GOLDBERG’S article on THE STRUCTURE OF PHENOTYPIC PERSONALITY TRAITS is basically a review of the BIG 5 model of personality. The search for the most basic personality traits has typically used factor analysis as a methodology to discover the most important underlying dimensions of personality. Indeed, researchers/theorists such as Eysenck and Cattell would argue that they have found GENOTYPIC, not phenotypic, personality traits; but that is a separate issue. Here I want to review the “consensus” regarding the big 5 model and how the Big Five relates to other systems developed by Eysenck, Cattell, and others.

A very simplified overview of the procedures used in factor analysis will be presented in class.

We will use the Big 5 trait labels as supplied by Costa and McCray (with synonyms provided in parenthesis. They are (in order)

1. Extraversion (Surgency, Sociability) is composed of components of Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement Seeking, and Positive Emotion.

2. Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) is comprised of components of Anxiety, Depression Angry Hostility, Self-consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability.

3.Agreeableness (vs. Antagonism) is comprised of Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, and Tender-mindedness.

4. Conscientiousness is comprised of competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving, Self-discipline, and Deliberation.

5. Openness to Experience (Culture, Intellect, Imagination) is comprised of Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values, Sophistication, and Intellectual Curiosity. Openness has been the most difficult of the Big Five to label.

Eysenck magic number is 3: Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism. Eysenck argues that Psychoticism is a more basic combination of Agreeableness and Conscientious in the big five.

In Cattell’s factor analytic work, he identifies 5 second order (most basic) factors plus Intellect. These are Introversion-Extraversion, Anxiety-Tranquility, Tough poise-Sensitivity, Independence- Passivity, and Behavior Control (Rigidity)-Impulsiveness.

Please note that so far everyone is agreeing on the importance of an Extraversion dimension and a Neuroticism (Anxiety) dimension.

As mentioned previously in class, factor analyses of hundreds of bi-polar adjective pairs has resulted in the identification of three dimensions of affective meaning as measured in the SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL. These are EVALUATION (good vs. Bad), POTENCY (strong vs. Weak), and Activity (active vs. Passive). Some of these analyses have identified only two factors: EVALUATION and DYNAMISM (a combination of potency and activity). As Goldberg points out EVALUATION is positively related to all the Big 5 except Extraversion. Extraversion (introversion) is closely related to DYNAMISM.

Also of interest are factor analyses of major measures of Personality/Psychopathology. All factor analyses of the MMPI find 2 major factors: ANXIETY (read neuroticism) and REPRESSION/EXPRESSION (read Introversion/Extraversion).

Does this consensus from research lead to the conclusion that these Big 5 really exist? It depends on whom you read. Goldberg believes “Yes” the big 5 support what is known as the lexical hypotheses (Sir Francis Galton), “that the most important individual differences in human transactions will come to be encoded as single terms in some or all of the world’s languages” Goldberg believes that factor analysis has led to the discovery of these terms which reflect real personality traits (i.e., individual differences). As you might expect others do not. From my frame of reference factor analysis, as a statistical technique, does not prove the existence of “real” traits. And even if it did, Mischel’s question still remains, “What is the usefulness of such traits in explaining why we do what we do?”

Mischel’s research on his favorite COGNITIVE personality variable, DELAY OF GRATIFICATION, has provided impressive evidence for the usefulness of this cognitive trait. First, it may no be obvious how delay of gratification involves cognitive processes. Imagine research using 6 yr old kids. Each child is shown a pair of treats (1 or 2 marshmallows; 2 cookies versus 5 small pretzels) Each child is then asked which is the preferred treat. Once this becomes known, the experimenter tells the child that he/she must leave the room. If the child waits until the experimenter returns (usually 15 min.), the child can have the preferred treat. Or the child can end the waiting period at any time by ringing a bell that is present. The bell will bring back the experimenter immediately, but if the bell rings the child will get only the lesser treat. Delaying successfully is thought to involve cognitive processes of shifting attention away from the “hot” consumatory aspects of the treats, engaging in distracting thoughts, thinking about the treat abstractly, etc. One major manipulation of the delay paradigm has involved keeping the rewards exposed (which results in an average delay of about 6 min) versus covering them with a plate (average delay of 11 min). The correlations that are listed below are correlations of delay time with later SAT scores and parent ratings of their children about 10 years after their original participation in Nursery School. Correlations to the left of the measures involve delay under reward exposed conditions, correlations to right are for reward obscured conditions.

.51--Academic competence--(-.02)

.48--Social competence--(.20)

.01--Frequency of problems--(-.21)

.44--Coping competence--(-.11)

.42--SAT VERBAL--(-.12)

.57--SAT QUANTITATIVE--(-.31)

RATHER IMPRESSIVE CORRELATION, GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR!!!