Lec 5 Flashcards
(19 cards)
Discovery of the Five-Factor Model (FFM)
Fundamental lexical hypothesis
Because personality description are already developed in the language, we don’t need neologism (newly coined expressions - Cattell 16PF ).
Embrace the data that exists, e.g. in dictionaries, literatures, folk tales
Important traits appear frequently and are encoded effectively
=> factor analysis on ratings of these personality descriptors
Replications of the FFM
Norman (1963)
Goldberg (1990)
Costa and McCrae (1992)
Norman: proposed 5 of factor analysis of Cattells’ personality items
Goldberg: factor analysis of over 1000 trait descriptors with Likert scale collections
- Surgency: extroversion
- Emotional stability: neuroticism
- Intellect: don’t frame as capability)
Costa and McCrae:
The most definitive
Developed questions with phrases
Openness => intellect (parallel version, ppl’s attitudes, don’t need to be smart for openness)
Costa and McCrae’s NEO-PI-R (Revised NEO personality inventory)
latent, different manifestations
Extraversion: assertiveness, excitement seeking - Eysenck’s biological perspective
Agreeableness: straightforwardness, modesty, compliance to social norms
Conscientiousness: about the self (those u wanna work with in a group project lmao)
Neuroticism: combination Eysenck and psychoanalysis
Openness: to new experiences; aesthetics - appreciate beautiful things, novel experience is an attitude
Why does the NEO-PI FFM stand out?
Extensive research
Dominant approach:
Support from other researchers
High inter-rater reliability from self, peer, and spouse ratings (how others agree)
Observer-ratings are better predictors (criterion) of performance than self-ratings => social desirability effect?
Whereas Neuroticism may be more accurately measured by self-ratings than observer ratings (emotions cannot be readily observed)
Cross-validation with other tools (they align)
- Goldberg’s adjective list
- Cattell’s 16PF
- Eysenck’s PEN model
De Young et al. (2010)
(similar to phrenology)
Associating the FFM traits to volumes of various brain regions (fmri machine)
Findings:
Extraversion - medial orbitofrontal cortex (reasonable, related to sociability)
Neuroticism - part of the PFC (tip of head, regulate emotions, so increased N decreased regulation)
Agreeableness (PCC), Conscientiousness (part of PFC, regulate motivation to stay in focus), and Openness => no specific hypothesis
Evaluating De Young et al. (2010)
Pioneering work: links personality research to neural science
Criticisms:
Location based => but our brain does not work independently (neuronetworks)
False positives are likely => ran many tests
Correlational study
Growth and development in personality
Freud would say yes
FFM scores remain stable across time, especially toward adulthood
Note: stable scores does not mean they do not change over time - stable individual relative differences, but evident developmental changes across time
Growth and development study by Srivastava, John, Gosling & Potter (2003)
Compared FFM scores across different age groups
Findings:
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness increases - age 30 as a turning point.
- societal demand of responsibility (cause the change?)
- more hardworking
Evaluating the study by Srivastava, John, Gosling & Potter (2003)
Internet survey
Sample size sufficient
Cross-cultural
Cohort effect
- differs in the cohort they belong too
- pre-war years rated to be more conscientiousness, whereas post-war years rated less, focused on themselves
Longitudinal studies tend to report smaller effects (costly)
May be a biased sample
But more diverse samples provide stronger evidence
Applications of the FFM (predicts many outcomes)
Workplace
Subjective well-being
Longevity
Workplace: higher conscientiousness tends to predict and help improve better work performance
Well-being: lower neuroticism report higher well-being (bc less prone to negative emotions)
Longevity:
Higher conscientiousness - e.g. they check things like their calorie intake
High extroversion: survive and adaptable, social lives they enjoy, outdoor exercise
Applications of the FFM
Clinical and personality disorders seen as extremities
- OCD
- Antisocial
- Impulsivity
Choosing and planning psychological treatments
- OCD - High C and N
Antisocial - Low A and C (can’t feel others’ feelings)
Impulsivity - High E and Low C (e.g. gambling addicts)
2.
High openness => may benefit from therapies encouraging exploration (e.g. psychoanalysis)
Costa and McCrae major FFM claims (1996)
- Five factors are biologically based
- exist in the head of every individual
- environment input changes the adaptations, not the traits
- these 5 factors CAUSE behavior
Evaluation of Costa and McCrae claims
- influence of environment
- factor analysis
Influence from the environment
- brain conditions e.g. head trauma may change personality
- cross-generational increase in anxiety (e.g. use of social media)
- psychotherapy and antidepressants change N
- subject to epigenetic effects
Factor analysis
- useful tool may be misinterpreted
- factor analysis looks at common traits for a group, e.g. two big letters N and C formed with the responses, but nothing useful on individual differences (the individual shapes making up the big letters)
Ecological fallacy: assuming that something true for a large group is applicable to each individual in the group
Universality of the FFM
External validity
HEXACO model
Honest-humility
Emotionality - similar to neuroticism
Note: FFM misses out on traits, underrepresented traits
Cross-cultural research with the FFM
Issue
Italiam FMM (1999)
DeRaad and Peabody (2005)
Cheung et al. (1996)
Issue: Inaccurate translations
- extract trait items from the local language?
Cultural differences:
Di Blas & Forzi - Italian FFM, found EAC as 3-facctor solution, but not N
EAC => reinforced by DeRaad and Peabody
- Low A and Low C combine with irritableness
- Fearfulness with Low E
Cheung et al. :
A unique Chinese tradition factor: Interpersonal relatedness (IR)
- harmony
- ren qing (reject gift 3 times before accepting it with reluctance)
- face
- Ah-Q mentality (defensiveness)
Laajaj et al. (2019)
(Non-WEIRD samples)
Examine the cross-cultural reliability of the FFM
Implication: claims seem to not be replicable
Replicates well with the US sample (origin)
For non-WEIRD samples:
- often loaded on unexpected factors
- ecological niche
- less opportunities for choosing interests in higher level educaiton, less diversity
=> fails to replicate in less WEIRD countries
Smaldino et al (2019)
Ecological niche hypothesis
The complexity of the society, e.g. economic prospects, determines the manifestation of traits
WEIRD societies provide more diverse niches (e.g. with education), traits and niches
Simulation findings:
More niches, more diverse traits and more plasticity (highly subject to change)
Few niches, more similarity in traits, low plasticity
Fundamental problems of FFM trait theories
- doesn’t really explain anything
- no inherent physical quality
- top-down approach of personality theorizing ( at best, are summaries) => traits inferred from behaviors
Mischel (1968)
- wrong to assume that people behave consistently regardless of the environment
Gray (1991) reorganization fo Eysenck’s psychometric factors
- Eysenck’s satisfies the mathematical properties
- Gray’s satisfies better biological properties
=> axis rotation
Identify the neural subsystems
- BAS (behavioral approach system - respond to desirable stimuli)
- FFFS (fight flight freeze survive - threatening stimuli)
- BIS (behavioral inhibition system - resolve fonclits between the first 2, mediator)
