COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY The Five Factor Model of Personality.

COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY

The Five Factor Model of Personality

LECTURE OUTLINE

• Personality theories• Background• Five Factor Model• Is the FFM universal?

– Etic research– Emic research

• Is the FFM sufficient?

LECTURE OUTLINE (cont)

• Cross-cultural Validity of the FFM– Age and gender differences across

cultures– Convergent validity

• Cross-cultural comparisons• Interpretations and implications

PERSONALITY THEORIES

• Broad and comprehensive theories of human behaviour

• Psychoanalytic, Behavioural, Cognitive, Humanistic, Trait theories

PERSONALITY…

Relatively stable psychological structures and processes that organize human experience and shape a person’s actions and reactions to the environment

Lazarus

PERSONALITY AND INDIGENOUS PSYCHOLOGY

• Systematic attempts to interpret ancient religious, philosophical writings and traditions

• Empirical research based on observations of distinct, indigenous traits or characteristics

PERSONALITY AND INDIGENOUS PSYCHOLOGY

THEORY-BASED

EMPIRICALLY BASED

RELIGION, FOLK PSYCHOLOGY

Yogic, Buddhist, Confucian philosophies

Research on the effects of meditation

EXPERT, SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY

Social orientation of Chinese

Face and favour, kiasu, bahala na

Background of Universals

• Trait theories• Comparative approaches and

taxonomies

FIVE-FACTOR MODEL (FFM)

The structure of personality:• Psycho-lexical approach• 4000 trait names in English• Reduced to five factors

- The Big Five amongst hierarchical models of personality (Cattell, 1996; Eysenck, 1991, 1992)- The cross-cultural generalizability of the Five-Factor Model (Costa & McRae, 1992, 1996)

NEUROTICISM

• Vs. adjustment• Inclination to construct, perceive and

feel reality as problematic, threatening, and difficult

EXTRAVERSION

• Vs. introversion• Quantity and intensity of social

relationships with the environment• Tendency to engage or seek contact

OPENNESS

• Active search for and love of new experiences

• Eagerness for novelty without anxiety

AGREEABLENESS

• Concerns nature of one’s relationships with others

• Interpersonal relationships from compassion to antagonism

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

• Persistency of behaviour and control of impulses

• Dynamic (e.g., anticipation, task orientation) and control (e.g., organization, perseverence) elements

NEO PI

• Neuroticism– Anxiety– Angry hostility – Depression– Self consciousness– Impulsiveness– Vulnerability

NEO PI

• Extraversion– Warmth– Gregariousness – Assertiveness– Activity– Excitement-seeking– Positive emotions

NEO PI

• Openness– Fantasy– Aesthetics– Feelings– Actions– Ideas– Values

NEO PI

• Agreeableness– Trust– Straightforwardness– Altruism– Compliance– Modesty– Tendermindedness

NEO PI

• Conscientiousness– Competence– Order– Dutifulness– Achievement striving– Self discipline– Deliberation

SAMPLE ITEMS

• I am not a worrier.• I like to have a lot of people around me.• I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.• I like to keep my belongings neat and clean.• I don’t like to waste my time on day-dreaming.

