Which statistical technique was used by raymond cattell to derive his 16 basic personality traits?

Fuse/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Explain trait theory and how it emerged as a dominant force in personality theory.

• Describe the emergence of the trait approach to psychology and identify some contribu- tions of important historical figures, such as Allport, Cattell, and Eysenck.

• Describe how the taxonomy of traits was developed based on language and how they are organized into a hierarchy of factors (e.g., using three-, five-, and sixteen-factor models).

• Explain how factors relate to behaviors in a hierarchy.

• Describe some of the important outcomes that have been predicted by traits such as neuroti- cism, extraversion, optimism, and locus of control.

• Describe the stability of traits over the lifespan and across cultures and languages.

A Trait Approach to Personality 8

Chapter Outline Introduction

8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective • Traits as Building Blocks of Personality • Hippocrates and Galen: The Ancient Greeks

and Humoral Theory • Carl Jung’s Introduction of Introversion and

Extraversion • Gordon Allport and the Analysis of Language • Raymond Cattell and the Statistical Approach

to Personality • Eysenck’s Model of Personality

8.2 Convergence on the Big Five • Openness to New Experience • Agreeableness • Conscientiousness • Big Five in Cultural Context • Heritability of the Big Five • The Big Five Over the Lifespan

• Characterize Mischel’s critique of the trait approach and the field’s response to that critique (i.e., the person- situation debate).

• Describe the novel approaches to conceptualizing and assessing traits, such as the act-frequency approach.

• Characterize the complementary contributions of the goal approach, which examines traits in the context of our lives.

• Describe some of the commonly used measures of traits.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 225 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8Introduction

8.3 The Person-Situation Debate • Responses to Mischel’s Critique of Trait

Psychology • Understanding Situational Strength,

Domain Breadth, and Trait Relevance • The Role of the Fundamental Attribu-

tion Error • Summary of Person-Situation Debate

8.4 Supplementing the Big Five With Complementary Approaches • Projects, Life Tasks, Concerns, Strivings,

and Goals: An Idiographic Approach • Act-Frequency Approach

8.5 Assessment Methods From the Trait Perspective • The Family of NEO™ Scales • The Big Five Inventory • The HEXACO Inventory • Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire • Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor

Questionnaire • Myers Briggs Type Indicator®

Summary

Introduction John is presenting a lecture, and as is his custom, he keeps the students enter- tained and engaged with his wit, smooth dialogue, and animated body language. Given the reaction of the students, this is not a lecture, but an hour of informative entertainment. After class, the students are drawn to John because of his gre- garious and friendly demeanor during class, but he is nowhere to be found. John has a habit of retreating from public after giving a lecture because he feels both exhausted and overwhelmed. His favorite place to hide is a stall in the men’s room; it affords the best protection from interactions with others. After 30 minutes or so, he emerges feeling somewhat recovered.

You see, John’s job requires that he engage in an activity that is not especially pleasant for him. John is, in fact, somewhat isolative, but not shy. John doesn’t look at a group of people and long for their attention or for more social inter- actions. Rather than attend a party or be in large groups, he prefers to read a book under a tree or some other solitary, tranquil place. John is what some people call a “pseudo-extravert.” That is, he is actually an introvert, but he engages in extra- verted behavior in order to meet the demands of his life or important life goals.

Why is it that some people are hard-wired to enjoy stimulation, whereas others appear just as hard-wired to dislike and avoid it? Why are some individuals prone to worry? For example, you may know someone who always worries about their exam performance, yet they typically set the curve on every exam. Why do many people gravitate toward taking (or at least wanting) control over a situation, whereas others prefer to give up that control and let others decide matters?

In this chapter, we will examine what is known as the trait approach to personal- ity. We will examine the theorists who initiated the movement, some of the more interesting research findings on traits, the challenges to trait theory, and the field’s responses.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 226 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Over 2,000 years after the descriptive terms were introduced, we still use the term “choleric” to refer to an easily angered child.

8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

Trait theory is a popular approach for studying personality; it is closely tied to the everyday concept of personality that many people hold because traits are commonly employed in everyday language and are widely understood. We will begin by defining the concept of traits and identify some of the earliest contributors to the trait approach to personality, including Hippocrates, Galen, Carl Jung, Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, and Hans Eysenck.

Traits as Building Blocks of Personality At its most fundamental level, a trait is a unit of analysis to describe, predict, and explain human thought, affect, and behavior. From a distance, it appears as though there are a great many terms (traits) that are used to characterize human activity, but extensive research suggests that these traits can be organized into coherent and meaningful patterns and even enveloped by a smaller number of broad trait categories, thereby simplifying the trait approach.

