1. Chapter 3 TRAITS AND TRAIT TAXONOMIES © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 1

2. ANNOUNCEMENTS © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 2

3. Part One. Dispositional Domain Looking for universal personality traits.  How many personality traits exist? (Chapter 3)  How do we classify these personality traits? (Chapter 3)  How do we measure these traits? (Chapter 4)  Are the traits stable over time? (Chapter 4)  Are the traits stable across situations? (Chapter 4)  How do the traits develop? (Chapter 5) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 3

4. Chapter 3 Outline I. Identifying Personality Traits: 3 Approaches II. Past and Present Taxonomies of Personality © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 4

5. Three Approaches to Identifying Traits 1. Lexical Approach 2. Statistical Approach 3. Theoretical Approach © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 5

6. Lexical Approach  Lexical hypothesis: All important individual differences have become encoded within the natural language over time  New trait terms: Crunk  Crunk: very excited / full of energy © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 6

7. Lexical Approach: Two Criteria  Two criteria for identifying important traits  (1) Synonym frequency  How many synonyms exist for the word “crunk?”  (2) Cross-cultural universality  Do most languages possess a similar word for “crunk?”  Do most languages possess several synonyms for the word “crunk?”  If no, then a culture-specific trait: “Élan” © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 7

8. Lexical Approach  Problems and limitations  Many traits are ambiguous, metaphorical, obscure, or difficult  Personality is conveyed through different parts of speech (not just adjectives), including nouns and adverbs  What does researcher do once they select trait adjectives from the dictionary? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 8

9. Statistical Approach  Starts with a large, diverse pool of personality items  Goal: identify major dimensions of personality  Often used after lexical approach © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 9

10. 10

11. Which items “hang” together? 1. I prefer jobs that involve active social interaction to those that involve working alone. 2. I always try to be accurate in my work, even at the expense of time. 3. The first thing that I always do in a new place is to make friends. 4. I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal. 5. On most days, I feel cheerful and optimistic. 6. People often call me a perfectionist. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 11

12. #1: I prefer jobs that involve active social interaction to those that involve working alone. #3: The first thing that I always do in a new place is to make friends. #5: On most days, I feel cheerful and optimistic. #2: I always try to be accurate in my work, even at the expense of time. #4: I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal. #6: People often call me a perfectionist. Factor Analysis! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 12

13. Statistical Approach  Factor analysis  Identifies groups of items that covary or go together, but tend not to covary with other groups of items  Method to determine which personality variables share some property or belong within the same group  Reduces the large array of diverse traits into smaller, more useful set of underlying factors © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 13

14. In-Class Exercise #1: Name & Username  Group the personality traits by similarity.  After you have the groups, name each group to describe the broader personality trait.  Write down the names of the broad personality factors. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 14

15. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 15 FactorFacets Honesty-HumilitySincerity, fairness, greed- avoidance, modesty Emotionality (High N)Fearfulness, anxiety, dependence, sentimentality ExtraversionSocial self-esteem, social boldness, sociability, liveliness AgreeablenessForgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, patience ConscientiousnessOrganization, diligence, perfectionism, prudence Openness to ExperienceAesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, unconventionality

16. Statistical Approach: Factors vs. Facets  What is a factor?  A broad personality dimension that encompasses similar facets/personality traits.  What is a facet?  A facet represents a narrow personality trait measured within a factor. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 16

17. Statistical Approach: Factors vs. Facets Extraversion Factor (10-items) Social Self- Esteem (3-items) Social Boldness (3-items) Sociability (2- items) Liveliness (2-items) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 17

18. Statistical Approach: Factors vs. Facets Extraversion Factor (10-items) Social Self- Esteem (3-items) Social Boldness (3-items) Sociability (2- items) Liveliness (2-items) FACTOR 4 FACETS © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 18

19. Statistical Approach: Factors vs. Facets Extraversion Factor (10-items) Social Self- Esteem (3-items) Social Boldness (3-items) Sociability (2- items) Liveliness (2-items) FACTOR 4 FACETS Recent research suggests that facet scores may be better predictors of behavior and life outcomes. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 19

