Are indigenous personality dimensions culture-specific? Mexican inventories and the Five-Factor Model

The universality versus cultural specificity of Mexican personality dimensions was investigated by examining: (a) the replicability of Mexican personality dimensions assessed by indigenous inventories; and (b) the extent to which Mexican dimensions are encompassed by the Five-Factor Model (FFM), one hypothesized universal model of personality structure. Mexican university students (N = 794) completed nine indigenous inventories and the Spanish version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. The FFM replicated well, although reliability was poor for a few facet scales. Reliability was acceptable for the indigenous Mexican scales. However, for most indigenous instruments, a cross-sample replication criterion suggested alternative structures of fewer, more replicable dimensions. Multiple regression and joint factor analyses revealed that most of the Mexican dimensions were well subsumed by the FFM. Thus, cultural differences did not involve clearly culture-specific dimensions, but more subtle differences in the salience or cultural flavor of particular traits.     

Understanding Psychopathy Using the Basic Elements of Personality

Psychopathy is a form of personality disorder characterized by arrogance, self‐absorption, callousness, exploitation, and impulsivity that is also strongly associated with antisocial behavior. The present paper argues that psychopathy can and should be understood as a configuration of personality traits from a general model of personality functioning – the five‐factor model (FFM). In this paper, we demonstrate that previous theoretical conceptualizations of psychopathy and current empirical ones converge on a general FFM profile characterized by very low scores on agreeableness and conscientiousness and mixed relations to aspects of neuroticism and extraversion. Further, we articulate the advantages to understanding psychopathy in this way. The FFM provides an assay of extant inventories, explains the factor structure of various inventories, accounts for the epidemiology of psychopathy, and makes sense of the litany of putative psychopathic deficits. Perhaps most importantly, the FFM provides a connection to basic research in personality.     

A five-factor measure of dependent personality traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of dependent personality traits from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM). Dependent personality trait scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of FFM facets (e.g., Gullibility as a maladaptive variant of FFM trust). Based on responses from 383 undergraduates, the convergent validity of the Five-Factor Dependency Inventory (FFDI) scales was tested with respect to 2 measures of the FFM, 6 dependency trait scales, and 4 measures of dependent personality disorder. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to FFM facets from alternative domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM dependent personality trait scales to account for variance in 2 established measures of dependency, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facet scales and other measures of DPD was first removed. The results of this study provided support for the validity of the FFDI assessment of dependency from the perspective of the FFM.     

A Five-Factor Measure of Dependent Personality Traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of dependent personality traits from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM). Dependent personality trait scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of FFM facets (e.g., Gullibility as a maladaptive variant of FFM trust). Based on responses from 383 undergraduates, the convergent validity of the Five-Factor Dependency Inventory (FFDI) scales was tested with respect to 2 measures of the FFM, 6 dependency trait scales, and 4 measures of dependent personality disorder. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to FFM facets from alternative domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM dependent personality trait scales to account for variance in 2 established measures of dependency, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facet scales and other measures of DPD was first removed. The results of this study provided support for the validity of the FFDI assessment of dependency from the perspective of the FFM.     

Predicting job performance using FFM and non‐FFM personality measures

This study compares the criterion validity of the Big Five personality dimensions when assessed using Five‐Factor Model (FFM)‐based inventories and non‐FFM‐based inventories. A large database consisting of American as well as European validity studies was meta‐analysed. The results showed that for conscientiousness and emotional stability, the FFM‐based inventories had greater criterion validity than the non FFM‐based inventories. Conscientiousness showed an operational validity of .28 (N = 19,460, 90% CV = .07) for FFM‐based inventories and .18 (N =5,874, 90% CV = ‐.04) for non‐FFM inventories. Emotional stability showed an operational validity of .16 (N = 10,786, 90% CV = .04) versus .05 (N = 4,541, 90% CV = ‐.05) for FFM and non‐FFM‐based inventories, respectively. No relevant differences emerged for extraversion, openness, and agreeableness. From a practical point of view, these findings suggest that practitioners should use inventories based on the FFM in order to make personnel selection decisions.     

The Eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with academic performance

Background. The relationship between personality and academic performance has long been explored, and a recent meta‐analysis established that measures of the five‐factor model (FFM) dimension of Conscientiousness have similar validity to intelligence measures. Although currently dominant, the FFM is only one of the currently accepted models of personality, and has limited theoretical support. In contrast, the Eysenckian personality model was developed to assess a specific theoretical model and is still commonly used in educational settings and research. Aims. This meta‐analysis assessed the validity of the Eysenckian personality measures for predicting academic performance. Sample. Statistics were obtained for correlations with Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism (20–23 samples; N from 8,013 to 9,191), with smaller aggregates for the Lie scale (7 samples; N= 3,910). Methods. The Hunter–Schmidt random effects method was used to estimate population correlations between the Eysenckian personality measures and academic performance. Moderating effects were tested using weighted least squares regression. Results. Significant but modest validities were reported for each scale. Neuroticism and Extraversion had relationships with academic performance that were consistent with previous findings, while Psychoticism appears to be linked to academic performance because of its association with FFM Conscientiousness. Age and educational level moderated correlations with Neuroticism and Extraversion, and gender had no moderating effect. Correlations varied significantly based on the measurement instrument used. Conclusions. The Eysenckian scales do not add to the prediction of academic performance beyond that provided by FFM scales. Several measurement problems afflict the Eysenckian scales, including low to poor internal reliability and complex factor structures. In particular, the measurement and validity problems of Psychoticism mean its continued use in academic settings is unjustified.     

