The General Factor of Personality: A reply to Muncer

In previous studies we have shown that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) occupies the apex of the hierarchy of personality as well as the apex of the personality disorders in the same way that g, the general factor of mental ability, occupies the apex in the organization of cognitive abilities (Rushton & Irwing, 2011). In a critique, Muncer (2011) re-analyzed one of our data sets and concluded there was no evidence for a GFP. He also argued against the evolutionary theory we had proposed for the origin of the GFP. In this rejoinder I rebut Muncer’s conclusion and describe how directional selection can explain the GFP.     

Consequences of Regret Aversion 2: Additional Evidence for Effects of Feedback on Decision Making

We discuss the effects of anticipated and experienced regret on decision making under uncertainty. In previous research, using the standard, context-free, gamble paradigm, we found that decision makers anticipate the regret they can experience as a result of post-decisional feedback on forgone outcomes (Zeelenberg, Beattie, van der Pligt, & de Vries, 1996). In the present research we move away from the gamble paradigm, on to richer contexts. In Experiments 1 and 2, involving investment decision making and decision making in the ultimatum game, it is shown that the expectation of feedback on forgone outcomes influences decision making and can promote more risk seeking behavior. Experiment 3 focused on effects of retrospective regret and shows that actual feedback on foregone outcomes influences the experience of regret and subsequent decision making. The results of these studies support our earlier work on regret aversion.     

Misconstruing methods and meaning in the General Factor of Personality

Research has suggested that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) might represent a real and meaningful higher‐order factor in the personality hierarchy. However, there are psychometric shortcomings in many of the studies used to support this argument, as well as convincing empirical evidence for alternative explanations of the GFP as methodological rather than meaningful. The current article re‐examines the research supporting a substantive GFP by considering and evaluating the evidence presented in a recent volume (Just, 2011). It is concluded that covariation among first‐order personality factors is more likely a statistical or methodological artefact than a theoretically meaningful higher‐order construct.     

A General Factor of Personality (GFP) from two meta-analyses of the Big Five: and

In two studies, we used structural equation models to test the hypothesis that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) occupies the apex of the hierarchy of personality. In Study 1, we found a GFP that explained 45% of the reliable variance in a model that went from the Big Five to the Big Two to the Big One in the 14 studies of inter-scale correlations (N = 4496) assembled by Digman (1997). A higher order factor of Alpha/Stability was defined by Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness, with loadings of from 0.61 to 0.70, while Beta/Plasticity was defined by Openness and Extraversion with loadings of 0.55 and 0.77. In turn, the GFP was defined by Alpha and Beta with loadings of 0.67. In Study 2, a GFP explained 44% of the reliable variance in a similar model using data from a published meta-analysis of the Big Five (N = 4000) by Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005). Strong general factors such as these, based on large data sets with good model fits that cross validate perfectly, are unlikely to be due to artifacts and response sets.     

Don’t be afraid of the General Factor of Personality (GFP): Its relationship with behavioral inhibition and anxiety symptoms in children

Two studies examined the relationship between the General Factor of Personality (GFP) and behavioral inhibition and anxiety symptoms in primary school children. The GFP is assumed to reflect effectiveness in interaction with others. In Study 1, using self-reports and parent ratings of 226 non-clinical children, we found GFP scores to be negatively related to behavioral inhibition and anxiety symptoms. In Study 2 we compared non-clinical children (N = 81) with children with anxiety disorders (N = 45). In both groups we obtained child and parent ratings. The clinically referred children scored significantly lower on the GFP than the non-clinical children. Moreover, as in Study 1, higher GFP scores were associated with lower levels of behavioral inhibition and anxiety symptoms. The two studies support the view that the GFP is a relevant construct in anxiety proneness and anxiety problems.     

The General Factor of Personality in selection and assessment samples

In two large samples (N₁ = 44,971, N₂ = 7793) we tested the General Factor of Personality (GFP) in the Big Five, measured during selection and assessment. A GFP could clearly be identified in the data, explaining approximately 50% of the Big Five variance. We found indications for socially desirable response tendencies in a subgroup that was tested for selection purposes. Yet, this tendency did not affect the personality factor structure or the GFP characteristics. Moreover, in the selection sample, the GFP was moderately related to the Overall Assessment Rating. The findings confirm the GFP in an applied setting and support the idea that the GFP does not merely reflect methodological artifacts but is substantive.     