Hippocrates and Galen: The Ancient Greeks and Humoral Theory The earliest documented work on humoral theory dates back to ancient Greece—and the belief that the body was compromised of four basic fluids and the balance of these fluids could deter- mine behavioral and emotional tendencies (and disease susceptibility). Based originally on early writings in medicine by Hippocrates and later expanded by Galen (On the Temperaments), humoral theory focuses on blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile; these are the four basic fluids (humors) that were thought to be within the human body.

According to the theory, the four humors have to be in balance to achieve and maintain health, and this likewise pre- dicted imbalances in emotion and behavior. An ideal temperament was associated with a balance of the four humors. Excessive blood (sanguine) was associated with a cheerful disposition, excessive black bile (melancholic) was associated with a sad disposition, exces- sive yellow bile (choleric) was character- ized as irritable, and too much phlegm (phlegmatic) meant an unemotional temperament.

Although contemporary personality researchers do not relate the humors to character, the descriptive terms are still employed. For example, an irritable infant is still referred to as choleric, and

the term melancholy still applies to sadness. Moreover, as we shall see when reviewing the work of Eysenck, the basic terminology for characterizing all human behavior has been somewhat con- sistent for more than 2,000 years, suggesting that there may be a core set of personality traits

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 227 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

expressed by humans that have been stable throughout much of modern history. Moreover, humoral theory also established the framework for connecting traits to biological functioning, and this tradition also continues today (see especially Eysenck’s work on extraversion and research on heritability coefficients for personality).

Carl Jung’s Introduction of Introversion and Extraversion Carl Jung was first and foremost a central contributor to psychodynamic theory. However, he was also one of the first to popularize the terms introversion and extraversion, and these remain two of the most popular and widely recognized trait terms. Jung described the outward manifestation of behavior in very similar ways to modern-day psychologists. For example, extraversion meant someone who is interested in other people and things and is focused on them, whereas introver- sion meant being withdrawn and focusing on the subjective experience of the world. Although Jung did not develop a formal measure of introversion-extraversion, researchers subsequently developed a measure that was based on Jung’s typology, called the Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) (see Chapter 1).

Gordon Allport and the Analysis of Language One of the more enduring early contributions in trait psychology was the method of studying language as the very basis of traits. Gordon W. Allport is often considered the first trait psycholo- gist, and he was interested in classification. Allport adopted traits as his basic unit of analysis. He believed that traits are closely tied to the nervous system, and that they account for behavioral consistency across time and situations (Allport & Allport, 1921). Allport believed that a trait would predict which behavior would manifest with high frequency, with intensity, and over a wide range of situations (see also Allport, 1937).

Beginning an important tradition, Allport used Webster’s New International Dictionary and culled almost 18,000 words, each of which described some aspect of human behavior (Allport & Odbert, 1936). In adopting this methodology, Allport made the assumption that any descriptive character- istics that are important will become part of our language and that language will evolve such that single words will emerge to capture those important constructs. Thus, Allport’s theory is based on the associated meanings of words, as he thought these meanings transcend the word itself and instead speak to human nature. This approach of studying language to understand person- ality was referred to a lexical analysis, and the underlying theory was referred to as the lexical hypothesis (see also John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988). The general thesis of this work is that by understanding how different adjectives that are used to describe human behavior are related to each other, one can then understand at least two basic questions: What is the minimum num- ber of different personality traits or factors needed to capture all of the adjectives, and what are the best labels for these traits or factors? A third question that often arises focuses on how the different traits/factors relate to each other (i.e., are they independent or correlated?).

Cardinal, Central, and Secondary Traits

Allport believed that traits are the characteristic manner in which we respond to stimuli in our environment. Some traits are prominent, and they dominate personality. Others are minor and

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 228 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

are less obvious to others. The way our traits are patterned reflects our unique personality struc- ture and determines our behavior.

To reflect these different types of traits, Allport established a hierarchical structure to reflect the variability in the prominence of different traits in different individuals (Allport, 1937). Allport referred to cardinal traits as those that are so pervasive and enduring that they manifest in virtu- ally every aspect of an individual’s life and serve as primary motivators of action. Later in this chap- ter we will discuss the big five factors, and some of these (e.g., extraversion, neuroticism, etc.) can be examples of cardinal traits. Interestingly, an abundance of such cardinal traits can be seen as quite problematic, and, in fact, such persistence of behavior independent of the situation is often the hallmark of personality disorders. Central traits were defined as less pervasive than cardinal traits, but still manifesting in a limited range of situations. Central traits were thought to be more commonly observed in everyone. Finally, secondary traits were considered the least durable

over time and across situations, and the combination of second- ary traits is what contributes most to the individual’s unique- ness. Researchers would later debate the stability of personal- ity over situations (the person- situation debate discussed in this chapter), but Allport already had an answer for this issue— suggesting that not all traits are equally generalizable across situations.