20. Statistical Approach: Factors vs. Facets  What is a reverse-scored item (also called reverse-coded)?  A reverse-scored item is written in the opposite direction of the way in which the facet/factor is scored.  Extraversion example: Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than I generally am.  To score a reverse-scored item, you must convert your original response:  After converting score, then you average this new score with the remaining items included in the factor. Original ResponseNew Response 1 → 5 2 → 4 3 → 3 4 → 2 5 → 1 © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 20

21. Statistical Approach: Factors vs. Facets  Why would a personality researcher include a reverse-scored item? A. To confuse the participant. B. To check for social desirability. C. To keep the participant interested in the survey. D. Help! I don’t understand reverse-scoring! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 21

22. Statistical Approach: Factors vs. Facets  Why would a personality researcher include a reverse-scored item? A. To confuse the participant. B. To check for social desirability. C. To keep the participant interested in the survey. D. Help! I don’t understand reverse-scoring! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 22

23. Consider factor analysis and the HEXACO model. The facets that fall under Openness to Experience should be: A. Negatively Correlated B. Positively Correlated C. Not Correlated / No relationship © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 23

24. Consider factor analysis and the HEXACO model. The facet facets that fall under Openness to Experience should be: A. Negatively Correlated B. Positively Correlated C. Not Correlated / No relationship © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 24

25. Statistical Approach: Summary  Typically used in conjunction with lexical approach  Involves conducting factor and correlational analyses  Often results in broad (factors) and narrow (facets) personality dimensions  Also called “empirical approach” © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 25

26. Theoretical Approach  Starts with a theory  The theory identifies the personality variables that are important.  Example: Eysenck’s PEN Model © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 26

27. 3 Approaches: Summary Language determines personality traits/dimensions Lexical Factor Analysis Reduce # traits into smaller # of broad dimensions Statistical Theory determines personality traits/dimensions Theoretical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 27

28. Past and Present Taxonomies of Personality  Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model of Personality  Cattell’s Taxonomy: The 16 Personality Factor System  Circumplex Taxonomies of Personality: The Wiggins Circumplex (1979)  Five-Factor Model  HEXACO Model © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 28

29. Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model of Personality  Highly heritable  Psychophysiological foundation  Three traits met criteria:  Extraversion-Introversion (E)  Neuroticism-Emotional Stability (N)  Psychoticism (P) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 29

30. Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model of Personality  First (Top) Level: Super traits (P, E, N)  Second Level: Narrower traits  Third Level: Habitual acts  Fourth (Lowest) Level: Specific acts © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 30

31. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 31 SUPER-TRAIT 9 NARROWER TRAITS HABITUAL ACTS SPECIFIC ACTS

32. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 32 Habitual Act: Painting I painted the Nittany Lion yesterday morning I painted Beaver Stadium last night I painted Paterno library this morning

33. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 33 Narrow Trait: Creativity Habitual Act: Painting Habitual Act: Writing Habitual Act: Photography

34. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 34 SUPER-TRAIT 9 NARROWER TRAITS HABITUAL ACTS SPECIFIC ACTS

35. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 35 SUPER-TRAIT 9 NARROWER TRAITS HABITUAL ACTS SPECIFIC ACTS

36. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 36 HABITUAL ACTS SPECIFIC ACTS SUPER-TRAIT 9 NARROWER TRAITS

37. Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model of Personality  2 Criteria for Super-traits  (1) Heritability  P, E, and N have moderate heritabilities  (2) Identifiable physiological substrate  Super-traits linked to properties in the brain and CNS © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 37

38. ↑ Testosterone ↓ MAO (neurotrans. inhibitor) P ↓ CNS arousal ↓ ARAS (brainstem), Cortical Arousal Thy E ↑ SNS Response N © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 38

39. What type of approach does Eysenck’s theory emphasize? A. Empirical/Statistical B. Theoretical C. Lexical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 39

40. Eysenck: Strengths & Weaknesses  Strengths:  Linked personality to biological underpinnings  Early theory that arousal explained individual differences in E/I  Limitations:  Eysenck may have missed important traits  Based on Theoretical Approach – tested much later  Study Approach: self-report scale instead of neuroscience © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 40

41. Cattell’s Taxonomy: The 16 Personality Factor System  Cattell’s goal was to identify and measure the basic units of personality  Measured personality with different types of data © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 41

