Big Five Personality Traits PDF

Big Five personality traits In trait theory, the Big Five personality traits (sometimes known as the five-factor model of personality or OCEAN or CANOE models) are a group of five characteristics used to study personality: openness to experience, intellect, or imagination (imaginative/philosophical vs. uncreative/unintellectual) conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. haphazard/careless) extraversion or surgency (bold/energetic vs. shy/bashful) agreeableness (sympathetic/cooperative vs. cold/harsh) neuroticism or low emotional stability (moody/nervous The Big Five personality traits vs. relaxed/calm) The Big Five traits did not arise from studying an existing theory of personality, but rather, they were an empirical finding in early lexical studies that English personality- descriptive adjectives clustered together under factor analysis into five unique factors. The factor analysis indicates that these five factors can be measured, but further studies have suggested revisions and critiques of the model. Cross-language studies have found a sixth Honesty-Humility factor, suggesting a replacement by the HEXACO model of personality structure. A study of short-form constructs found that the agreeableness and openness constructs were ill-defined in a larger population, suggesting that these traits should be dropped and replaced by more specific dimensions. In addition, the labels such as "neuroticism" are ill-fitting, and the traits are more properly thought of as unnamed dimensions, "Factor A", "Factor B", and so on. Despite these issues with its formulation, the five-factor approach has been enthusiastically and internationally embraced, becoming central to much of contemporary personality research. Many subsequent factor analyses, variously formulated and expressed in a variety of languages, have repeatedly reported the finding of five largely similar factors. The five-factor approach has been portrayed as a fruitful, scientific achievement―a fundamental advance in the understanding of human personality. Some have claimed that the five factors of personality are "an empirical fact, like the fact that there are seven continents on earth and eight American Presidents from Virginia". Others such as Jack Block have expressed concerns over the uncritical acceptance of the approach. History William McDougall, writing in 1932, put forward a conjecture observing that "five distinguishable but separable factors" could be identified when looking at personality. His suggestions, "intellect, character, temperament, disposition and temper", have been seen as "anticipating" the adoption of the Big Five model in subsequent years. The model was built on understanding the relationship between personality and academic behaviour. It was defined by several independent sets of researchers who analysed words describing people's behaviour. These researchers first studied relationships between many words related to personality traits. They made lists of these words shorter by 5–10 times and then used factor analysis to group the remaining traits (with data mostly based upon people's estimations, in self-report questionnaires and peer ratings) to find the basic factors of personality. The initial model was advanced in 1958 by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal, research psychologists at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, but failed to reach scholars and scientists until the 1980s. In 1990, J.M. Digman advanced his five-factor model of personality, which Lewis Goldberg put at the highest organised level. These five overarching domains have been found to contain most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the basic structure behind them all. At least four sets of researchers have worked independently for decades to reflect personality traits in language and have mainly identified the same five factors: Tupes and Christal were first, followed by Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute, Cattell at the University of Illinois, and finally Costa and McCrae. These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, making the sets of five factors have varying names and meanings. However, all have been found to be strongly correlated with their corresponding factors. Studies indicate that the Big Five traits are not nearly as powerful in predicting and explaining actual behaviour as the more numerous facets or primary traits. Each of the Big Five personality traits contains two separate, but correlated, aspects reflecting a level of personality below the broad domains but above the many facet scales also making up part of the Big Five. The aspects are labelled as follows: Volatility and Withdrawal for Neuroticism; Enthusiasm and Assertiveness for Extraversion; Intellect and Openness for Openness to Experience; Industriousness and Orderliness for Conscientiousness; and Compassion and Politeness for Agreeableness. Finding the five factors In 1884, British scientist Sir Francis Galton became the first person known to consider deriving a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits by sampling language. The idea that this may be possible is known as the lexical hypothesis. In 1936, American psychologists Gordon Allport of Harvard University and Henry Odbert of Dartmouth College implemented Galton's hypothesis. They organised for three anonymous people to categorise adjectives from Webster's New International Dictionary and a list of common slang words. The result was a list of 4504 adjectives they believed were descriptive of observable and relatively permanent traits. In 1943, Raymond Cattell of Harvard University took Allport and Odbert's list and reduced this to a list of roughly 160 terms by eliminating words with very similar meanings. To these, he added terms from 22 other psychological categories, and additional "interest" and "abilities" terms. This resulted in a list of 171 traits. From this he used factor analysis to derive 60 "personality clusters or syndromes" and an additional 7 minor clusters. Cattell then narrowed this down to 35 terms, and later added a 36th factor in the form of an IQ measure. Through factor analysis from 1945 to 1948, he created 11 or 12 factor solutions. In 1947, Hans Eysenck of University College London published his book Dimensions of Personality. He posited that the two most important personality dimensions were "Extraversion" and "Neuroticism", a term that he coined. In July 1949, Donald Fiske of the University of Chicago used 22 terms either adapted from Cattell's 1947 study, and through surveys of male university students and statistics derived five factors: "Social Adaptability", "Emotional Control", "Conformity", "Inquiring Intellect", and "Confident Self- expression". In the same year, Cattell, with Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber, found 4 additional factors, which they believed consisted of information that could only be provided through self-rating. With this understanding, they created the sixteen factor 16PF Questionnaire. In 1953, John W French of Educational Testing Service published an extensive meta-analysis of personality trait factor studies. In 1957, Ernest Tupes of the United States Air Force undertook a personality trait study of US Air Force officers. Each was rated by their peers using Cattell's 35 terms (or in some cases, the 30 most reliable terms). In 1958, Tupes and Raymond Christal began a US Air Force study by taking 37 personality factors and other data found in Cattell's 1947 paper, Fiske's 1949 paper, and Tupes' 1957 paper. Through statistical analysis, they derived five factors they labeled "Surgency", "Agreeableness", "Dependability", "Emotional Stability", and "Culture". In addition to the influence of Cattell and Fiske's work, they strongly noted the influence of French's 1953 study. Tupes and Christal further tested and explained their 1958 work in a 1961 paper. Warren Norman of the University of Michigan replicated Tupes and Christal's work in 1963. He relabeled "Surgency" as "Extroversion or Surgency", and "Dependability" as "Conscientiousness". He also found four subordinate scales for each factor. Norman's paper was much more read than Tupes and Christal's papers had been. Norman's later Oregon Research Institute colleague Lewis Goldberg continued this work. In the 4th edition of the 16PF Questionnaire released in 1968, 5 "global factors" derived from the 16 factors were identified: "Extraversion", "Independence", "Anxiety", "Self-control" and "Tough- mindedness". 16PF advocates have since called these "the original Big 5". Hiatus in research During the 1970s, the changing zeitgeist made publication of personality research difficult. In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walter Mischel asserted that personality instruments could not predict behavior with a correlation of more than 0.3. Social psychologists like Mischel argued that attitudes and behavior were not stable, but varied with the situation. Predicting behavior from personality instruments was claimed to be impossible. Renewed attention In 1978, Paul Costa and Robert McCrae of the National Institutes of Health published a book chapter describing their Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness (NEO) model. The model was based on the three factors in its name. They used Eysenck's concept of "Extroversion" rather than Carl Jung's. Each factor had six facets. The authors expanded their explanation of the model in subsequent papers. Also in 1978, British psychologist Peter Saville of Brunel University applied statistical analysis to 16PF results, and determined that the model could be reduced to five factors, "Anxiety", "Extraversion", "Warmth", "Imagination" and "Conscientiousness". At a 1980 symposium in Honolulu, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available personality instruments of the day. In 1981, Digman and Takemoto-Chock of the University of Hawaii reanalysed data from Cattell, Tupes, Norman, Fiske and Digman. They re-affirmed the validity of the five factors, naming them "Friendly Compliance vs. Hostile Non-compliance", "Extraversion vs. Introversion", "Ego Strength vs. Emotional Disorganization", "Will to Achieve" and "Intellect". They also found weak evidence for the existence of a sixth factor, "Culture". Peter Saville and his team included the five-factor "Pentagon" model as part of the Occupational Personality Questionnaires (OPQ) in 1984. This was the first commercially available Big Five test. Its factors are "Extroversion", "Vigorous", "Methodical", "Emotional Stability", and "Abstract". This was closely followed by another commercial test, the NEO PI three-factor personality inventory, published by Costa and McCrae in 1985. It used the three NEO factors. The methodology employed in constructing the NEO instruments has since been subject to critical scrutiny.: 431–33 Emerging methodologies increasingly confirmed personality theories during the 1980s. Though generally failing to predict single instances of behavior, researchers found that they could predict patterns of behavior by aggregating large numbers of observations. As a result, correlations between personality and behavior increased substantially, and it became clear that "personality" did in fact exist. In 1992, the NEO PI evolved into the NEO PI-R, adding the factors "Agreeableness" and "Conscientiousness", and becoming a Big Five instrument. This set the names for the factors that are now most commonly used. The NEO maintainers call their model the "Five Factor Model" (FFM). Each NEO personality dimension has six subordinate facets. Subsequent developments Wim Hofstee at the University of Groningen used a lexical hypothesis approach with the Dutch language to develop what became the International Personality Item Pool in the 1990s. Further development in Germany and the United States saw the pool based on three languages. Its questions and results have been mapped to various Big Five personality typing models. Kibeom Lee and Michael Ashton released a book describing their HEXACO model in 2004. It adds a sixth factor, "Honesty-Humility" to the five (which it calls "Emotionality", "Extraversion", "Agreeableness", "Conscientiousness", and "Openness to Experience"). Each of these factors has four facets. In 2007, Colin DeYoung, Lena C. Quilty and Jordan Peterson concluded that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates. This was derived through factor analyses of two data samples with the International Personality Item Pool, followed by cross-correlation with scores derived from 10 genetic factors identified as underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets. By 2009, personality and social psychologists generally agreed that both personal and situational variables are needed to account for human behavior. A FFM-associated test was used by Cambridge Analytica, and was part of the "psychographic profiling" controversy during the 2016 US presidential election. Descriptions of the particular personality traits When factor analysis is applied to personality survey data, semantic associations between aspects of personality and specific terms are often applied to the same person. For example, someone described as conscientious is more likely to be described as "always prepared" rather than "messy". These associations suggest five broad dimensions used in common language to describe the human personality, temperament, and psyche. Beneath each proposed global factor, there are a number of correlated and more specific primary factors. For example, extraversion is typically associated with qualities such as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions. These traits are not black and white; each one is treated as a spectrum. Openness to experience Openness to experience is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, open to emotion, sensitive to beauty, and willing to try new things. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are also more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. Open people can be perceived as unpredictable or lacking focus, and more likely to engage in risky behaviour or drug-taking. Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self- actualisation specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences. Conversely, those with low openness want to be fulfilled by persevering and are characterised as pragmatic and data-driven – sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualise the openness factor as there is a lack of biological support for this particular trait. Openness has not shown a significant association with any brain regions as opposed to the other four traits which did when using brain imaging to detect changes in volume associated with each trait. Sample items I have a rich vocabulary. I have a vivid imagination. I have excellent ideas. I am quick to understand things. I use difficult words. I spend time reflecting on things. I am full of ideas. I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (Reversed) I am not interested in abstract ideas. (Reversed) I do not have a good imagination. (Reversed) Conscientiousness Conscientiousness is a tendency to be self-disciplined, act dutifully, and strive for achievement against measures or outside expectations. It is related to people's level of impulse control, regulation, and direction. High conscientiousness is often perceived as being stubborn and focused. Low conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability. High conscientiousness indicates a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behaviour. Sample items I am always prepared. I pay attention to details. I get chores done right away. I follow a schedule. I am exacting in my work. I do not like order. (Reversed) I leave my belongings around. (Reversed) I make a mess of things. (Reversed) I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (Reversed) I shirk my duties. (Reversed) Extraversion Extraversion is characterised by breadth of activities (as opposed to depth), surgency from external activities/situations, and energy creation from external means. The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy interacting with people, and are often perceived as energetic. They tend to be enthusiastic and action-oriented. They possess high group visibility, like to talk, and assert themselves. Extraverts may appear more dominant in social settings, as opposed to introverts in that setting. Introverts have lower social engagement and energy levels than extraverts. They tend to seem quiet, low- key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression, but as greater independence of their social world than extraverts. Introverts need less stimulation and more time alone than extraverts. This does not mean that they are unfriendly or antisocial; rather, they are aloof and reserved in social situations. Generally, people are a combination of extraversion and introversion, with personality psychologist Hans Eysenck suggesting a model by which differences in their brains produce these traits.: 106 Sample items I am the life of the party. I feel comfortable around people. I start conversations. I talk to a lot of different people at parties. I do not mind being the center of attention. I do not talk a lot. (Reversed) I keep in the background. (Reversed) I have little to say. (Reversed) I do not like to draw attention to myself. (Reversed) I am quiet around strangers. (Reversed) Agreeableness Agreeableness is the general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, kind, generous, trusting and trustworthy, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. Being agreeable helps us cope with stress. Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others' well-being and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others' motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. Disagreeable people are often competitive or challenging, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy. Because agreeableness is a social trait, research has shown that one's agreeableness positively correlates with the quality of relationships with one's team members. Agreeableness also positively predicts transformational leadership skills. In a study conducted among 169 participants in leadership positions in a variety of professions, individuals were asked to take a personality test and be directly evaluated by supervised subordinates. Very agreeable leaders were more likely to be considered transformational rather than transactional. Although the relationship was not strong (r=0.32, β=0.28, p 75,000) examining the relationship between all of the Big Five personality traits and common mental disorders found that low conscientiousness yielded consistently strong effects for each common mental disorder examined (i.e., MDD, dysthymic disorder, GAD, PTSD, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, specific phobia, and SUD). This finding parallels research on physical health, which has established that conscientiousness is the strongest personality predictor of reduced mortality, and is highly negatively correlated with making poor health choices. In regards to the other personality domains, the meta-analysis found that all common mental disorders examined were defined by high neuroticism, most exhibited low extraversion, only SUD was linked to agreeableness (negatively), and no disorders were associated with Openness. A meta-analysis of 59 longitudinal studies showed that high neuroticism predicted the development of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, psychosis, schizophrenia, and non-specific mental distress, also after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history. The personality-psychopathology models Five major models have been posed to explain the nature of the relationship between personality and mental illness. There is currently no single "best model", as each of them has received at least some empirical support. These models are not mutually exclusive – more than one may be operating for a particular individual and various mental disorders may be explained by different models. The Vulnerability/Risk Model: According to this model, personality contributes to the onset or etiology of various common mental disorders. In other words, pre-existing personality traits either cause the development of CMDs directly or enhance the impact of causal risk factors. There is strong support for neuroticism being a robust vulnerability factor. The Pathoplasty Model: This model proposes that premorbid personality traits impact the expression, course, severity, and/or treatment response of a mental disorder. An example of this relationship would be a heightened likelihood of committing suicide in a depressed individual who also has low levels of constraint. The Common Cause Model: According to the common cause model, personality traits are predictive of CMDs because personality and psychopathology have shared genetic and environmental determinants which result in non-causal associations between the two constructs. The Spectrum Model: This model proposes that associations between personality and psychopathology are found because these two constructs both occupy a single domain or spectrum and psychopathology is simply a display of the extremes of normal personality function. Support for this model is provided by an issue of criterion overlap. For instance, two of the primary facet scales of neuroticism in the NEO-PI-R are "depression" and "anxiety". Thus the fact that diagnostic criteria for depression, anxiety, and neuroticism assess the same content increases the correlations between these domains. The Scar Model: According to the scar model, episodes of a mental disorder 'scar' an individual's personality, changing it in significant ways from premorbid functioning. An example of a scar effect would be a decrease in openness to experience following an episode of PTSD. Physical health To examine how the Big Five personality traits are related to subjective health outcomes (positive and negative mood, physical symptoms, and general health concern) and objective health conditions (chronic illness, serious illness, and physical injuries), Jasna Hudek-Knezevic and Igor Kardum conducted a study from a sample of 822 healthy volunteers (438 women and 384 men). Out of the Big Five personality traits, they found neuroticism most related to worse subjective health outcomes and optimistic control to better subjective health outcomes. When relating to objective health conditions, connections drawn were presented weak, except that neuroticism significantly predicted chronic illness, whereas optimistic control was more closely related to physical injuries caused by accident. Being highly conscientious may add as much as five years to one's life. The Big Five personality traits also predict positive health outcomes. In an elderly Japanese sample, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness were related to lower risk of mortality. Higher conscientiousness is associated with lower obesity risk. In already obese individuals, higher conscientiousness is associated with a higher likelihood of becoming non-obese over a five-year period. Effect of personality traits through life Education Academic achievement Personality plays an important role in academic achievement. A study of 308 undergraduates who completed the Five Factor Inventory Processes and reported their GPA suggested that conscientiousness and agreeableness have a positive relationship with all types of learning styles (synthesis-analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism shows an inverse relationship. Moreover, extraversion and openness were proportional to elaborative processing. The Big Five personality traits accounted for 14% of the variance in GPA, suggesting that personality traits make some contributions to academic performance. Furthermore, reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing) were able to mediate the relationship between openness and GPA. These results indicate that intellectual curiosity significantly enhances academic performance if students combine their scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing. A recent study of Israeli high-school students found that those in the gifted program systematically scored higher on openness and lower on neuroticism than those not in the gifted program. While not a measure of the Big Five, gifted students also reported less state