Children's behavioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality

The present study examined relations between ratings of children's personalities using the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality and behaviors exhibited by children during an interaction with their parents. Ninety-four children (M age = 10.87 years) and their parents participated in a videotaped interaction; children were coded on 64 different social behaviors using a revised version of the Riverside Behavioral Q-Sort. Mothers completed ratings of their children's personalities using the NEO-Five-Factor Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI). Results indicate an intuitive and predictable pattern of relations between children's personalities and their behaviors. Findings suggest that four of the five factors included in the FFM provide an appropriate framework for describing children's personalities. These findings are discussed in terms of their relevance for helping researchers understand children's personalities.     

Knowing and Faking One's Five-Factor Personality Score

This article reports on 2 studies, both concerned with the validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The first study, replicated over 3 samples, concerned the validity of the measure as determined by self-ratings. Results indicated that participants were able to predict their extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism scores with reasonable accuracy, but agreeableness and openness-to-experience less so. In addition, participants were not very reliable in predicting others' test scores, although they believed themselves to have scores moderately similar to the other, self-nominated person. The second study showed that the NEO-FFI was highly susceptible to faking, although the all-important fake good versus control comparisons were significant only for agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The implications of these studies for applied personality measurement are considered.     

Obsessive-compulsive disorder and the five-factor model of personality: distinction and overlap with major depressive disorder

Research on individual differences in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has focused largely on analogue models with participants experiencing sub-clinical obsessions and/or compulsions. Few studies have examined the association between normal, dimensional personality traits and obsessive-compulsive symptomatology in a clinical sample. The purpose of this study was to examine personality differences in patients with a primary diagnosis of OCD (n = 98) or major depression (n = 98) using the domains and facets of the five-factor model of personality (FFM). Patients completed the self-report version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). When contrasted with community controls (Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL, 1992), participants with OCD were found to differ across the domains (and facets) of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness and the facets of openness and agreeableness. Further, when compared to depressed participants, those with OCD were found to be more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious and less neurotic. With the exception of the conscientiousness domain (and facets), these significant differences were maintained even after controlling for depression severity. These results highlight the unique associations between trait domains and facets of the FFM and OCD.     

Five-factor personality domains and job performance: A second order meta-analysis

Several meta-analyses have investigated the job-related validities of the traits associated with the Five-Factor Model (FFM). The presence of second-order sampling error, however, might complicate the interpretation of these meta-analyses (i.e., random error across different meta-analyses). The current paper therefore evaluates variability across different meta-analyses and tests for key moderators (i.e., performance criteria, sources of ratings, and context). Results suggested that the variation in the predictive validity of several FFM traits and facets across multiple performance criteria was attributable to second-order sampling error. However, true variation existed for some moderators such as sources of personality information (self-reports versus informant reports). The current analyses therefore enhance knowledge about the usefulness and generalizability of personality traits in work contexts.     

Science versus the stars: a double-blind test of the validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and computer-generated astrological natal charts

The authors asked 52 college students (38 women, 14 men, M age = 19.3 years, SD = 1.3 years) to identify their personality summaries by using a computer-generated astrological natal chart when presented with 1 true summary and 1 bogus one. Similarly, the authors asked participants to identify their true personality profile from real and bogus summaries that the authors derived from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; P. T. Costa Jr. & R. R. McCrae, 1985). Participants identified their real NEO-FFI profiles at a greater-than-chance level but were unable to identify their real astrological summaries. The authors observed a P. T. Barnum effect in the accuracy ratings of both psychological and astrological measures but did not find differences between the odd-numbered (i.e., favorable) signs and the even-numbered (i.e., unfavorable) signs.     

