Actions

Relationships::Big Five personality traits

::concepts

First::journal    Title::volume    Pages::issue    Traits::journal    Author::factors    Model::their

Relationships

Personality disorders

{{#invoke:main|main}} As of 2002, there were over fifty published studies relating the FFM to personality disorders.<ref>Widiger TA, Costa PT., Jr. Five-Factor model personality disorder research. In: Costa Paul T, Jr, Widiger Thomas A., editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. 2nd. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp. 59–87. 2002.</ref> Since that time, quite a number of additional studies have expanded on this research base and provided further empirical support for understanding the DSM personality disorders in terms of the FFM domains.<ref>Mullins-Sweatt SN, Widiger TA. The five-factor model of personality disorder: A translation across science and practice. In: Krueger R, Tackett J, editors. Personality and psychopathology: Building bridges. New York: Guilford; 2006. pp. 39–70.</ref>

In her seminal review of the personality disorder literature published in 2007, Lee Anna Clark asserted that "the five-factor model of personality is widely accepted as representing the higher-order structure of both normal and abnormal personality traits".<ref>Clark LA. Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization" Annual Review of Psychology 2007; 58:227–257, 246.</ref>

The five-factor model has been shown to significantly predict all ten personality disorder symptoms and outperform the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in the prediction of borderline, avoidant, and dependent personality disorder symptoms.<ref>The paper, authored by R. Michael Bagby, Martin Sellbom, Paul T. Costa Jr., and Thomas A. Widiger was published in Personality and Mental Health, Volume 2, Issue 2, pages 55–69, April 2008</ref>

Research results examining the relationships between the FFM and each of the ten DSM personality disorder diagnostic categories are widely available. For example, in a study published in 2003 titled "The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review",<ref>The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. LM Saulsman, AC Page - Clinical Psychology Review, 2004 - Elsevier Science</ref> the authors analyzed data from 15 other studies to determine how personality disorders are different and similar, respectively, with regard to underlying personality traits. In terms of how personality disorders differ, the results showed that each disorder displays a FFM profile that is meaningful and predictable given its unique diagnostic criteria. With regard to their similarities, the findings revealed that the most prominent and consistent personality dimensions underlying a large number of the personality disorders are positive associations with neuroticism and negative associations with agreeableness.

Common mental disorders

Neuroticism is a prospective risk factor for the common mental disorders, including anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders,<ref name="Ormel2013">{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> and also shows substantial concurrent overlap.<ref name="Jeronimus2013" /><ref name="Ormel2013" />

Education

Academic achievement

Personality plays an important role that affects academic achievement. A study conducted with 308 undergraduates who completed the Five Factor Inventory Processes and offered 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 has an inverse relationship with them all. 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 curiousness has significant enhancement in academic performance if students can combine their scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> {{#invoke:Sidebar|sidebar | class = hlist | titleclass = navbox-title | title = Psychology | imagestyle = padding-bottom:0; | image = The Greek letter 'psi', a symbol for psychology | headingclass = navbox-abovebelow | contentstyle = padding:0.15em 0.5em 0.6em;

| abovestyle = padding-bottom:0.35em; | above =

| heading2 = Basic types | content2 =

| heading3 = Applied psychology | content3 =

| heading4 = Lists | content4 =

| belowstyle = border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa; | below =

  • Psychology portal

}}

Studies conducted on college students have concluded that hope, which is linked to agreeableness, 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.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref>

Learning styles

Learning styles have been described as "enduring ways of thinking and processing information."<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref>

Although there is no evidence that personality determines thinking styles, they may be intertwined in ways that link thinking styles to the Big Five personality traits.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> There is no general consensus on the number or specifications of particular learning styles, but there have been many different proposals.

Smeck, Ribicj, and Ramanaih (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.<ref name="Komarraju 2011 472–477">{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> This model asserts that students develop either agentic/shallow processing or reflective/deep processing. Deep processors are more often than not found to be more conscientious, intellectually open, and extraverted when compared to 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.<ref name="Komarraju 2011 472–477"/> The main functions of these four specific learning styles are as follow:

Name Function
Synthesis analysis: processing information, forming categories, and organizing them into hierarchies. This is the only one of the learning styles that has explained a significant impact on academic performance.<ref name="Komarraju 2011 472–477"/>
Methodical study: methodical behavior while completing academic assignments
Fact retention: focusing on the actual result instead of understanding the logic behind something
Elaborative processing: connecting and applying new ideas to existing knowledge

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.<ref name="Komarraju 2011 472–477"/>

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.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref>

Besides openness, all Big Five personality traits helped predict the educational identity of students. Based on these findings, scientists are beginning to see that there might be a large influence of the Big Five traits on academic motivation that then leads to predicting a student's academic performance.<ref name="Klimstra 2011">{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref>

Recent studies suggest 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.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> 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 experiences fewer study delays.<ref name="Klimstra 2011"/> The reason conscientiousness shows a positive association with the four learning styles is because students with high levels of conscientiousness develop focused learning strategies and appear to be more disciplined and achievement-oriented.

However, the American Psychological Society recently commissioned a report whose conclusion indicates that no significant evidence exists to make the conclusion that learning-style assessments should be included in the education system. The APA also suggested in their report that all existing learning styles have not been exhausted and that there could exist learning styles that have the potential to be worthy of being included in educational practices.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> Thus, it is premature, at best, to conclude that the evidence linking the Big Five to "learning styles" or "learning styles" to learning itself is valid.

Work success

Controversy exists as to whether or not the Big 5 personality traits are correlated with success in the workplace.

It is believed that the Big Five traits are predictors of future performance outcomes. Job outcome measures include job and training proficiency and personnel data.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> However, research demonstrating such prediction has been criticized, in part because of the apparently low correlation coefficients characterizing the relationship between personality and job performance. In a 2007 article<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> co-authored by six current or former editors of psychological journals, Dr. Kevin Murphy, Professor of Psychology at Pennsylvania State University and Editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology (1996-2002), states:

The problem with personality tests is … that the validity of 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,<ref>Mischel, Walter. Personality and Assessment, London, Wiley, 1968</ref> whose publication caused a two-decades' long crisis in personality psychometrics. However, later work demonstrated (1) that the correlations obtained by psychometric personality researchers were actually very respectable by comparative standards,<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> and (2) 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.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref>

There have been studies that link national innovation to openness to experience and conscientiousness. Those who express these traits have showed leadership and beneficial ideas towards the country of origin.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref>

Some businesses, organizations, and interviewers assess individuals based on the Big Five personality traits. Research has suggested that individuals who are considered leaders typically exhibit lower amounts of neurotic traits, maintain higher levels of openness (envisioning success), balanced levels of conscientiousness (well-organized), and balanced levels of extraversion (outgoing, but not excessive).<ref>Executive Coaching and Leadership Consulting. (n.d.). Working Resources. Retrieved April 7, 2011, from http://www.workingresources.com/nss-folder/pdffolder/LeadershipPersonality.pdf</ref> Further studies have linked professional burnout to neuroticism, and extraversion to enduring positive work experience.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref> When it comes to making money, research has suggested that those who are high in agreeableness (especially men) are not as successful in accumulating income.<ref>{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=journal }}</ref>


Big Five personality traits sections
Intro  Five factors  History  Biological and developmental factors  Group differences  Cultural differences  Relationships  Non-humans  Measurements  Critique  See also   References   External links  

Relationships
PREVIOUS: Cultural differencesNEXT: Non-humans
<<>>