Transcript Diapozitiv 1 - University of Ljubljana

From Big Five to Big One:
Higher-order structural
hierarchy of personality
Janek Musek
University of Ljubljana
SLOVENIA
ALPS ADRIA PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE
LJUBLJANA 2008
Outline of presentation
Introduction: New proposal of personality
structure
 Two studies
 Methods
 Results

General factor of personality (GFP)
 Cross-cultural stability of GFP
 Psychological meaning of GFP


Conclusions
Models of personality structure

A great variety of structural models in psychology




Intelligence
Personality (outside cognitive abilities domain)
Other domains (e.g. well-being, values…)
Debate in personality structure domain


16 (Cattell), 5 (Big Five), 3 (Eysenck) or 2 (Digman)?
Question of possible general factor of personality largely ignored



Notable exceptions (Saucier & Goldberg, 2003; Stankov, 2005)
Yet…
The evidence for GFP in Five Factor Model
GFP considered seriously

Strategic correlations among B5




Typical example below (-N, A, C, E; O, E)
These correlations cannot be reduced to the evaluation, social
desirability or methodological artifacts
On the other hand, GFP correlates very substantially with
psychologically meaningful variables like self-esteem, self-concept,
well-being, emotionality (positive, negative affect), motivation
(approach-avoidance) and others even if partialized for social
desirability
Support from evolutionary oriented research (Rushton, Figuereido)
E
A
C
N
O
E
A
C
N
O
-
.34**
.34**
-.53**
.44**
-
.31**
-.54**
.29**
-
-.44**
.21**
-
-.29**
-
Method: Study I


Research design: multivariate (exploratory and confirmatory FA in first line;
other multivariate analyses as well)
Three samples in first research:





Measures (all Slovenian translated versions):




Sample 1: N=301 (120 F, 181 M; mean age=36.95; SD=10.37)
Sample 2: N=185 (100 F, 85 M; mean age=39.11; SD=13.26)
Sample 3: N=285 (165 F, 120 M; mean age=16.37; SD=1.24)
More samples and subsamples (Slovenian and other) in further investigations
(not published yet)
BFI (John, 1990; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John & Srivastava, 1999)
IPIP-300 (Goldberg, 1999)
BFO (Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. & Perugini, M., 1993;
Caprara, Barbaranelli & Borgogni, 1994)
Data from other studies supported the strength of first factor and
consequently yielded GFP (practically all available results including crosscultural studies with nationally aggregated data /Musek, 2008/; also data
collected by Rushton and colleagues, 2008)
Exploratory results




Results for scales BFI,
IPIP, BFO), facets
(IPIP) and items (BFI,
BFO)
Factorizability of BF
scales and items
Direct extraction of
one single factor
GFP explained






50,20% of variance
in 5 BFI scales
23,58% of variance
in 44 BFI items
40,18% of variance
in 5 IPIP scales
25,13% of variance
in 30 IPIP facets
44,84% of variance
in BFO SCALES
Practically identical
factors in scale and
non-scale solutions
Table 2.
General factor loadings (correlations) of the Big Fivea
Sample 1 BFI
Sample 2 IPIP-300
Sample 3
BFO
BFQ
Scale based
Item based
Scale based
Facet based
Scale based
GFP
GFP
GFP
GFP
GFP
E
.76
,77
,48
,63
,66
A
.71
,67
,55
,41
,63
C
.64
,64
,87
,82
,72
N
-.82
-,81
-,79
-,84
-,74
O
.60
,61
-,09
,10
,59
Correlation between
.99
.98
-
factors
a
BFO Emotional stability has been reversed and labeled N (Neuroticism).
For consistency, BFQ
Confirmatory results

All selected indices
confirmed the
underlying models
Table 5.
e1
E
(.60) (.54) (.60)
e2
A
(.61) (.15) (.61)
e3
C
e4
N
(-.88) (-.86) (-.62)
e5
O
(.45) (-.06) (.42)
Fit indices for the structural equation modela
χ2
d. f.
P
RMSEA
AGFI
NNFI
NFI
Sample 1
2.27
3
.52
.00
.98
1.01
.99
Sample 2
6.66
3
.08
.08
.93
.93
.96
Sample 3
5.54
4
.24
.04
.97
.98
.98
a
RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; AGFI, adjusted goodness of fit index; NNFI,
non-normed fit index; NFI, normed fit index.
(.51) (.60) (.60)
GFP
Proposed final model of personality
structure
GFP
STABILITY
(ALPHA)
PLASTICITY
(BETA)
-N
C
A
E
O
FACETS
FACETS
FACETS
FACETS
FACETS
SPECIFIC
TRAITS
SPECIFIC
TRAITS
SPECIFIC
TRAITS
SPECIFIC
TRAITS
SPECIFIC
TRAITS
Method: Study II
How stable or universal is GFP?
 5 different studies on culturally different
samples (omitted for the sake of space,
yet focused on the following)
 Aggregated data



On 56 national samples from the study of
Schmitt et al. (2006)
Instruments:

BFI, NEO-FFI, NEO-PI
56 nations data (Schmitt et al., 2006)



Correlations
Factorizability
(acceptable; KMO=0,655)
Suggested 1 factor
extraction (all indices
including Kaiser criterion,
scree test and parallel
test)
56 nations data (Schmitt et al.,
2006), cont.



Scree plot
Factor loadings
Confirmed meaning of GFP in B5 terms: high versus low
conscientiousness (C), agreeableness (A), stability (-N),
extraversion (E) and openness (O)
Main issues for discussion
Psychological nature of GFP
 Connections with other major
psychological variables
 Possible biological bases of GFP

Evolutionary
 Genetic
 Neurophysiological

The meaning of GFP in terms of
the Big Five
Irrespective of the perspective of data
(within or across cultural milieus)
 High versus low emotional stability (-N),
conscientiousness (C), agreeableness (A),
extraversion (E) and openness (O)


GFP formula:
 -N,+C,+A,+E,+O
GFP, emotionality, well-being
and self-esteem
Substantial and relatively high association
 About 60% common variance between
GFP and these measures

Table 7.
Correlations and squared multiple correlation between GFPs and the measures of emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem
PA
NA
SWLS
SLCS
R2
Scale based GFPa
.60**
-.66**
.50**
.51**
.59
Item based GFPa
.62**
-.66**
.49**
.54**
.60
Scale based GFPb
.62**
-.63**
.48**
.52**
.58
Item based GFPb
.62**
-.64**
.47**
.54.**
.60
*P<0.05, **P<0.01 (two-tailed)
a GFP obtained by direct extraction of single factor.
b GFP obtained by stepwise hierarchical higher-order factoring.
Correlations (N=301)
All correlations are significant
The highest correlations between general factors of personality and
well-being domain (including self-esteem)


E
P
V
N
O
alfa
beta
GFO
SS
Life satisfaction
,392(**)
,306(**)
,295(**)
-,502(**)
,221(**)
,485(**)
,334(**)
,496(**)
,496(**)
PA
,566(**)
,273(**)
,383(**)
-,427(**)
,466(**)
,487(**)
,570(**)
,596(**)
,556(**)
NA
-,530(**)
-,384(**)
-,353(**)
,739(**)
-,255(**)
-,653(**)
-,428(**)
-,660(**)
-,527(**)
self.-acceptance
,469(**)
,324(**)
,299(**)
-,444(**)
,325(**)
,473(**)
,439(**)
,531(**)
,546(**)
Interpersonal relations
,501(**)
,424(**)
,209(**)
-,438(**)
,290(**)
,478(**)
,442(**)
,536(**)
,388(**)
autonomy
,382(**)
,113(*)
,263(**)
-,404(**)
,389(**)
,346(**)
,443(**)
,439(**)
,494(**)
Mastery of environment
,530(**)
,352(**)
,469(**)
-,651(**)
,309(**)
,650(**)
,446(**)
,664(**)
,606(**)
Personal growth
,352(**)
,197(**)
,242(**)
-,312(**)
,425(**)
,321(**)
,456(**)
,426(**)
,382(**)
Purpose of life
,509(**)
,326(**)
,406(**)
-,550(**)
,322(**)
,568(**)
,448(**)
,605(**)
,538(**)
g Well-being (scales)
,696(**)
,459(**)
,483(**)
-,717(**)
,459(**)
,736(**)
,633(**)
,806(**)
,683(**)
g Well-being (items)
,684(**)
,446(**)
,488(**)
-,720(**)
,449(**)
,733(**)
,619(**)
,798(**)
,683(**)
Psychological meaning of GFP


Evaluation and social desirability certainly contribute to the correlations
among items and scales of B5 measures
Some other factors can also affect the correlations between items



Yet all these factors do not reduce the correlations essentially


Correlations between lexically short expressions (e.g. adjectives) are bigger than
correlations between lalrger contextual questions or statements
Faking tendency increases the correlations (Ziegler, 2006)
For instance in our investigations (N=108) the social desirability (SDS) explained
about 18 percent of GFP, and that is much less than general well-being (gFB;
see the regression model below)
It seems that GFP has a definite psychological content, which is strongly
associated with well-being and is also remarkably heritable (Musek, 2007;
Rushton, 2008)
Correlations
gFB
,74
gFOBFI
,64
,40
,13
gFOBFI
SDS
gFB
Pearson Correlation
bfi_en
,726**
,189
,656**
e1
bfi_spre
,718**
,431**
,352*
SDS
Sig . (2-tailed)
bfi_vest
,648**
,233
,472**
bfi_stab
-,795**
-,356**
-,594**
bfi_odprt
,403**
,153
,395**
bfi_en
,000
,144
,000
More speculations about the nature
of GFP
Probable existence of a common
dimensions unifying basic dimensions of
personality, emotionality, motivation,
psychological or subjective well-being and
self-esteem
 Evolutionary, genetic and
neurophysiological basis of that dimension
 GFP is a personality representative of it

