THE BIG - FIVE Overview of the model The five factor model delineates five broad traits - extraversion

, neuroticism (emotional stability), agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience - that encapsulate most of the differences in personality across individuals. These traits, sometimes designated as domains, were originally derived from a categorization of the adjectives that are commonly used to describe individuals but then verified and refined through factor analyses, a statistical technique that is conducted to identify sets of correlated dimensions. Extraversion Costa and McCrae (1992) identify six facets that correspond to each trait or domain. For example, individuals who exhibit extraversion are gregarious, assertive, warm, positive, and active, as well as seek excitement. Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) The six facets that underpin neuroticism, as defined by Costa and McCrae (1992), relate to the extent to which individuals exhibit anxiety, depression, and hostility as well as feel self conscious, act impulsively, and experience a sense of vulnerability, unable to accommodate aversive events. Agreeableness Six facets defined the trait that is often referred to as agreeableness: trust in other individuals, straightforward and honest communication, altruistic and cooperative behavior, compliance rather than defiance, modesty and humility, as well as tender, sympathetic attitudes (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Conscientiousness The six facets that correspond to conscientiousness relate to the degree to which individuals are competent, methodical--preferring order and structure, dutiful, motivated to achieve goals, disciplined, and deliberate or considered (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness to experience Openness to experience is the final trait, which relates the extent to which individuals are open to fantasies, aesthetics, feelings, as well as novel actions, ideas, and values (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Open individuals prefer novel, intense, diverse, and complex experiences (McCrae, 1996). In contrast, closed individuals prefer familiar tasks and standardized routines (McCrae, 1996). The five factor model and cognition Extraversion Zhang and Huang (2001) revealed that thinking styles differ across the five traits. Extraversion coincides with more creative and complex thinking styles. Specifically, their thinking style is described as more judicial-evaluating the solutions that other individuals present for example-as

either in the same location or in a different location. Participants pressed one of two keys. and distant goals or concepts rather than concrete. and routines. immediate duties are more specific and concrete. Robinson. To illustrate. & Meier. shunning roles in which they are not certain of their responsibilities. a p or q appeared on the screen. To illustrate. administrative-conservative and local rather than global (Zhang & Huang. The five factor model and motivation Conscientiousness Conscientiousness seems to coincide with self control--the capacity to inhibit temptations and pursue important but challenging goals. 2001). closed participants felt more motivated when they were encouraged to fulfill more immediate duties and obligations. Openness Openness also coincide with more creative and complex thinking styles. openness also coincides with a preference to focus on abstract. individuals who exhibit elevated levels of agreeableness are often unable to disengage their attention from pro-social cues. 2006). Neuroticism Neuroticism coincides with a tendency to follow specific norms. Their thinking style is described as legislative-attempting to challenge traditional perspectives as well as liberal rather than conservative (Zhang & Huang. Furthermore. such as assist or attack. and Meier (2006). That is. tangible. immediately before this character was presented. involving interactions with other individuals (Zhang & Huang. immediately before this character was presented. 2001). depending on whether the letter was a p or q. Individuals who exhibit low levels of agreeableness are often unable to disengage their attention from antisocial cues(Wilkowski. procedures. an anti-social word had appeared at the same location or a pro-social word had appeared at a different location. Immediately after their response.well as global rather than local. and immediate duties or details. Vaughn. appeared on a screen. and Klemann (2008) showed that open participants felt more motivated when they were encouraged to pursue future hopes and aspirations rather than immediate duties and obligations. Disagreeable individuals responded more rapidly to the letter if. aligning to the preferences of closed participants. Agreeable individuals responded more rapidly to the letter if. Agreeableness Agreeableness coincides with an inclination to direct attention towards cues that relate to cooperation rather than competition or conflict. 2001). instructions. future aspirations are abstract rather than concrete and thus align with the preferred cognitive style of open individuals. Participants were instructed to articulate whether the word relates to being helpful or hurtful. intangible. In contrast. That is. . a series of pro-social or anti-social words. in a study conducted by Wilkowski. Robinson. a pro-social word had appeared at the same location or an anti-social word had appeared at a different location. their thinking style is often described as executive-that is. Baumann. and external rather than internal.

