Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues.
01 Jan 2008-
About: The article was published on 2008-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 2973 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
Stony Brook University1, University of Minnesota2, University of Notre Dame3, University of Vermont4, University of Toronto5, Boston University6, University of Maryland, Baltimore7, Duke University8, University of Kansas9, King's College London10, Columbia University11, Broad Institute12, Purdue University13, University of Iowa14, University of Georgia15, Texas A&M University16, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater17, University of Groningen18, Florida State University19, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences20, Bryn Mawr College21, University of North Texas22, University of Otago23, University at Buffalo24, University of Arizona25, University of New South Wales26, Northwestern University27, Emory University28, University of Kentucky29, University of Pittsburgh30, Brown University31
TL;DR: The HiTOP promises to improve research and clinical practice by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings of traditional nosologies and provides an effective way to summarize and convey information on risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, phenomenology, illness course, and treatment response.
Abstract: The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability. These taxonomies went beyond evidence available on the structure of psychopathology and were shaped by a variety of other considerations, which may explain the aforementioned shortcomings. The Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model has emerged as a research effort to address these problems. It constructs psychopathological syndromes and their components/subtypes based on the observed covariation of symptoms, grouping related symptoms together and thus reducing heterogeneity. It also combines co-occurring syndromes into spectra, thereby mapping out comorbidity. Moreover, it characterizes these phenomena dimensionally, which addresses boundary problems and diagnostic instability. Here, we review the development of the HiTOP and the relevant evidence. The new classification already covers most forms of psychopathology. Dimensional measures have been developed to assess many of the identified components, syndromes, and spectra. Several domains of this model are ready for clinical and research applications. The HiTOP promises to improve research and clinical practice by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings of traditional nosologies. It also provides an effective way to summarize and convey information on risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, phenomenology, illness course, and treatment response. This can greatly improve the utility of the diagnosis of mental disorders. The new classification remains a work in progress. However, it is developing rapidly and is poised to advance mental health research and care significantly as the relevant science matures. (PsycINFO Database Record
1,635 citations
TL;DR: The extended real-life hypothesis predicts that people use OSNs to communicate their real personality, and a contrasting view holds that OSNs may constitute an extended social context in which to express one’s actual personality characteristics, thus fostering accurate interpersonal perceptions.
Abstract: More than 700 million people worldwide now have profiles on on-line social networking sites (OSNs), such as MySpace and Facebook (ComScore, 2008); OSNs have become integrated into the milieu of modern-day social interactions and are widely used as a primary medium for communication and networking (boyd & Ellison, 2007; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). Despite the increasing integration of OSN activity into everyday life, however, there has been no research on the most fundamental question about OSN profiles: Do they convey accurate impressions of profile owners? A widely held assumption, supported by content analyses, suggests that OSN profiles are used to create and communicate idealized selves (Manago, Graham, Greenfield, & Salimkhan, 2008). According to this idealized virtual-identity hypothesis, profile owners display idealized characteristics that do not reflect their actual personalities. Thus, personality impressions based on OSN profiles should reflect profile owners’ ideal-self views rather than what the owners are actually like. A contrasting view holds that OSNs may constitute an extended social context in which to express one’s actual personality characteristics, thus fostering accurate interpersonal perceptions. OSNs integrate various sources of personal information that mirror those found in personal environments, private thoughts, facial images, and social behavior, all of which are known to contain valid information about personality (Ambady & Skowronski, 2008; Funder, 1999; Hall & Bernieri, 2001; Kenny, 1994; Vazire & Gosling, 2004). Moreover, creating idealized identities should be hard to accomplish because (a) OSN profiles include information about one’s reputation that is difficult to control (e.g., wall posts) and (b) friends provide accountability and subtle feedback on one’s profile. Accordingly, the extended real-life hypothesis predicts that people use OSNs to communicate their real personality. If this supposition is true, lay observers should be able to accurately infer the personality characteristics of OSN profile owners. In the present study, we tested the two competing hypotheses. Method Participants
1,039 citations
TL;DR: Analysis of changes in the mean levels and rank order of the Big Five personality traits in a heterogeneous sample of 14,718 Germans across all of adulthood shows that personality changes throughout the life span, but with more pronounced changes in young and old ages, and that this change is partly attributable to social demands and experiences.
