A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using different personality measures in three samples confirmed the existence of general factor of personality (The Big One) within the five-factor model. The Big One is characterized by high versus low Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Openness, and by high versus low higher-order factors of personality, Stability, and Plasticity. A comprehensive theoretical model of personality structure was therefore proposed with the Big One at the highest level of the hierarchy. The Big One was interpreted as a basic personality disposition that integrates the most general non-cognitive dimensions of personality. It is associated with social desirability, emotionality, motivation, well-being, satisfaction with life, and self-esteem. It also may have deep biological roots, evolutionary, genetic, and neurophysiological.     

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.     

Perceived influence in groups over time: How associations with personality and cognitive ability can change over time

The ability of personality and cognitive ability to predict perceptions of group influence in small work groups are assessed both in initial and advanced stages of group formation. Extraversion is found important to initial perceptions of intra-group influence, which is partially mediated by peer-perceived social-emotional usefulness. After a few months, reputations are established and everyone has met; now work needs to get done efficiently and accurately and cognitive ability predicts increases in perceived group influence, which is partially mediated by perceived intelligence. After even more time, other Big Five personality traits become important to changes in perceived group influence, with positive associations with openness to experience, and negative associations with neuroticism and conscientiousness. The study findings and implications are discussed.     

If it walks like a duck: Construct validation of proverb-based personality dimensions

Previous research has investigated the personality-relevance of proverb endorsement. In this previous research, however, participants were provided with additional information to aid them in their interpretations of the proverbial phrases. Although seven proverb-based personality dimensions were revealed, it is not entirely clear whether these dimensions truly reflect dimensions encoded in the proverb domain itself, or whether they reflect, instead, meanings imposed by the definitional context. In this study, college-student participants relied on their own interpretations of proverbial wisdom to guide their endorsements. Significantly, two of the previously reported dimensions - the two that had previously seemed to be the most novel - did not replicate. Five proverb-based dimensions were replicated, however, and the relationships between these dimensions and dimensions assessed by more established personality inventories were explored. This study thus confirms that proverbial wisdom does indeed advocate behavior and beliefs relevant to important dimensions of individual difference.     

Personality facets and RIASEC interests: An integrated model

Research examining links between personality and interest have typically focused on links between measures of the five factor model and Holland’s RIASEC types. However, the five factor model of personality can be divided in to a larger set of narrow domain personality scales measuring facets of the ‘big five’ traits. Research in a number of fields indicates that facet scales are effective for clarifying the relationship between personality and other broad constructs, including academic achievement, job performance, stress and coping, and achievement motivation. In the present study links between personality facets and the RIASEC model were examined using property vector fitting. Obtained results are consistent with previous research suggesting that the use of facet-level personality measures can clarify relations between personality and other constructs, and provides new information linking personality facets and interests. The use of facet-level measures of personality expands the range of personality concepts that can be presented to individuals who are exploring career options.     

Between you and God,where is the general factor of personality? Exploring personality-religion relationships in a Muslim context

Personality-religiosity links were studied in a Muslim population. Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were generally the strongest correlates of religiousness. Evidence for the general factor of personality (GFP) was found in analyses of correlations among scores on the Big Five, in four studies (total N = 1000). Also, a GFP was positively correlated with gratitude to God, interest in religion, intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic-personal religiosity, but not extrinsic-social religiosity. Results demonstrated cross-cultural consistency of the GFP, and its relationship with a variety of religious constructs.     

Are risk preferences consistent?: The influence of decision domain and personality

This paper examines the consistency of risk preferences across three decision domains important in most people’s lives: work, health and personal finance. We consider the degree to which the five factor model of personality and a range of factors that influence risk-related decision-making (perceived risk, framing, emotions and cost–benefit analysis) impact upon cross-domain consistency. Data were gathered from a sample of participants for whom approaches to risk were likely to vary (academics, chess players, firefighters, mountaineers and City traders). The results showed that participants could be categorised into two groups: those who were consistent in their risk preferences in three decision domains, and those who were inconsistent or domain-specific. The consistent group was significantly lower on neuroticism and higher on agreeableness and conscientiousness with a less variable approach to weighing up the costs and benefits of taking risks than the inconsistent group. The majority of the consistent group was risk averse.When the domain-specific risk preferences of the inconsistent group were examined, data showed that different combinations of personality and decision-making factors predicted risk preferences within each domain.     

Exploring how people respond to conflicts between self‐interest and fairness: Influence of threats to the self on affective reactions to advantageous inequity

Two studies examined how people deal with conflicts between their self‐interest concerns and their striving for fairness. Specifically, the affective reactions to outcome arrangements in which people receive better outcomes than comparable other persons, were studied. These arrangements of advantageous inequity constitute situations in which fairness and self‐interest concerns are in conflict. Building on the social psychology of the self, it was predicted, and found, in both field and lab experiments that when people experience a self‐threat, they react more positively to arrangements of advantageous inequity than when not experiencing this threat. This supports the view that people's need for positive information about their selves is an important factor in the underlying psychological processes of the way that people deal with conflicts between their fairness and self‐interest concerns.     

Revaluating the evidence for the General Factor of Personality in the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire: Concerns about Rushton and Irwing (2009)

We evaluated whether the Big Five-based hierarchical model for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) reported by Rushton and Irwing (2009) would replicate in a second sample of 733 participants. We were unable to confirm their hierarchical model and detected problems with the reporting of the original results. Exploratory factor analytic investigations generally supported the canonical three factor solution for the MPQ described in the existing literature. This was the case for both the present dataset and for the correlation matrix analyzed by Rushton and Irwing.     

Le workaholisme dans une université française : une perspective transactionnelle

The aim of this research is to examine the phenomenon of workaholism with the staff of a French University. Three hundred and four employees completed measures of workaholism, personality and working conditions in order to study this phenomenon from a transactional perspective. Data analysis confirms the four hypotheses. Personality–in particular neuroticism–appears associated with workaholism. Working conditions also explain an additional proportion of variance of the phenomenon. In addition, workaholism does not appear to have serious consequences in terms of adaptation or professional medical and psychological disorders. Finally, interest is noted in direction of a differentiated study of the publics: if professors and teachers have higher level of workaholism than the technical and administrative staff, the origin is more for the professors and the teachers in individual characteristics expressed. The discussion raises some limitations of the research and outlines future prospects.     

Developing a model for adult temperament

Hierarchical relations among theoretically generated lower order scales of adult temperament were explored in two studies. In Study One, 258 undergraduates completed the Adult Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ). A five-factor model emerged from exploratory factor analysis, with factors labeled Orienting Sensitivity, Effortful Control, Extraversion, Affiliativeness, and Negative Affect. This model showed considerable convergence with the Big Five. Study Two, with a community sample of 700 participants, yielded a six-factor model, distinguishing aggressive negative affect from non-aggressive negative affect. Relations of the six temperament factors to Cloninger’s TCI, the Five Factor Model, and the Multi-Language Seven were investigated, providing support for the discriminating power of the six-factor temperament model in understanding individual differences in adult temperament and personality.     

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.