Raymond Cattell and the Statistical Approach to Personality Despite the significant advance that came from Allport’s analysis of language, a major shortcom- ing remained. Given the large number of traits that had been identified (over 4,000), the problem was determining how to best organize those terms. Although early contributions were made by Thurstone’s factor theory (1938), it was Raymond Cattell who emerged as one of the primary researchers of an organizational framework for personality. He applied powerful statistical proce- dures to the taxonomy of traits in an attempt to find an underlying structure.

Most of Cattell’s contributions occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, as he reduced Allport’s 18,000 descriptive terms to a smaller number of clusters, which in turn, were reduced to a smaller num- ber of factors (e.g., Cattell, 1943, 1945, 1957). To understand Cattell’s theory, it is critical to have a clear understanding of the nature of a factor.

Cattell studied under Charles Spearman, who was developing the technique of factor analysis in order to better understand the basic structure of human abilities. The basic premise involved examining ratings of items to determine whether ratings for one item (e.g., if I rated myself as out- going) or set of items are associated with ratings on another item (e.g., if I rated myself as friendly) or set of items. When several items appear to be rated in similar ways by many people, then they are likely to reflect an underlying factor (e.g., the factor of agreeableness for the above two items). Thus, in essence, factors are super-traits that stand toward the top of the organizational structure and can define a large number of other traits. As we will see later, there has been con- siderable debate as to how many factors underlie all traits, with estimates ranging from as many

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In this classic 1927 paper, “Concepts of Trait and Personal- ity,” Allport introduces his conceptualization of traits as a “statistical” unit of analysis and highlights their central role in the study of personality. Read the paper at http://psych classics.yorku.ca/Allport/concepts.htm.

Reference: Allport, G. W. (1927). Concepts of trait and per- sonality. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 284–293.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 229 5/21/15 12:40 PM

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Allport/concepts.htm
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Allport/concepts.htm
CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

as 16 to as few as 2. Cattell also believed that the various traits were hierarchically organized, and he referred to source traits as the underlying psychological factors (e.g., see top level of Figure 8.2) and surface traits as those that are subsumed by the different factors and are most directly translatable to behaviors (e.g., see second level from the top in Figure 8.2).

This statistical approach to identifying the underlying factor structure of personality was seen as an advantage over organizational techniques that were more theory-driven (as was the case with the early contributors to the interpersonal circumplex, discussed in Chapter 7). Of course, the statistical reduction of the data was not atheoretical, as numerous assumptions would have to be made that would affect the number of factors that would be extracted—and even the degree to which the factors would be related to one another.

Understanding Factor Analysis

Suppose you were to tell me about a television show that you watch. Let’s use a well-known exam- ple such as American Idol. If you were to summarize in bullet points the primary theme or themes of American Idol, what would you say? Perhaps it might be characterized as a singing competition, with the winner getting a record deal. Perhaps it might be described as a show that highlights human triumph and failure. The emphasis could also be on the fact that it is a reality show or that the audience is involved by voting for and, ultimately, selecting the winners. The bottom line is that one could generate a number of basic themes to describe the show, and some themes may overlap, while some may be quite distinct. These themes would be considered a summary of the show, and they provide some organization to all of the data points describing the show.

In the same way, factor analysis starts with a large amount of directly measurable data and then reduces it down to a smaller number of unobserved units called (latent) factors, which are con- structed by grouping/organizing the items. The goal is to get to the fewest number of latent factors that capture the largest amount of the observable data. Factor analysis groups items by identifying items that are statistically (quantitatively) related, whereas in the above example, the groupings were thematically (qualitatively) related. Factors emerge when the item-level data are related to each other.

Two questions are often addressed using factor analysis:

1. What is the smallest number of factors needed to capture the majority of data? 2. If there are multiple factors (more than one), how are those factors related to each other?

Both of these questions were at the forefront of Cattell’s work (and were noted in the discus- sion of lexical analysis) and have continued as a source of discus- sion (e.g., Goldberg, 1993) and debate (see Borkenau & Osten- dorf, 1990; Church & Burke, 1994; Vassend & Skrondal, 1997; cf. Marsh et al., 2010).

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In this important text, L. L. Thurstone writes about the use of factor analysis in finding underlying factors in personality and ability testing. Read “The Vectors of the Mind” (1934) at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thurstone/.

Reference: Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1–32.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 230 5/21/15 12:40 PM

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thurstone/
CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

Multitrait-Multimethod Assessments

Cattell believed that in order to thoroughly test the trait model, it was necessary to sample not only a wide range of traits, but also to collect data using different methodologies. Accordingly, he specified three sources of data that should be sampled:

1. Questionnaire data (Q-data), which takes the form of the traditional self-report invento- ries commonly used in psychology.

