the big five michael heighway david goins. overview intro to the big five history &...

The Big Five

Michael Heighway David Goins

Overview

Intro to the Big Five History & Development Measurement Application and Significant

Associations

What are the “Big Five”?

Five broad traits or dimensions used to describe personality

Conceptual framework used to classify lower-level personality constructs

Integration of personality research Most commonly used model Five-

Factor Model (FFM) developed by Costa & McCrae

Who are some of the researchers?

Allport & Odbert Cattell Tupes & Christal Goldberg Costa & McCrae Eysenck

How can you study the invisible?

Lexical hypothesis- The most important and salient human behaviors will be: Represented in all languages Have several nuanced synonyms

Questionnaire approach- Factor analyses of existing “tests”

Physiological approach- Emotions/actions depend upon biology, classify “traits” by physical responses

Allport & Odbert

Often credited as being the first to use the lexical approach to define personality.

Combed through the English dictionary- obtained 17000 traits which could be reduced to about 4500 “nonjudgmental” characteristics.

Cattell

Reduced the list into “clusters” of traits by a rating scheme.

Had participants rate the similarity of adjectives.

Used factor analysis to derive bipolar pairs of traits.

16 PF scale

Tupes & Christal

Air Force Researchers Trained individuals in rating

personality using Cattell’s trait measure

Factor analysis suggested that only 5 traits were predominant

Goldberg

Replicated Cattell’s methods 5 factors emerged:

Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Culture

Costa & McCrae

Used the questionnaire approach Examined several existing assessment

tools- (MBTI, clinical tests, Jung) Somewhat intuitively consolidated traits Ask participants to describe self/target

(sentences vs single adjectives) Factor Analysis First found E & N, followed by O.

A & C adopted as there was “some evidence” and it fit with the 5 factors of Goldberg

Eysenck

Physiological method Alternative viewpoint

Only 3 Traits really exist Psychotiscism/Socialisation (A&C) Extraversion/Introversion Neuroticism/Stability

O- “intelligence” which is best left to another measure such as an IQ test

Factor I- Extraversion

High Pole Active Assertive Seek Stimulation Outgoing Talkative Energetic

Low Pole Reserved Quiet Shy Unexpressive

Factor II- Neuroticism*

High Pole Anxious Self-pitying Tense Touchy Worrying

Low Pole Calm Stable Relaxed Positive

Factor III- Openness to experience

High Pole Artistic Curious Imaginative Insightful Original Cultured

Low Pole Traditional Simple Routine

Factor IV- Agreeableness

High Pole Appreciative Forgiving Generous Kind Trusting

Low Pole Cold Aggressive Uncaring

Factor V- Conscientiousness

High Pole Efficient Organized Reliable Attentive to detail

Low Pole Lazy Careless Frivolous

Outside the Big Five?

Paunonen & Jackson Religious, devout, reverent .07 Sly, deceptive, manipulative .13 Honest, ethical, moral .11 Sexy, sensual, erotic .13 Thrifty, frugal, miserly .16 Conservative, traditional, down-to-earth .15 Masculine-feminine .13 Egotistical, conceited, snobbish .16 Humorous, witty, amusing .13

Measuring Big 5 Personality Traits

NEI-PI-R – (Costa & McCrea, 1992) Also referred to as the revised NEO personality

inventory First Published in the 80s NEI-PI-R represents the most recent revision

of the instrument NEO-4 was derived by dropping the

components of the instrument related to neuroticism “for use in situations such as (career planning, career development, employee training, personnel development, etc…)

“one of the few commercially available tests based on this (Five Factor) model of personality”

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Formats: Self Report (Form S) 240 items (roughly 35

minutes) Observer Report (Form R) 240 items Short Form (NEO –FFI) 60 items, self report

Measurement Each Domain (factor) is measured in terms of 6

more specific facets (sub factors) e.g. Extroversion is composed of: Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement Seeking, Positive Emotions (Costa & McCrea, 1995)

Item Example: E5 Excitement Seeking “Have sometimes done things just for “kicks”

or “thrills” SA-SD

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Psychometric Considerations Factor Reliabilities range from .86-.95 for both

the self and observer report formats Validity:

