ALPS ADRIA PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – ALPS ADRIA PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: fb666-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

ALPS ADRIA PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE

Description:

Negative aspects of collectivism and individualism. Socialization and personal growth processes. Positive aspects of collectivism and individualism. Culture ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:54
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: Upo69
Learn more at: http://psy.ff.uni-lj.si
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ALPS ADRIA PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE


1
From Big Five to Big One Higher-order structural
hierarchy of personality
  • Janek Musek
  • University of Ljubljana
  • SLOVENIA

2
Outline of presentation
  • Introduction New proposal of personality
    structure
  • Two studies
  • Methods
  • Results
  • General factor of personality (GFP)
  • Cross-cultural stability of GFP
  • Psychological meaning of GFP
  • Conclusions

3
Models of personality structure
  • A great variety of structural models in
    psychology
  • Intelligence
  • Personality (outside cognitive abilities domain)
  • Other domains (e.g. well-being, values)
  • Debate in personality structure domain
  • 16 (Cattell), 5 (Big Five), 3 (Eysenck) or 2
    (Digman)?
  • Question of possible general factor of
    personality largely ignored
  • Notable exceptions (Saucier Goldberg, 2003
    Stankov, 2005)
  • Yet
  • The evidence for GFP in Five Factor Model

4
GFP considered seriously
  • Strategic correlations among B5
  • Typical example below (-N, A, C, E O, E)
  • These correlations cannot be reduced to the
    evaluation, social desirability or methodological
    artifacts
  • On the other hand, GFP correlates very
    substantially with psychologically meaningful
    variables like self-esteem, self-concept,
    well-being, emotionality (positive, negative
    affect), motivation (approach-avoidance) and
    others even if partialized for social
    desirability
  • Support from evolutionary oriented research
    (Rushton, Figuereido)

5
Method Study I
  • Research design multivariate (exploratory and
    confirmatory FA in first line other multivariate
    analyses as well)
  • Three samples in first research
  • Sample 1 N301 (120 F, 181 M mean age36.95
    SD10.37)
  • Sample 2 N185 (100 F, 85 M mean age39.11
    SD13.26)
  • Sample 3 N285 (165 F, 120 M mean age16.37
    SD1.24)
  • More samples and subsamples (Slovenian and other)
    in further investigations (not published yet)
  • Measures (all Slovenian translated versions)
  • BFI (John, 1990 John, Donahue, Kentle, 1991
    John Srivastava, 1999)
  • IPIP-300 (Goldberg, 1999)
  • BFO (Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni,
    L. Perugini, M., 1993 Caprara, Barbaranelli
    Borgogni, 1994)
  • Data from other studies supported the strength of
    first factor and consequently yielded GFP
    (practically all available results including
    cross-cultural studies with nationally aggregated
    data /Musek, 2008/ also data collected by
    Rushton and colleagues, 2008)

6
Exploratory results
  • Results for scales BFI, IPIP, BFO), facets (IPIP)
    and items (BFI, BFO)
  • Factorizability of BF scales and items
  • Direct extraction of one single factor
  • GFP explained
  • 50,20 of variance in 5 BFI scales
  • 23,58 of variance in 44 BFI items
  • 40,18 of variance in 5 IPIP scales
  • 25,13 of variance in 30 IPIP facets
  • 44,84 of variance in BFO SCALES
  • Practically identical factors in scale and
    non-scale solutions

7
Confirmatory results
  • All selected indices confirmed the underlying
    models

8
Proposed final model of personality structure
9
Method Study II
  • How stable or universal is GFP?
  • 5 different studies on culturally different
    samples (omitted for the sake of space, yet
    focused on the following)
  • Aggregated data
  • On 56 national samples from the study of Schmitt
    et al. (2006)
  • Instruments
  • BFI, NEO-FFI, NEO-PI

10
56 nations data (Schmitt et al., 2006)
  • Correlations
  • Factorizability (acceptable KMO0,655)
  • Suggested 1 factor extraction (all indices
    including Kaiser criterion, scree test and
    parallel test)