2. Life data (L-data), involving data culled from naturalistic settings. This can take the form of observations of behavior in the real world, or even objective information, such as number of divorces, arrests, or college degrees earned, to name a few.

3. Experimental data (T-data) involves data that is collected from standardized experiments. This represents the most objective and standardized data, and because the experimenter manipulates one of the variables of interest using random assignment, it is the only method to allow for causal conclusions.

Finding 16 Personality Factors

By factor analyzing data using each of these methodologies, Cattell argued that the weaknesses of one methodology are offset by the strengths of the other methodologies, thereby providing a more comprehensive picture of the individual’s personality.

Cattell began his analysis by paring Allport’s characteristics down to 171; he removed what he considered to be either redundant or rarely used terms. He then conducted numerous factor ana- lytic studies on trait assessments from each of the three methods, spanning a period of several decades, and concluded that there are 16 fundamental traits (or factors) that can be organized into a hierarchical framework and cover all human trait descriptors (Cattell, 1943):

1. Abstractedness 2. Apprehension 3. Dominance 4. Emotional stability 5. Liveliness 6. Openness to change 7. Perfectionism 8. Privateness

9. Reasoning 10. Rule consciousness 11. Self-reliance 12. Sensitivity 13. Social boldness 14. Tension 15. Vigilance 16. Warmth

Research also suggests that the 16 personality factors (PFs) can be captured in other cultures and languages as well (Prieto, Gouveia, & Fernandez, 1996; Schneewind & Graf, 1998), providing fur- ther evidence of their robustness. Cattell also suggested that these 16 personality factors apply throughout the lifespan, and accordingly, he developed the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF®) measures for children, adolescents, and adults.

Because these are considered fundamental factors of personality, Cattell argued that everyone can be characterized by some combinations of these factors. Although Cattell published a number of papers on this topic, other researchers who followed suggested that traits could be reduced even further. Researchers have focused on a smaller number of traits, and these models have garnered more support and use in the field. One of those models was forwarded by Hans Eysenck.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 231 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

Eysenck’s Model of Personality Hans J. Eysenck was one of the most controversial and prolific researchers of the 20th century. Eysenck made significant contributions to a number of areas, but none more so than the area of personality psychology. Arguably one of his most lasting legacies was the founding of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, which was and continues to be the official journal of the Society for the Study of Individual Differences.

Emerging from the biological perspective, Eysenck believed that basic biological/genetic mecha- nisms underlie all human traits (see Chapter 4). From the late 1940s to the early 1950s, Eysenck studied monozygotic and dizygotic twins, concluding that neuroticism has a strong genetic com- ponent (Eysenck & Prell, 1951). Personality, explained Eysenck, is the sum of cognition, character, affect, and somatic components. He believed that the study of personality should be concerned with discovering the general laws of the group (nomothetic approach) as opposed to studying the individual (idiographic approach), as was the emphasis in psychoanalysis. In his research, Eysenck, like Cattell, favored the statistical techniques of factor analysis, which allows the researcher to reduce many variables to their essential factors. However, unlike Cattell, Eysenck arrived at a more economical model: a three-factor solution. Eysenck also differed from Cattell in that he examined traits as dichotomies (e.g., emotionally stable vs. unstable, introverted vs. extraverted, etc.).

A Three-Factor Solution

Using factor analysis and basing his model on the four humors described by the ancient Greeks, Eysenck rearranged the four humors on a continuum describable in terms of two personality dimensions: introverted-extroverted and unstable-stable. He placed the first dimension on a hori- zontal axis and the second on an intersecting vertical axis (see Figure 8.1). Eysenck believed that these two factors subsumed the primary descriptive features of normal human functioning and were the essence of personality (Eysenck, 1947). As per Figure 8.1, the term melancholic refers to someone high in neuroticism (N) but low in extraversion (E). The choleric person is high in N and high in E. The sanguine type was characterized as low in N and high in E, and the phlegmatic person was low on both. In subsequent years, Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) added a third dimension, psychoticism (meaning recklessness, inappropriate emotional expression, hostility, disregard for common sense, and poor contact with reality), which he believed, along with the first two factors, was most relevant to the characterization of abnormal manifestations of per- sonality. Importantly, Eysenck believed that these three factors were statistically independent of each other, meaning that a score on one factor was unrelated to a score on another factor. For that reason, each factor is depicted at a 90-degree angle of the other factors. Thus, psychoticism/ reality contact would be depicted in a three-dimensional image (i.e., the two-dimensional image in Figure 8.1 shows low psychoticism, but variability on N and E). Much of Eysenck’s subsequent research was directed toward understanding the relationship between behavior and his personal- ity factor model.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 232 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

Figure 8.1: The “big two” factors and their relation to the four humors

Theorists have suggested that the basic personality trait terms used to characterize human behavior have not changed dramatically in over 2,000 years. The figure depicts how the four humors map on to two of the big five factors.