Barrick. & Morgan.2 and . a variety of studies and metaanalyses have been undertaken to examine the association between personality. Mount. 1991)--with correlations between . unstable. & Van Hiel. Later studies have shown that emotional stability. and rigid in emotions. The five factor model and performance These five traits are also associated with job performance. Rolland. Jackson. 2001) and. Jung. and agreeableness are also related to job performance (for a meta-analysis. 1997. That is. in general. irritable. demonstrating unconventional. 1991). see Tett.g. Barrick & Mount. Tett. & Judge. envious. Salgado. Jung. strange and suspicious. 1991) The five factor model and psychological disorders Personality disorders and the five factor model The five factor model is modestly related to the personality disorders. as represented by the five factor model. as defined by the DSM IV. These pioneering meta-analyses showed that conscientiousness and. extraversion were positively related to job performance (e. Conscientiousness Conscientious individuals. demonstrating erratic behavior in relationships . 2003). idiosyncratic behaviors and even psychotic symptoms under stress • Antisocial: Exhibit destructive work patterns and show disrespect towards the interests of other individuals. initiate rapport. De Clercq. and agreeableness in particular seems to vary across settings and responsibilities (Barrick. the five factors are aggregated from sets of specific scales--not designed for this purpose. Associations derived from these aggregated scales are usually lower. Furnham. 1991. 2009). Taris. 1991). might not be applicable to all jobs. In particular. therefore. insecure. 1986) to work settings (Barrick & Mount. and Van Hiel (2009) examined whether scores on the NEO-PI-R. and performance (e. Furnham. Indeed. Rolland. Nevertheless. a comprehensive measure of the five factor model. & Judge. can be used to estimate ten personality disorders: • Paranoid: Suspicious. 2001. Other factors also affect the strength of these relationships. Jackson. to a lesser extent. De Clercq. tend to perform more proficiently than peers. 1999). are more pronounced when the measures that are intended to represent the five factors are administered (Salgado. De Fruyt. the role of extraversion. These associations. openness to experience. & Rothstein. often ascribing errors to other individuals or unfair regulations • Schizoid: Unable to form social networks. acting impulsively and disobediently rather than persistently and diligently • Borderline: Moody.35. Mount.. openness to experience. facets of the five factors can be used to predict personality disorders (see De Fruyt. conscientious individuals persisted on a tedious task for a longer duration than did other participants (Sansone. Taris. for example. Barrick & Mount. resistant to criticism or intrusions. Miller. and express emotions • Schizotypal: Seemingly illogical.. Indeed. 2003. Wiebe. Miller. as rated by official standards.g. in one study. from elementary schools (Digman & Inouye. and even aggressive at times. & Rothstein.For example. in some studies.

inadequate conformity to social conventions. . manifested as excessive openness and related to schizotypal personality disorder. Negligible openness might correspond to an inability to adapt to change. appearing odd and eccentric. That is. Miller. • Workaholics without warmth: Perfectionism and obsessed with achievement (Furnham & Taylor. • De Fruyt. Often. A2r. They developed a scale that represents extreme values on openness to experience. A4r. 2004). inhibit these inclinations. Excessive openness might correspond to preoccupation with fantasy.1 + 32. unstable goals. therefore. extreme values of openness undermine the capacity of individuals to adapt their inner. their relationships are not mutual. and Van Hiel (2009) estimated the extent to which individuals demonstrated these personality disorders from their responses to the NEO. Personality disorders. The results. private experiences--thoughts. concerned about rejection--but yearning relationships unlike schizoid personality disorder • Dependent: A need to be cared by other individuals. E1r. E2r. Costa. the letter refers to the trait. Dy-Liacco. De Clercq. they seem too rigid and intolerant to maintain social relationships. Dy-Liacco. some individuals demonstrate unduly permeable boundaries between themselves and the surrounding environment. For example. eccentricity. & McCrae. Sherman. they remain too independent. Accordingly. If openness is negligible. A1r. alexithymia. A3r. intolerance to different perspectives. Sherman. and hence might appear eccentric. Sherman. they developed formulas that relate these responses to personality disorders. They conform to social cues. 2002). preferences. • Narcissistic: Inflated sense of self importance. If openness is excessive. They do not. In this example. and r refers to reversed--x . and limited interests. manifested as negligible openness--and related to alexithymia and authoritarianism. 2002). the number refers to the facet within this trait. and Williams (2009) argue that personality disorders could be conceptualized as extreme values on one or more of the five primary traits (see also Widiger. & McCrae. Costa. O6r. Taris. extreme values on openness. called the Experiential Permeability Inventory. for example. Psychological disorders and extreme personality traits Piedmont. These formulas are derived by correlating profiles of each disorder with relevant facets. either excessive or negligible. exhibiting a need for attention. In particular. and Williams (2009) highlight. They conform inordinately.Histrionic: Flamboyant. following these leaders intensely rather than showing initiative. in general. Other individuals demonstrate very impermeable boundaries. to estimate paranoid personality. They cannot relate personal inclinations to external imperatives. Rolland. the responses to N2. feelings. Sherman. Furnham. Jung. This capacity affects a concept called experiential permeability. confirmed this technique. As Piedmont. can undermine connections with social collectives or relationships. without any sensitivity to personal needs. O4r. They cannot distinguish between personal inclinations and external imperatives. unable to consider the perspective of someone else but demanding of praise and admiration • Avoidant: Anxious in social settings. and inclinations--to accommodate their social environment. dramatic and emotional. and diffuse identity (Widiger. did predict the decision to exclude these individuals during the selection process. A6r are summed. as estimated from the NEO.