anxiety than students not in the gifted program. Specific Big Five personality traits predict learning styles in addition to academic success. GPA and exam performance are both predicted by conscientiousness neuroticism is negatively related to academic success openness predicts utilizing synthesis-analysis and elaborative-processing learning styles neuroticism negatively correlates with learning styles in general openness and extraversion both predict all four learning styles. Studies conducted on college students have concluded that hope, which is linked to agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, has a positive effect on psychological well-being. Individuals high in neurotic tendencies are less likely to display hopeful tendencies and are negatively associated with well-being. Personality can sometimes be flexible and measuring the big five personality for individuals as they enter certain stages of life may predict their educational identity. Recent studies have suggested the likelihood of an individual's personality affecting their educational identity. Learning styles Learning styles have been described as "enduring ways of thinking and processing information". In 2008, the Association for Psychological Science (APS) commissioned a report that concludes that no significant evidence exists that learning-style assessments should be included in the education system. Thus it is premature, at best, to conclude that the evidence links the Big Five to "learning styles", or "learning styles" to learning itself. However, the APS report also suggested that all existing learning styles have not been exhausted and that there could exist learning styles worthy of being included in educational practices. There are studies that conclude that personality and thinking styles may be intertwined in ways that link thinking styles to the Big Five personality traits. There is no general consensus on the number or specifications of particular learning styles, but there have been many different proposals. As one example, Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah (1997) defined four types of learning styles: synthesis analysis methodical study fact retention elaborative processing When all four facets are implicated within the classroom, they will each likely improve academic achievement. By identifying learning strategies in individuals, learning and academic achievement can be improved, and a deeper understanding of information processing can be gained. This model asserts that students develop either agentic/shallow processing or reflective/deep processing. Deep processors are more often found to be more conscientious, intellectually open, and extraverted than shallow processors. Deep processing is associated with appropriate study methods (methodical study) and a stronger ability to analyze information (synthesis analysis), whereas shallow processors prefer structured fact retention learning styles and are better suited for elaborative processing. The main functions of these four specific learning styles are as follows: Name Function processing information, forming categories, and organizing them into hierarchies. This is the Synthesis only one of the learning styles that has explained a significant impact on academic analysis: performance. Methodical methodical behavior while completing academic assignments study: Fact retention: focusing on the actual result instead of understanding the logic behind something Elaborative connecting and applying new ideas to existing knowledge processing: Openness has been linked to learning styles that often lead to academic success and higher grades like synthesis analysis and methodical study. Because conscientiousness and openness have been shown to predict all four learning styles, it suggests that individuals who possess characteristics like discipline, determination, and curiosity are more likely to engage in all of the above learning styles. According to the research carried out by Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck & Avdic (2011), conscientiousness and agreeableness are positively related with all four learning styles, whereas neuroticism was negatively related with those four. Furthermore, extraversion and openness were only positively related to elaborative processing, and openness itself correlated with higher academic achievement. In addition, a previous study by psychologist Mikael Jensen has shown relationships between the Big Five personality traits, learning, and academic achievement. According to Jensen, all personality traits, except neuroticism, are associated with learning goals and motivation. Openness and conscientiousness influence individuals to learn to a high degree unrecognized, while extraversion and agreeableness have similar effects. Conscientiousness and neuroticism also influence individuals to perform well in front of others for a sense of credit and reward, while agreeableness forces individuals to avoid this strategy of learning. Jensen's study concludes that individuals who score high on the agreeableness trait will likely learn just to perform well in front of others. Besides openness, all Big Five personality traits helped predict the educational identity of students. Based on these findings, scientists are beginning to see that the Big Five traits might have a large influence of on academic motivation that leads to predicting a student's academic performance. Some authors suggested that Big Five personality traits combined with learning styles can help predict some variations in the academic performance and the academic motivation of an individual which can then influence their academic achievements. This may be seen because individual differences in personality represent stable approaches to information processing. For instance, conscientiousness has consistently emerged as a stable predictor of success in exam performance, largely because conscientious students experience fewer study delays. Conscientiousness shows a positive association with the four learning styles because students with high levels of conscientiousness develop focused learning strategies and appear to be more disciplined and achievement-oriented. Personality and learning styles are both likely to play significant roles in influencing academic achievement. College students (308 undergraduates) completed the Five Factor Inventory and the Inventory of Learning Processes and reported their grade point average. Two of the Big Five traits, conscientiousness and agreeableness, were positively related with all four learning styles (synthesis analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism was negatively related with all four learning styles. In addition, extraversion and openness were positively related with elaborative processing. The Big Five together explained 14% of the variance in grade point average (GPA), and learning styles explained an additional 3%, suggesting that both personality traits and learning styles contribute to academic performance. Further, the relationship between openness and GPA was mediated by reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing). These latter results suggest that being intellectually curious fully enhances academic performance when students combine this scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing. Implications of these results are discussed in the context of teaching techniques and curriculum design. — M Komarraju Distance Learning When the relationship between the five-factor personality traits and academic achievement in distance education settings was examined in brief, the openness personality trait was found to be the most important variable that has a positive relationship with academic achievement in distance education environments. In addition, it was found that self-discipline, extraversion, and adaptability personality traits are generally in a positive relationship with academic achievement. The most important personality trait that has a negative relationship with academic achievement has emerged as neuroticism. The results generally show that individuals who are organized, planned, determined, who are oriented to new ideas and independent thinking have increased success in distance education environments. On the other hand, it can be said that individuals with anxiety and stress tendencies generally have lower academic success. Employment Occupation and personality fit Researchers have long suggested that work is more likely to be fulfilling to the individual and beneficial to society when there is alignment between the person and their occupation. For instance, software programmers and scientists often rank high on Openness to experience and tend to be intellectually curious, think in symbols and abstractions, and find repetition boring. Psychologists and sociologists rank higher on Agreeableness and Openness than economists The Vocations Map - clustering of the social media and jurists. presence of users in different professions. Work success It is believed that the Big Five traits are predictors of future performance outcomes to varying degrees. Specific facets of the Big Five traits are also thought to be indicators of success in the workplace, and each individual facet can give a more precise indication as to the nature of a person. Different traits' facets are needed for different occupations. Various facets of the Big Five traits can predict the success of people in different environments. The estimated levels of an individual's success in jobs that require public speaking versus one-on-one interactions will differ according to whether that person has particular traits' facets. Job outcome measures include job and training proficiency and personnel data. However, research demonstrating such prediction has been criticized, in part because of the apparently low correlation coefficients characterizing the relationship Controversy exists as to whether or not the Big 5 personality traits are between personality and job performance. In a 2007 article states: correlated with success in the "The problem with personality tests is... that the validity of workplace. personality measures as predictors of job performance is often disappointingly low. The argument for using personality tests to predict performance does not strike me as convincing in the first place." Such criticisms were put forward by Walter Mischel, whose publication caused a two-decades' long crisis in personality psychometrics. However, later work demonstrated that the correlations obtained by psychometric personality researchers were actually very respectable by comparative standards, and that the economic value of even incremental increases in prediction accuracy was exceptionally large, given the vast difference in performance by those who occupy complex job positions. Research has suggested that individuals who are considered leaders typically exhibit lower amounts of neurotic traits, maintain higher levels of openness, balanced levels of conscientiousness, and balanced levels of extraversion. Further studies have linked professional burnout to neuroticism, and extraversion to enduring positive work experience. Studies have linked national innovation, leadership, and ideation to openness to experience and conscientiousness. Occupational self-efficacy has also been shown to be positively correlated with conscientiousness and negatively correlated with neuroticism. Some research has also suggested that the conscientiousness of a supervisor is positively associated with an employee's perception of abusive supervision. Others have suggested that low agreeableness and high neuroticism are traits more related to abusive supervision. Openness is positively related to proactivity at the individual and the organizational levels and is negatively related to team and organizational proficiency. These effects were found to be completely independent of one another. This is also counter-conscientious and has a negative correlation to Conscientiousness. Agreeableness is negatively related to individual task proactivity. Typically this is associated with lower career success and being less able to cope with conflict. However there are benefits to the Agreeableness personality trait including higher