Abstract: Does personality change across the entire life course, and are those changes due to intrinsic maturation or major life experiences? This longitudinal study investigated changes in the mean levels and rank order of the Big Five personality traits in a heterogeneous sample of 14,718 Germans across all of adulthood. Latent change and latent moderated regression models provided 4 main findings: First, age had a complex curvilinear influence on mean levels of personality. Second, the rank-order stability of Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness all followed an inverted U-shaped function, reaching a peak between the ages of 40 and 60 and decreasing afterward, whereas Conscientiousness showed a continuously increasing rank-order stability across adulthood. Third, personality predicted the occurrence of several objective major life events (selection effects) and changed in reaction to experiencing these events (socialization effects), suggesting that personality can change due to factors other than intrinsic maturation. Fourth, when events were clustered according to their valence, as is commonly done, effects of the environment on changes in personality were either overlooked or overgeneralized. In sum, our analyses show that personality changes throughout the life span, but with more pronounced changes in young and old ages, and that this change is partly attributable to social demands and experiences.
956 citations
Posted Content•
01 Jan 2011TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated changes in the mean levels and rank order of the Big Five personality traits in a heterogeneous sample of 14,718 Germans across all of adulthood.
Abstract: Does personality change across the entire life course, and are those changes due to intrinsic maturation or major life experiences? This longitudinal study investigated changes in the mean levels and rank order of the Big Five personality traits in a heterogeneous sample of 14,718 Germans across all of adulthood. Latent change and latent moderated regression models provided four main findings: First, age had a complex curvilinear influence on mean levels of personality. Second, the rank-order stability of Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness all followed an inverted U-shaped function, reaching a peak between the ages of 40 and 60, and decreasing afterwards, whereas Conscientiousness showed a continuously increasing rank-order stability across adulthood. Third, personality predicted the occurrence of several objective major life events (selection effects) and changed in reaction to experiencing these events (socialization effects), suggesting that personality can change due to factors other than intrinsic maturation.. - Fourth, when events were clustered according to their valence, as is commonly done,. - effects of the environment on changes in personality were either overlooked or. - overgeneralized. In sum, our analyses show that personality changes throughout the life. - span, but with more pronounced changes in young and old ages, and that this change is. - partly attributable to social demands and experiences.
924 citations
TL;DR: The BFI-2 introduces a robust hierarchical structure, controls for individual differences in acquiescent responding, and provides greater bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power than the original BFI, while still retaining the original measure’s conceptual focus, brevity, and ease of understanding.
Abstract: [Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 113(1) of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (see record 2017-26058-001).In the article, all citations to McCrae and Costa (2008), except for the instance in which it appears in the first paragraph of the introduction, should instead appear as McCrae and Costa (2010). The complete citation should read as follows: McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. The attribution to the BFI-2 items that appears in the Table 6 note should read as follows: BFI-2 items adapted from "Conceptualization, Development, and Initial Validation of the Big Five Inventory-2," by C. J. Soto and O. P. John, 2015, Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Association for Research in Personality. Copyright 2015 by Oliver P. John and Christopher J. Soto. The complete citation in the References list should appear as follows: Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2015, June). Conceptualization, development, and initial validation of the Big Five Inventory-2. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, St. Louis, MO. Available from http://www.colby.edu/psych/personality-lab/ All versions of this article have been corrected. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Three studies were conducted to develop and validate the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), a major revision of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Study 1 specified a hierarchical model of personality structure with 15 facet traits nested within the Big Five domains, and developed a preliminary item pool to measure this structure. Study 2 used conceptual and empirical criteria to construct the BFI-2 domain and facet scales from the preliminary item pool. Study 3 used data from 2 validation samples to evaluate the BFI-2's measurement properties and substantive relations with self-reported and peer-reported criteria. The results of these studies indicate that the BFI-2 is a reliable and valid personality measure, and an important advance over the original BFI. Specifically, the BFI-2 introduces a robust hierarchical structure, controls for individual differences in acquiescent responding, and provides greater bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power than the original BFI, while still retaining the original measure's conceptual focus, brevity, and ease of understanding. The BFI-2 therefore offers valuable new opportunities for research examining the structure, assessment, development, and life outcomes of personality traits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).
