Session 46 Introduction to Personality Models.ppt

model

1. Ms. Muskan Sethi
Introduction to Personality
Assistant Professor
School of Liberal Arts
 (SOLA)
K. R. Mangalam University
Unit IV
Models of Personality
​
1

2. Objective
This unit is designed to enable you to:
Explain and describe the structure and key domains of the Five-
Factor Model of Personality and Zuckerman’s Alternative Five
Factor Model.
Analyze how different personality traits are linked with patterns of
behavior, emotions, and interpersonal functioning.
Critically differentiate between Western models (e.g., Five Factor
models) and Indian perspectives such as Triguna Theory of
Personality and the Ancient Model of Personality by Upanishads.
Illustrate how these personality models can be used to understand
individual differences in personal, social, and occupational settings.
Examine the significance and applicability of indigenous
personality models in the Indian cultural context compared to
Western frameworks.
2

3. Sessions Overview
Session 46: Introduction to Personality Models
Session 47: Five-Factor Model (FFM): Introduction and Domains
Session 48: Behavioural Correlates of the Big Five Traits
Session 49: Cross-Cultural Validity of the FFM
Session 50: Zuckerman’s Alternative Five Factor Model
Session 51: Biological Basis of Zuckerman’s Model
Session 52: Tri-Guna Theory of Personality
Session 53: Case Applications of Tri-Guna in Daily Life
Session 54: Ancient Model of Personality by Upanishads
Session 55: Comparative Analysis: Western vs Indian Personality
Models
3
Ms Muskan Sethi Introduction Intrducion to Personality

4. Session 46
Introduction to Personality Models
4

5. Overview
Intro to the Big Five
History & Development
Measurement
Application and Significant
Associations

6. What are the “Big Five”?
Five broad traits or dimensions used
to describe personality
Conceptual framework used to classify
lower-level personality constructs
Integration of personality research
Most commonly used model Five-
Factor Model (FFM) developed by
Costa & McCrae

7. Who are some of the researchers?
Allport & Odbert
Cattell
Tupes & Christal
Goldberg
Costa & McCrae
Eysenck

8. How can you study the invisible?
Lexical hypothesis- The most
important and salient human
behaviors will be:
Represented in all languages
Have several nuanced synonyms
Questionnaire approach- Factor
analyses of existing “tests”
Physiological approach-
Emotions/actions depend upon
biology, classify “traits” by physical
responses

9. Allport & Odbert
Often credited as being the first to
use the lexical approach to define
personality.
Combed through the English
dictionary- obtained 17000 traits
which could be reduced to about
4500 “nonjudgmental”
characteristics.

10. Cattell
Reduced the list into “clusters” of
traits by a rating scheme.
Had participants rate the similarity
of adjectives.
Used factor analysis to derive
bipolar pairs of traits.
16 PF scale

11. Tupes & Christal
Air Force Researchers
Trained individuals in rating
personality using Cattell’s trait
measure
Factor analysis suggested that only
5 traits were predominant

12. Goldberg
Replicated Cattell’s methods
5 factors emerged:
Surgency,
Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness,
Emotional Stability,
Culture

13. Costa & McCrae
Used the questionnaire approach
Examined several existing assessment
tools- (MBTI, clinical tests, Jung)
Somewhat intuitively consolidated traits
Ask participants to describe self/target
(sentences vs single adjectives)
Factor Analysis
First found E & N, followed by O.
A & C adopted as there was “some evidence”
and it fit with the 5 factors of Goldberg

14. Eysenck
Physiological method
Alternative viewpoint
Only 3 Traits really exist
Psychotiscism/Socialisation (A&C)
Extraversion/Introversion
Neuroticism/Stability
O- “intelligence” which is best left to
another measure such as an IQ test

15. Factor I- Extraversion
High Pole
Active
Assertive
Seek Stimulation
Outgoing
Talkative
Energetic
Low Pole
Reserved
Quiet
Shy
Unexpressive

16. Factor II- Neuroticism*
High Pole
Anxious
Self-pitying
Tense
Touchy
Worrying
Low Pole
 Calm
Stable
Relaxed
Positive

17. Factor III- Openness to experience
High Pole
Artistic
Curious
Imaginative
Insightful
Original
Cultured
Low Pole
Traditional
Simple
Routine

18. Factor IV- Agreeableness
High Pole
Appreciative
Forgiving
Generous
Kind
Trusting
Low Pole
Cold
Aggressive
Uncaring

19. Factor V- Conscientiousness
High Pole
Efficient
Organized
Reliable
Attentive to detail
Low Pole
Lazy
Careless
Frivolous

20. Outside the Big Five?
Paunonen & Jackson
Religious, devout, reverent.07
Sly, deceptive, manipulative .13
Honest, ethical, moral .11
Sexy, sensual, erotic .13
Thrifty, frugal, miserly.16
Conservative, traditional, down-to-earth.15
Masculine-feminine.13
Egotistical, conceited, snobbish.16
Humorous, witty, amusing.13

21. Measuring Big 5 Personality Traits

NEI-PI-R – (Costa & McCrea, 1992)

Also referred to as the revised NEO personality
inventory

First Published in the 80s

NEI-PI-R represents the most recent revision
of the instrument

NEO-4 was derived by dropping the
components of the instrument related to
neuroticism “for use in situations such as
(career planning, career development,
employee training, personnel development,
etc…)