subjective well-being; more positive interpersonal interactions and helping behavior; lower conflict; lower deviance and turnover. Furthermore, attributes related to Agreeableness are important for workforce readiness for a variety of occupations and performance criteria. Research has suggested that those who are high in agreeableness are not as successful in accumulating income. Extraversion results in greater leadership emergence and effectiveness; as well as higher job and life satisfaction. However extraversion can lead to more impulsive behaviors, more accidents and lower performance in certain jobs. Conscientiousness is highly predictive of job performance in general, and is positively related to all forms of work role performance, including job performance and job satisfaction, greater leadership effectiveness, lower turnover and deviant behaviors. However this personality trait is associated with reduced adaptability, lower learning in initial stages of skill acquisition and more interpersonally abrasiveness, when also low in agreeableness. Neuroticism is negatively related to all forms of work role performance. This increases the chance of engaging in risky behaviors. Two theories have been integrated in an attempt to account for these differences in work role performance. Trait activation theory posits that within a person trait levels predict future behavior, that trait levels differ between people, and that work-related cues activate traits which leads to work relevant behaviors. Role theory suggests that role senders provide cues to elicit desired behaviors. In this context, role senders provide workers with cues for expected behaviors, which in turn activates personality traits and work relevant behaviors. In essence, expectations of the role sender lead to different behavioral outcomes depending on the trait levels of individual workers, and because people differ in trait levels, responses to these cues will not be universal. Romantic relationships The Big Five model of personality was used for attempts to predict satisfaction in romantic relationships, relationship quality in dating, engaged, and married couples. Political identification The Big Five Personality Model also has applications in the study of political psychology. Studies have been finding links between the big five personality traits and political identification. It has been found by several studies that individuals who score high in Conscientiousness are more likely to possess a right- wing political identification. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a strong correlation was identified between high scores in Openness to Experience and a left-leaning ideology. While the traits of agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism have not been consistently linked to either conservative or liberal ideology, with studies producing mixed results, such traits are promising when analyzing the strength of an individual's party identification. However, correlations between the Big Five and political beliefs, while present, tend to be small, with one study finding correlations ranged from 0.14 to 0.24. Scope of predictive power The predictive effects of the Big Five personality traits relate mostly to social functioning and rules- driven behavior and are not very specific for prediction of particular aspects of behavior. For example, it was noted by all temperament researchers that high neuroticism precedes the development of all common mental disorders and is not associated with personality. Further evidence is required to fully uncover the nature and differences between personality traits, temperament and life outcomes. Social and contextual parameters also play a role in outcomes and the interaction between the two is not yet fully understood. Religiosity Though the effect sizes are small: Of the Big Five personality traits high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion relate to general religiosity, while Openness relate negatively to religious fundamentalism and positively to spirituality. High Neuroticism may be related to extrinsic religiosity, whereas intrinsic religiosity and spirituality reflect Emotional Stability. Measurements Several measures of the Big Five exist: International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) NEO-PI-R The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and the Five Item Personality Inventory (FIPI) are very abbreviated rating forms of the Big Five personality traits. Self-descriptive sentence questionnaires Lexical questionnaires Self-report questionnaires Relative-scored Big 5 measure The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are self-descriptive sentences or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single adjectives. Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item balanced International English Big-Five Mini-Markers or a very brief (10 item) measure of the Big Five domains. Research has suggested that some methodologies in administering personality tests are inadequate in length and provide insufficient detail to truly evaluate personality. Usually, longer, more detailed questions will give a more accurate portrayal of personality. At the same time, shorter questionnaires may be sufficient to get a reasonable estimate of Big Five personality scores when questions are carefully selected and statistical imputation is used. The five factor structure has been replicated in peer reports. However, many of the substantive findings rely on self-reports. Much of the evidence on the measures of the Big 5 relies on self-report questionnaires, which makes self- report bias and falsification of responses difficult to deal with and account for. It has been argued that the Big Five tests do not create an accurate personality profile because the responses given on these tests are not true in all cases and can be falsified. For example, questionnaires are answered by potential employees who might choose answers that paint them in the best light. Research suggests that a relative-scored Big Five measure in which respondents had to make repeated choices between equally desirable personality descriptors may be a potential alternative to traditional Big Five measures in accurately assessing personality traits, especially when lying or biased responding is present. When compared with a traditional Big Five measure for its ability to predict GPA and creative achievement under both normal and "fake good"-bias response conditions, the relative-scored measure significantly and consistently predicted these outcomes under both conditions; however, the Likert questionnaire lost its predictive ability in the faking condition. Thus, the relative-scored measure proved to be less affected by biased responding than the Likert measure of the Big Five. Andrew H. Schwartz analyzed 700 million words, phrases, and topic instances collected from the Facebook messages of 75,000 volunteers, who also took standard personality tests, and found striking variations in language with personality, gender, and age. Critique The proposed Big Five model has been subjected to considerable critical scrutiny in a number of published studies. One prominent critic of the model has been Jack Block at the University of California, Berkeley. In response to Block, the model was defended in a paper published by Costa and McCrae. This was followed by a number of published critical replies from Block. It has been argued that there are limitations to the scope of the Big Five model as an explanatory or predictive theory. It has also been argued that measures of the Big Five account for only 56% of the normal personality trait sphere alone (not even considering the abnormal personality trait sphere). Also, the static Big Five is not theory driven, it is merely a statistically driven investigation of certain descriptors that tend to cluster together often based on less-than-optimal factor analytic procedures.: 431–33 Measures of the Big Five constructs appear to show some consistency in interviews, self-descriptions and observations, and this static five-factor structure seems to be found across a wide range of participants of different ages and cultures. However, while genotypic temperament trait dimensions might appear across different cultures, the phenotypic expression of personality traits differs profoundly across different cultures as a function of the different socio-cultural conditioning and experiential learning that takes place within different cultural settings. Moreover, the fact that the Big Five model was based on lexical hypothesis (i.e. on the verbal descriptors of individual differences) indicated strong methodological flaws in this model, especially related to its main factors, Extraversion and Neuroticism. First, there is a natural pro-social bias of language in people's verbal evaluations. After all, language is an invention of group dynamics that was developed to facilitate socialization and the exchange of information and to synchronize group activity. This social function of language therefore creates a sociability bias in verbal descriptors of human behavior: there are more words related to social than physical or even mental aspects of behavior. The sheer number of such descriptors will cause them to group into the largest factor in any language, and such grouping has nothing to do with the way that core systems of individual differences are set up. Second, there is also a negativity bias in emotionality (i.e. most emotions have negative affectivity), and there are more words in language to describe negative rather than positive emotions. Such asymmetry in emotional valence creates another bias in language. Experiments using the lexical hypothesis approach indeed demonstrated that the use of lexical material skews the resulting dimensionality according to a sociability bias of language and a negativity bias of emotionality, grouping all evaluations around these two dimensions. This means that the two largest dimensions in the Big Five model might be just an artifact of the lexical approach that this model employed. Limited scope One common criticism is that the Big Five does not explain all of human personality. Some psychologists have dissented from the model precisely because they feel it neglects other domains of personality, such as religiosity, manipulativeness/machiavellianism, honesty, sexiness/seductiveness, thriftiness, conservativeness, masculinity/femininity, snobbishness/egotism, sense of humour, and risk-taking/thrill- seeking. Dan P. McAdams has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger", because they refer to traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five. Block has pointed to several less-recognized but successful efforts to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the model. There may be debate as to what counts as personality and what does not and the nature of the questions in the survey greatly influence outcome. Multiple particularly broad question databases have failed to produce the Big Five as the top five traits. In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions. This is particularly important when the goal of a study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality with as few variables as possible. The model is inappropriate for studying early childhood, as language is not yet developed. Methodological issues Factor analysis, the statistical method used to identify the dimensional structure of observed variables, lacks a universally recognized basis for choosing among solutions with different numbers of factors. A five factor solution depends on some degree of interpretation by the analyst. A larger number of factors may underlie these five factors. This has led to disputes about the "true" number of factors. Big Five proponents have responded that although other solutions may be viable in a single data set, only the five- factor structure consistently replicates across different studies. Block argues that the use of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing personality is too limited. Surveys in studies are often online surveys of college students (compare WEIRD bias). Results do not always replicate when run on other populations or in other languages. It is not clear that different surveys measure the same 5 factors. Moreover, the factor analysis that this model is based on is a linear method incapable of capturing nonlinear, feedback and contingent relationships between core systems of individual differences. See also Core self-evaluations Dark triad DISC assessment Facet Genomics of personality traits Goal orientation HEXACO model of personality structure Moral foundations theory Myers–Briggs Type Indicator Personality psychology Szondi test Trait theory References 1. Roccas, Sonia; Sagiv, Lilach; Schwartz, Shalom H.; Knafo, Ariel (2002). "The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values" (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01 46167202289008). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (6): 789–801. doi:10.1177/0146167202289008 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167202289008). S2CID 144611052 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144611052). 2. Goldberg LR (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-five factor structure" (https://a rchive.org/details/sim_psychological-assessment_1992-03_4_1/page/26). Psychological Assessment. 4 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1040- 3590.4.1.26). S2CID 144709415 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144709415). 3. Eysenck HJ (1992). "Four ways five factors are not basic" (https://web.archive.org/web/2012 1107113908/http://web.sls.hw.ac.uk/teaching/level2/A42SO2/reading/Eysenck%20Four%20 ways%20five%20factors%20are%20not%20basic.pdf) (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 13 (8): 667–73. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-j (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F 0191-8869%2892%2990237-j). Archived from the original (http://web.sls.hw.ac.uk/teaching/l evel2/A42SO2/reading/Eysenck%20Four%20ways%20five%20factors%20are%20not%20b asic.pdf) (PDF) on 2012-11-07. Retrieved 2012-06-17. 4. Ashton MC, Lee K, Goldberg LR (November 2004). "A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and- social-psychology_2004-11_87_5/page/707). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 87 (5): 707–21. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.707 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.87. 5.707). PMID 15535781 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15535781). 5. Ashton MC, Lee K, de Vries RE (May 2014). "The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: a review of research and theory". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 18 (2): 139–52. doi:10.1177/1088868314523838 (https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F1088868314523838). PMID 24577101 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24577 101). S2CID 38312803 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:38312803). 6. Smith, Michael L.; Hamplová, Dana; Kelley, Jonathan; Evans, M.D.R. (June 2021). "Concise survey measures for the Big Five personality traits". Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. 73: 100595. doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2021.100595 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rssm.20 21.100595). 7. Block J (2010). "The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations". Psychological Inquiry. 21 (1): 2–25. doi:10.1080/10478401003596626 (https://doi.org/10.10 80%2F10478401003596626). S2CID 26355524 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2 6355524). 8. Digman JM (1990). "Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model" (https://archi ve.org/details/sim_annual-review-of-psychology_1990_41/page/417). Annual Review of Psychology. 41: 417–40. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 (https://doi.org/10.114 6%2Fannurev.ps.41.020190.002221). 9. Poropat AE (March 2009). "A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance" (https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-bulletin_2009-03_135 _2/page/322). Psychological Bulletin. 135 (2): 322–38. doi:10.1037/a0014996 (https://doi.or g/10.1037%2Fa0014996). hdl:10072/30324 (https://hdl.handle.net/10072%2F30324). PMID 19254083 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19254083). 10. Shrout PE, Fiske ST (1995). Personality research, methods, and theory. Psychology Press. 11. Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936). "Trait names: A psycholexical study" (https://archive.org/detai ls/sim_psychological-monographs_1936_47_212/page/211). Psychological Monographs. 47: 211. doi:10.1037/h0093360 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0093360). 12. Bagby RM, Marshall MB, Georgiades S (February 2005). "Dimensional personality traits and the prediction of DSM-IV personality disorder symptom counts in a nonclinical sample" (http s://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-disorders_2005-02_19_1/page/53). Journal of Personality Disorders. 19 (1): 53–67. doi:10.1521/pedi.19.1.53.62180 (https://doi.org/10.1 521%2Fpedi.19.1.53.62180). PMID 15899720 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15899720). 13. Tupes EC, Christal RE (1961). "Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings". USAF ASD Tech. Rep. 60 (61–97): 225–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x (https://doi.or g/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x). PMID 1635043 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go v/1635043). 14. Norman WT (June 1963). "Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66 (6): 574–83. doi:10.1037/h0040291 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh004 0291). PMID 13938947 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13938947). 15. Goldberg LR (January 1993). "The structure of phenotypic personality traits" (https://archive. org/details/sim_american-psychologist_1993-01_48_1/page/26). The American Psychologist. 48 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F00 03-066X.48.1.26). PMID 8427480 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8427480). S2CID 20595956 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:20595956). 16. O'Connor BP (June 2002). "A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five- factor model in relation to popular personality inventories" (https://archive.org/details/sim_as sessment_2002-06_9_2/page/188). Assessment. 9 (2): 188–203. doi:10.1177/1073191102092010 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1073191102092010). PMID 12066834 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12066834). S2CID 145580837 (https://ap i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145580837). 17. Goldberg LR (1982). "From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality". In Spielberger CD, Butcher JN (eds.). Advances in personality assessment. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 201–34. 18. Norman WT, Goldberg LR (1966). "Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_1966-12_4_6/p age/681). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 (6): 681–91. doi:10.1037/h0024002 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0024002). 19. Peabody D, Goldberg LR (September 1989). "Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social -psychology_1989-09_57_3/page/552). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (3): 552–67. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.57.3.5 52). PMID 2778639 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2778639). 20. Saucier G, Goldberg LR (1996). "The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model". In Wiggins JS (ed.). The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford. 21. Digman JM (June 1989). "Five robust trait dimensions: development, stability, and utility". Journal of Personality. 57 (2): 195–214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x (https://do i.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x). PMID 2671337 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni h.gov/2671337). 22. Karson S, O'Dell JW (1976). A guide to the clinical use of the 16PF (Report). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. 23. Krug SE, Johns EF (1986). "A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF". Psychological Reports. 59 (2): 683–93. doi:10.2466/pr0.1986.59.2.683 (https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1986.59.2.683). S2CID 145610003 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145610003). 24. Cattell HE, Mead AD (2007). "The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)". In Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH (eds.). Handbook of personality theory and testing, Volume 2: Personality measurement and assessment. London: Sage. 25. Costa PT, McCrae RR (September 1976). "Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-gerontology_1976-09_31_5/pa ge/564). Journal of Gerontology. 31 (5): 564–70. doi:10.1093/geronj/31.5.564 (https://doi.or g/10.1093%2Fgeronj%2F31.5.564). PMID 950450 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/95045 0). 26. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 27. McCrae RR, Costa PT (January 1987). "Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and -social-psychology_1987-01_52_1/page/81). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (1): 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.52.1. 81). PMID 3820081 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3820081). S2CID 7893185 (https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7893185). 28. McCrae RR, John OP (June 1992). "An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications". Journal of Personality. 60 (2): 175–215. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.470.4858 (https://cit eseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.470.4858). doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6494.1992.tb00970.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x). PMID 1635039 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1635039). S2CID 10596836 (https://api.se manticscholar.org/CorpusID:10596836). 29. "International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)" (http://sjdm.org/dmidi/International_Personality_It em_Pool.html). The Society for Judgment and Decision Making. 30. Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, Gough HG (February 2006). "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures". Journal of Research in Personality. 40 (1): 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jrp.2005.08.007). S2CID 13274640 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13274640). 31. Conn S, Rieke M (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. 32. Cattell HE (1996). "The original big five: A historical perspective". European Review of Applied Psychology. 46: 5–14. 33. Grucza RA, Goldberg LR (October 2007). "The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-assessment_2007-10_89_ 2/page/167). Journal of Personality Assessment. 89 (2): 167–87. doi:10.1080/00223890701468568 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00223890701468568). PMID 17764394 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17764394). S2CID 42394327 (https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:42394327). 34. Mershon B, Gorsuch RL (1988). "Number of factors in the personality sphere: does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55 (4): 675–80. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0 022-3514.55.4.675). 35. Paunonen SV, Ashton MS (2001). "Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior". Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 81 (3): 524–39. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.81.3.524 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.3.524). PMID 11554651 (https://pu bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11554651). 36. Deyoung, C. G.; Quilty, L. C.; Peterson, J. B. (2007). "Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (5): 880–896. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.513.2517 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.513. 2517). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.93.5.880). PMID 17983306 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17983306). S2CID 8261816 (https://api.s emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8261816). 37. Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936). "Trait names: A psycholexical study" (https://archive.org/detai ls/sim_psychological-monographs_1936_47_1). Psychological Monographs. 47: 211. doi:10.1037/h0093360 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0093360). 38. Cattell, Raymond B. (October 1943). "The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters" (http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/h0054116). The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 38 (4): 476–506. doi:10.1037/h0054116 (https://doi.org/1 0.1037%2Fh0054116). ISSN 0096-851X (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0096-851X). 39. Cattell, Raymond B. (1945). "The Description of Personality: Principles and Findings in a Factor Analysis". The American Journal of Psychology. 58 (1): 69–90. doi:10.2307/1417576 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1417576). JSTOR 1417576 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/141757 6). 40. Cattell, Raymond B. (1947-09-01). "Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors". Psychometrika. 12 (3): 197–220. doi:10.1007/BF02289253 (https://doi.org/10.100 7%2FBF02289253). ISSN 1860-0980 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1860-0980). PMID 20260610 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20260610). S2CID 28667497 (https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:28667497). 41. Cattell, Raymond B. (July 1948). "The primary personality factors in women compared with those in men". British Journal of Statistical Psychology. 1 (2): 114–130. doi:10.1111/j.2044- 8317.1948.tb00231.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8317.1948.tb00231.x). 42. h.j. eysenck (1950). dimensions of personality (http://archive.org/details/dimensionsofpers00 00hjey_e0a7). Internet Archive. routledge & kegan paul limited. 43. Fiske, Donald W. (July 1949). "Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources" (http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/h0057198). The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 44 (3): 329–344. doi:10.1037/h0057198 (https://doi.org/ 10.1037%2Fh0057198). hdl:2027.42/179031 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42%2F179031). ISSN 0096-851X (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0096-851X). PMID 18146776 (https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18146776). 44. Cattell, R.B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 45. Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New York: World Book 46. Cattell, H. B. (1989). "The 16PF: Personality In Depth." Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc. 47. Linn, Robert L. (1996). "In Memoriam: Maurice M. Tatsuoka (1922-1996)" (https://www.jstor. org/stable/1435178). Journal of Educational Measurement. 33 (2): 125–127. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1996.tb00484.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1745-3984.1996.tb00 484.x). ISSN 0022-0655 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0655). JSTOR 1435178 (http s://www.jstor.org/stable/1435178). 48. https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20152016/161898 49. French, John W. (March 1953). "The Description of Personality Measurements in Terms of Rotated Factors". Eric. Institute of Educational Sciences. ERIC ED079418 (https://eric.ed.go v/?id=ED079418). 50. Tupes, Ernest C. (1957). "Relationships between behavior trait ratings by peers and later officer performance of USAF Officer Candidate School graduates" (https://doi.apa.org/get-p e-doi.cfm?doi=10.1037/e522552009-001). PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e522552009- 001 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fe522552009-001). Retrieved 2023-02-10. 51. AFPTRC-TN (https://books.google.com/books?id=Wd6dpewPPkMC). Air Force Personnel & Training Research Center, Lackland Air Force Base. 1957. 52. "A Memorium to Raymond E. Christal" (https://psycnet.apa.org/get-pe-doi.cfm?doi=10.1037/ e568692011-006). PsycEXTRA Dataset. 1995. doi:10.1037/e568692011-006 (https://doi.or g/10.1037%2Fe568692011-006). Retrieved 2023-02-10. 53. Tupes, Ernest C.; Christal, Raymond C. (1958). Stability of Personality Trait Rating Factors Obtained Under Diverse Conditions (https://books.google.com/books?id=S4Ul-sQV7_AC). Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Center, Air Research and Development Command, United States Air Force. 54. Christal, Raymond E. (June 1992). "Author's Note on "Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings" " (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00972.x). Journal of Personality. 60 (2): 221–224. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00972.x (https://do i.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.1992.tb00972.x). ISSN 0022-3506 (https://search.worldcat.or g/issn/0022-3506). PMID 1635042 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1635042). 55. Tupes, Ernest C.; Christal, Raymond E. (May 1961). "Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings" (https://books.google.com/books?id=HlGIjgEACAAJ). Aeronautical Systems Division Technical Reports and Technical Notes. 26 (2). 56. Goldberg, Lewis R. (1998-12-01). "Warren T. Norman (1930–1998): An Appreciation" (http s://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698922243). Journal of Research in Personality. 32 (4): 391–396. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2224 (https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fjrpe.1 998.2224). ISSN 0092-6566 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0092-6566). 57. "Finding Scales to Measure Particular Personality Constructs" (https://ipip.ori.org/Finding_S cales_to_Measure_Particular_Constructs.htm). ipip.ori.org. Retrieved 2023-02-11. 58. Richard Miller (https://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/520%2016PF%20Cattell%20and%20M ead.pdf) 59. "APA PsycNet" (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-11586-001). psycnet.apa.org. Retrieved 2023-02-12. 60. Costa, Paul T.; McCrae, Robert R. (1978). "Objective Personality Assessment". In Storandt, Martha; Siegler, Ilene C.; Elias, Merrill F. (eds.). The Clinical Psychology of Aging. Boston, MA: Springer US. pp. 119–143. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-3342-5_5 (https://doi.org/10.1007% 2F978-1-4684-3342-5_5). ISBN 978-1-4684-3342-5. 61. McCrae, Robert R.; Costa, Paul T. (December 1980). "Openness to experience and ego level in Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test: Dispositional contributions to developmental models of personality" (http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/h0077727). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39 (6): 1179–1190. doi:10.1037/h0077727 (https://doi.or g/10.1037%2Fh0077727). ISSN 1939-1315 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1939-1315). 62. Saville, Peter (1978). A critical analysis of Cattell's model of personality (http://bura.brunel.a c.uk/handle/2438/7732) (Thesis thesis). Brunel University School of Sport and Education PhD Theses. 63. Goldberg LR (May 1980). Some ruminations about the structure of individual differences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human personality. Symposium presentation at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association (Report). Honolulu, HI. 64. Digman, John M.; Takemoto-Chock, Naomi K. (1981-04-01). "Factors In The Natural Language Of Personality: Re-Analysis, Comparison, And Interpretation Of Six Major Studies". Multivariate Behavioral Research. 16 (2): 149–170. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr1602_2 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327906mbr1602_2). ISSN 0027-3171 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0027-3171). PMID 26825420 (https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26825420). 65. "Society, August 2012" (https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/society-august-2012). BPS. Retrieved 2023-02-11. 66. Stanton, N.A.; Mathews, G.; Graham, N.C.; Brimelow, C. (1991-01-01). "The Opq and the Big Five". Journal of Managerial Psychology. 6 (1): 25–27. doi:10.1108/02683949110140750 (https://doi.org/10.1108%2F02683949110140750). ISSN 0268-3946 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0268-3946). 67. Boyle GJ, Stankov L, Cattell RB (1995). "Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence". In Saklofske DH, Zeidner M (eds.). International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. pp. 417–46. 68. Epstein S, O'Brien EJ (November 1985). "The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective" (https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-bulletin_1985-11_98_3/p age/513). Psychological Bulletin. 98 (3): 513–37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.3.513 (https://d oi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.98.3.513). PMID 4080897 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4 080897). 69. Kenrick DT, Funder DC (January 1988). "Profiting from controversy. Lessons from the person-situation debate" (https://archive.org/details/sim_american-psychologist_1988-01_43 _1/page/23). The American Psychologist. 43 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.43.1.23 (htt ps://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.43.1.23). PMID 3279875 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.g ov/3279875). 70. "History of the IPIP" (https://ipip.ori.org/HistoryOfTheIPIP.htm). ipip.ori.org. Retrieved 2023-02-11. 71. Goldberg, Lewis R.; Johnson, John A.; Eber, Herbert W.; Hogan, Robert; Ashton, Michael C.; Cloninger, C. Robert; Gough, Harrison G. (2006). "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures" (https://ipip.ori.org/Goldberg_etal_20 06_IPIP_JRP.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality. 40: 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jrp.2005.08.007). S2CID 13274640 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13274640) – via Elsevier. 72. "The HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised" (https://hexaco.org/history). hexaco.org. Retrieved 2023-02-11. 73. Jang, KL (2002). "The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R)" (https://www.research gate.net/publication/285086638). The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. 2: 223–257 – via ResearchGate. 74. Lucas RE, Donnellan MB (2009). "If the person-situation debate is really over, why does it still generate so much negative affect?". Journal of Research in Personality. 43 (3): 146–49. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.009 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jrp.2009.02.009). 75. Alexander, Nix (2017-03-03). "From Mad Men to Math Men" (https://freud.online/articles/fro m-mad-men-to-math-men). Freud Online. Retrieved 2022-10-23. 76. "About Us" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160216023554/https://cambridgeanalytica.org/ab out). Cambridge Analytica. Archived from the original (https://cambridgeanalytica.org/about) on 16 February 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2015. 77. Sellers FS (19 October 2015). "Cruz campaign paid $750,000 to 'psychographic profiling' company" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-campaign-paid-750000-to-psychog raphic-profiling-company/2015/10/19/6c83e508-743f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html). The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 February 2016. 78. Goldberg LR (January 1993). "The structure of phenotypic personality traits" (https://archive. org/details/sim_american-psychologist_1993-01_48_1/page/26). American Psychologist. 48 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.48.1.26). PMID 8427480 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8427480). S2CID 20595956 (https://api.se manticscholar.org/CorpusID:20595956). 79. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources. 80. Matthews G, Deary IJ, Whiteman MC (2003). Personality Traits (https://web.archive.org/we b/20141205103724/http://elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILM U%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/Personality%20Traits%2C%202nd%20Ed.pdf) (PDF) (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83107-9. Archived from the original (http://eli b.