Wilkowski. 2007). represents the capacity to activate cooperative or helpful inclinations in hostile contexts (Meier. a sample item is "I'm not interested in learning about people in other cultures and how they do things".g. manifested as a rise in the level of agreeableness. According to these authors. Waldrip. These cooperative inclinations curb anger and aggression (Wilkowski & Robinson. These authors developed a task in which helpful targets. Refinements to the original theory Personality development Neo-Socioanalytic Model of Personality The principle personality traits are often assumed to be relatively stable across time. personality matures with age. extraversion and emotional stability rise with age. have been formulated. a sample item is "I think that supernatural forces do influence the course of human events" • Unrestricted self. & Wilkowski. Specifically. compared to the right. for example. such as . especially research conducted by Brent Roberts and his colleagues. a sample item is "Government should stop interfering with how people want to live their lives" • Rigid. have shown that personality does change across the life span (e. For instance. Agreeableness can also be shaped by experience. For instance. Robinson. Meier. and Wilkowski (2006) conducted a study in which participants needed to classify words. Their attention. and Robinson (2008) predicted that agreeableness could be cultivated. such as praise.The Experiential Permeability Inventory comprises four factors: • Odd and eccentric. & Campbell. and Robinson (2008) developed a computer task that might affect the agreeableness of individuals--or at least offset aggression. To assess this proposition. Meier. as determined by EEG recordings (Jensen-Campbell. Roberts & Wood. defining the principle antecedents of personality development. From a series of longitudinal studies. at least partly. the salience of helpful concepts could be amplified. thus. largely determined by genetics. personality traits do correspond to differences between left and right activation in various brain regions. Wilkowski. seems to be directed towards the helpful features of some person or interaction. Neurological underpinnings of the five factor model Several studies have explored the neurological correlates of these five personality traits. First. especially when individuals feel satisfied and committed to their job (Scollon & Diener. This asymmetry. Knack. 2008). Roberts. arose only after participants received critical rather than favorable feedback. and emotional stability. 2006). 2005. alpha power was greater in the right relative to left prefrontal regions. conscientiousness. Robinson. In particular. a sample item is "I like following my daily routine" • Superficial. a series of principles. many studies. Conscientiousness.. Roberts & Caspi. Nevertheless. such as slander or support. seems to coincide with more activation in the left. 2001. agreeableness. as hostile or helpful. according to this neo-socio analytic model of personality. From this perspective. and alpha power tends to represent reduced brain activity. 2006. prefrontal cortices. This maturity partly arises as individuals reflect upon their identity and engage in a broader range of social roles. Meier. Individuals who reported elevated levels of agreeableness were more likely than other participants to classify helpful words more rapidly than hostile words. however. 2006). followed hostile prime. 2006).