“one of the few commercially available tests
based on this (Five Factor) model of
personality”

22. The Revised NEO Personality
Inventory

Formats:

Self Report (Form S) 240 items (roughly 35
minutes)

Observer Report (Form R) 240 items

Short Form (NEO –FFI) 60 items, self report

Measurement

Each Domain (factor) is measured in terms of
6 more specific facets (sub factors) e.g.
Extroversion is composed of: Warmth,
Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity,
Excitement Seeking, Positive Emotions (Costa
& McCrea, 1995)

Item Example: E5 Excitement Seeking

“Have sometimes done things just for “kicks”
or “thrills” SA-SD

23. The Revised NEO Personality
Inventory
Psychometric Considerations
Factor Reliabilities range from .86-.95 for both
the self and observer report formats
Validity:

Multiple studies have demonstrated strong
convergent and discriminate validity both
between formats and when compared with
other measures of five-factor constructs (see
next slide)

“The NEO-PI-R is a reliable and well-validated
test of personality features…Validation studies
are well constructed, plentiful, and impressive,
yielding an instrument that represents a
comprehensive operational translation of the
Five Factor Model of personality.” (Juni, 1995)

24. Validity Evidence

25. More Validity Data

26. The Revised NEO Personality
Inventory
Norms
“Norms are based on a sample of 1,000
subjects (500 males, 500 females)
selected from three large scale studies of
the NEO-PI-R. The normative sample was
stratified to match 1995 U.S
This constitutes an advantage over
normative data associated with previous
versions of the instrument which were less
representative.
Separate norms are also provided for
college-aged samples based on findings
that adolescent and early adult samples

27. Criticisms of the NEI-PI-R
(Juni, 1995)
Some items labeled (and employed) as
self report can be more accurately called
“reports of others’ perceptions of self”
(how do you think others see you)
Some items are not limited a single facet
Some items include qualifiers that
influence respondents to endorse the item
Some debate regarding necessary reading
level (supposedly 6
th
grade) i.e.
“perceptive of interpersonal cues” or
“concerned with philosophical debates”

28. Other Measures of Big 5 Traits
Big Five Inventory (BFI)
Composed of 44 short phrase items
(John & Srivastava, 1999)
Trait Description Adjectives
Composed of 100 trait description
adjectives
(Goldberg, 1992)

29. Application and Significant
Associations
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991).
The Big Five personality dimensions and
job performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44 (1), 1-26.
Reviewed the results of 117 criterion-
related validity studies conducted
between 1952 & 1988
Studies were organized by measurement
criteria (i.e. Turnover/Tenure) and
occupational group (i.e. Police)

30. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44 (1), 1-26.
Results
Conscientiousness was the most consistently valid
predictor of all relevant criteria across all occupation
types (However adjusted mean correlations were
pretty weak r = .09-.15)
Interesting note: strongest r’s tended to occur
when criteria were more subjective (i.e.
supervisory ratings)
What does this tell us about the predictive utility
of this construct?
Extraversion predicted best for Management and
Sales positions

31. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Results Continued
Openness to Experience demonstrated
some predictive validity to measures of
training proficiency
Agreeableness and Neuroticism were
largely irrelevant to the prediction of
various aspects of job performance
although some evidence suggests that
they contribute to performance in group
settings

32. Dudley, N., Orvis, K., Lebiecki, J., & Cortina, J.
(2006)
Meta Analysis investigating the degree to
which narrow subcomponents of
conscientiousness predict above and
beyond more global measures of the
construct
Considered 4 most commonly measured
facets of the construct (achievement,
dependability, order, & cautiousness)
Only included studies that utilized more
modern instruments

33. Dudley, N., Orvis, K., Lebiecki, J.,
& Cortina, J. (2006)
Results
Global Conscientiousness tended to
outperform its subcomponents when
predicting most relevant criteria
Mean r with Overall Job Performance = .15
Mean r with Interpersonal Facilitation =.11
Mean r with Task Performance = .10
Mean r with Counterproductive Work
Behavior = -.16
Mean r with Job Dedication = .12 *

34. Salgado, J F. (2002) The Big Five Personality Dimensions and
Counterproductive Behaviors. International Journal of Selection
and Measurement. (10) 117-125.
Conducted a meta-analysis of studies
investigating the relationship of the big five to
counterproductive work behaviors
Results
Conscientiousness predicted deviant
behaviors and turnover
Emotional Stability (N) and
Conscientiousness were the strongest
predictors of turnover
No good prediction of Absenteeism or
Accidents

35. The Big Five & Leadership
Judge et al. (2002) studied the Big 5 traits and
their relationship to leadership emergence and
leadership success
Found that Extroversion and (Surprise Surprise)
Conscientiousness predicted leader emergence
Transformation Leadership = relatively new theory
of leadership
Defined in terms of a leader’s ability to inspire
followers to adopt less self-serving values
Most closely associated with agreeableness
Does not ensure leader effectiveness

36. Quick Review
The Revised NEO personality inventory
Most likely to see in applied settings
Psychometrically sound
Good validity evidence
Conscientiousness is the best predictor of
work-related outcomes although it still a
pretty weak predictor
Some evidence suggests that big five
personality factors are relevant to the
prediction of leadership

37. Question
If asked by your employer to give
your professional opinion, what
would you say about the utility of
the big five for use in applied
settings (i.e. selection decisions)?