Source: From Eysenck, H.M. and Eysenck, M.W., Personality and Individual Difference: A Natural Scientific Approach, Plenum Publishing, 1985. Reprinted with kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media.

Connecting the Three Factors to Behavior

Eysenck not only developed a model to capture the breadth of personality functioning, but he also offered a hierarchy to explain the depth of these constructs. Eysenck clearly aligned himself with some of the basic tenets of behaviorists, and not surprisingly, when he developed a hierarchical model, he explicitly linked personality to behavior. At the top of the hierarchy are the factors; in the diagram in Figure 8.2, the factor of extraversion is depicted. The next level down shows the traits that are included in extraversion; in this diagram, sociability and liveliness are depicted (for a more complete list, see the traits highlighted in yellow and red in Figure 8.1). The third level down depicts habitual behavior; in this instance, regularly talking and smiling. At the lowest level, we find individual instances of behavior (i.e., one specific time when the person spoke to someone). In this way, Eysenck depicts how individual behaviors—ones that are habitually evidenced, are related to each other, and occur in clusters with other traits—define the factors. Eysenck believed that the highest levels of this model represent the most static components that are difficult to change. The lower levels of the hierarchy are those that are most easily changed and, if the change is consistent and broad enough, it can result in changes in personality functioning.

Emotionally Unstable (Neurotic)

Leadership

Emotionally Unstable (Neurotic)

Emotionally Stable

Emotionally Stable

ExtravertedExtravertedIntrovertedIntroverted

Melancholic Choleric

SanguinePhlegmatic Sociable

Outgoing Talkative

Responsive

Easygoing Lively

Carefree

Quiet

Moody

Anxious Rigid

Sober

Pessimistic Reserved

Unsociable

Calm

Passive Careful

Thoughtful Peaceful

Controlled Reliable

Even-tempered

Active

Touchy Restless

Aggressive Excitable

Changeable Impulsive

Optimistic

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 233 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

Figure 8.2: Depicting the hierarchical structure of extraversion

The top of the hierarchy reflects the factors that are considerably less amenable to change. At the lowest level are the basic behaviors that are very amenable to change. Consistent behavioral enactments that occur in thematic clusters reflect the corresponding traits and factors.

In a similar vein, Eysenck defined the hierarchical structures for both neuroticism and psychoti- cism, indicating the specific behaviors, habits, and traits that lead to the factors that comprise them (see Eysenck, 1990).

Connecting the Three Factors to Biology

Eysenck believed that the factors were, in fact, driven by underlying biological mechanisms, thereby providing some rationale for why the factors are stable over time. Although this area was discussed in Chapter 4, the emphasis here will be on the behavioral tendencies and practices that are associated with extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.

Extroversion-Introversion

Eysenck’s (1994) most extensive research focused on the biological mechanisms underlying extra- version. Eysenck believed that it was the brain’s need for stimulation that resulted in different patterns of behavior for introverts and extraverts, and he highlighted the Reticular Activating System (RAS), which regulates arousal in the cortex, as the specific part of the brain that would most readily demonstrate these differences. Eysenck hypothesized that extraverts are chronically understimulated, and they would therefore engage in behavior to stimulate their brains. In con- trast, he believed that introverts were chronically overstimulated, and they would therefore avoid stimulation.

Sociability

Regularly smiles

Regularly talks

Liveliness

Regularly active

Talked to stranger on

the bus

Individual Behavior:

Habit:

Trait:

Factor:

Spoke to Mary

yesterday

Extraversion

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 234 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