typically hostile words. websites.. from limited information such as a personal profile on a website or a bedroom (e. bedrooms. the remaining primes related to aggression--90% of which were followed by a helpful target. Short phrases Some of these measures comprise short phrases.80 across the five scales and the number of items is 44. & Cortina. Ashton. the prime was neutral in emotion.g. Participants indicate the degree to which these adjectives correspond to their personality. Narrow traits Some investigators contend the five factors are too broad. the remaining primes were strings of letters. Participants completed 360 trials.74 to . traits are examined (e. In the control group. . 1998). including achievement. in which Cronbach's alpha ranges from . & Kentle.71 to . Participants then shifted the mouse to this location and clicked the prime. Ratings from limited slices of information Many studies indicate that individuals can often estimate the personality of someone else from limited slices of information: photographs. in some studies. Instead. The most common variant of this procedure was developed by Goldberg (1992). Examples include the Big Five Inventory (John. and so forth. might overestimate the importance of some dimensions and underestimate the importance of other dimensions (Dudley. sometimes called subordinate or narrow traits instead. Measures of the five traits Adjectives A variety of measures have been constructed to assess the five personality traits. called conscientiousness. they recommend the researchers and practitioners examine facets or subdivisions of these factors. 2004).88 across the five scales. Orvis. demonstrated less aggression in a subsequent laboratory task than participants in the control condition.g. such as "Is a reliable worker". Many studies have substantiated the benefits of these narrow traits. conversations. Lebiecki. order. which comprises 100 adjectives and generates values of Cronbach's alpha. Then. a measure of internal consistency. and dependability.kill.. a stranger estimates the personality of one or more of these individuals. 1991). Participants were instructed to memorize these target words-and this instruction was intended to focus their attention on these items. Research that merely aggregates these facets into a single broad factor. The various facets of conscientiousness. especially for openness to experience. The primes. individuals are asked to rate their own personality on the five factor model. Vazire & Gosling. the correlations betweenpersonality and performance are often higher when narrow. In addition. 2006). such as cccc. 90% of the time. that range from . Donahue. rather than broad. Some measures merely consist of a series of adjectives. and participants are instructed to specify the extent to which these phrases depict their personality. For example. In half the trials. Significant correlations tend to be observed. exposed to hostile primes followed by helpful words. Participants in the experimental condition. After the prime was clicked. appeared at one of four locations on a screen. do not all correlate with job performance to the extent. In the experimental group. a target word materialized.

For example. The FIRO-B determines the extent to which individuals express or demonstrate the pursuit of inclusion. Hence. individuals often feel a need to receive warmth and love. and independence. In contrast. Alternative taxonomies of personality Firo-B In addition to the five factor model. than individuals who are conscientious when the roles. other frameworks have been developed to represent the personality space. The first dimension represents the extent to which individuals seek to maintain relationships with friends or collectives. Machilek. control. especially in English speaking nations like the United Kingdom (Dancer & Woods. targets. individuals sometimes feel a motivation to maintain power and influence in their relationships. 2005). This dimension. goals. The second dimension relates to the need to maintain control. and potential rewards are defined clearly (Byrne. 2006). intimacy. and affection can compromise the degree to which individuals feel unique. supported. undue levels of inclusion. & Hochwater. That is. Furthermore. Specifically. Individuals who seem conscientious are most effective when the roles. control. Some studies have examined the psychometric properties of this instrument and explored the validity of this model (Furnham. this instrument is used extensively.. Practical implications Allocation to roles Individuals who experience neuroticism might be more suited to roles in which employees must follow specific procedures. 1992). 2001). Thompson. if not more effectively. control. Marcus. According to one measure. the FIRO-B. goals. Stoner. support. control. personality -or at least interpersonal behavior--can be represented by three dimensions (Schutz. called a need for inclusion. minute details (Zhang & Huang. and Schutz (2006) showed that conscientious individuals are more inclined to post their resumes on their personal websites as well as regularly count the number of visitors. In addition. control. and affection--rather than solitude. and affection. and affection. individuals who are not conscientious perform almost as effectively. The third dimension concerns the extent to which individuals seek affection. and potential rewards are not defined clearly (Byrne et al. Differences between expressed and wanted scores are assumed to represent a form of internal conflict. . this instrument examines the degree to which individuals desire inclusion. or independent respectively. 2005). and routines precisely (Zhang & Huang. and closeness. 2001) Individuals who demonstrate extraversion are not suited to roles in which they need to focus on specific. 1958. obviously seeks some level of inclusion. instructions. However. 1990). this instrument distinguishes between expressed and wanted inclusion. As a consequence. targets. and affection. Almost everyone. individuals seek a balance between these competing needs. some studies have explored the features that coincide with specific personality traits. revolves around the fear of rejection or exclusion from social entities.To ascertain the source of this correlation.

because conflicts are less likely to arise. offend. mock. & Chuang. This similarity also curbs unsuitable behaviors. employees are less likely to hurt. & Chuang. 2004).Allocation to workgroups Managers should ensure that individuals should be appreciably more or less extraverted that are the colleagues with whom they are likely to work (Liao Joshi. or curse colleagues at work if they are appreciably more or less extraverted than most of the other individuals in their workgroup. That is. managers should ensure the individuals should allocated to workgroups in which colleagues exhibit similar levels of agreeableness (Liao Joshi. In contrast. ****************************************** . 2004).