Trait Theories: The Big Five Flashcards
The Big Five Factors
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Openness (to new experience)
OPENNESS is a general appreciation for creativity, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience
The trait distinguishes imaginative people from down-to-earth conventional people
Facets (6) Fantasy; Aesthetics; Feelings; Ideas; Actions; Values
People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty
They tend to be more creative and more aware of their feelings
They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs
Facets of openness
(FAVIAF)
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Fantasy
- the tendency toward a vivid imagination and fantasy life.
Ideas
- the tendency to be intellectually curious and open to new ideas
Values
- the readiness to re-examine traditional social, religious, and political values.
Actions
- the inclination to try new activities, visit new places, and try new foods.
Aesthetics
- the tendency to appreciate art, music, and poetry.
Feelings
- being receptive to inner emotional states and valuing emotional experience.
Closedness
People with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests
They prefer the plain, un-nuanced, noncomplex, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous,
and subtle
They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion or view these endeavors as uninteresting
Poly-math
Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72), person that “can do all things if they will.”
Psychological aspects of openness
highly open (in homes) = distinctive & unconventional decorations, wide variety of books, diverse music, displayed art
Openness is related to creativity and need for cognition
- tend towards explorations
Values: moving towards the unknown rather than the known
Conscientiousness
- tendency to self-discipline, act dutifully and aim for achievement
Facets of conscientiousness
(CODADS)
self-discipline
dutifulness
competence
order
deliberation
achievement striving
Extraversion
- characterized by positive emotions, surgency and the tendency to seek out stimulation and the company of others
Facets of Extraversion
(PAWAGE)
gregariousness
Activity level
Assertiveness
Excitement seeking
Positive emotions
Warmth
Agreeableness
- tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others
Facets of agreeableness
(STAMCT)
Straightforwardness
Trust
Altruism
Modesty
Tendermindedness
Compliance
neuroticism
the tendency to over experience negative emotions
emotional instability
emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress
facets of neuroticism
(SADIVA)
anxiety
self-consciousness
depression
vulnerability
impulsiveness
angry hostility
The fundamental lexical hypothesis (Goldberg)
“the most important individual differences in human transactions will come to be encoded as single terms in some or all of the world’s language
NEO-PI-3 Measurement
8 test items to measure each facet of each big five factor
8x6x5 = 240 questions
Five-factor theory problems
- no explanation or evidence of how factors cause behavior
- Research shows that traits are affected by experiences
- Factors are developed from aggregate analysis of the population - some factors may not exist in some individuals, some people may score in the middle for all factors
Are factors stable?
Yes for the most part.
Patterns of change:
Agreeableness & conscientiousness - higher in adulthood
Extraversion, Neuroticism, and openness - lower in older adulthood
Big Five applications
Vocational
Health
Clinical
Forensic
Person-situation controversy I
Walter Mischel (1960)
Argued that people don’t act consistently at all
People vary their actions to fit the situation
Types of consistency
Longitudinal stability
Your trait score at one time will be similar to your trait score at another time
Cross-situational stability
Your trait score in one situation will be similar to your trait score in another situation
Person-situation controversy II
Mischel and Peake (1983)
Conscientiousness of college students
Asked them to rate their conscientiousness on multiple occasions and then aggregate these scores
Found good longitudinal consistency (semester to semester) but poor cross-situational consistency (setting to setting)
e.g. good note takers and good marks (classroom/school), but messy rooms (home)
But, cross-situational consistency higher if we look at behaviours/task in a similar setting/task
What is the meaning/purpose or context of what you are doing?
e.g. consistency in behaviours when alone
e.g. consistency in behaviours when “working”
Person-situation contoversy III
Good evidence for Longitudinal consistency
Cross-situational far more difficult to answer
Researchers look at personality across similar situations to assess…
For example: measuring a person’s (social) anxiety at a house-party vs. a nightclub
But how to assess “similar”?
How do we define anxiety?
Self-report or observational or physiological?
What situations are consistent or equivalent?
Are all “social functions” the same? (work, new friends, old friends, wedding, wake)?
Should we even expect to have a consistent personality across a range of situations?
Is it possible to always be extraverted, regardless of what type of situation?
Scientific observation?
The Database: Excellent.
Objectivity in data collection and analysis is paramount
- Objective data, not relying on clinical interviews or idiographic approaches
Diversity: Large numbers of people – different ages, ethnicities and socio-cultural backgrounds
- Massive number of research publications in relation to trait theories & the Big Five
Different types of data
- S-data and O-data
Major Limitation: Learn about populations overall (i.e., aggregated data), not the individual per se
- Validity in relating nomothetic approaches to the individual?
Systematic
Yes and no.
Cattell analysed traits, roles and motivational processes
Eysenck related traits to biological entities (e.g., the nervous system and arousal)
However, contemporary trait theorists would receive poor marks for systematic process
(i.e., causal, motivational) development
For example, Costa & McCrae did little to account for the dynamic processes
(motivational) of their five-factor model (FFM)
Testable?
Absolutely.
Many studies to test theory
It’s an objective measure (e.g., mathematical outcomes are related to test items) and can be
lead by theory or lead by analysis
With so much research and various models it is also relatively easy to assess validity (by
comparing models)
These reliable measures (Big Five, PEN, 16PF, etc.) can be statistically related to other
aspects of human existence and psychology
For example, we can compare any quantifiable variable:
How do Undergrads vs Postgrads differ in P-E-N factors?
How do politicians of opposing parties rate on the Big Five?
Comprehensive?
Yes and No.
On the analytical side of things, trait theory is extremely comprehensive
Vast lexical analysis across cultures, ages, socio-cultural groups
On the theoretical side it is mostly non-comprehensive in the psychological sense
Very little is explained about how we might use the factors or measures for anything other than
descriptive research
Applications?
Somewhat, dependent on the application!
As a predictive tool and a measure to differentiate broadly between people it is useful as an
applied tool
Organisational psychology (World War 2)
Personality research
As for it’s clinical application, it is unclear of how it can be directly used effectively
This is mainly because we don’t have any guidance on the causality or the processes involved in the factor structures found