Eysenck’s original theoretical model proved to be close, but not quite accurate, and he subse- quently suggested that arousability (rather than baseline arousal) might be the more central dis- tinguishing feature (Eysenck, 1994). Indeed, the research literature suggests that in the absence of stimulation, there may be few if any differences between introverts and extraverts at baseline (Revelle, Humphreys, Simon, & Gilliland, 1980; for a review, see Matthews & Gilliland, 1999). For example, in one study, researchers had participants imagine being in a positive and a neutral situa- tion, and then they rated the moods of the participants. Those identified as extraverts using a stan- dardized measure rated their mood as more positive relative to introverts in the positive situation, but the introverts and extraverts did not differ in the neutral condition (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991). Although the effects appear small, the literature does suggest that there are differences between introverts and extraverts in their potential for, or responsiveness to, arousal (i.e., arousability; see Bullock & Gilliland, 1993). For example, introverts work better when exposed to less background noise (Geen, 1984), and extraverted students are more likely to study in environments with more opportunities for stimulation (Campbell & Hawley, 1982). Similarly, extraverts performed better than introverts on a GRE-type test when stimulated with caffeine (Revelle, Amaral, & Turri, 1976; see also Eysenck, 1994). Interestingly, research has also provided a plausible biochemical expla- nation that connects extraversion and the sensory modulation to explain differences in how the external world is experienced (Rammsayer & Stahl, 2004; Stahl & Rammsayer, 2008). However, a recent study using advanced statistical procedures (structural equations modeling) refuted many of the findings (at least those based on EEG technology); suggesting that external factors have only minimal impact on EEG readings and are not significantly related to extraversion (Hagemann & Naumann, 2009). Thus, the findings in the literature remain somewhat mixed.

Neuroticism

Recall that neuroticism is essentially emotional instability, and neurotic individuals have been characterized as having nervous, negative, anxious, and self-pitying qualities (McCrae & John, 1992). Those scoring in the clinical range on neuroticism are also more likely to apply negative interpretations to ambiguous stimuli. For example, when selecting from pairs of homophones, highly neurotic individuals are more likely to choose the aversive option (e.g., “die” s. “dye”) as compared to their less-neurotic peers (Eysenck, MacLeod, & Matthews, 1987).

Eysenck (1967, 1990) hypothesized that neurotic individuals would show greater responsiveness in the limbic system relative to those who are more emotionally stable. Research findings on neu- roticism indicate that those who score high on neuroticism are more likely to exhibit excitation of the autonomic nervous system, display behavior that is not as readily apparent in others, and have higher drive than normal (for a summary, see Eysenck, 1994). Eysenck (1967) has also sug- gested that variability in the responsiveness of the limbic system is most apparent in emotional situations, resulting in the individual responding neurotically to stress. However, recent empirical tests of Eysenck’s hypothesis have been less favorable (e.g., Beattie & Corr, 2010).

Neuroticism has also been consistently associated with aversive emotional outcomes, such as the incidence of psychiatric diagnoses (Malouff et al., 2005; Saulsman & Page, 2004) and physical health problems and higher rates of mortality (Lahey, 2008). Even measures of skin conductance (Norris, Larsen, & Cacioppo, 2007) and fMRIs (Canli et al., 2004) show greater responsiveness in those high on neuroticism.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 235 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective

Years of empirical investigation have led researchers to conclude that there are implications for neuroticism in terms of behaviors in school and work-related settings. For example, neuroticism has been associated with poor time management, as neurotic individuals appear to have poorer study habits (Bond & Feather, 1988) and less adaptability in academic settings (Martin, Neiad, Colmar, & Liem, 2013), as well as a higher incidence of negative life events while transitioning through the university setting (Lüdtke, Roberts, Trautwein, & Nagy, 2011). Researchers studying work-related behaviors and attitudes in over 400 employees in different work settings found that neuroticism was inversely related to presenteeism, and resulted in lower productivity (Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & Jackson, 2006). Neuroticism is also associated with poorer academic perfor- mance (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2008; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007), though the association may be modest (McAbee & Oswald, 2013).

Because neurotic behavior has important clinical implications, Eysenck also wrote about methods for changing the behaviors associated with neuroticism. Even though neuroticism and the other personality factors were considered to be greatly affected by genetics (e.g., Pedersen, Plomin, McClearn, & Friberg, 1988) and shown to be stable (Costa & McCrae, 1990), Eysenck still believed that the traits could be modified through therapy. Specifically, Eysenck (1947, 1953, 1960a) believed that neurotic patterns are learned and that it is possible to uncondition them (i.e., either through counter-conditioning or extinction; see Chapter 5). He made extensive use of learning theory in his quest to understand and predict human personality dynamics. He thought that per- sonality could be restructured according to the same learning principles on which it was based.

Psychoticism

As noted, Eysenck thought psychoticism was the factor most relevant for distinguishing between normal and non-normal manifestations of personality. It involves acting impulsively and with aggression and is related to contact with reality. Those scoring high on psychoticism are charac- terized as being cold, unemotional, antisocial, paranoid, and lacking in both empathy and insight (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976). Eysenck hypothesized that psychoticism lies on a continuum, with low psychoticism defining normal functioning, antisocial behavior defining intermediate psychoti- cism, and susceptibility to psychosis (e.g., schizophrenia) defining extreme psychosis (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976, p. 203). Thus, Eysenck believed that these diagnoses differed only in the degree to which they vary along the factor of psychoticism, rather than assuming that they were dis- tinct entities. Moreover, research suggests that psychoticism has a significant genetic component (Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Gattaz, 1981; Lester, 1989); though the magnitude of the genetic contribution may vary depending on the specific items used from the psychoticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Heath & Martin, 1990).

