Understanding the Big Five Personality Traits and Their Impact
Explore the history, dimensions, and applications of the Big Five personality traits model, from Allport & Odbert's early work to Costa & McCrae's Five-Factor Model. Learn about the relationship between the Big Five and job satisfaction, performance, and leadership, along with criticisms of this widely accepted framework.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
OUTLINE Introduction History of the Big Five Dimensions of the Big Five Test Examples Test Psychometric Properties Big Five Relationship with Job Satisfaction Job Performance Leadership Criticisms of the Big Five
INTRODUCTION The Big Five are five broad factors (or dimensions) of personality traits. Personality a comprehensive profile of someone s personality traits Conceptual framework used to classify lower-level personality constructs The most commonly accepted clarification is the Five-Factor Model (FFM) developed by Costa and McCrae (1992).
HISTORY TIMELINE Allport & Odbert 4000+ traits Eysenck P-E-N Goldberg 5 traits 1936 1940 1947 1958-1961 1990 1992 Costa & McCrae 5 traits Tupes & Christal 5 traits Sir Francis Galton Lexical Hypothesis Cattell 16 traits
HISTORY Sir Francis Galton first major inquiry into the Lexical Hypothesis The most salient and socially relevant personality differences in people s lives will eventually become encoded into language The more important the attribute, the more synonyms it will acquire. Gordon Allport and H.S. Odbert (1936) Tested the hypothesis: by sampling language, it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of personality traits Raymond Cattell (1940) Identified 35 major clusters of personality traits to create the personality sphere Led to the development of the 16PF Personality Questionnaire
HISTORY Hans Eysenck (1947) Three personality dimensions (P-E-N) 1. Psychoticism-Socialization 2. Introversion-Extroversion 3. Neuroticism-Emotional Tupes & Christal (1958, 1961) Factor analysis of Cattell s traits used to analyze how personality traits are correlated Suggested that only 5 traits were predominant Goldberg (1990s) Coined the term the Big Five Replicated Cattell s methods and also found five factors: Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Culture
HISTORY Costa & McCrae (1992) Used the questionnaire approach Ask participants to describe self/target sentences vs single adjectives Factor Analysis First found Extroversion & Neuroticism, followed by Openness to Experience. Agreeableness & Conscientiousness were adopted as there was some evidence and it fit with the 5 factors of Goldberg
DIMENSIONS: THE BIG FIVE Extraversion Positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek out simulation and the company of others High Gregariousness Activity Level Assertiveness Excitement Seeking Positive Emotions Warmth Low Reserved Loner Quiet
DIMENSIONS: THE BIG FIVE Agreeableness Tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic toward others High Straightforwardness Trust Altruism Modesty Tender-mindedness Compliance Low Aggressive Ruthless Suspicious
DIMENSIONS: THE BIG FIVE Conscientiousness Tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement High Self-disciple Dutifulness Competence Order Deliberation Achievement Striving Low Lazy Aimless Quitting
DIMENSIONS: THE BIG FIVE Neuroticism Tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety or depression High Anxiety Self-consciousness Depression Vulnerability Impulsiveness Hostile Low Calm Even-tempered Unemotional Hardy
DIMENSIONS: THE BIG FIVE Openness to Experience General appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity and variety of experience High Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Ideas Actions Values Low Down-to-earth Conventional Uncreative Prefer routine
TEST EXAMPLES NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Full sentences, 240 items (Costa & McCrea , 1988) Formats 1. Self Report 240 items, roughly 35 minutes to complete 2. Observer Report 240 items 3. Short Form 60 Items, self report Measurement Each domain (factor) is measured in terms of 6 facets Item example: E5 Excitement Seeking Have sometimes done things just for kicks or thrills
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES In 1991, John and Srivastava (1991) looked at the validity and reliability of three commonly used instruments: 1. NEO-Five Factor Inventory Shorter version of the original NEO instrument Shows the most validity for the Big Five dimensions 2. Trait Descriptive Adjectives 100 items Uses single adjectives to measure 3. Big Five Inventory Measures core features of the Big Five Uses short phrases rather than one work traits Frequently used in research settings Items provide more context than one word items