42. Note: # of factors may be due to technology in the early 20 th century – factor analysis procedures were much more cumbersome (by hand) and less accurate. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 42 16 Personality Factors Interpersonal WarmthSuspiciousness IntelligenceImagination Emotional StabilityShrewdness DominanceInsecurity ImpulsivityRadicalism ConformitySelf-sufficiency BoldnessSelf-discipline SensitivityTension

43. Cattell employed which strategy to develop his personality model? A. Lexical B. Statistical C. Theoretical D. Lexical and Statistical E. Theoretical and Statistical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 43

44. Cattell employed which strategy to develop his personality model? A. Lexical B. Statistical C. Theoretical D. Lexical and Statistical E. Theoretical and Statistical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 44

45. Cattell’s Taxonomy: Strengths and Weaknesses  Strengths:  Identified 16 factors using the lexical approach  Provided foundation for future models (e.g., Big Five, HEXACO)  Major criticisms  Some personality researchers have failed to replicate the 16 factors  Many argue that a smaller number of factors captures important ways in which individuals differ © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 45

46. The Wiggins Circumplex  Wiggins (1979) developed measurement scales to assess traits  Started with the lexical assumption  Argued that trait terms specify the kinds of ways in which individuals differ: Interpersonal, temperament, character, material, attitude, mental, and physical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 46

47. Trait Adjectives InterpersonalTemperamentCharacterAttitudeMentalPhysical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 47

48. Trait Adjectives InterpersonalTemperamentCharacterAttitudeMentalPhysical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 48

49. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 49

50. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 50 Adjacency

51. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 51 Bipolarity

52. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 52 Orthogonality

53. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 53 Where would you place cooperative?

54. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 54 “I am who I am. I can’t pretend to be somebody who makes $25,000 a year.” (Elle UK, 2009)

55. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 55

56. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 56 “I’ve never really viewed myself as particularly talented. I’ve viewed myself as slightly above average in talent.” (60 Minutes, 2007)

57. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 57

58. Wiggins Activity: Where are you located? A. Quadrant I: between 0 °and 90° B. Quadrant 2: between 90 °and 180° C. Quadrant 3: between 180 °and 270° D. Quadrant 4: between 270 °and 0° © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 58

59. Wiggins employed which strategy to develop his personality model? A. Lexical B. Statistical C. Theoretical D. Lexical and Statistical E. Theoretical and Statistical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 59

60. Wiggins employed which strategy to develop his personality model? A. Lexical B. Statistical C. Theoretical D. Lexical and Statistical E. Theoretical and Statistical © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 60

61. The Wiggins Circumplex: Strengths and Weaknesses  Strengths  Explicit definition of what constitutes “interpersonal” behavior  Specifies relationships between each trait and every other trait in the model (adjacency, bipolarity, orthogonality)  Alerts investigators to “gaps” in work on interpersonal behavior  Weaknesses  Interpersonal map is limited to two dimensions— other traits may have important interpersonal consequences  Only focuses on interpersonal adjectives (similar to Agreeableness) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 61

62. Summary: Eysenck, Cattell, Wiggins  Past personality trait taxonomies  Not frequently used in personality research  Useful in identifying groups of trait adjectives for development of more recent personality taxonomies, including FFM and HEXACO © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 62

63. Current Taxonomies  Big Five (various models exist)  HEXACO © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 63

64. Five-Factor Model (FFM): A History 1936: Allport & Odbert identify 17,953 traits from English dictionary and divide into 4 categories 1943: Cattell groups 4,500 stable traits into 35 clusters 1949: Fiske reduces Cattell’s 35 to 22 clusters 1961: Tupes & Christal examine 22 clusters across eight samples. Find 5 factors: Surgency, Agree, Cons, Emot. Stab., and Culture 1963-2010: Replications included Norman, Goldberg, McCrae & Costa, etc. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 64

65. FFM Overview  Five broad factors:  Surgency or Extraversion  Agreeableness  Conscientiousness  Emotional Stability/Neuroticism  Openness to Experience/ Intellect/Imagination/Culture  **OCEAN  2 Different Types of Scale Items  (1) Self-ratings of single-word trait adjectives (e.g., Goldberg)  (2) Self-ratings of sentence items (McCrae & Costa, 1999) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 65