Summary of Eysenck’s Work

Overall, it appears that the data are mixed with respect to supporting Eysenck’s views on per- sonality. Eysenck presented a strong challenge to the field of psychotherapy and became a very controversial figure. For one thing, his review of the research led him to the conclusion that cur- rent methods of psychotherapy were ineffective—a conclusion that motivated the psychotherapy research movement to prove him wrong. His writings also seemed to support the belief that intel- ligence is largely inherited—a fact that led to his being accused of being a racist (Buchanan, 2010).

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 236 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.2 Convergence on the Big Five

8.2 Convergence on the Big Five

More recently, personality researchers have converged on a small set of personality factors that appear to be recoverable from a wide range of sources, including other measures that purport to assess a larger number of factors (e.g., 16PF®, MBTI®, etc.; Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987).

Collectively known as the Big Five (or Five Factor Model), this model represents a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits. Like previous factorial models, the Big Five provides a simplified framework for understanding personality and for describing situational and temporal consistency (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). The Big Five consists of five factors or traits, usually labeled as extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (or its reverse, emotional stability), and openness to experience (or intellectance; Digman, 1990). Extraversion and neuroticism have already been discussed earlier in this chapter, leaving the remaining three factors to be discussed in the subsequent sections. These big five factors have been studied in a wide range of research and applied contexts, and as was the case with earlier reviewed research, the Big Five have been shown to relate to academic accomplishments (e.g., O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012; Trapmann, Hell, Hirn, & Schuler, 2007) as well as work-related outcomes and performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).

Openness to New Experience Openness to new experience involves traits such as a sensitivity for aesthetics, imaginativeness, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity. This is often considered the personality version of creativity and thus is related to play- fulness and a high tolerance for uncer- tainty (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, 2009). Research also suggests that openness is related to sexual behaviors and atti- tudes, as open individuals tend to have more liberal views about sex, have more sexual partners, a wider range of sexual experiences (McCrae, 1994), and greater satisfaction in their sex lives, at least for women (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Thus, individuals scoring low on this factor are characterized as more traditional, con- ventional, dogmatic, and authoritarian in their thinking and attitudes (Butler, 2000). Those scoring low are also more conservative in their political views, less tolerant of diver- sity, and even more prejudicial in their attitudes (e.g., Sibley & Duckitt, 2000). Unlike some of the other big five factors, openness to new experience is not significantly related to mental health (Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005) or quality of life measures (Steel, Schmidt, & Schultz, 2008). Thus, despite clear differences in how people experience the world, in the end, these dif- ferences do not lead to appreciable differences in psychological well-being.

Pinnacle Pictures/Photodisc/Thinkstock

Openness to new experience reflects a personality trait whereby individuals are not only interested in but actually enjoy trying novel and diverse experiences.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 237 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.2 Convergence on the Big Five

Agreeableness The agreeableness factor primarily involves the trait of friendliness and captures the extent to which one is accommodating. Agreeableness involves traits such as trust, altruism, and modesty. In order to minimize conflict with others, agreeable individuals tend to conform with others, and they are more likely to compromise their beliefs and attitudes. In contrast, those scoring low on this factor show less empathy for others, and they are skeptical, suspicious, rude, and unfriendly (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1991; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997).

Given the nature of agreeableness, it holds the biggest implications for interpersonal relation- ships. For example, agreeable individuals are more likely to engage in prosocial (helping) behavior across a variety of situations, and even in the absence of external motives for helping—sometimes referred to as altruistic behavior (Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007; Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995). One reason agreeable individuals are interpersonally effective is that they appear to be prone to respond emotionally to the needs of others by detecting the emotional needs of others (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000).

In addition to manifesting favorable behaviors, emotions, and attitudes, agreeable individuals also minimize the expression of negative reactions and behaviors. Thus, agreeableness is associated with cooperativeness, whereas low agreeableness is associated with competitiveness and conflict (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Some researchers have concluded that agreeable individuals value the relationships over other outcomes (Graziano et al., 1996). Not surprisingly, those low on agreeableness are characterized as hostile and aggres- sive, and these individuals are more likely to experience problems with mental health (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, 2008).

Despite the consistency of the Big Five, the one factor that may be inadequate is agreeableness. For example, researchers have suggested and found corroborative evidence for the fact that traits such as honesty and humility are not adequately captured by the agreeableness factor and merit consideration as an independent (sixth) factor (e.g., Ashton et al., 2004; Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000). Moreover, it also appears to be the case that the Big Five fail to adequately capture traits such as narcissism and psychopathy (i.e., these are more than simply low agreeableness). Thus, the single factor of agreeableness may be insufficient to capture this variability.

