A General Factor of Personality in the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III, the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology, and the Personality Assessment Inventory

A General Factor of Personality (GFP) occupies the apex of the hierarchy in three prominent personality disorder inventories. On the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III, a GFP accounted for 41% of the variance in two second-order factors, 31% of the variance in five first-order factors, and 26% of the variance in all 24 scales. On the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology, a GFP accounted for 61% of the variance in six first-order factors and 36% of the variance in all 18 scales. In a cross-validation study of the Personality Assessment Inventory, a GFP accounted for 65% of the variance in two second-order factors, 47% of the variance in five first-order factors, and 27% of the variance in all 18 scales.     

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.     

The General Factor of Personality: A critical test

The present study provides evidence supporting the presence of a General Factor of Personality (GFP), which has been proposed to represent the apex of the hierarchy of personality traits. Furthermore, the construct validity of this general factor is assessed to address recent criticisms suggesting that the GFP may merely be a statistical artefact rather than a genuine higher-order personality dimension. In this study, two samples of monozygotic (MZ) and same-sex dizygotic (DZ) twins completed the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-IR), assessing individual differences in the Big Five traits of personality, and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Problems-Differential Questionnaire (DAPP-DQ) measuring variance in abnormal personality traits. First unrotated factors were extracted from each of the two measures separately within each sample. Correlations between these factors were significant and high in both samples (.78 and .77), indicating that the factors represent similar constructs. The manner in which these findings help to validate the GFP is discussed.     

The general factor of personality: Substance or artefact?

While it is now widely recognized that a general factor (GFP) can be extracted from most personality data, this finding has been subject to numerous critiques: (1) that the GFP is an artefact due to socially desirable responding; (2) that it is factorially indeterminate; (3) that it can be more parsimoniously modelled using blended variables; (4) that it shows less genetic variance due to dominance than should be true of a fitness trait; (5) that it correlates more weakly with g than would be predicted from Life History theory; (6) that it cannot be recovered across personality inventories. We present new evidence and argument to show that each of these critiques is open to reasonable doubt.     

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.     

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.     

How general across inventories is a general factor of personality?

Two recent analyses addressing the generality of a general factor of personality (GFP) across different personality inventories came to markedly different conclusions. By applying the methods used by the one that found a GFP to the data used by the one that did not, it was shown that a substantial GFP could be obtained in the latter case. It was also shown that similar GFPs could be derived from sets of more broadly or more narrowly defined questionnaire scales, or from self- and others’ reports on a given inventory. Finally, it was shown that a GFP defined from eight personality inventories showed a modest degree of correlation with criterion variables such as ratings by others and act-frequency clusters.     

How general is the “General Factor of Personality”? Evidence from the Texas Adoption Project

Using data from samples of 300 and 220 adoptive families from the Texas Adoption Project, aspects of generality of a “General Factor of Personality” (GFP) were examined: across different personality inventories, across different levels of analysis (items, scales) within an inventory, across self- and others’ judgments, and across sexes, ages, and generations. Considerable, though not complete, generality was found. The average correlation between GFPs from items and scales of a given inventory was .90; between GFPs from the scales of different inventories was .48. Also examined were the heritability of a GFP, its degree of correlation with a general cognitive factor, and its ability to predict real-life criteria such as educational level, marital stability, and substance abuse.     

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.     

Age differences in the personality hierarchy: A multi-sample replication study across the life span

This replication and extension of Mõttus and Rozgonjuk (2019) compared the extents of age-related information captured by different levels of the personality trait hierarchy (domains, facets and nuances, indexed by individual items) in several samples (N = 51,524) of different age ranges and cultural backgrounds, and tested with different instruments. Across samples and measures, lower trait hierarchy levels (especially nuances) tended to contain substantially more age-sensitive information than higher levels; most of the unique age-sensitive information was in nuances. Besides showing the need for more nuanced personality (development) research, the findings suggest ways of testing novel hypotheses that rely on systematic between-trait variance in age differences.     

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.     

Dynamics of the general factor of personality in response to a single dose of caffeine

General Factor of Personality (GFP) research is an emergent field in personality research. This paper uses a theoretical mathematical model to predict the short-term effects of a dose of a stimulant drug on GFP and reports the results of an experiment showing how caffeine achieves this. This study considers the General Factor of Personality Questionnaire (GFPQ) a good psychometric approach to assess GFP. The GFP dynamic mechanism of change is based on the Unique Trait Personality Theory (UTPT). This theory proposes the existence of GFP which occupies the apex of the hierarchy of personality, and extends from an impulsiveness-and-aggressiveness pole (approach tendency) to an anxiety-and-introversion pole (avoidance tendency). An experiment with 25 volunteers was performed. All the participants completed the GFPQ and the Sensation-Seeking Scale list of adjectives from the trait version of MAACL-R (Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist Revised) on an empty stomach. The participants in the experimental group (20) received 330 mg of caffeine. All the participants filled in a state version form with the sensation-seeking adjectives every 4.5 minutes. This study considers that the Sensation-Seeking Scale list of adjectives from the MAACL-R, available in both trait and state versions, is a good psychometric approach to assess GFP. The results show that GFP is modified by a single dose of caffeine in the direction predicted by the UTPT.     

I need my smartphone: A hierarchical model of personality and cell-phone addiction

Using a comprehensive personality model, this study is the first to examine the relationship between a full range of personality traits and cell phone addiction. 346 college students completed an online survey that asked respondents to complete measures of the Big-Five personality traits and measures of materialism and need for arousal, Barratt’s (1959) impulsiveness scale, and a four-item measure of cell phone addiction. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Couched in Mowen’s (2000) 3M Hierarchical Model of Personality, the elemental traits of emotional instability and materialism were positively associated while introversion was negatively associated with cell phone addiction. The central trait of attention impulsiveness exhibited a direct and positive association with cell phone addiction. A significant negative relationship between conscientiousness and all three dimensions of Barratt’s impulsiveness scale (central trait) was found. Several additional relationships between the elemental traits of Mowen’s personality hierarchy and the three dimensions of impulsiveness (central trait) also were uncovered. Study implications and future research directions are discussed.     

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.     

Therapy experience in naturalistic observational studies is associated with negative changes in personality

Recent research has shown that personality traits change as a result of clinical therapy, although evidence for this effect is derived from efficacy studies that reflect relatively controlled experimental designs. Little is known about how therapy in real world contexts affects change in personality. In two longitudinal studies (N’s = 1270 and 5217), the present research examined whether personality trait change was associated with therapy experience. Propensity score matching was used to compare trajectories of personality trait change in individuals with and without therapy experiences. Overall, therapy experiences were associated with significant increases in undesirable traits and markers (e.g., chronic stress, depression, neuroticism), and significant decreases in desirable traits (e.g., self-esteem, conscientiousness).     

Beyond Traits in the Study of Personality Coherence

People exhibit coherent patterns of experience and action that cannot be fully described or explained by personality trait models. Rather, personality coherence is expressed in dispositional tendencies that violate the structure of common trait categories. Across contexts, people display predictable patterns of behavioral variation that cannot be captured by trait constructs, which correspond to mean levels of response. In addition to these empirical findings, theoretical work in both psychology and philosophy challenges the conceptual strategies through which trait models explain personality coherence. These empirical and theoretical points can be addressed by alternative theoretical models that specify how underlying psychological systems give rise to both common and idiosyncratic patterns of personality consistency and variability.     

Is personality stable in adolescence? Disentangling time-invariant and time-varying factors of personality in a trait–state–occasion model

This study applied trait–state–occasion (TSO) modelling to investigate the extent to which inter-individual differences in personality were accounted for by time-invariant and time-varying factors during adolescence. The participants were 753 high school students, and only 661 students were followed for 4 years. The mean age in the first year was 15.23 years and 52.8% were females. The results showed that the full TSO model had the best representation of adolescent personality, and the means of the proportions of variance explained by trait factors for the Big Five ranged between 56% and 83%, suggesting that inter-individual differences in personality are mainly accounted for by stable trait variance over the course of adolescence. Furthermore, the five dimensions of personality differed not only in the amounts of trait variance but also in the stability of time-varying factors. These findings have significant implications for personality research.     

Inside the happy personality: Personality states,situation experience,and state affect mediate the relation between personality and affect

Personality traits are strongly related to affect, but the mechanisms accounting for this association remain mostly unclear. We test a new theoretical model that proposes that personality states, situation characteristics, and affective states mediate the relation between personality traits and trait affect. Data from an experience sampling study (N = 206; 4381 observations) indicate that personality traits are associated with personality states and experienced situation characteristics, personality states and experienced situation characteristics are associated with state affect, state affect is associated with trait affect, and that these variables indeed mediate the relation between personality traits and trait affect. These results emphasize the importance of daily experiences for trait-level variables and call for further research on the interplay between personality, behavior, situations, and affect.     

The higher-order factor structures of five personality inventories

This study examined the internal higher-order structures of five personality inventories (the Hogan Personality Inventory, the Occupational Personality Questionnaire, the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, the Personality and Preferences Inventory, Profile Match). A sample of 356 individuals from the UK working population completed various combinations of the five inventories. Overall, the results indicated sensible and interpretable factor structures for the inventories. Cross-inventory factor analyses of the extracted factors revealed a variant of the Big Five model underpinning them, enabling examination of inventory convergence and divergence. Our study also examined and compared representations of the General Factor of Personality in each of the inventories.     

Trait aggression is primarily a facet of antagonism: Evidence from dominance,latent correlational,and item-level analyses

Trait aggression has been studied for decades and yet remains adrift from broader frameworks of personality such as the Five Factor Model. Across two datasets from undergraduate participants (Study 1: N = 359; Study 2; N = 620), we observed strong manifest and latent correlations between trait aggression and lower agreeableness (i.e., greater antagonism). Trait aggression was also linked to greater neuroticism and lower conscientiousness, but their effect sizes fell beneath our preregistered threshold. Subsequent item-level analyses were unable to articulate trait aggression and agreeableness items into separate factors using the IPIP-NEO, but not the Big Five Inventory. Our findings suggest that trait aggression is accurately characterized as primarily a facet of antagonism, while also reflecting other personality dimensions.