66. FFM: Goldberg © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 66 Talkative, sociable, assertive, enthusiastic, verbal Withdrawn, silent, introverted, shy, inhibited, reserved Extraversion Sympathetic, kind, warm, compassionate, cooperative Cold, harsh, rude, rough, antagonistic, callous Agreeableness Organized, systematic, efficient, precise, thorough Careless, sloppy, absent-minded, unreliable, haphazard Conscientiousness Relaxed, unemotional, unexcitable, easy-going Moody, jealous, anxious, high-strung, touchy Emotional Stability Intellectual, philosophical, innovative, unconventional Simple, conventional, uninquisitive, unintelligent Intellect/Imagination

67. FFM: Costa & McCrae’s (1989) NEO-PI-R Factors © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 67 the active seeking and appreciation of experiences for their own sake O penness to Experience degree of organization, persistence, control and motivation in goal directed behavior C onscientiousness Quantity and intensity of energy directed outwards into the social world E xtraversion the kinds of interactions an individual prefers from compassion to tough mindedness A greeableness identifies individuals who are prone to psychological distress N euroticism (Emotional Stability)

68. FFM: Costa & McCrae’s (1989) NEO-PI-R Facets 68 Openness to: Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values O penness to Experience Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement- Striving, Self-Discipline, Deliberation C onscientiousness Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement Seeking, Positive Emotions E xtraversion Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Tender-Mindedness A greeableness Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self- Consciousness, Impulsiveness, Vulnerability N euroticism (Emotional Stability) NEO-PI-R Facet Scale Descriptions © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

69. FFM: Empirical Evidence  Replicated:  Using trait words as items  By 12+ researchers using different samples  Different languages  For past 50 years © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 69

70. FFM: Openness to Experience  Disagreement about the content and replicability  Content of factor varies across languages/cultures  NEO-PI-R: minimizes mental ability; emphasizes new ideas, imagination, and trying new things.  This differs from older FFM models that focus on mental ability/IQ © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 70

71. Five-Factor Model: Criticisms  Is the five-factor model comprehensive?  Possible omissions include:  masculinity/femininity  religiosity or spirituality  attractiveness  sexuality  Could there be more than 5 factors? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 71

72. In-Class Exercise #2: Name That Big Five Trait! Column 1 Big Five Factor Column 2 Big Five Facet © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 72

73. MK FB FG F & J JB KS AH Wll © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 73

74. HEXACO Overview  6 personality factors/dimensions  H onesty-Humility  E motional Stability (High Neuroticism)  e X traversion  A greeableness  C onscientiousness  O penness to Experience  Self-ratings of sentence items  Lexical and Statistical Approach © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 74

75. HEXACO Factor and Facet Scales 75 Sincerity, Fairness, Greed-Avoidance, Modesty H onesty-Humility Fearfulness, Anxiety, Dependence, Sentimentality E motional Stability Social Self-Esteem, Social Boldness, Sociability, Liveliness e X traversion Forgiveness, Gentleness, Flexibility, Patience A greeableness Organization, Diligence, Perfectionism, Prudence C onscientiousness Aesthetic Appreciation, Inquisitiveness, Creativity, Unconventionality O penness to Experience Note. Review Scale Descriptions Hand-out for Factor and Facet Scale Definitions © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

76. Languages Used to Develop HEXACO  Dutch  French  German  Hungarian  Italian  Korean  Polish © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 76

77. Languages Used to Develop HEXACO  Dutch  French  German  Hungarian  Italian  Korean  Polish © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 77 PROBLEM?

78. Languages Used to Develop HEXACO  Dutch  French  German  Hungarian  Italian  Korean  Polish © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 78 PROBLEM? More recently, replicated in other languages such as Croatian, Filipino, Greek, and Turkish

79. Some Findings from a College Sample 1  College students scored above the midpoint on all factors except Emotionality (High Neuroticism)  Women scored higher than men on Emotionality and Honesty-Humility  Internal Consistency =.88 to.91  Correlation b/w self and observer reports: r =.48 to.62 1 Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340-345. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 79

80. FFM vs. HEXACO © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 80 Review the HEXACO and Big Five facet scales. 1.On the Big 5, which factor includes the Honesty-Humility facets? 2.On the Big Five, which factor includes the facet Patience v. Irritability? Review the HEXACO and Big Five facet scales. 1.On the Big 5, which factor includes the Honesty-Humility facets? 2.On the Big Five, which factor includes the facet Patience v. Irritability?