Multiple studies have demonstrated strong convergent and discriminate validity both between formats and when compared with other measures of five-factor constructs (see next slide)

“The NEO-PI-R is a reliable and well-validated test of personality features…Validation studies are well constructed, plentiful, and impressive, yielding an instrument that represents a comprehensive operational translation of the Five Factor Model of personality.” (Juni, 1995)

Validity Evidence

More Validity Data

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Norms “Norms are based on a sample of 1,000

subjects (500 males, 500 females) selected from three large scale studies of the NEO-PI-R. The normative sample was stratified to match 1995 U.S

This constitutes an advantage over normative data associated with previous versions of the instrument which were less representative.

Separate norms are also provided for college-aged samples based on findings that adolescent and early adult samples

Criticisms of the NEI-PI-R

(Juni, 1995) Some items labeled (and employed) as self

report can be more accurately called “reports of others’ perceptions of self” (how do you think others see you)

Some items are not limited a single facet Some items include qualifiers that

influence respondents to endorse the item Some debate regarding necessary reading

level (supposedly 6th grade) i.e. “perceptive of interpersonal cues” or “concerned with philosophical debates”

Other Measures of Big 5 Traits

Big Five Inventory (BFI) Composed of 44 short phrase items (John & Srivastava, 1999)

Trait Description Adjectives Composed of 100 trait description

adjectives (Goldberg, 1992)

Application and Significant Associations

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44 (1), 1-26. Reviewed the results of 117 criterion-

related validity studies conducted between 1952 & 1988

Studies were organized by measurement criteria (i.e. Turnover/Tenure) and occupational group (i.e. Police)

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44 (1), 1-26.

Results Conscientiousness was the most consistently valid

predictor of all relevant criteria across all occupation types (However adjusted mean correlations were pretty weak r = .09-.15)

Interesting note: strongest r’s tended to occur when criteria were more subjective (i.e. supervisory ratings)

What does this tell us about the predictive utility of this construct?

Extraversion predicted best for Management and Sales positions

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Results Continued Openness to Experience demonstrated

some predictive validity to measures of training proficiency

Agreeableness and Neuroticism were largely irrelevant to the prediction of various aspects of job performance although some evidence suggests that they contribute to performance in group settings

Dudley, N., Orvis, K., Lebiecki, J., & Cortina, J. (2006)

Meta Analysis investigating the degree to which narrow subcomponents of conscientiousness predict above and beyond more global measures of the construct

Considered 4 most commonly measured facets of the construct (achievement, dependability, order, & cautiousness)

Only included studies that utilized more modern instruments

Dudley, N., Orvis, K., Lebiecki, J., & Cortina, J. (2006)

Results Global Conscientiousness tended to

outperform its subcomponents when predicting most relevant criteria

Mean r with Overall Job Performance = .15 Mean r with Interpersonal Facilitation =.11 Mean r with Task Performance = .10 Mean r with Counterproductive Work

Behavior = -.16 Mean r with Job Dedication = .12 *

Salgado, J F. (2002) The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Counterproductive Behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Measurement. (10) 117-125.

Conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating the relationship of the big five to counterproductive work behaviors

Results Conscientiousness predicted deviant

behaviors and turnover Emotional Stability (N) and

Conscientiousness were the strongest predictors of turnover

No good prediction of Absenteeism or Accidents

The Big Five & Leadership

Judge et al. (2002) studied the Big 5 traits and their relationship to leadership emergence and leadership success Found that Extroversion and (Surprise Surprise)

Conscientiousness predicted leader emergence Transformation Leadership = relatively new

theory of leadership Defined in terms of a leader’s ability to inspire

followers to adopt less self-serving values Most closely associated with agreeableness Does not ensure leader effectiveness

Quick Review

The Revised NEO personality inventory Most likely to see in applied settings Psychometrically sound Good validity evidence

Conscientiousness is the best predictor of work-related outcomes although it still a pretty weak predictor

Some evidence suggests that big five personality factors are relevant to the prediction of leadership

Question

If asked by your employer to give your professional opinion, what would you say about the utility of the big five for use in applied settings (i.e. selection decisions)?