The document discusses the five-factor model of personality traits. It describes evidence that supports dividing personality into five broad domains: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Research using trait terms from different languages, cross-cultural studies, and correlations between trait measures provides evidence for this five factor structure. The five factors have been shown to be stable over time while still allowing for some changes across the lifespan. Applications of the five-factor model include relationships to health, clinical diagnosis, and understanding the person-situation debate regarding trait consistency.

1. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL
& APPLICATIONS AND
EVALUATION OF TRAIT
APPROACHES TO
PERSONALITY

2. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL
• Taxonomies guide research and facilitate the
communication of research findings
• Personality psychology can benefit from an
agreed-upon taxonomy of traits
• Many psychologists believe that individual
differences can be organized in terms of five
dimensions – the five-factor model or BIG 5
• Like the models of Cattell and Eysenck, the
factor-analytic approach to traits underlies the
five-factor model
• The five-factor model is supported by evidence
showing that five factors are necessary and
sufficient for a taxonomy of individual
differences

3. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
EVIDENCE
Evidence for the five-factor model rests on
factor analyses of 3 types of data
1. Trait terms found in language
2. Cross-cultural research
3. The correlation of trait questionnaires
with other questionnaires and ratings

4. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
EVIDENCE
ANALYSIS OF TRAIT TERMS IN LANGUAGE
• Research procedure (lexical approach)
– Individuals rate themselves or others on
many different trait-terms sampled from
the dictionary
– Ratings are then factor-analyzed to
discover how many factors are needed
to account for the resulting patterns of
correlations

5. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
EVIDENCE
ANALYSIS OF TRAIT TERMS IN LANGUAGE
• Norman (1963) showed that
– Five-factors were repeatedly found using
different measures and samples
– Five factors possess reliability and validity
(e.g., are relatively stable throughout
adulthood and reflected in various indices of
functioning)
• OCEAN of traits
Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Neuroticism

7. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE
IS THE BIG FIVE UNIVERSAL?
• Hofstede et al. (1997) identified 126 trait words
that they could translate fairly directly across
English, Dutch, and German
– Compared the meanings of the five factors across
three languages
– Found agreement except on all but Openness
– German and English were very similar; the Dutch
factor of Openness included expected subtraits
related to fantasy and ideas, but also emphasized
subtraits related to rebelliousness

8. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE
IS THE BIG FIVE UNIVERSAL?
• Translation may impose structural problems
• Di Blasi & Forzi (1999) explored the structure of
traits by selecting trait words from the Italian
language
– Asked participants to rate themselves on these
words and used factor analysis to determine whether
the BIG 5 would replicate in Italian
– Found a three-factor solution fit the data better:
extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness
– Neuroticism and openness were not identified as
traits in Italian

9. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: EVIDENCE
IS THE BIG FIVE UNIVERSAL?
• Unique personality traits may exist in certain
cultures (e.g., “Chinese tradition” factor)
• In some cultures, people do not think of others
using trait words
• Work in cultural psychology suggests that in
Asian cultures people are more attuned to an
individual’s social embeddedness (e.g.,
relationship position, community status) than to
a person’s traits

10. • Multiple data sets from diverse nations suggest
the presence of a sixth factor - honesty or
honesty/humility
• Findings across seven languages show
consistent individual differences in the tendency
to be truthful and sincere versus cunning and
disloyal
• The six-factor model has not been incorporated
into theory or applied research
THE SIX-FACTOR MODEL:
MAYBE WE MISSED ONE

12. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: MEASURES
The NEO Personality Inventory - Revised
(NEO PI-R)
• Measures five broad domains (factors) and
30 narrower facets (6 subtraits comprise
each of the BIG 5 domains)
• Each facet is measured by 8 items
• Scales have good reliability and validity
across different data sources (e.g., ratings by
peers or spouses)
• NEO-PI-R correlated with other BIG 5
measures

14. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: MEASURES
INTEGRATION OF THE BIG 5 WITH CATETELL AND
EYSENCK
•Scores on the NEO-PI-R correlate with Cattell’s 16 PF and
Eysenck’s EPI
– Cattell’s Stability-Emotionality and Eysenck’s N are
virtually identical to the BIG 5 domain of Neuroticism
– Cattell’s Reserved-Outgoing and Eysenck’s I-E are
virtually identical to the BIG 5 domain of Extraversion
– Cattell’s Tough-minded –Tender-minded is similar to
the BIG 5 domain of Agreeableness
– Eysenck’s P corresponds to a combination of low
Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness
•Correlations permit the synthesis of earlier models within
the BIG 5 – a single, unified theory!

15. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
BIOLOGICAL BASIS
The BIG 5 are more than descriptions of individual
differences
•Each factor is a universal psychological structure that
everyone has in varying amounts and which influences
psychological development
• BIG 5 factors have a biological basis
• Differences on BIG 5 factors are determined by
genetic influences on neural structures and brain
chemistry
• BIG 5 factors are not influenced by the environment;
extreme “nature” position (intrinsic maturation)

16. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN
• Research strategy - study people over a
long period and administer the same
personality measures at different points
– Stability over time (i.e., high correlations
between scores on personality measures
administered at different times)
– In spite of stability, change is found

17. THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Younger Adults
TRAIT
Older Adults
Higher Openness Lower
Lower Conscientiousness Higher
Higher Extraversion Lower
Lower Agreeableness Higher
Higher Neuroticism Lower

18. CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN
• McCrae & Costa studied age differences
in Conscientiousness across five cultures
– Found an increase with age in each
culture, although cultures varied in
political, economic, and religious
conditions
– Changes in domain level reflect
intrinsic maturation, just like other
biological systems
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

20. CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN
• Srivastava et al. (2003) conducted an Internet
survey of a adults who completed a five-factor
measure
• Results revealed significant age-linked changes
on most of BIG 5 factors (e.g., Agreeableness
increased from 31-50 years when adults raise
children)
• These findings contradict the claim that trait
levels are entirely inherited and unaffected by
social experience
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

21. CHANGE ACROSS THE LIFESPAN
• Overall, research suggests that
– Personality is more stable over short periods
than over long periods
– Personality is more stable and less complex
in adulthood than in childhood
– There are individual differences in stability
across the lifespan
– The limits of environmental influence on
personality change remain to be determined
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL:
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

22. HEALTH
•Adults who are conscientious as children
live longer and are about 30% less likely to
die in any given year, even when ruling out
environmental variables
•What explains the relationship?
•Conscientious individuals take fewer risks
and are less likely to smoke and drink
heavily
THE FACTOR MODEL: APPLICATIONS

23. CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS
• The five-factor model is a useful
diagnostic tool
• Compulsive personality can be viewed
in terms of very high Conscientiousness
and very high Neuroticism
• Antisocial personality can be seen as
very low Agreeableness and very low
Conscientiousness
THE FACTOR MODEL: APPLICATIONS

24. THE PERSON-SITUATION
CONTROVERSY
• Since the 1960s, researchers have
questioned whether there is enough
consistency in behavior to support trait
concepts
• Variability may reflect an adaptive capacity
to discriminate between situations and
adjust behavior accordingly

25. THE PERSON-SITUATION
CONTROVERSY
• 2 aspects of consistency must be distinguished:
1. Longitudinal stability = people high on a trait
at one point in time are high on that same
trait at another point in time
2. Cross-situational consistency = people high
on a trait in some situations are high on that
trait in other situations
• Trait theorists suggest both are true
• Critics of trait theory disagree with cross-
situational stability

26. THE PERSON-SITUATION
CONTROVERSY
LONGITUDINAL STABILITY
• Why do traits have longitudinal stability?
– Genetically based biological tendencies may
ensure the durability of traits
– Environmental conditions may also
contribute to the stability of traits
• Others interact with he person in ways that
perpetuate traits and trait stereotypes
• People select and create environments that
serve to strengthen their traits

27. THE PERSON-SITUATION
CONTROVERSY
CROSS-SITUATIONAL STABILITY
• A defining feature of trait theory is that
individuals are characterized by the
degree to which they possess a given
trait on average
• There may be variability around the
average
• Methods exist for describing variations
around the average

28. THE PERSON-SITUATION
CONTROVERSY
CROSS-SITUATIONAL STABILITY
• Fleeson et al. had participants record their current
thoughts and feelings several times daily over several
days
– Rather than reporting overall level of a trait,
participants reported how much they exhibited a
trait-related behavior during the past hour
– This method can be used to determine average
levels of behavior as well as the degree to which
behavior varies around the average
– The results revealed that
• People show dramatic short-term variability in
behavior not accounted for by trait measures