Relationships between personality characteristics of people who stutter and the impact of stuttering on everyday life

ObjectiveThis study investigates the association between the five-factor model of personality measured by the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the Overall Assessment of the Speaker's Experience of Stuttering (OASES). The OASES measures the adverse impact of stuttering on a person's life.DesignParticipants in the present study were 112 persons who stutter from Germany.MethodsAll participants filled in both the NEO-FFI and the OASES questionnaires.ResultsResults revealed a strong positive correlation between the personality trait Neuroticism and scores on the OASES. Moreover, Extraversion was negatively correlated with the OASES scores.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that people with higher Neuroticism and lower Extraversion scores experience a greater impact of stuttering on their daily life. The results underscore the importance of considering personality as a potential moderator or mediator factor in future stuttering research and, potentially, also in treatment.Educational objectives: The reader will learn (a) about the different personality dimensions reflected by the NEO-FFI, (b) why it is important to consider the impact of stuttering on everyday life from the perspective of the people who stutter and (c) how personality is linked to the Overall Assessment of the Speaker's Experience of Stuttering (OASES).     

Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face

Twenty-four perceivers saw portraits of unacquainted persons for either 150 ms, 100 ms, or 50 ms, and rated their personality on adjective scales. Moreover, stimulus persons described themselves on these scales and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Consensus among perceivers and self-other agreement were not systematically related to exposure time, but self-other agreement differed strongly between traits, being highest for extraversion. Even ratings of extraversion by single perceivers were related to the stimulus persons’ self-reports. Particularly strong were correlations between perceived extraversion and self-reports on items measuring the extraversion facets excitement seeking and positive emotions. Self-other agreement for extraversion was mostly mediated by cheerfulness of facial expressions that was related to self-reports of extraversion but not of the other personality traits.     

Type D Personality: A Five-Factor Model Perspective

This study investigated the position of Type D (high Negative Affectivity and high Social Inhibition) within the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. A sample of 155 healthy subjects were administered the Type D Scale and the NEO-FFI, assessing the FFM traits. Subjects also filled out the General Health Questionnaire and the Job Stress Survey. Negative Affectivity was positively correlated with Neuroticism (0.74) and negatively with Conscientiousness ( m 0.38), Agreeableness ( m 0.37), and Extraversion ( m 0.35). Social Inhibition was negatively correlated with Extraversion ( m 0.61) and Conscientiousness ( m 0.40) and positively with Neuroticism (0.50). Type D subjects reported more somatic distress ( p <0.0001), anxiety ( p <0.0001) and depression ( p <0.01) than non-Type D subjects. An alternative one-dimensional representation of the D-traits was suggested, conceptualized as a dimension ranging from neurotic introversion with relatively low conscientiousness to stable extraversion with relatively high conscientiousness. These findings are discussed in the light of the renewed interest in psychology for type versus dimensional representations of individual differences.     

A simplified technique for scoring DSM-IV personality disorders with the Five-Factor Model

The current study compares the use of two alternative methodologies for using the Five-Factor Model (FFM) to assess personality disorders (PDs). Across two clinical samples, a technique using the simple sum of selected FFM facets is compared with a previously used prototype matching technique. The results demonstrate that the more easily calculated counts perform as well as the similarity scores that are generated by the prototype matching technique. Optimal diagnostic thresholds for the FFM PD counts are computed for identifying patients who meet diagnostic criteria for a specific PD. These threshold scores demonstrate good sensitivity in receiver operating characteristics analyses, suggesting their usefulness for screening purposes. Given the ease of this scoring procedure, the FFM count technique has obvious clinical utility.     

Personality in relation to occupational outcomes among established teachers

Established teachers’ self-reports on Five-Factor Model (FFM) scales, interests, and attributions were studied in relation to two outcome criteria, choice of teaching specialty (niche selection) and quality of teaching. Choice of teaching specialty was most strongly associated with openness to experience, interest in the arts and/or sciences, and internal-locus attributions (ability and effort) in response to a positive classroom event. On the other hand, quality of teaching assessed by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards was positively associated with several facets of the FFM, and negatively associated with business interests and with a tendency to externalize blame. Unexpectedly, Conscientiousness was unrelated to teacher performance. Findings suggested that broadly defined personality characteristics impact more on niche selection than on performance within the chosen niche, whereas narrowly defined characteristics better predict performance, at least among established professionals.     

