The Big Five - Essay Example

Big Five Introduction The Big five are not a theory of personality, but rather an empirically based phenomenon, which was discovered through a statistical technique known as factor analysis (Mount, Barrick, Scullen & Rounds 2005. 447). It was used to analyse the rating of various personality traits and how they are correlated in humans using original derivations from American and West European samples. However, later studies using a more diverse sample base have found that the assumptions from the pro-Western study are universal and can be applied in most cultures. The five broad traits, according to the theory, are extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1992. 356). Discussion Today, the 5-point theory has overshadowed most early theories such as; Gordon Allports 4,000 personality traits as well as Raymond Cattells 16 personality traits and the Hans Eysenck three-factor theory. Initially, Cattell’s theory was the most popular, but later scholars felt it was too complex and gradually the 5-trait theory emerged as a basic trait theory on which the building block of personality was construed. One of the reasons why many scholars have proposed the five-factor model is because it has been found to be more effective or at least superior to most of the other models. For example, the HEXACO model borrows a great deal from it since its characteristic is derived form factor analysis (Ashton & Lee, 2007. 167). The model, which was developed from the findings of several studies proposes a 6 point adjective framework for defining the personality, namely honest and humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience (de Vries & van Gelder, 2013. 757). A factor analysis is then used to filter out the various objectives to develop a group of interconnected character traits. However, despite the claims that HEXACO model is universal, studies have shown that only three traits can be described as such. In addition, the Honesty-Humility dimension is only seldom replicated in intercultural studies. Nonetheless, it may be argued that this inconsistency is not unique to the HEXACO model since even the five-factor one has been critiqued based on the fact that the fifth factor has not been proven consistent in the five-factor method (Smith & Williams, 1992. 396). Nevertheless, given that it only has one majorly contented stage, one can argue that it must be superior to the HEXACO model. Another competing model is the PEN model proposed by Eysenck, which has two major elements, namely descriptive and causal. The first aspect is derived from a factor analysis hierarchical taxonomy at the top of which are super factors that include psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism (van Kampen, 2009. 3). In justification of his model’s superiority over the big five theory, Eysenck argues that the former is overly reliant on psychometric and factor analytical studies. Scholars have contested that by doing so, he neglects to recognize the greater importance that is attributed to their advocates such as Cattell in the lexical hypothesis (van Kampen, 2009). From a far less technical viewpoint, one also notices that Eysenck’s model is marginally less comprehensive since majoring in three super traits, and forces the scholar to generalize a great deal (Russo et al., 2008. 625). On the other hand, Cattell’s 16-factor analysis has been criticized on the basis that it despite numerous attempts it has failed to replicate the assumptions of the entire theory. Howarth (1976. 214) carried out a factor analysis and discovered that 10 of the factors could not relate to some of the conclusion present in the model. Unlike the 5-factor model where only one factor has been challenged based on none replication. Subsequent studies found that only four or the 16 factors could be verified making the 16-factor model a substantially less reliable theory compared to the five-factor model. Nonetheless, the two models do appear to have a lot in common since the 16-factor model was the blueprint on which the five-factor was found. A fundamental difference between them is that Cattell insists on applying oblique rotation while the five-factor model used an orthogonal rotation. The first allows factors to correlate with each other while the latter restricts such action although it is generally assumed that traits are correlated using the seldom to make them easier to understand through statistical methods (Fehriinger, 2004). The superiority of the 5-factor method over other broad trait models is also embodied in the fact that they provide a definition of the primary traits, which constitute them (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003. 505). Furthermore, the conceptual outline for understanding the meanings and functions of each of the traits is provided. The big five factors, which are considered to be the global traits of personality and they are critical for getting and abstract theoretical understanding of the overreaching personality spheres (Goldberg, 1992. 257). Through them, the human personality can be understood by providing a general outline of their makeup at the highest level of their personality. Given that it is the primary traits that ultimately define the personality make up of any individual the fact that they have been the fact that they are addressed in the 5-factor method gives it distinct advantage. Numerous critics have pointed out that this is an almost entirely descriptive, a theoretical model. However, the Eysenckian biological model stands out among the others based on its biological components (Poropat, 2011. 44). While the biological aspect of Eysenckian model is still controversial, its impact in giving the theory a practical edge cannot be overstated. In addition, had Costa and McCrae not excluded some of the evaluative terms from their FA, it would have been the Big 7 instead of the big five. This implies that the five elements may not be sufficient to describe all critical factors required to determine personality. In the past decade, three major models have dominated the field of personality measurement; these are Eysenckian Super 3, the 16 factors by Cattellian and the big 5. Although many of the 16 have been found to fit in the big five, questions have been asked to investigate the 16PF questionnaires can be fitted within the big five system and measured (Gerbing & Tuley, 1991. 