Are indigenous personality dimensions culture specific? Philippine inventories and the five-factor model.

The authors addressed the culture specificity of indigenous personality constructs, the generalizability of the 5-factor model (FFM), and the incremental validity of indigenous measures in a collectivistic culture. Filipino college students (N = 508) completed 3 indigenous inventories and the Filipino version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). On the basis of the factor and regression analyses, they concluded that (a) most Philippine dimensions are well encompassed by the FFM and thus may not be very culture specific: (b) a few indigenous constructs are less well accounted for by the FFM: these constructs are not unknown in Western cultures, but they may be particularly salient or composed somewhat differently in the Philippines; (c) the structure of the NEO-PI-R FFM replicates well in the Philippines: and (d) Philippine inventories add modest incremental validity beyond the FFM in predicting selected culture-relevant criteria.     

The five-factor narcissism inventory: a five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of narcissistic personality traits created from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Fifteen scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Reactive Anger as a narcissistic variant of angry hostility), with item selection made on the basis of a criterion-keying approach using results from 167 undergraduates. On the basis of data from 166 additional undergraduates, the convergent validity of these 15 scales was tested with respect to 8 established measures of narcissism (including measures of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism) and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM narcissism trait scales to account for variance in 2 alternative measures of narcissism, after variance accounted for by respective NEO PI-R facet scales and other established measures of narcissism were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of narcissistic personality traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.     

How resilient are resilience scales? The Big Five scales outperform resilience scales in predicting adjustment in adolescents

Waaktaar, T. & Torgersen, S. (2009). How resilient are resilience scales? The Big Five scales outperform resilience scales in predicting adjustment in adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 157–163. This study’s aim was to determine whether resilience scales could predict adjustment over and above that predicted by the five‐factor model (FFM). A sample of 1,345 adolescents completed paper‐and‐pencil scales on FFM personality (Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children), resilience (Ego‐Resiliency Scale [ER89] by Block & Kremen, the Resilience Scale [RS] by Wagnild & Young) and adaptive behaviors (California Healthy Kids Survey, UCLA Loneliness Scale and three measures of school adaptation). The results showed that the FFM scales accounted for the highest proportion of variance in disturbance. For adaptation, the resilience scales contributed as much as the FFM. In no case did the resilience scales outperform the FFM by increasing the explained variance. The results challenge the validity of the resilience concept as an indicator of human adaptation and avoidance of disturbance, although the concept may have heuristic value in combining favorable aspects of a person’s personality endowment.     

A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits

The current study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of schizotypy from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Nine schizotypy scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Aberrant Ideas as a maladaptive variant of FFM Openness to Ideas). On the basis of data from 143 undergraduates, the convergent validity of these nine scales was tested with respect to seven established measures of schizotypy and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains and components of schizotypy. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM schizotypy scales to account for variance in two established measures of schizotypy, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facets and other established measures of schizotypy were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of schizotypal traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.     

Contributions to Global Self-Esteem: The Role of Importance Attached to Self-Concepts Associated with the Five-Factor Model

Previous research has attempted to clarify the relations that one's self-concepts have with one's global self-esteem. One hypothesis that has received the most attention to date is the view that characteristic attributes that an individual regards as especially important for his or her self-concepts exert the greatest influence on self-esteem. In an investigation of this hypothesis, 375 college undergraduates completed measures of global self-esteem as well as rating scales that assessed self-concepts and the importance attached to these self-concepts in the maintenance of self-esteem. The self-concept and importance domains examined corresponded to the five-factor model (FFM) personality dimensions. Consistent with previous research, importance ratings attached to self-concepts were not found to moderate the relation between self-concepts and self-esteem. Rather, ratings on self-concepts alone accounted for a substantial proportion of variance (53.3%) in self-esteem scores. Bivariate correlations based on FFM dimension scores and self-esteem scores revealed consistent positive associations. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that among the FFM dimensions, self-concept ratings for emotional stability (vs neuroticism), extraversion, and agreeableness significantly predicted self-esteem.     

DSM-III-R personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: an empirical comparison.

The relationship between the five-factor model (FFM) of personality and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (rev. 3rd ed.; DSM-III-R) personality disorders was examined in a sample of 54 psychiatric outpatients. Correlations between raw scores on the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) and the number of DSM-III-R personality disorder symptoms rated present using a semistructured interview were computed. In addition, correlations between NEO-PI scores and scores on two self-report personality disorder inventories were also examined to determine which results replicated across instruments. Results indicated that the FFM personality dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness were most apparent in the DSM-III-R conceptualizations of the personality disorders.     

The Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure from the perspective of general personality structure

The Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP-200; J. Shedler & D. Westen, 2004) has received increasing support as a dimensional model of personality pathology. However, only 1 prior study has related empirically the SWAP-200 with any other measure of personality or personality disorder. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether the SWAP-200 personality disorder and personality dimension scales relate meaningfully to the domains and facets of the five-factor model (FFM; J. M. Digman, 1990) of general personality structure. Individuals (n = 94) with significant personality pathology were described on instruments of general personality and personality pathology. The results of the current study suggest that most of the SWAP-200 personality and personality disorder scales relate to the domains and facets of the FFM in a manner consistent with FFM theory and previous FFM personality disorder research. Inconsistent findings and limitations are discussed, along with suggestions for future research.     

INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF EMPIRICALLY KEYED BIODATA SCALES OVER GMA AND THE FIVE FACTOR PERSONALITY CONSTRUCTS

The major purpose of this study was to determine whether empirically keyed, cross-validated biodata scales accounted for incremental variance over that accounted for by the five factor model (FFM) of personality and GMA predictors. A concurrent validation study was employed using 376 employees in a clerical job (222 in the developmental sample and 154 in the cross-validation sample). Results for the cross-validation sample provided support for the hypothesis that biodata predictors accounted for substantial incremental variance beyond that accounted for by the FFM predictors and GMA for 3 of the 4 criteria. Support was also found for the hypothesized zero-order correlations between GMA, FFM, and biodata predictors and the 4 criteria. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment

A new self-report assessment of the basic traits of psychopathy was developed with a general trait model of personality (five-factor model [FFM]) as a framework. Scales were written to assess maladaptive variants of the 18 FFM traits that are robustly related to psychopathy across a variety of perspectives including empirical correlations, expert ratings, and translations of extant assessments. Across 3 independent undergraduate samples (N = 210-354), the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA) scales proved to be internally consistent and unidimensional, and were strongly related to the original FFM scales from which they were derived (mean convergent r = .66). The EPA scales also demonstrated substantial incremental validity in the prediction of existing psychopathy measures over their FFM counterparts. When summed to form a psychopathy total score, the EPA was substantially correlated with 3 commonly used psychopathy measures (mean r = .81). Finally, in a small male forensic sample (N = 70), the EPA was significantly correlated with scores on a widely used self-report psychopathy measure, disciplinary infractions, alcohol use, and antisocial behavior. The EPA provides an opportunity to examine psychopathy and its nomological network through smaller, more basic units of personality rather than by scales or factors that blend these elements.     

Comparing personality scales across time: an illustrative study of validity and consistency in life-span archival data

The goals of this study were: (a) to examine whether personality scales, meaningful in contemporary terms, could be derived from archival data; and (b) to use these scales to aid our understanding of the relation of personality to mortality. NEO PI-R data and a battery of archival items, taken from Terman's Life Cycle Study, were collected on two new samples (sample 1 mean age = 11.9, n = 167; sample 2 mean age = 22.2, n = 203). Measurement invariance of the archival scales was assessed, and validity was examined using both rational analyses and associations with the Five Factor Model. It was demonstrated that interpretable scales can be derived from 50- to 70-year-old archival data. The archival adult personality data were then used to predict mortality. Conscientiousness remains the strongest personality predictor of longevity. Criteria for establishing the validity of archivally derived scales are suggested.     

Personality Correlates of Midlife Cardiometabolic Risk: The Explanatory Role of Higher‐Order Factors of the Five‐Factor Model

Varying associations are reported between Five‐Factor Model (FFM) personality traits and cardiovascular disease risk. Here, we further examine dispositional correlates of cardiometabolic risk within a hierarchical model of personality that proposes higher‐order traits of Stability (shared variance of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, inverse Neuroticism) and Plasticity (Extraversion, Openness), and we test hypothesized mediation via biological and behavioral factors. In an observational study of 856 community volunteers aged 30–54 years (46% male, 86% Caucasian), latent variable FFM traits (using multiple‐informant reports) and aggregated cardiometabolic risk (indicators: insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, blood pressure, adiposity) were estimated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The cardiometabolic factor was regressed on each personality factor or higher‐order trait. Cross‐sectional indirect effects via systemic inflammation, cardiac autonomic control, and physical activity were tested. CFA models confirmed the Stability “meta‐trait,” but not Plasticity. Lower Stability was associated with heightened cardiometabolic risk. This association was accounted for by inflammation, autonomic function, and physical activity. Among FFM traits, only Openness was associated with risk over and above Stability, and, unlike Stability, this relationship was unexplained by the intervening variables. A Stability meta‐trait covaries with midlife cardiometabolic risk, and this association is accounted for by three candidate biological and behavioral factors.     

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.