Rigid and extreme: a geometric representation of personality disorders in five-factor model space.

Personality disorder rigidity and extremity can be geometrically defined and operationalized within the 5-factor model (FFM) of personality. A series of geometric and substantive assumptions were derived and then tested in samples of college students (N = 1,323) and psychiatric patients (N = 86). Normal and disordered personalities were found to coexist in a variety of regions of the FFM multivariate space. Within regions, the profiles of normal and disordered personalities were very similar in characteristic configuration but notably different in profile variability. Personality-disordered individuals tended to be located in the perimeters or outer regions of the FFM space, as indicated by their longer vector lengths. These findings generalized across 2 measures of personality disorders and across 2 measures of normal personality traits.     

Scoring the DSM-IV personality disorders using the Five-Factor Model: development and validation of normative scores for North American, French, and Dutch-Flemish samples

Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality disorder (PD) counts have demonstrated significant convergent and discriminant validity with DSM-IV PD symptoms. However, these FFM PD counts are of limited clinical use without normative data because it is difficult to determine what a specific score means with regard to the relative level of elevation. The current study presents data from three large normative samples that can be used as norms for the FFM PD counts in the respective countries: United States (N = 1,000), France (N = 801), and Belgium-Netherlands (N = 549). The present study also examines the performance, with regard to diagnostic efficiency, of statistically-defined cut-offs at 1.5 standard deviations above the mean (T > or = 65) versus previously identified cut-offs using receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) analyses. These cut-offs are tested in three clinical samples-one from each of the aforementioned countries. In general, the T > or = 65 cut-offs performed similarly to those identified using ROC analyses and manifested properties relevant to a screening instrument. These normative data allow FFM data to be used in a flexible and comprehensive manner, which may include scoring this type of personality data in order to screen for DSM-IV PD constructs.     

The prediction of Honesty–Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality

We examined two questions involving the relative validity of the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality structure. First, would the HEXACO model outpredict the Five-Factor Model (FFM) with regard to several diverse criteria that are conceptually relevant to the Honesty–Humility dimension of personality? If so, would the addition of a proxy Honesty–Humility scale—as computed from relevant facets of the FFM Agreeableness domain—allow the FFM to achieve predictive validities matching those of the HEXACO model? Results from self- and observer ratings in three samples (each N > 200) indicated that the HEXACO model showed considerable predictive validity advantages over the FFM. When a measure of Honesty–Humility derived from the FFM was added to the original five domains of that model, the predictive validity reached that of the HEXACO model for some criteria, but remained substantially below for others.     

Comparing personality disorder models: cross-method assessment of the FFM and DSM-IV-TR

The current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) defines personality disorders as categorical entities that are distinct from each other and from normal personality traits. However, many scientists now believe that personality disorders are best conceptualized using a dimensional model of traits that span normal and abnormal personality, such as the Five-Factor Model (FFM). However, if the FFM or any dimensional model is to be considered as a credible alternative to the current model, it must first demonstrate an increment in the validity of the assessment offered within a clinical setting. Thus, the current study extended previous research by comparing the convergent and discriminant validity of the current DSM-IV-TR model to the FFM across four assessment methodologies. Eighty-eight individuals receiving ongoing psychotherapy were assessed for the FFM and the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders using self-report, informant report, structured interview, and therapist ratings. The results indicated that the FFM had an appreciable advantage over the DSM-IV-TR in terms of discriminant validity and, at the domain level, convergent validity. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.     

Self- and other-reports of traits from the five-factor model: relations to personality disorder

The current study used a psychiatric sample (N = 69) to examine: (1) the correspondence between self- and other-reports of general personality, as measured by the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1990), and personality disorder (PD) traits, as measured by a structured interview, (2) the relations between these two sets of ratings (FFM and PD traits) and consensus ratings of PD and impairment, and (3) the incremental validity of other-rated personality scores. Agreement between raters for the five domains of the FFM ranged from .23 (agreeableness) to .71 (openness); for the PD traits agreement ranged from .37 (avoidant) to .69 (antisocial). At both the domain and facet level, the personality profiles reflected in the correlations between the FFM scores and PD criteria were consistent across raters with the exception of narcissistic PD. Substantial evidence was found for the incremental validity of other-rated personality scores, with these ratings accounting for an additional 8 to 20% of the overall variance in PD features. The other-rated FFM scores also accounted for more variance in consensus ratings of impairment in the domains of romance, work, and social relations.     