FACTOR STRUCTURE (Costa & McCrae,

1992): NEUROTICISM

N E O A C

Anxiety .83 -.12 -.02 -.05 -.08

Angry hostility .65 .12 -.03 -.38 -.12

Depression .75 -.24 -.03 -.02 -.27

Self-consciousness .64 -.31 -.11 -.04 -.13

Impulsiveness .56 .26 .12 -.17 -.38

Vulnerability .74 -.10 -.22 .10 -.34

FACTOR STRUCTURE: EXTRAVERSION

N E O A C

Warmth -.02 .66 .09 .49 .06

Gregariousness -.03 .67 -.12 .22 -.12

Assertiveness -.13 .66 .08 -.15 .20

Activity .04 .64 -.07 -.03 .41Excitement Seeking .03 .51 .19 -.28 -.12

Positive Emotions -.23 .60 .18 -.30 .03

FACTOR STRUCTURE: OPENNESS

N E O A C

Fantasy .13 .04 .55 -.15 -.31

Aesthetics .00 .11 .67 .27 -.05

Feelings .50 .23 .56 .06 .11

Actions -.21 .28 .29 -.09 -.28

Ideas -.15 -.10 .61 -.03 .32

Values -.17 .04 .43 .06 .03

FACTOR STRUCTURE: AGREEABLENESS

N E O A C

Trust -.23 .18 .02 .68 .12

Straightforwardness -.07 -.23 .03 .68 .13

Altruism -.10 .29 .18 .64 .29

Compliance -.09 -.17 -.06 .69 -.08

Modesty .29 -.46 -.14 .32 -.15

Tender-mindedness .27 .19 .15 .62 .02

FACTOR STRUCTURE: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

N E O A C

Competence -.39 .28 .16 -.14 .65Order -.07 .05 .00 .07 .73Dutifulness -.15 -.03 -.07 .28 .69Achievement-striving

-.03 .22 .07 .04 .78

Self-discipline -.30 .15 -.04 .14 .78Deliberation -.29 -.19 .05 .04 .69

COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE(Rolland, 2002)

SAMPLE N E O A CChinese .97 .93 .92 .94 .97Croatian .95 .80 .92 .86 .94Dutch .96 .98 .97 .98 .97Estonian .95 .90 .95 .92 .96French .89 .96 .97 .97 .97Hebrew .98 .92 .96 .94 .95Icelandic .93 .94 .95 .98 .96

COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE

SAMPLE N E O A C

Italian .92 .80 .94 .81 .98Korean .97 .94 .94 .95 .96Malay .94 .93 .83 .94 .97Norwegian .96 .93 .90 .96 .94Philippine .96 .86 .95 .89 .97Portuguese .98 .89 .89 .93 .96Russian .92 .93 .92 .96 .95Spanish .94 .90 .92 .86 .95

ETIC STUDIES

• The cross-cultural generalizability of Neuroticism, Openness and conscientiousness is evident

• Certain facets of Extraversion and Agreeableness seem to be more sensitive to cultural context

EMIC STUDIES

• In some psycho-lexical emic studies (e.g., Italy, Hungary) Openness cannot be extracted

• In some instances more than 5 factors emerge

Cross-cultural validity

• Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness is clearly established by emic and etic approaches

• Neuroticism and Openness seems to be more problematic using emic methods

AGE DIFFERENCES ON NEO-PI

• N,E,and O decline from adolescence to 30

• A and C increase from adolescence to 30

• Same trends apparent after 30 but at slower rate

CORRELATIONS WITH EPQ AND HOFSTEDE DIMENSIONS

EPQ N E O A C Neuroticism .63** -.47* .12 -.53* .16 Extraversion -.62** .19 .00 .34 .19 Psychoticism .36 -.64** .09 -.08 .26 Lie-Scale .20 -.40 -.23 -.07 .54* PD .28 -.58* -.40* .19 .52* UA .58* .03 .31 -.56* -.25 Individualism -.12 .64* .34* -.07 -.30 Masculinity .55* -.27 .37* -.32 .06

CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCESN E O A C

Indonesians 48.6 43.3 49.9 51.9 50.3PRC Chinese 53.1 44.5 48.3 47.8 50.3Canadians 50.5 51.7 51.6 51.9 49.2Indians (Telugu) 52.3 43.5 44.0 55.9 54.0Germans 52.8 47.3 56.7 49.1 46.7South Africans (bl) 49.1 41.4 47.7 50.4 47.9Czechs 54.2 47.4 52.3 50.7 47.5Turks 50.9 50.3 50.8 48.5 50.4Peruvians 50.8 45.5 50.0 48.6 49.0

QUESTION

• Costae and McCrae (1996):“Individual differences are ubiquitous, but it appears that the ways in which people differ are everywhere the same.” (p. 207)

• Is the comparative approach to personality a useful endeavour?