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/P ersonality%20Traits,%202nd%20Ed.pdf) (PDF) on 2014-12-05. 81. De Bolle M, Beyers W, De Clercq B, De Fruyt F (November 2012). "General personality and psychopathology in referred and nonreferred children and adolescents: an investigation of continuity, pathoplasty, and complication models" (https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/211777 6/file/6770996). Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 121 (4): 958–70. doi:10.1037/a0027742 (h ttps://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0027742). PMID 22448741 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/224 48741). S2CID 33228527 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:33228527). 82. Ambridge B (2014). Psy-Q: You know your IQ – now test your psychological intelligence (htt ps://books.google.com/books?id=ZT2eAwAAQBAJ). Profile. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-78283-023-8 – via Google Books. 83. DeYoung, Colin G.; Hirsh, Jacob B.; Shane, Matthew S.; Papademetris, Xenophon; Rajeevan, Nallakkandi; Gray, Jeremy R. (2010). "Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3049165). Psychological Science. 21 (6): 820–828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159 (h ttps://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797610370159). ISSN 0956-7976 (https://search.worldcat.or g/issn/0956-7976). JSTOR 41062296 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41062296). PMC 3049165 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049165). PMID 20435951 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20435951). 84. The 50-item IPIP representation of the Goldberg (1992) markers for the Big-Five structure at ipip.ori.org (https://ipip.ori.org/newBigFive5broadKey.htm). 85. Toegel G, Barsoux JL (2012). "How to become a better leader" (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/ar ticle/how-to-become-a-better-leader). MIT Sloan Management Review. 53 (3): 51–60. 86. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 87. Laney MO (2002). The Introvert Advantage (https://archive.org/details/introvertadvanta00ma rt). Canada: Thomas Allen & Son Limited. pp. 28 (https://archive.org/details/introvertadvanta 00mart/page/28), 35. ISBN 978-0-7611-2369-9. 88. Friedman H, Schustack M (2016). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (Sixth ed.). Pearson Education Inc. ISBN 978-0-205-99793-0. 89. Rothmann S, Coetzer EP (24 October 2003). "The big five personality dimensions and job performance" (https://doi.org/10.4102%2Fsajip.v29i1.88). SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 29. doi:10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88 (https://doi.org/10.4102%2Fsajip.v29i1.88). 90. Bai, Qiyu; Bai, Shiguo; Dan, Qi; Lei, Li; Wang, Pengcheng (2020-03-01). "Mother phubbing and adolescent academic burnout: The mediating role of mental health and the moderating role of agreeableness and neuroticism: Personality and Individual Differences". Personality and Individual Differences. 155. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109622 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2 Fj.paid.2019.109622). ISSN 0191-8869 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0191-8869). 91. Bartneck C, Van der Hoek M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (March 2007). " "Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!" switching off a robot" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6251692). Eindhoven, Netherlands: Dept. of Ind. Design, Eindhoven Univ. of Technol. pp. 217–22. Retrieved 6 February 2013. 92. Judge TA, Bono JE (October 2000). "Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-applied-psychology_2000-10_85_5/pa ge/751). The Journal of Applied Psychology. 85 (5): 751–65. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.85.5.751 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0021-9010.85.5.751). PMID 11055147 (https://pu bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11055147). 93. Lim BC, Ployhart RE (August 2004). "Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts" (https://archive.org/details/s im_journal-of-applied-psychology_2004-08_89_4/page/610). The Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (4): 610–21. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0 021-9010.89.4.610). PMID 15327348 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15327348). 94. Sackett PR, Walmsley PT (2014). "Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace?". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 9 (5): 538–51. doi:10.1177/1745691614543972 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691614543972). PMID 26186756 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26186756). S2CID 21245818 (https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21245818). 95. Jeronimus BF, Riese H, Sanderman R, Ormel J (October 2014). "Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_201 4-10_107_4/page/751). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107 (4): 751–64. doi:10.1037/a0037009 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0037009). PMID 25111305 (https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25111305). 96. Norris CJ, Larsen JT, Cacioppo JT (September 2007). "Neuroticism is associated with larger and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures" (http://apsy choserver.psych.arizona.edu/jjbareprints/psyc501a/readings/Norris%20Larsen%20Caciopp o%202007%20Psychophysiology%20(SC%20Neuroticism).pdf) (PDF). Psychophysiology. 44 (5): 823–26. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00551.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1469-8 986.2007.00551.x). PMID 17596178 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17596178). 97. Kagan J, Snidman N (2009). The Long Shadow of Temperament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 98. Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G (2009). Handbook of Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 99. Reynaud E, El Khoury-Malhame M, Rossier J, Blin O, Khalfa S (2012). "Neuroticism modifies psycho physiological responses to fearful films" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC3316522). PLOS ONE. 7 (3): e32413. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...732413R (https:// ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PLoSO...732413R). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032413 (http s://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032413). PMC 3316522 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC3316522). PMID 22479326 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22479326). 100. Jeronimus BF, Ormel J, Aleman A, Penninx BW, Riese H (November 2013). "Negative and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism" (https://archi ve.org/details/sim_psychological-medicine_2013-11_43_11/page/2403). Psychological Medicine. 43 (11): 2403–15. doi:10.1017/s0033291713000159 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs 0033291713000159). PMID 23410535 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23410535). S2CID 43717734 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:43717734). 101. Dwan T, Ownsworth T (2019). "The Big Five personality factors and psychological well-being following stroke: a systematic review". Disability and Rehabilitation. 41 (10): 1119–30. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1419382 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F09638288.2017.141938 2). PMID 29272953 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29272953). S2CID 7300458 (https://a pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7300458). 102. Dolan SL (2006). Stress, Self-Esteem, Health and Work. p. 76. 103. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Evans DE (2000). "Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_200 0-01_78_1/page/122). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (1): 122–35. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.78.1.122). PMID 10653510 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10653510). 104. Shiner R, Caspi A (January 2003). "Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 44 (1): 2–32. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00101 (https://doi.or g/10.1111%2F1469-7610.00101). PMID 12553411 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/125534 11). 105. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, Hrebícková M, Avia MD, Sanz J, Sánchez- Bernardos ML, Kusdil ME, Woodfield R, Saunders PR, Smith PB (January 2000). "Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development" (https://archive.org/detai ls/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2000-01_78_1/page/173). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (1): 173–86. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173 (http s://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.78.1.173). PMID 10653513 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/10653513). 106. Markey PM, Markey CN, Tinsley BJ (April 2004). "Children's behavioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality" (https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-social-p sychology-bulletin_2004-04_30_4/page/423). Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 30 (4): 423–32. doi:10.1177/0146167203261886 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01461672032618 86). PMID 15070472 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15070472). S2CID 33684001 (http s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:33684001). 107. Rusalov VM (1989). "Motor and communicative aspects of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament" (https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-a nd-individual-differences_1989_10_8/page/817). Personality and Individual Differences. 10 (8): 817–27. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90017-2 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0191-8869%28 89%2990017-2). 108. Strelau J (1998). Temperament: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Plenum. 109. Rusalov VM, Trofimova IN (2007). Structure of Temperament and Its Measurement. Toronto, Canada: Psychological Services Press. 110. Trofimova IN (2016). "The interlocking between functional aspects of activities and a neurochemical model of temperament". In Arnold, MC (eds.). Temperaments: Individual Differences, Social and Environmental Influences and Impact on Quality of Life. New York: Nova Science Publishers. pp. 77–147. 111. Trofimova I, Robbins TW, Sulis WH, Uher J (April 2018). "Taxonomies of psychological individual differences: biological perspectives on millennia-long challenges" (https://www.ncb i.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5832678). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 373 (1744): 20170152. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0152 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frstb.2017.0152). PMC 5832678 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p mc/articles/PMC5832678). PMID 29483338 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29483338). 112. Trofimova I, et al. (2022). "What's next for the neurobiology of temperament, personality and psychopathology?" (https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/26462). Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 45: 101143. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101143 (https://doi.org/10.101 6%2Fj.cobeha.2022.101143). S2CID 248817462 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 248817462). 113. Trofimova IN (2010). "An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality" (https://archive.org/details/sim_american-jour nal-of-psychology_winter-2010_123_4/page/467). American Journal of Psychology. 123 (4): 467–80. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.4.0467 (https://doi.org/10.5406%2Famerjpsyc.123.4.04 67). PMID 21291163 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21291163). 114. Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Vernon PA (September 1996). "Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: a twin study" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personal ity_1996-09_64_3/page/577). Journal of Personality. 