False memories in Lewy‐body disease

Recently, de Boysson, Belleville, Phillips et al. (2011) found that patients with Lewy‐body disease (LBD) showed significantly lower rates of false memories than healthy controls, using the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) experimental procedure. Given that this result could be explained by the practically null rate of true recognition in the LBD group (0.09), we decided to replicate the study by de Boysson et al. (2011), but including a new condition that would maximize the true recognition rate (and analyze its effect on the rate of false memories). Specifically, in a DRM experiment, we manipulated (within subjects) two study and recognition conditions: in the “immediate” condition, both the LBD patients and the control group of healthy older people received a different recognition test after each study list (containing twelve words associated with a non‐presented critical word), while in the “delayed” condition (similar to the one in de Boysson et al., 2011), the participants received the entire series of study lists and then took only one recognition test. The results showed that, in both samples, the “immediate” condition produced higher corrected rates of both true and false recognition than the “delayed” condition, although they were both lower in the LBD patients, which shows that these patients are capable of encoding and recognizing the general similitude underlying information (gist memory) in the right conditions.     

The New Russian Business Leaders – By Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries, Stanislav Shekshnia, Konstantin Korotov, and Elizabeth Florent-Treacy

Books reviewed:
The New Russian Business Leaders . By Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries, Stanislav Shekshnia, Konstantin Korotov, and Elizabeth Florent-Treacy. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA. 2004. 313 pp.     

The General Factor of Personality: The “Big One,” a self-evaluative trait,or a methodological gnat that won’t go away?

Though recent research indicates that the Big Five can be subsumed under a “General Factor of Personality” (GFP), considerable dissention remains about whether the GFP is a substantive trait (either a “mega”-trait or simply, positive self-evaluation), or a response artifact. To disentangle these potential explanations, we estimated GFP saturation based on scales within a single inventory (which may share response artifacts) versus between different inventories (wherein the GFP would be more substantive). Drawing on meta-analytic findings across 370 independent samples of 155,781 individuals, GFP saturation was reduced substantially when based on between inventory data (26%) compared to within inventory data (50%). These results indicate that the GFP functions as a response artifact that may be reduced by administering scales from different inventories. However, some GFP variance also appears to represent stable tendencies that span across inventories. Overall, the GFP appears to be partly a stable, self-evaluative trait and partly a set of response tendencies specific to a particular personality inventory. We discuss the implications of these results for academic and applied personality measurement.     

Introspective awareness of sensations

My goal is to formulate a theory of introspection that can be integrated with a strongly reductionist account of sensations that I have defended elsewhere. In pursuit of this goal, I offer a skeletal explanation of themetaphysical nature of introspection and I attempt to resolve several of the main questions about theepistemological status of introspective beliefs.I owe a large debt to Sydney Shoemaker. I have been helped considerably both by conversations with him and by the lectures he gave in the summer of 1985 in his N.E.H. Summer Seminar on Self-Consciousness and Self-Reference. I have also received valuable advice from Richard Lee, David Roach, David A. Schroeder, Lynne Spellman, and (especially) Anthony L. Brueckner, Willem de Vries, and David H. Westendorf.     

Evaluating the Evidence for the General Factor of Personality across Multiple Inventories

A general factor of personality (GFP) has been proposed as the apex of a personality trait hierarchy that explains covariance among the lower-order factors measured by various personality inventories. In this study we evaluated the GFP hypothesis across several personality inventories, unlike most previous research in which the GFP has been derived from individual instruments in isolation. Exploratory analyses did not produce substantial evidence for the existence of a single cross-instrument higher-order factor of factors and efforts to specify a range of GFP-inspired models in a confirmatory framework led to significant estimation difficulties and poor fit to the data. Overall these results fail to support a common GFP that is positioned at the top of a personality trait hierarchy.     

The General Factor of Personality (GFP) Relates to Other Ratings of Character and Integrity: Two validity studies in personnel selection and training of the Dutch armed forces

In two studies, we tested whether scores on the general factor of personality (GFP) are associated with other ratings of character and integrity. In Study 1, a total of 3,670 applicants for a military job filled out personality surveys and went through a selection interview. GFPs extracted from two different personality surveys showed meaningful relationships with the job suitability judgments based on the interviews. In Study 2, supervisors rated the integrity of participants (N = 167) who followed a 4‐month military training at the Royal Dutch Military Police. GFPs extracted from three different surveys were correlated with integrity. The findings imply that the GFP is associated with behavioral outcomes, and that the GFP is potentially relevant for personnel selection and appraisal.     

General Factors of Personality in Six Datasets and a Criterion‐Related Validity Study at the Netherlands Armed Forces

Several papers showed that a general factor occupies the top of the hierarchical structure of personality, the so‐called General Factor of Personality (GFP). The first question is whether the GFP behaves similar to the general factor of mental ability (g), in that GFP scores from different personality questionnaires correlate highly. The second question is whether the GFP is related to real‐life outcomes. In six large datasets (total N=21,754) collected in the Netherlands armed forces, the GFPs extracted from six personality questionnaires generally showed high degrees of correlation suggesting they measure the same construct. Moreover, GFP was related to drop‐out from military training. This evidence strengthens the view that the GFP is a substantive construct with practical relevance.     

Is de jure coreference non-transitive?

Recent work has brought to prominence the idea that some utterances contain occurrences of noun phrases that not only corefer, but do so in a particularly guaranteed or explicit way—call such occurrences ‘de jure coreferential’. Studies of de jure coreference have considered both the characteristics of the relation, and its explanation. Pinillos (154(2):301–324, 2011) argues that de jure coreference is non-transitive, and uses this as part of his argument for a new semantic primitive explaining de jure coreference. In this paper, I draw attention to a neglected distinction between de jure coreference and another kind of coreference with which it might easily be confused. I then consider Pinillos’s claim that de jure coreference is non-transitive, and conclude that even using Pinillos’s definition of de jure coreference, it is far from straightforward that he has demonstrated the non-transitivity of de jure coreference. I question whether Pinillos’s characterisation of de jure coreference is adequate, and offer a plausible alternative characterisation. I show that on this new characterisation, there is no evidence that the relation is non-transitive.     

Preface

The contributions in this part of the present issue mainly originate from the Carnap Lectures 2011 in Bochum where Prof. Tim Crane (Cambridge, UK) and Prof. Katalin Farkas (Budapest) presented keynote lectures under the heading ??The Boundaries of the Mental??. The full workshop program is available on our website: http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/philosophy/carnap2011/index.html     

The general factor of personality and humor styles

The present study examined the phenotypic, genetic, and environmental correlations between a general factor of personality (GFP) and four humor styles: affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating. Participants were 571 same-sex adult twin pairs. Individuals completed the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) and a short form of the NEO personality scale (from which the GFP was extracted). The GFP was found to be heritable with an estimated value of .31. At the phenotypic level, the GFP was found to correlate significantly with the HSQ scales; positively with affiliative and self-enhancing, and negatively with aggressive and self-defeating. Three of the four phenotypic correlations were found to be attributable to correlated genetic factors, suggesting that these dimensions of humor styles and the GFP may have a common genetic factor.     

Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: comment on Bem (2011)

Does psi exist? D. J. Bem (2011) conducted 9 studies with over 1,000 participants in an attempt to demonstrate that future events retroactively affect people's responses. Here we discuss several limitations of Bem's experiments on psi; in particular, we show that the data analysis was partly exploratory and that one-sided p values may overstate the statistical evidence against the null hypothesis. We reanalyze Bem's data with a default Bayesian t test and show that the evidence for psi is weak to nonexistent. We argue that in order to convince a skeptical audience of a controversial claim, one needs to conduct strictly confirmatory studies and analyze the results with statistical tests that are conservative rather than liberal. We conclude that Bem's p values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.     

Does degree of asymmetry relate to performance? A reply to Boles and Barth

In a recent critique Boles and Barth (2011) argue that their prior study investigating asymmetry/performance relationships (Boles, Barth, & Merrill, 2008) uncovered the “true” association (i.e., negative correlation) between lateralization of visual lexical processes and word recognition performance. They contend that our study reporting positive correlations of lexical asymmetry and reading performance (Chiarello et al., 2009) was flawed and hence inconclusive. In this response we address the two major objections raised by Boles and Barth (2011) regarding our selection of tasks and asymmetry measures. We conclude that the Boles and Barth principle of task purity is not relevant to the stated aims of our investigation, and that our linear regression method of measuring asymmetry is valid given the high level of accuracy for the tasks we reported. Because the aims of each investigation differed, we argue that it is unwise to attempt to fit each study into the framework favored by Boles and Barth (2011).     

Relating the Spherical representation of vocational interests to the HEXACO personality model

The present study extends previous research on interests–personality relations by comparing recent models of vocational interests (using the Personal Globe Inventory; PGI, Tracey, 2002) and personality (using the HEXACO-PI-R; Ashton, Lee, & de Vries, 2014) with each other. First, the structure of the Spherical representation was adequately replicated in a Dutch sample (N = 656). Second, in so far as comparisons were possible, the relations between interests and personality were found to be congruent with previous findings. Third, Prestige interests, the defining feature of the Spherical representation, were related, albeit weakly, to Openness to Experience and to Extraversion. Last of all, Honesty–Humility and Openness to Experience were related to profile elevation in interest scores. All results were obtained for normative and ipsatized scales, revealing several meaningful differences in interests–personality relations depending on the type of interest scoring procedure.     

A putatively general factor of personality (GFP) is not so general: A demonstration with the NEO PI-R

Recent research suggests that a general factor of personality (GFP) represents the zenith of a hierarchy of personality structure. For a roommate sample of 602 students, we evaluate the presence and validity of a general factor of personality in a Big Five measure. Findings indicate that a first factor, similar to what has been putatively labeled a GFP, can be extracted from self-report and observer-report, that this self-report first factor has validity for predicting an alleged observer-report GFP, and that this validity is not attributable to socially desirable responding. However, despite the existence of a valid first factor, it is not a general factor of personality because it fails to summarize adequately the complete systematic variance in the structure of personality.