The Five Factor Model of Personality Flashcards
What are the domains of the Big 5 (Lexical approach, Goldberg, 1992)?
Emotional stability, extraversion/surgency, intellect/sophistication, agreeableness/pleasantness and conscientiousness/dependability.
What are the domains of the Five Factor Model (FFM, Costa & McCrae)?
Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Describe the basic ideas behind the Big Five.
- Proposed by Goldberg (1992)
- Language has evolved to describe core features of human behaviour
- These are naturally occurring trait descriptors (adjectives)
- These core features (traits) can therefore be found through factor analysis, a statistical technique for grouping variables together.
- No ontological claims - inductive not deductive, no theoretical basis.
Describe the basic ideas behind the Five Factor Model.
- Costa & McCrae (1995)
- Has a theoretical basis (deductive)
- Used the Big 5 as an organising framework
- States that personality is described by 5 domains
- Each domain consists of facets, and facets can be divided into behaviours (hierarchical structure)
- Individual differences in domains are stable over time
- There’s a genetic basis and the domains are derived from an internal biological system (heritable, neurobiological).
What are the four key claims of the FFM?
- Five factors are present in adjectives and questionnaire items.
- FFM has a biological basis
- Should be observed universally
- Should show temporal stability
What does the Big Five show about the claim that five factors are present in adjectives and questionnaire items?
The 556 adjectives correlate with FFM model scales (NEO-PI). Found that the transparent format was slightly clearer structure for bi-polar adjectives. Self and others formats produced congruent findings.
What does a joint factor analysis of NEO-PI-R and Eysenck’s P-E-N suggest?
That Eysenck’s facets of E (ambitious) may reflect C, Eysenck’s P is a conflation of C and A and that the FFM better explains the data.
What does behavioural genetics show about the claim that the FFM has a biological basis?
- Common pathway model (embodies hierarchy) fits nicely and supports the biological basis, suggesting that over 50% of each trait is explained by genetics.
- For adjectives and questions, much lower and more varied rates of genetic contribution were found.
- The independent pathway suggests that different adjectives had different levels of genetic contribution.
- Cholesky decomposition found no contribution of genetics for Agreeableness.
What does molecular genetics show about the claim that the FFM has a biological basis?
McGuffin, Riley and Plomin (2001) used recent twin studies to estimate the contribution of genetics to personality as about 40%.
What are the genome-wide associations with the FFM found by Terracciano et al. (2010)?
Neuroticism (SNAP25 – rs362584)
- Region linked to ADHD and psychiatric disorder
Extroversion (CHD13 & CHD23)
- Calcium dependent adhesion genes
- 13: heart
- 23: neuro-sensory (link to Eysenck’s PEN - under-arousal idea, extroverts seek extra stimulation)
Openness (CNTNAP2 – re10251794)
- Linked to autism and complex schizophrenia phenotype
Agreeableness (CLOCK – encode for circadian rhythms)
- A is linked to morning-ness
Conscientiousness (DYRK1A0)
- Linked to Alzheimer’s and Down’s Syndrome
This supports questionnaire results, but further replication is necessary.
What support does DeYoung et al. (2010) provide for the claim that the FFM has a biological basis?
Neurological structures - used structural MRI to determine brain area associations, as any genetic effects must be instantiated through neural substrates - the brain translates genes to behaviour.
Found links between N (sensitivity to punishment) and the amygdala, mPFC and Mid-cingulate.
E = sensitivity to rewards, amygdala and OFC.
A = altruism and cooperation, superior temporal sulcus
O = working memory, dorsolateral PFC
C = impulse control, lateral PFC
What support does Canli et al. (2002) provide for the claim that the FFM has a biological basis?
Investigated extraversion and emotion through amygdala response to emotional faces in introverts and extroverts, found that extraverts are more tuned to happy than fearful faces and a strong positive correlation between extraversion and activity change.
What support does Kumari et al. (2004) provide for the claim that the FFM has a biological basis?
Studied extraversion and cognitive demand, found that extraverts have a higher cognitive demand as their fMRI signal changes more from its resting rate.
What do cross-cultural effects show about the claim that FFM should be observed universally?
McCrae & Costa (1997) found a stable factor structure across various samples:
Germany (60% students), Hebrew (job applicants), Portuguese, Chinese (students), Korean (students), Japanese (students).
What evidence does Vaidya et al. (2002) provide for the claim that FFM should show temporal stability?
Found that over a 2.5 year period:
- Structural – stable
- Mean – increases in E, O, A, C
- Individual – 79-85% showed no change
- Rank order: N = .61; E = .72; O = .65; A = .59; C = .64
- Mean and rank order stability aren’t influenced by life events.
This suggests long term lifetime stability.
What evidence does Srivastava et al. (2003) provide regarding the claim that the FFM should show temporal stability?
Investigated changes in the 5 factors over 40 years for men and women, found N decreases for women, and A and C increase for both men and women. Therefore it’s not ‘set like plaster’.
What evidence does Jackson et al. (2012) provide regarding the claim that the FFM should show temporal stability?
Studied agreeableness over time for civilians and military service groups, found that although both increased over time, A increased significantly more in the civilian group. This suggests that life events can change personality - the FFM is not temporally stable.
What evidence does Tang et al. (2009) provide regarding the claim that the FFM should show temporal stability?
Studied personality change during depression treatment - the effect of SSRIs, found significant changes in neuroticism (decrease) and extraversion (increase). If personality can be altered by SSRIs, it’s not stable.
Outline the item selection critique of the FFM.
Adjectives selected to fit the Big 5 - Deary (1996) reanalysed data from 1915 pre-Big 5 (no selection bias) and found SIX factors that resemble the big 5 with agreeableness split across two factors (modesty and being liked).
Outline Block’s (1995) general critique of the FFM.
- Item selection
- Factor analysis (N of factors)
- Items are not orthogonal
- Correlations are asymmetrical, there’s not a linear relationship between traits. For example talkative is correlated with gregarious, but not vice versa.
- Deciding on the number of factors
Outline Block’s (1995) lexical critique of the FFM.
- Not scientific
- Single words cannot capture the complexities of behaviour
- Students used as raters: they’re not experienced enough
- Lay people: novices not experts
Outline Block’s (1995) FFM critique of the FFM.
- Facet to domain linkage isn’t theoretical
- Doesn’t show incremental validity over other models
- Joint factor analysis is applied asymmetrically
- 32 eigen values greater than 1 with Scree showing 7-9 factors, not 5.