81. FFM vs. HEXACO FFMHEXACO Emotional Stability High Score = Low Neuroticism High Score = High Neuroticism © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 81

82. FFM vs. HEXACO FFMHEXACO Emotional Stability High Score = Low Neuroticism High Score = High Neuroticism Sincerity, Fairness, Modesty Facet Scales Loaded on Agreeableness Loaded on Honesty- Humility © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 82

83. FFM vs. HEXACO FFMHEXACO Emotional Stability High Score = Low Neuroticism High Score = High Neuroticism Sincerity, Fairness, Modesty Facet Scales Loaded on Agreeableness Loaded on Honesty- Humility Sentimentality vs. Toughness Facet Scale Loaded on Agreeableness Loaded on Emotional Stability © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 83

84. FFM vs. HEXACO FFMHEXACO Emotional Stability High Score = Low Neuroticism High Score = High Neuroticism Sincerity, Fairness, Modesty Facet Scales Loaded on Agreeableness Loaded on Honesty- Humility Sentimentality vs. Toughness Facet Scale Loaded on Agreeableness Loaded on Emotional Stability Patience vs. Irritability Facet Scale Loaded on Emotional Stability Loaded on Agreeableness © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 84

85. FFM vs. HEXACO FFMHEXACO Emotional Stability High Score = Low Neuroticism High Score = High Neuroticism Sincerity, Fairness, Modesty Facet Scales Loaded on Agreeableness Loaded on Honesty- Humility Sentimentality vs. Toughness Facet Scale Loaded on Agreeableness Loaded on Emotionality Patience vs. Irritability Facet Scale Loaded on Emotional Stability Loaded on Agreeableness Unconventionality Facet Scale Not included Loaded on Openness to Experience © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 85

86. FFM vs. HEXACO: Important Difference  FFM (1970’s – 1990’s)  First, combined similar adjectives (i.e. synonyms) into clusters  Then, submitted the smaller clusters to factor analysis  HEXACO (2000’s)  Did not combine synonyms into smaller clusters  Submitted all trait adjectives in non-English languages to factor analysis (Ashton, Lee, Perugini, et al., 2004; Lee & Ashton, 2008)  Using new method, later replicated in English language (Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004; Less & Ashton, 2008) 86 © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

87. A. Yes! B. No! C. I have no idea! Please explain! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 87 Should the Big Five Factors be correlated with each other?

88. Reflection #3 Questions  1. Compare you Big Five to your HEXACO scores. Do you see any differences or similarities in your self-reported scores? Why do you think these similarities/differences exist?  2. Do you think your Big Five and HEXACO scores accurately represent your personality? Provide an example from your own life to support your answer.  3. Based on your two scores, do you think these tests are reliable and/or valid? Why or why not? (You might consider the wording of the statements in the tests).  4. Compare your scores on the HEXACO Openness to Experience and the Big Five Intellect factors. Are they similar/different? Do these Big Five and HEXACO factors measure the same construct? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 88

89. Why did Ashton & Lee find the sixth personality dimension of Honesty-Humility? A. They confined the lexical strategy to the English language only. B. Past studies on the Big Five did not include personality adjectives of honesty or humility. C. They translated their English survey to other languages. D. They conducted factor analysis on all trait adjectives within each language. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 89

90. Why did Ashton & Lee find the sixth personality dimension of Honesty-Humility? A. They confined the lexical strategy to the English language only. B. Past studies on the Big Five did not include personality adjectives of honesty or humility. C. They translated their English survey to other languages. D. They conducted factor analysis on all trait adjectives within each language. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 90

91. Summary and Evaluation  Personality psychologists typically blend the 3 approaches  Numerous taxonomies exist to define universal personality traits  HEXACO and FFM are the most accurate models  Most often used in research today  HEXACO and FFM both developed with the lexical and statistical approach.  But, HEXACO and FFM used different methods to obtain universal personality traits. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 91