11
56 nations data (Schmitt et al., 2006), cont.
  • Scree plot
  • Factor loadings
  • Confirmed meaning of GFP in B5 terms high versus
    low conscientiousness (C), agreeableness (A),
    stability (-N), extraversion (E) and openness (O)

12
Main issues for discussion
  • Psychological nature of GFP
  • Connections with other major psychological
    variables
  • Possible biological bases of GFP
  • Evolutionary
  • Genetic
  • Neurophysiological

13
The meaning of GFP in terms of the Big Five
  • Irrespective of the perspective of data (within
    or across cultural milieus)
  • High versus low emotional stability (-N),
    conscientiousness (C), agreeableness (A),
    extraversion (E) and openness (O)
  • GFP formula
  • -N,C,A,E,O

14
GFP, emotionality, well-being and self-esteem
  • Substantial and relatively high association
  • About 60 common variance between GFP and these
    measures

Table 7. Correlations and squared multiple
correlation between GFPs and the measures of
emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem
PA NA SWLS SLCS R2
Scale based GFPa .60 -.66 .50 .51 .59
Item based GFPa .62 -.66 .49 .54 .60
Scale based GFPb .62 -.63 .48 .52 .58
Item based GFPb .62 -.64 .47 .54. .60
Plt0.05, Plt0.01 (two-tailed) a GFP obtained by
direct extraction of single factor. b GFP
obtained by stepwise hierarchical higher-order
factoring.
15
Correlations (N301)
  • All correlations are significant
  • The highest correlations between general factors
    of personality and well-being domain (including
    self-esteem)

E P V N O alfa beta GFO SS
Life satisfaction ,392() ,306() ,295() -,502() ,221() ,485() ,334() ,496() ,496()
PA ,566() ,273() ,383() -,427() ,466() ,487() ,570() ,596() ,556()
NA -,530() -,384() -,353() ,739() -,255() -,653() -,428() -,660() -,527()
self.-acceptance ,469() ,324() ,299() -,444() ,325() ,473() ,439() ,531() ,546()
Interpersonal relations ,501() ,424() ,209() -,438() ,290() ,478() ,442() ,536() ,388()
autonomy ,382() ,113() ,263() -,404() ,389() ,346() ,443() ,439() ,494()
Mastery of environment ,530() ,352() ,469() -,651() ,309() ,650() ,446() ,664() ,606()
Personal growth ,352() ,197() ,242() -,312() ,425() ,321() ,456() ,426() ,382()
Purpose of life ,509() ,326() ,406() -,550() ,322() ,568() ,448() ,605() ,538()
g Well-being (scales) ,696() ,459() ,483() -,717() ,459() ,736() ,633() ,806() ,683()
g Well-being (items) ,684() ,446() ,488() -,720() ,449() ,733() ,619() ,798() ,683()
16
Psychological meaning of GFP
  • Evaluation and social desirability certainly
    contribute to the correlations among items and
    scales of B5 measures
  • Some other factors can also affect the
    correlations between items
  • Correlations between lexically short expressions
    (e.g. adjectives) are bigger than correlations
    between lalrger contextual questions or
    statements
  • Faking tendency increases the correlations
    (Ziegler, 2006)
  • Yet all these factors do not reduce the
    correlations essentially
  • For instance in our investigations (N108) the
    social desirability (SDS) explained about 18
    percent of GFP, and that is much less than
    general well-being (gFB see the regression model
    below)
  • It seems that GFP has a definite psychological
    content, which is strongly associated with
    well-being and is also remarkably heritable
    (Musek, 2007 Rushton, 2008)

17
More speculations about the nature of GFP
  • Probable existence of a common dimensions
    unifying basic dimensions of personality,
    emotionality, motivation, psychological or
    subjective well-being and self-esteem
  • Evolutionary, genetic and neurophysiological
    basis of that dimension
  • GFP is a personality representative of it

18
Evolutionary and genetic aspects of GFP
  • Evolutionary advantages of those personal,
    emotional and motivational characteristics that
    are more prone to the social approval and more
    promoting better well-being
  • Moving toward the big equation in psychology, at
    least in personality domain?