Evolutionary and genetic aspects of
GFP
Evolutionary advantages of those
personal, emotional and motivational
characteristics that are more prone to the
social approval and more promoting better
well-being
 Moving toward the big equation in
psychology, at least in personality
domain?

GFP correlates in personality, emotionality, motivation, self, well-being,
culture, and biology (Musek, 2007)
High GFP
Low GFP
Big Five
-N, A, C, E, (O)
N, -A, -C, -E, (-O)
Big Two
High Stability, Plasticity (Alpha, Beta)
Low Stability, Plasticity (Alpha, Beta)
Eysenck (Big Three)
-N, -P, E
N, P, -E
Cattell
Exvia, Integration
Invia, Anxiety
Wiggins
Love, Status
Hostility, Submissiveness
Cloninger
Novelty seeking, Reward dependence
Harm avoidance
Zuckerman
Sociability, Sensation seeking
Neuroticism, Hostility
Depue & Collins
Extraversion
Neuroticism
Emotionality
PA
NA
Motivation
High:
Approach motivation,
Behavioral activation (BAS)
Reward sensitivity
Agentic and Affiliative motivation
Low:
Approach motivation,
Behavioral activation (BIS)
Reward sensitivity
Agentic and Affiliative motivation
Self
High Self-esteem
Self-devaluation
Well-being
Happiness, Satisfaction with life, Optimism
Unhappiness, Life dissatisfaction, Pessimism
Culture
Socialization and personal growth processes
Positive aspects of collectivism and
individualism
Socialization failure and personal restraint
Negative aspects of collectivism and
individualism
Heritability of GFP
Genetic
Evolutionary
Neurophysiological
Evolutionary promotion of socially desirable personal characteristics
Strength of Dopaminergic system
Strength of Serotonergic system
Some important references






























Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550.
Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 511–530.
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T., Poehlmann, K. M.,& Ito, T. A. (2000). The psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 173–191). New York: Guilford Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 668-678.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K.,& Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
741-751.
Carver, C. S.,& White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2001). Higher-order factors of the big five predict conformity: are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual
Differences, 33, 533-552.
Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough--Lessons from subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389-399.
Diener, E. (1998). Subjective well-being and personality. In D. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality, (pp. 311-334). New York: Plenum
Press.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999a). Temperament, personality, and subjective well-being. In Kahneman, D., Diener, E. & Schwarz, N. (Eds.) Well-being: The foundations
of hedonic psychology (pp. 213-229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999b). Personality, and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic
psychology ( pp. 213-229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Diener, E., Smith, & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1, 130-141.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 5, 804-818.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S. M. R. (2004). The heritability of life history strategy: The K-factor, covitality, and personality.
Social Biology, 51, 121–143.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S. M. R. (2007). The K-factor, covitality, and personality: A psychometric test of life history theory.
Human Nature, 18, 47–73.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T.,& Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1135-1149.
Panksepp, J. (1999). Affective neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Assessment, 5, 164-172.
Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J. & Davis, M. (2003). Dimensions of Affect Relationships: Models and Their Integrative Implications. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7, No.
1, 66-83.
Rushton, J. P., Bons, T. A., & Hur, Y. M. (2008). The genetics and evolution of the General factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, In Press. March 3,
2008.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 1-29). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2003). Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 100-106.
Spoont, M. R. (1992). Modulatory role of serotonin in neural information processing, implications for human psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 330–350
Stankov, L. (2005). g Factor. Issues of design and interpretation. In O. Wilhelm & R. W.Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 279293). Thousand Oaks, Ca., London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Tork, I. (1990). Anatomy of the serotonergic system. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 600, 9–35.
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 489-505.
Yik, M. S. M., & Russell, J. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of Affect from the Big Five of Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 247–277.
GFP related BFI items
Is relaxed, handless stress well N
,679
Is full of energy E
,669
Has an assertive personality E
,635
Remains calm in tense situations N
,601
Is sometimes shy, inhibited E
-,608
Can be tense N
-,613
Is reserved E
-,627
Gets nervous easily N
-,647
Is depressive, blue N
-,653
Is easily distracted C
-,662