RELIABILITY Conscientious -ness Extraversion Agreeable-ness Neuroticism Openness Mean TDA 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.88 0.89 BFI 0.88 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.81 0.83 NEO 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.85 0.81 0.79 Mean 0.87 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.84
VALIDITY Uncorrected Pairwise Convergent Validities E A C N O Mean BFI-TDA 0.90 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.75 0.81 BFI-NEO 0.69 0.76 0.79 0.76 0.64 0.73 TDA-NEO 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.70 0.56 0.68 Mean 0.78 0.74 0.79 0.74 0.66 0.75 Corrected Pairwise Convergent Validities E A C N O Mean BFI-TDA 0.99 0.93 0.94 0.90 0.89 0.95 BFI-NEO 0.83 0.97 0.96 0.90 0.85 0.92 TDA-NEO 0.79 0.81 0.89 0.82 0.71 0.81 Mean 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.88 0.83 0.91
BIG FIVEAND JOB SATISFACTION Neuroticism Experience more negative life events than other individuals Put themselves in situations that foster negative affect If these experiences occur at work it will lead to decreased job satisfaction Extraversion Predisposed to experience positive emotions to generalize to job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000) Likely to find interpersonal interactions at work to be more rewarding Openness to Experience Related to scientific and artistic creativity, divergent thinking, and low liberalism Predisposed individuals to feel both the good and bad more deeply Not closely related to job satisfaction because job satisfaction is subjective 1. 2. 3.
BIG FIVEAND JOB SATISFACTION Agreeableness Involves getting along with others in pleasant, satisfying relationships Positively related to life satisfaction Assuming these same motivations operate on the job, the same process should operate with respect to job satisfaction Conscientiousness Positive relationship suggested between conscientiousness and job satisfaction Represents a general work-involvement tendency leading to a greater likelihood of obtaining satisfying work rewards Formal = pay, promotions Informal = recognition, respect, feelings of personal accomplishment 3. 5.
BIG FIVEAND JOB SATISFACTION Correlations with job satisfaction Neuroticism = -.29 Conscientiousness = .26 Extraversion = .25 Openness to experience = .02 The relationship between conscientiousness and agreeableness with job satisfaction did not fully generalize across studies 80% credibility value included 0 Why do you think the relationship with agreeableness was not as strong as the other traits?
BIG FIVEAND JOB SATISFACTION Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of Personality to Job Satisfaction Average 80% CV 90& CI Trait k N r p SD Lower Upper Lower Upper Neuroticism 92 24.52 -.24 -.29 .16 -.50 -.08 -.33 -.26 Extraversion 75 20.18 .19 .25 .15 .06 .45 .22 .29 Openness to Experience 50 15.19 .01 .02 .21 -.26 .29 -.05 .08 Agreeableness 38 11.85 .13 .17 .16 -.03 .37 .12 .22 Conscientiousness 79 21.72 .20 .26 .22 -.02 .55 .21 .31 k = number of correlations, N = combined sample size, p = estimated true score correlations, SD = standard deviation of true score correlation, CV = credibility interval, CI = confidence interval
BIG FIVEAND JOB PERFORMANCE Barrick & Mount (1991): meta-analysis to compare the Big Five dimensions to three job performance criteria and five occupational groups Conscientiousness: consistent relation with all job performance criteria (i.e., turnover or tenure) and occupational group (i.e., police) Validity = 0.2 Extroversion: predicted success in management and sales Openness and Extroversion: predicted training proficiency Agreeableness and Neuroticism: some evidence to suggest that they contribute to performance in group settings
BIG FIVEAND LEADERSHIP Judge & Bono (2000): Transformational Leadership leader s ability to inspire followers with a vision beyond their own self-interest Four dimensions: Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration Results: Big Five and TL = .40 Agreeableness and TL = .32 Judge et al. (2002): Relationship between leadership emergence and leadership success to the Big Five traits Results: Conscientiousness and Extroversion predicted leader emergence
CRITICISMSOFTHE BIG FIVE Frequent objection to the Big Five dimensions is that five dimensions is too few to capture all variation in personality Dimensions are too broad Discrepancies about which five should be considered the Big Five Many different names for the terms as they are, but there is a large amount of agreement on the meaning of the five. Openness to experience does not usually generalize across cultures and countries Broad categories = low fidelity Not very useful for predicting specific behaviors 1. 2. 3. 4.