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness captures traits such as diligence, organization, punctuality, scrupulousness, self-discipline, thoroughness, deliberation, and need for achievement (Costa & McCrae, 1991). It also includes such traits as perceived self-efficacy, rule consciousness, and internal locus of control (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Of the big five factors, conscientiousness is the one most closely tied to favorable outcomes in a number of domains. For example, conscientious individuals are more likely to be successful in school and in work settings relative to their less conscientious peers (Hig- gins, Peterson, Lee, & Pihl, 2007). This effect is driven largely by the fact that conscientiousness predicts hard work and effort in a variety of settings. That is, the predictive validity of conscien- tiousness is not setting or job-specific.

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 238 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.2 Convergence on the Big Five

Conscientiousness is also a positive predictor for physical and mental health. Specifically, highly conscientious individuals engage in more proactive health behavior (Roberts, Jackson, Favard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009) and have a longer lifespan. In fact, over 20 published studies have doc- umented the association between conscientiousness and longevity (Kern & Friedman, 2008). In a recent study that attempted to establish a clear connection between the two variables, research- ers prospectively studied over 700 individuals for a period of 40 years, ranging from childhood to adulthood (Hampson, Edmonds, Goldberg, Dubanoski, & Hillier, 2013). After measuring conscien- tiousness in childhood (mean age 10), researchers tracked the participants, who then had com- prehensive medical exams in adulthood (mean age 51). Childhood conscientiousness was shown to predict objective measures of adult health, such as fasting blood sugar, body mass index, blood pressure, and the like (Hampson et al., 2013; see also Friedman, Kern, Hampson, & Duckworth, 2012).

Conscientiousness has also been related to measures of well-being and life satisfaction (Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008), and this factor predicts success in relationships as well, with conscien- tiousness linked to marital idealization (O’Rourke, Neufeld, Claxton, & Smith, 2010). Low consci- entiousness is also more likely to result in such problematic behavior and outcomes as homeless- ness, drug use, imprisonment, and unemployment (Roberts et al., 2009).

Big Five in Cultural Context The bulk of the research on the Big Five (and any trait or other factor) comes from standardized self-report measures (e.g., Goldberg, 1981). However, the five factors appear to emerge even when the data are collected from other sources, such as peer ratings and spousal ratings (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1990), and even when the peer raters may be less familiar with the person they are rating (e.g., Passini & Norman, 1966).

Despite some methodological discrepancies, it is reasonable to conclude that the Big Five are generally replicable, with only a limited number of exceptions, such as when descriptive words do not have equivalent translations in other languages (e.g., Benet-Martinez & Oishi, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2008). Indeed, in one of the larger analyses that covered seven European and Asian languages, researchers were able to extract all of the big five factors, though they suggested that agreeableness was better defined as two separate factors (honesty and humility) (Ashton et al., 2004).

Heritability of the Big Five Research supports the conclusion that the big five factors are highly heritable (e.g., Bergeman et al., 1993; Bouchard & McGue, 2003; Yamagata et al., 2006), and this appears especially true for facet scores (Jang, Livesley, Angleitner, Riemann, & Vernon, 2002; Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Rie- mann, & Livesley, 1998).

Lec81110_08_c08_225-252.indd 239 5/21/15 12:40 PM

CHAPTER 8 8.2 Convergence on the Big Five

It is also important to note that when considering the heritability of the Big Five, the answer does not appear to be the same for all five factors. Specifically, it appears that extraversion and neuroticism (some- times referred to as the “big two”) have significantly higher heritability coefficients relative to the other three. Of course, analyses of the genetic influence on the Big Five also clearly indicate that considerable vari- ability is predicted by environmental influences as well (Plomin, 1989). See Chapter 4 for more detailed cover- age of the biology and genetics of personality.

The Big Five Over the Lifespan From a theoretical standpoint, it is hypothesized that scores on the Big Five (personality) should be stable because genetics (which are stable) contrib- ute significantly to personality and because there will likely be some increasing stability as a func- tion of individuals being able to exercise choice over their environments (e.g., Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Caspi and colleagues have termed this a cumulative continuity hypothesis, whereby individu- als choose environments that are consistent with their

personalities (something that they can do more easily as they move out of childhood), and these environments essentially reinforce their personalities (resulting in greater stability). Thus, an extraverted individual would be more likely to select environments that allow for social interac- tions and, in turn, foster further extraverted behavior. This hypothesis allows for the interaction of genetic and environmental factors to promote personality stability (see also Kandler et al., 2010).