19
GFP correlates in personality, emotionality,
motivation, self, well-being, culture, and
biology (Musek, 2007)
High GFP Low GFP
Big Five -N, A, C, E, (O) N, -A, -C, -E, (-O)
Big Two High Stability, Plasticity (Alpha, Beta) Low Stability, Plasticity (Alpha, Beta)
Eysenck (Big Three) -N, -P, E N, P, -E
Cattell Exvia, Integration Invia, Anxiety
Wiggins Love, Status Hostility, Submissiveness
Cloninger Novelty seeking, Reward dependence Harm avoidance
Zuckerman Sociability, Sensation seeking Neuroticism, Hostility
Depue Collins Extraversion Neuroticism
Emotionality PA NA
Motivation High Approach motivation, Behavioral activation (BAS) Reward sensitivity Agentic and Affiliative motivation Low Approach motivation, Behavioral activation (BIS) Reward sensitivity Agentic and Affiliative motivation
Self High Self-esteem Self-devaluation
Well-being Happiness, Satisfaction with life, Optimism Unhappiness, Life dissatisfaction, Pessimism
Culture Socialization and personal growth processes Positive aspects of collectivism and individualism Socialization failure and personal restraint Negative aspects of collectivism and individualism
Genetic Heritability of GFP Heritability of GFP
Evolutionary Evolutionary promotion of socially desirable personal characteristics Evolutionary promotion of socially desirable personal characteristics
Neurophysiological Strength of Dopaminergic system Strength of Serotonergic system
20
Some important references
  • Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., Turken, A. U.
    (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive
    affect and its influence on cognition.
    Psychological Review, 106, 529550.
  • Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the Big Five.
    Personality and Individual Differences, 26,
    511530.
  • Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T.,
    Poehlmann, K. M., Ito, T. A. (2000). The
    psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis J. M.
    Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd
    ed., pp. 173191). New York Guilford Press.
  • Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence
    of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective
    well-being Happy and unhappy people. Journal of
    Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.
  • Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., Scheier, M. F.
    (2000). Action, emotion, and personality
    Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and
    Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741-751.
  • Carver, C. S., White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral
    inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective
    responses to impending reward and punishment The
    BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.
  • DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., Higgins, D. M.
    (2001). Higher-order factors of the big five
    predict conformity are there neuroses of health?
    Personality and Individual Differences, 33,
    533-552.
  • Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but
    are not enough--Lessons from subjective
    well-being. Journal of Research in Personality,
    30, 389-399.
  • Diener, E. (1998). Subjective well-being and
    personality. In D. Barone, M. Hersen, V. Van
    Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality, (pp.
    311-334). New York Plenum Press.
  • Diener, E., Lucas, R. E. (1999a). Temperament,
    personality, and subjective well-being. In
    Kahneman, D., Diener, E. Schwarz, N. (Eds.)
    Well-being The foundations of hedonic psychology
    (pp. 213-229). New York Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Diener, E., Lucas, R. E. (1999b). Personality,
    and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E.
    Diener, N. Schwarz (Eds.). Well-being The
    foundations of hedonic psychology ( pp. 213-229).
    New York Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Diener, E., Smith, Fujita, F. (1995). The
    personality structure of affect. Journal of
    Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1,
    130-141.
  • Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the
    Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
    Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.
  • Elliot, A. J., Thrash, T. M. (2002).
    Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality
    Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
    Vol. 82,  No. 5,  804-818.
  • Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H.,
    Schneider, S. M. R. (2004). The heritability of
    life history strategy The K-factor, covitality,
    and personality.
  • Social Biology, 51, 121143.
  • Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H.,
    Schneider, S. M. R. (2007). The K-factor,
    covitality, and personality A psychometric test
    of life history theory.
  • Human Nature, 18, 4773.
  • Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Elliot, A. J.
    (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in
    everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social
    Psychology, 78, 1135-1149.

21
GFP related BFI items
Is relaxed, handless stress well N ,679
Is full of energy E ,669
Has an assertive personality E ,635
Remains calm in tense situations N ,601
Is sometimes shy, inhibited E -,608
Can be tense N -,613
Is reserved E -,627
Gets nervous easily N -,647
Is depressive, blue N -,653
Is easily distracted C -,662
About PowerShow.com