Reliability of personality disorder symptoms and personality traits in substance-dependent inpatients

The authors compared the internal consistency, 1-year temporal stability, and self-informant agreement of ratings of personality trait (NEO Five-Factor Inventory; NEO-FFI; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) and personality disorder symptom severity (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders Questionnaire; SCID-II-Q; R. L. Spitzer, J. B. W. Williams, M. Gibbon, & M. First, 1990) in 131 substance-dependent inpatients. Internal consistency coefficients were acceptable to very good for most NEO-FFI and SCID-II-Q scales, and temporal stability correlations were significant for all measures. Agreement between patient and informant ratings was more modest. Substance abuse and depression symptom severity moderated the temporal stability and self-informant agreement of several personality trait and disorder ratings. The authors did not find that the five factors were more reliable than the Axis II symptoms. Issues related to the reliability of personality assessment in multiply diagnosed patients are discussed.     

The Big-5 ± 2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five-factor model

Despite the popularity and prevalence of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, numerous questions regarding its psychometric properties have yet to be investigated. One issue of particular concern is the underlying premise that these five personality factors are universally shared by all individuals. The present study examined the impact of cognitive complexity on the FFM by directly assessing whether individuals with higher or lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities comprised of a greater or lesser number of factors, respectively, than the five widely accepted factors outlined by the FFM. Results indicated that individuals with lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a three-factor model, whereas individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a seven-factor model. In light of these findings, the appropriateness of universally applying the FFM to individuals of differing levels of cognitive complexity is discussed.     

Five-Factor Model facets differentially predict in-the-moment affect and cognitions

The facets of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality are presumed to represent distinct, biologically-based tendencies to act, think, and behave; yet they have received little behaviorally-based empirical validation. In this study, FFM facets were used to examine individual differences in affective and cognitive responses to stressors as they are experienced in daily life. Participants (N = 79) completed the NEO-PI-R followed by a week-long experience sampling procedure. As expected, hierarchical linear modeling showed that FFM facets captured affective and cognitive tendencies that were missed at the domain level. They additionally demonstrated convergent and divergent validity in predicting momentary affect. These results provide evidence that facets are distinct, non-interchangeable predictors of daily thoughts and emotions.     

The Big-5 ± 2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five-factor model

Despite the popularity and prevalence of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, numerous questions regarding its psychometric properties have yet to be investigated. One issue of particular concern is the underlying premise that these five personality factors are universally shared by all individuals. The present study examined the impact of cognitive complexity on the FFM by directly assessing whether individuals with higher or lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities comprised of a greater or lesser number of factors, respectively, than the five widely accepted factors outlined by the FFM. Results indicated that individuals with lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a three-factor model, whereas individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a seven-factor model. In light of these findings, the appropriateness of universally applying the FFM to individuals of differing levels of cognitive complexity is discussed.     

Treatment utilization and satisfaction: examining the contributions of Axis II psychopathology and the Five-Factor Model of personality

Numerous studies have demonstrated a link between personality disorders (PDs) and increased treatment utilization and decreased satisfaction. However, few studies have examined the link between general personality models, such as the Five-Factor Model (FFM), and these treatment variables. The current study examines the role of depression, anxiety, and functioning, PDs, and the FFM in accounting for psychiatric treatment utilization and satisfaction with care in two distinct clinical samples (n = 99 and 544, respectively). The results suggest that both maladaptive personality symptoms and general personality traits are predictive of these outcome variables. Importantly, the findings regarding treatment utilization replicate across samples and level of personality assessment (i.e., FFM and PDs). It is argued that both types of personality information should be included in the initial treatment planning and implementation stages.