272). A study carried out in Hong Kong on all three found that the five-factor solution provided Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Sociability, Excitement-Seeking and Agreeableness. However, the openness factor was consequently absent from the big five-system analysis of the population (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005. 548). This has been used as evidence to support claims that the five-factor method despite being the most popular is not entirely effective since some of its assumptions may not be replicable in different cultural and economic conditions. The five-factor method has also been critiqued on claims that the dimensional structure of variables does not adhere to universally recognized methods of picking one solution among various factors. Proponents of the 16-factor model by Cattell have proposed that it is a more effective methodology since it factors in more traits. However, supporters of the big five have been quick to counter that although there may be other solutions on a single dataset, the five are replicable. However, it is not always the case and as previously mentioned the fifth factor has been found inconsistent in subsequent studies. Admittedly, proponents of the five-factor model have done a lot bring about consensus in the existence of the five global factor. However, the traits have been found to be rather problematic since they have been forced to be statistically uncorrelated or orthogonal to simplify the theory. On the other hand, the 16 PF model has been found to be a more practical approach since it can be applied to solving day-to-day problems. For one, it provides guidance in the identification of career opportunities for which someone is best suited. Numerous companies have at some point in their recruitment process, used a 16PF questionnaire to assist with selection of personnel (Cattell & Mead, 2008. 136). In the medical field, it can also be applied in clinical diagnosis and prognosis as well as therapy planning, clinicians can use it to measure levels of exited adjustment or behaviour problems. Today, Physiologists and marital counsellors also use the 16PF method to predict compatibility among couples, as well as the possibility of satisfaction; it can also be used industrial psychology to predict group dynamic and the chemistry among teams. In a school setting, it can identify students will potential weakness in academic or social skills, which could be negatively affecting their performance. Conversely, the Big 5 model has been critiqued for its inability to conduct specific behaviour analysis, which makes it inapplicable for many of the aforementioned roles. Critics argue that human Behaviour is highly complex and through the broad universalism of the model, a clear perception of this is prevented. One of the most vocal opponents for this methodology is Carol Gilligan, a feminist scholar who argues that women tend to experience traits such as extravertism and openness differently from men. Therefore, in her opinion, the model is unfair in that it normalizes the masculine experience and marginalizes the feminine one; therefore, precluding women from parts of the models examination. While the Big five model is also used, to investigate suitability of individuals for jobs, a study in which 3 meta-analysis were conducted using the models produced different findings which puts its stability to question (Salgado, 1997. 2). While conscientiousness and emotional stability were found valid predictors, the remaining factors were found to be only valid for a limited number of criteria for occupational groups. Conclusion In conclusion, it has also been postulated by proponents of Eysenck’s model that the five factors are too many and that the three factors by Eysenck account for bulk and variance a more comprehensive way. Tellegen (1982) for instance postulated that the N trait is relatively rare in the English language and as a result, the inclusion of emotional stability is not warranted given the analysis of trait adjectives. The Big 5 have also been critiqued on the basis that unlike Eysenck’s model, they are folk concepts whose primary importance is to express the way psychology is understood by the lay person. In the end, it is evident that all the models have varied degrees of effectiveness and weakness; however, they are interconnected and borrow concepts from each other and in some cases they can be used simultaneously. References Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166. Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, 2, 135-178. de Vries, R. E., & van Gelder, J. L. (2013). Tales of two self-control scales: Relations with Five-Factor and HEXACO traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 756-760. Fehriinger, H. M. (2004). Contributions and limitations of Cattell’s sixteen personality factor model. Personality research. Retrieved from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/fehringer.html Gerbing, D. W., & Tuley, M. R. (1991). The 16PF related to the five-factor model of personality: Multiple-indicator measurement versus the a priori scales.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(2), 271-289. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure".Psychological Assessment. 4(1), 26-42. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528. Howarth, E. (1976). Were Cattells ‘Personality sphere’factors correctly identified in the first instance?. British Journal of Psychology, 67(2), 213-230. McCrae, R. R. & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observers perspective: Data from 50 different cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561 Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher‐order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 447-478. Poropat, A. E. (2011). The Eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 41-58. Russo, P. M., Leone, L., Lauriola, M., & Lucidi, F. (2008). Impulsivity and reward sensitivity within the pen model: A test of discriminant hypotheses.Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 624-629. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied psychology, 82(1), 30. Smith, T. W., & Williams, P. G. (1992). Personality and Health: Advantages and Limitations of the Five‐Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 395-425. van Kampen, D. (2009). Personality and psychopathology: A theory-based revision of Eysenck’s PEN model. Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health, 5, 9-21 Read More