
FFM- biological trait theory Big 5- Descriptive model
Structure
Hierarchy (domains & facets) No trait hierarchy
Measurement
Questions Adjectives
Causality
Traits ‘cause’ behaviour No causal claims
Origins
Biology Natural Language
Claim 1:
Five Factors/Domain are present in both adjectives and questionnaire items
Results of Five Factor Model Structure:
Results:
Consistently across studies adjectives load on to 5 domains and the FFM facets onto their target 5 domains
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Universal Features of Personality Traits From the Observer’s Perspective: Data From 50 Cultures.
McCrae, Robert; Terracciano, Antonio
Most hypotheses from FFM load on to the personality traits:
eg. Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism
Greater than .3 indicates that the facet is a marker of the domain.
Eg. anxiety is a marker for Neuroticism
but not any of the other FFM domains
However, impulsiveness was .4 (doesn’t fit needly on any personality trait/ multiple)
Between cultures was very high, suggests it does not vary accross different cultures
Source: Bainbridge et al (2022), found that lots of other traits also map onto the FFM/Big Five domains.
All of the individual differences can be explained in the FFM in the personality structure
Which is a better model of personality
In relation to psychoticism between
FFM and PEN model Costa & McCrae (1995)?
Psychoticism is sensitive to very high-level disorders only
(Eg. people who commit antisocial and socially unacceptable behaviour)
The FFM explains that we should better represent Psychoticism in perms of Agreeableness and Conscientious
LOW agreeableness low conscientious = P
Claim 2: FFM has a biological basis of?
1.Behavioural genetics
2. Molecular Genetics
3. Neurological Structures
Behavioural Genetics:
How were Twin Studies used? to estimate the degree of genetic and environmental influence on a trait
They were used to estimate the degree of genetic and environmental influence on a trait
Results:
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)
Molecular Genetics:
Genome-Wide Associations Studies (GWAS)
Examine the whole genome and look for associations with genes – exploratory analysis.
Need extremely large sample sizes
Multiple comparison rate is extremely high
Corrected p-value needs to be very small (to -log 10)
Any association found needs to be replicated and examined in targeted studies
Neuroscience of personality:
While there is a genetic component to traits
Genes -> Brain -> Behaviour
Research has focused on which 2 brain neuroscientific methods?
Structural MRI: Show that traits are associated with brain regions associated with the behaviours linked to that trait
Functional MRI: Show that brain activity on a tasks varies as a function of a trait
Genome-Wide Associations with the FFM
Terracciano et al (2010)
Face value it looks like candidate genes are meaninful but research …
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) found:
Suggests there is a structural basis for our personality
Claim 3: Should be Observed Universally
FFM should be culturally universal, and thats what the findings were from
Universal Features of Personality Traits From the Observer’s Perspective: Data From 50 Cultures.
McCrae, Robert; Terracciano, Antonio
Suggesting similarity
Claim 4: Should show Temporal Stability
Given that this approach has a biological origin,
this should be relatively fixed
Despite the systematic changes that occur across our life span as we age
eg, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness become more prominent in older people (more friendly, talkative)
Stability: Set like Plaster? Srivastava et al. (2003)
Recorded people’s personality throughout their lifespan
What were the findings?
The four people A, B, C & D are assessed on a trait at 3 time points.
Although you have systematic shifts, the order does not change as much consistency is kept
They all increase in score at each time point
However, at each time point they have the same relative rank, D is always higher than C, C higher than B and B higher than A
Research examining the FFM in the Tsimane are
forager-horticulturalist in lowland Bolivia
Live in extended family clusters (villages of 30 to 500)
What were the issues?
They used the Big 5 measure (Big Five Inventory)
instead of the FFM measure when they were measuring for FFM
Found No evidence for the FFM
Low Reliability
No stable factor structure
Deary (1996)
Re-analysed the data from 1915 pre-Big 5 (no selection bias)
Is the Big Five observed similarly over time
Found; these were better represented as distinct traits
Agreeableness was not the same as it was in 1950
-showing Temporal stability
The WEIRD Problem?
Is the FFM culturally universal?
Papers used in journals tend to be Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) (Henrich et al., 2010).
American college students
These samples are seen as an effective analogue to generalise to anyone which is incorrect
showing mainstream psychology is very narrow
All samples across different cointries/ cultures have elements of WEIRD samples
If it true Universal we should see the FFM in preliterate, hunter-gather tribes
– What are some of the problems with using factor analysis to determine personality that Block (1995) determined?
Adjectives selected to fit the model
You get out of a factor analysis what you put in.
If you select items or adjectives to reflect five factors, that is what you’ll see
Ones that don’t fit the model are removed.
If an analysis doesn’t fit onto a certain factor, psychologists exclude it!
Items not loading onto factor does not equal unimportance.
What did Digman (1997) argue the Big Five factors highly correlated and instead should propose?
Instead proposes two superfactors (alpha and beta)
Alpha = A, C, ES (reverse of N) - socialisation
Beta = E, O – personal expression/restriction
A03 Evaluation:
What does it mean when These models ( FFM/Big Five) are based on Exploratory analysis?
Disadvantage to FFM?
Disadvantages to Big 5?
FFM/Big Five are based on exploratory factor analysis,
where the factors are rotated to ensure five factors are separate (orthogonal)
When these are tested with the researcher specifying which items belong onto certain factors in a confirmatory factor analysis, five factor models do not fit as well!
BUT… McCrae et al (1996) argue CFA models too restrictive in specification, and items correlated due to self-report
Studies using more powerful methods (e.g. Marsh et al, 2010) suggest this is because the factors are correlated
Lack of biological mechanism behind Big Five.
However, papers to try and explain this have been worked on since
Critiques of FFM: Neural bases
We can detect task-related differences via
Multiple comparisons
Detection of individual differences is difficult due to
Confounding factors (movements, vascular responses)
Multiple comparisons in brain-wide association studies (BWAS)
Controlling for P vales on these tests are very important
Alot of the research is descriptive rather than mechanic
doesnt really tell us why only what
Critiques of FFM: Neural bases
Allen et al (2022) – Argued current neuroimaging studies are descriptive rather than mechanistic.
Nam the possible solution
Exploratory in nature – no hypotheses
Non-specific results and overlapping correlations
No behavioural manipulations
Possible solutions:
reliance on rich description, strong theories, large samples, and careful behavioural experimentation.