64 (3): 577–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6494.1996.tb00522.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x). PMID 8776880 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8776880). S2CID 35488176 (https://api.se manticscholar.org/CorpusID:35488176). 115. Bouchard TJ, McGue M (January 2003). "Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences" (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fneu.10160). Journal of Neurobiology. 54 (1): 4–45. doi:10.1002/neu.10160 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fneu.10160). PMID 12486697 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12486697). 116. Weiss A, King JE, Hopkins WD (November 2007). "A cross-setting study of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) personality structure and development: zoological parks and Yerkes National Primate Research Center" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC265433 4). American Journal of Primatology. 69 (11): 1264–77. doi:10.1002/ajp.20428 (https://doi.or g/10.1002%2Fajp.20428). PMC 2654334 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26 54334). PMID 17397036 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17397036). 117. Gosling SD, John OP (1999). "Personality Dimensions in Nonhuman Animals: A Cross- Species Review" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180928211900/http://www.subjectpool.co m/ed_teach/y5_ID/jc/animals/gosling_and_john_1999PersonalityInAnimals_curr_dir_psycho l_sci.pdf) (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 8 (3): 69–75. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00017 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8721.00017). S2CID 145716504 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145716504). Archived from the original on 2018-09-28. Retrieved 2016-12-05. 118. Morton FB, Robinson LM, Brando S, Weiss A (2021). "Personality structure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)" (https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/3649436). Journal of Comparative Psychology. 135 (2): 219–231. doi:10.1037/com0000259 (https://do i.org/10.1037%2Fcom0000259). hdl:20.500.11820/1d4cef3b-b78b-46b3-b31c-2d1f4339cd9f (https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11820%2F1d4cef3b-b78b-46b3-b31c-2d1f4339cd9f). PMID 33464108 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33464108). S2CID 231642036 (https://ap i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:231642036). 119. Soto CJ, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J (February 2011). "Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample" (https://a rchive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2011-02_100_2/page/3 30). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100 (2): 330–48. doi:10.1037/a0021717 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0021717). PMID 21171787 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2 1171787). 120. Soto CJ (August 2016). "The Little Six Personality Dimensions From Early Childhood to Early Adulthood: Mean-Level Age and Gender Differences in Parents' Reports". Journal of Personality. 84 (4): 409–22. doi:10.1111/jopy.12168 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fjopy.1216 8). PMID 25728032 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25728032). 121. Lewis M (2001). "Issues in the study of personality development". Psychological Inquiry. 12 (2): 67–83. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1202_02 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327965pli120 2_02). S2CID 144557981 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144557981). 122. Goldberg LR (2001). "Analyses of Digman's child- personality data: Derivation of Big Five Factor Scores from each of six samples" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personali ty_2001-10_69_5/page/709). Journal of Personality. 69 (5): 709–43. doi:10.1111/1467- 6494.695161 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-6494.695161). PMID 11575511 (https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11575511). 123. Mervielde I, De Fruyt F (1999). "Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (Hi- PIC).". In Mervielde ID, De Fruyt F, Ostendorf F (eds.). Personality psychology in Europe: Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Personality. Tilburg University Press. pp. 107–27. 124. Resing WC, Bleichrodt N, Dekker PH (1999). "Measuring personality traits in the classroom" (https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/1318382/resing%20European%20Journal%20of%20Personal ity,%2013(12).pdf) (PDF). European Journal of Personality. 13 (6): 493–509. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199911/12)13:63.0.co;2-v (https://doi.org/10. 1002%2F%28sici%291099-0984%28199911%2F12%2913%3A6%3C493%3A%3Aaid-per3 55%3E3.0.co%3B2-v). hdl:1871/18675 (https://hdl.handle.net/1871%2F18675). S2CID 56322465 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:56322465). 125. Markey PM, Markey CN, Ericksen AJ, Tinsley BJ (2002). "A preliminary validation of preadolescents' self-reports using the Five-Factor Model of personality". Journal of Research in Personality. 36 (2): 173–81. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2341 (https://doi.org/10.100 6%2Fjrpe.2001.2341). 126. Scholte RH, van Aken MA, van Lieshout CF (December 1997). "Adolescent personality factors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer rejection" (https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-assessment_1997-12_ 69_3/page/534). Journal of Personality Assessment. 69 (3): 534–54. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_8 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327752jpa6903_8). PMID 9501483 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9501483). 127. van Lieshout CF, Haselager GJ (1994). "The Big Five personality factors in Q-sort descriptions of children and adolescents.". In Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP (eds.). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (https://archive.org/details/developingstruct0000unse). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 293 (http s://archive.org/details/developingstruct0000unse/page/293)–318. 128. Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP, eds. (1994). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (https://archive.org/details/developin gstruct0000unse). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 129. Kohnstamm GA, Halverson Jr CF, Mervielde I, Havill VL, eds. (1998). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five?. Psychology Press. 130. Mervielde I, De Fruyt F, Jarmuz S (May 1998). "Linking openness and intellect in childhood and adulthood.". In Kohnstamm GA, Halverson CF, Mervielde I, Havill VL (eds.). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five (https://archive. org/details/parentaldescript00kohn). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 105 (https://archive.org/detai ls/parentaldescript00kohn/page/n169)–26. ISBN 978-0-8058-2301-1. 131. John OP, Srivastava S (1999). "The Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives" (http://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/pubs/bigfive.pdf) (PDF). In Pervin LA, John OP (eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. Vol. 2. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 102–38. 132. Soto C, Tackett J (2015). "Personality Traits in Childhood and Adolescence: Structure, Development, and Outcomes" (http://www.colby.edu/psych/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/201 3/08/Soto_Tackett_2015.pdf) (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 24: 358– 62. doi:10.1177/0963721415589345 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721415589345). S2CID 29475747 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:29475747). 133. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W (January 2006). "Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies". Psychological Bulletin. 132 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 (https://doi.org/10.103 7%2F0033-2909.132.1.1). PMID 16435954 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16435954). S2CID 16606495 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16606495). 134. Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF (January 2000). "The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies" (http://jenni.uch icago.edu/Spencer_Conference/Representative%20Papers/Roberts%20&%20DelVecchi o,%202000.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 126 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.126.1.3 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.1.3). PMID 10668348 (https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10668348). S2CID 7484026 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI D:7484026). 135. Lemery KS, Goldsmith HH, Klinnert MD, Mrazek DA (January 1999). "Developmental models of infant and childhood temperament" (https://archive.org/details/sim_developmental -psychology_1999-01_35_1/page/189). Developmental Psychology. 35 (1): 189–204. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.189 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0012-1649.35.1.189). PMID 9923474 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9923474). 136. Buss A, Plomin R (1984). Temperament: early developing personality trait. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 137. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Hershey KL, Fisher P (2001). "Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: the Children's Behavior Questionnaire". Child Development. 72 (5): 1394–408. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.398.8830 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi= 10.1.1.398.8830). doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00355 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8624.003 55). PMID 11699677 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11699677). 138. John OP, Caspi A, Robins RW, Moffitt TE, Stouthamer-Loeber M (February 1994). "The "little five": exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent boys" (https://archive.org/details/sim_child-development_1994-02_65_1/page/16 0). Child Development. 65 (1): 160–78. doi:10.2307/1131373 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F11 31373). JSTOR 1131373 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1131373). PMID 8131645 (https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8131645). 139. Eaton WO (1994). "Temperament, development, and the Five-Factor Model: Lessons from activity level". In Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP (eds.). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 173– 87. 140. Hawley PH (1999). "The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective". Developmental Review. 19: 97–132. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.459.4755 (https://citese erx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.459.4755). doi:10.1006/drev.1998.0470 (http s://doi.org/10.1006%2Fdrev.1998.0470). 141. Hawley PH, Little TD (1999). "On winning some and losing some: A social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers" (https://archive.org/details/sim_merrill-palmer-qua rterly_1999-01_45_1/page/n188). Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 45: 185–214. 142. Sherif M, Harvey O, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif C (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers' cave experiment (https://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/Intergroup-C onflict-and-Cooperation-The-Robbers-Cave-Experiment/pdf?dl&preview). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. OCLC 953442127 (https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/9534421 27). 143. Keating CF, Heltman KR (1994). "Dominance and deception in children and adults: Are leaders the best misleaders?" (https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-social-psychol ogy-bulletin_1994-06_20_3/page/312). Personality a

Big Five Personality Traits PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript