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.     

Criterion‐related validity of a Big Five general factor of personality from the TIPI to the IPIP

The criterion validity of a general factor of personality (GFP) extracted from personality scales of various lengths was explored in relation to organizational behavior and subjective well‐being with 288 employed students. Results indicated that GFPs extracted from as few as 10 items were significantly related to organizational outcomes. The relationship between GFP scores and outcomes generally increased with the length of the underlying scales, but these differences were reduced when correcting for reliability. Additionally, in over 60% of the analyses the GFPs exhibited higher correlations with specific outcomes compared to specific Big Five scores; this was true of 100% of the analyses using a broad, composite criterion. These results highlight the potential utility of the GFP as a screening tool when extracted from Big Five inventories from 10 to 100 items.     

What does a general factor of personality look like in unshared environmental variance?

A general factor of personality (GFP) was obtained solely from unshared environment, by deriving it from the intercorrelations of monozygotic twin differences. This GFP was compared with a GFP derived from correlations reflecting all three components of variance—genes, shared environment, and unshared environment. In two large samples of adult Australian twins, for the items of two questionnaires, the two approaches gave virtually identical GFPs. However, in a sample of adolescent Australian twins, the two GFPs were correlated but distinct.     

The general factor of personality: Questions and elaborations

Predictions from Rushton’s theory that a general factor of personality (GFP) has evolved based on effective social participation were examined in two large samples of adult Australian twins (5834 and 3672 individuals) and their relatives (8303 and 2677). General factors based on items and scales were compared to each other, across two different questionnaires, and between adults and adolescents. Behavior-genetic analyses based on the twin samples tested predictions comparing GFPs to scales with the GFP partialled out. Some support was found for Rushton’s theory, but the GFP was only marginally more heritable than the GFP-free scales and was not especially marked by the expected non-additivity of its genetic variance; moreover, the adult and adolescent GFPs showed substantial differences.     

Do Applicants Fake Their Personality Questionnaire Responses and How Successful are Their Attempts? A Case of Military Pilot Cadet Selection

This paper presents the results of three interrelated studies investigating the occurrence of response distortion on personality questionnaires within selection and the success of applicants in faking situations. In Study 1, comparison of the Big Five personality scores obtained from applicants in a military pilot cadet selection procedure with participants responding honestly, faking good, and faking an ideal candidate revealed that applicants responded more desirable than participants responding honestly but less desirable than respondents under fake instructions. The occurrence of faking within the military pilot selection process was replicated in Study 2 using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and another comparison group. Finally, in Study 3, comparison of personality profiles obtained in selection and ‘fake job’ situations with experts' estimates indicated that participants were partially successful in faking the desirable profile.     

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.     

A general factor of personality,social desirability,cognitive ability,and the survey of work styles in an employment selection setting

How a general factor of personality (GFP) correlated with employment screening measures in an applied setting was examined. Participants were 540 adult insurance sales job applicants who completed scales from two personality measures, the five scales from the Survey of Work Styles (SWS), an intelligence measure, and a social desirability scale. A joint factor analysis of the personality questionnaires produced four first order factors. A single GFP was also extracted. Strong correlations were found between some of the personality factors and the SWS scales. Strong significant correlations were found between the GFP and three of the four personality factors with social desirability. Neither the GFP nor the personality factors correlated significantly with cognitive abilities.     

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.     

Emotional Intelligence in Selection Contexts: Measurement method,criterion‐related validity,and vulnerability to response distortion

Two studies examined aspects of the validity of self‐report and performance‐based measures of emotional intelligence (EI) relevant to their use in personnel selection. In Study 1, structural equation modeling indicated that a two‐factor model with separate factors for the two types of EI measures fit better than a one‐factor solution. The performance‐based EI factor was more related to cognitive ability (R=.38) than personality (R=.26), whereas the self‐report EI factor was more related to personality (R=.85) than cognitive ability (R=.09). Although the performance‐based EI factor correlated more strongly with job performance (ρ=.24) than did that of the self‐report (ρ=.05), it provided little incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and conscientiousness. In Study 2, participants were asked to complete the measures as if applying for a job, and mean scores were then compared with those of Study 1. Results indicated that self‐report EI measures were more vulnerable to distortion than were the performance‐based measures. Implications for the assessment of EI in personnel selection contexts are discussed.     

Not Simply “In Their Heads”: Individual Differences Associated With Victimization and Health1

Research has not examined whether victimization predicts health after controlling for personality differences associated with victimization and health. In Study 1, college students (N = 1182) completed surveys assessing victimization, health, and personality. In Study 2, college students (N = 69) participated in a short‐term longitudinal study that examined whether (a) victimization would predict health changes; (b) increases in victimization would lead to increased health problems; and (c) fall health would predict spring victimization when personality was considered. After controlling for individual differences, we found victimization predicted health outcomes (Study 1) and health problems over time (Study 2). These findings suggest the victimization–health link may occur because of physiological changes, rather than personality differences associated with victimization and health.     

No evidence for a General Factor of Personality in the HEXACO Personality Inventory

There have been an increasing number of articles that have speculated on the existence of a General Factor of Personality (GFP) similar to ‘g’ in intelligence research. In this study, I provide evidence that this general factor may be an artifact of the personality instrument used. Specifically, in two samples I show that depending on the type of analysis used there is either no evidence for a GFP in the HEXACO Personality Inventory or the GFP is found to be uncorrelated to GFPs based on Big Five or FFM instruments.     

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.     

Does Acquisitive Self‐Presentation in Personality Self‐Ratings Enhance Validity? Evidence from two experimental field studies

The aim of the present research was to demonstrate that acquisitive self‐presentation in personality scales is not a barrier to their criterion‐related validities in human resource contexts, but rather a means to improve them. A pilot study (Study 1) with 96 job incumbents provided preliminary positive evidence. In Study 2, in the experimental group (n=99), the instructions asked job incumbents to work on a Big‐Five personality inventory (BFI‐K) as if they took part in a personnel selection procedure for a personally very attractive position. In the control group (n=93) of Study 2, job incumbents were asked to answer the inventory items honestly. As expected, the correlation between the self‐ratings of the motive to get along (i.e., which comprises emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) and contextual performance assessments was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group in Study 2. Additionally, the correlation between the self‐ratings of the motive to get ahead (i.e., which comprises extraversion and openness to experience) and task performance and leadership assessments was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group in Study 2. It is proposed that responding to a personality inventory in a human resource decision situation should be conceptualized as a workplace simulation.     

Applications of Personality Assessment to the Workplace: A Review

Our review of the relevant research literature in the recent past strongly supports the view that personality assessment has high utility in the workplace. We review the evidence that personality assessment measures, especially those based upon the Big Five factors of personality, can effectively predict job performance and thus can be used for personnel selection. The validity of integrity testing in predicting counterproductivity on the job has been demonstrated both for overt measures of integrity and, to a lesser degree, for more general (subtle) measures of personality. We also found good evidence of validity for measures of (supervisory) management and (transformational) leadership, a complex field which includes a number of multidimensional instruments each built around its own theory. Finally, we review the empirical literature that supports the use of assessment centers and the use of personality assessment in training and development.     

Do personality factors predict job satisfaction?

Two studies investigated the relationships between personality traits and aspects of job satisfaction. In Study 1, job applicants (n=250) completed the Eysenck Personality Profiler and the Work Values Questionnaire (WVQ), which requires respondents to rate various work-related facets according to the extent to which they contribute to their job satisfaction. These facets were combined into two composites (hygiene and motivator) based on previous research. The three personality superfactors accounted for a small percentage of the variance in importance ratings (about 5%). In Study 2, employees (n=82) completed a measure of the ‘Big Five’ personality traits and the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (JSQ), which assesses both what respondents consider as important in their work environment as well as their satisfaction with their current job. Importance ratings were again combined into two composites while job satisfaction ratings were factor analyzed and three factors, differentiated along hygiene versus motivator lines, emerged. Personality traits again accounted for a small percentage of the total variance both in importance ratings and in levels of job satisfaction. It is concluded that personality does not have a strong or consistent influence either on what individuals perceive as important in their work environment or on their levels of job satisfaction.     

Hello From the New Editor

The research goal was to identify potential “contextual” predictors of job performance for military officers. Exploratory factor analysis of job component ratings by military officers (n = 105) in the Irish Defence Forces revealed two “contextual” and two task-related factors. There were no differences in the extent to which contextual job components were a part of the jobs across four military units, but for one contextual factor, contextual components were a significant part of some jobs. Other research shows contextual components increment validity beyond both g and task-related job components. In this first reported study using a sample of military officers to examine contextual job behaviors, the findings suggest contextual components may also increment validity in officer selection models.     

The genetics and evolution of the general factor of personality

Three studies tested the hypothesis that a general factor of personality (GFP) underlies diverse individual differences including altruism, the Big Five factors of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability, and the EAS temperament traits of Emotional Stability, Activity, and Sociability. In Study 1, 214 university students completed 36 personality scales. In Study 2, 322 pairs of monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins completed 29 5-point rating scales plus questionnaires. In Study 3, 575 pairs of 2- to 9-year-old Korean twins were rated by their mothers on 25 temperament scales. Factor analyses revealed a hierarchical organization with GFP at the apex and the Big Five and/or EAS temperament scales intermediate. The twin data show GFP has an early age of onset with 50% of the variance attributable to non-additive (dominance) genetic influence and 50% to unique, non-shared environmental influence. We discuss a life history matrix encompassing brain size, maturational speed, and longevity, plus emotional intelligence and the personality disorders, and suggest natural selection acted directionally to endow people with more cooperative and less contentious personalities than their archaic ancestors, or nearest living relatives, the chimpanzees.     

What do People Want from their Jobs? The Big Five,core self‐evaluations and work motivation

If people are differentially motivated on the basis of individual differences, this implies important practical consequences with respect to staffing decisions and the selection of the right motivational techniques for managers. In two different samples (students facing graduation vs full‐time employees), the relationships between personality traits and the preference for job characteristics concerning either extrinsic (job environment) or intrinsic job features (work itself) were investigated. Two personality traits [openness to experience and core self‐evaluations (CSE)] were consistently found to be positively related to the preference concerning work characteristics, and CSE showed incremental validity with regard to intrinsic work motivation factors (e.g., experienced meaningfulness, autonomy). Furthermore, age was differentially linked to those job characteristics. The results are discussed with regards to the optimal Person–Job Fit and the practical utility of the personality constructs.     

Development and Validation of a Military Training Mental Toughness Inventory

Three studies were conducted to develop and validate a mental toughness instrument for use in military training environments. Study 1 (n = 435) focused on item generation and testing the structural integrity of the Military Training Mental Toughness Inventory (MTMTI). The measure assessed ability to maintain optimal performance under pressure from a range of different stressors experienced by recruits during infantry basic training. Study 2 (n = 104) examined the concurrent validity, predictive validity, and test–retest reliability of the measure. Study 3 (n = 106) confirmed the predictive validity of the measure with a sample of more specialized infantry recruits. Overall, the military training mental toughness inventory demonstrated sound psychometric properties and structural validity. Furthermore, it was found to possess good test–retest reliability, concurrent validity, and predicted performance in 2 different training contexts with 2 separate samples.