908 citations
Cites background or methods or result from "Paradigm shift to the integrative B..."
...…and the acquiescence factor was not allowed to correlate with the domain factor; these constraints ensured that the acquiescence factor would represent individual differences in response style that were distinct from meaningful personality content (cf. Billiet & McClendon, 2000; John et al., 2008)....
[...]
...All loadings on the acquiescence factor were constrained to equal 1 (thereby forcing true-keyed and false-keyed items to load in the same direction), and the acquiescence factor was not allowed to correlate with the domain factor; these constraints ensured that the acquiescence factor would represent individual differences in response style that were distinct from meaningful personality content (cf. Billiet & McClendon, 2000; John et al., 2008)....
[...]
...A considerable portion of this research has measured personality traits using the Big Five Inventory (BFI), which assesses the prototypical features of each Big Five domain using 44 short and easy-to-understand phrases (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; see John & Srivastava, 1999; John et al., 2008)....
[...]
...Since the mid-20th century, personality researchers have used the term Neuroticism to describe an individual’s general tendency to experience negative emotions such as Anxiety and sadness (Eysenck, 1967; John et al., 2008)....
[...]
..., Conscientiousness) has the advantage of high bandwidth: it efficiently summarizes a large amount of behavioral information, and can predict a variety of relevant criteria (John et al., 2008; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the relation of the Big Five personality dimensions (extraversion, emotional stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled).
Abstract: This study investigated the relation of the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of personality, Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job performance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining personality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion (across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types, but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small (ρ < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5-factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of personnel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.
8,018 citations
"Paradigm shift to the integrative B..." refers background in this paper
...Beyond primary and secondary schooling, conscientiousness has emerged also as a general predictor of job performance across a wide range of jobs (for reviews, see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998)....
[...]
01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: The Big Five taxonomy as discussed by the authors is a taxonomy of personality dimensions derived from analyses of the natural language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others, and it has been used for personality assessment.
Abstract: 2 Taxonomy is always a contentious issue because the world does not come to us in neat little packages (S. Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at various levels of Each of these levels has made unique contributions to our understanding of individual differences in behavior and experience. However, the number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). Researchers, as well as practitioners in the field of personality assessment, were faced with a bewildering array of personality scales from which to choose, with little guidance and no overall rationale at hand. What made matters worse was that scales with the same name often measure concepts that are not the same, and scales with different names often measure concepts that are quite similar. Although diversity and scientific pluralism are useful, the systematic accumulation of findings and the communication among researchers became difficult amidst the Babel of concepts and scales. Many personality researchers had hoped that they might devise the structure that would transform the Babel into a community speaking a common language. However, such an integration was not to be achieved by any one researcher or by any one theoretical perspective. As Allport once put it, " each assessor has his own pet units and uses a pet battery of diagnostic devices " (1958, p. 258). What personality psychology needed was a descriptive model, or taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, a taxonomy would permit researchers to study specified domains of personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique. Moreover, a generally accepted taxonomy would greatly facilitate the accumulation and communication of empirical findings by offering a standard vocabulary, or nomenclature. After decades of research, the field is approaching consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the " Big Five " personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality …
7,787 citations
"Paradigm shift to the integrative B..." refers background or methods or result in this paper
...Using the standard BFI item numbers (see Appendix A; also Benet-Martínez & John, 1998; John & Srivastava, 1999), these item pairs are 1 and 21, 6 and 16, 31 and 36, 2 and 17, 7 and 12, 27 and 42, 32 and 37, 3 and 43, 8 and 13, 18 and 33, 23 and 28, 9 and 19, 24 and 29, 34 and 39, 5 and 35, 30 and…...
[...]
...12 When John and Srivastava (1999) corrected the cross-language congruence coefficients for the imperfect reliabilities (replication) of the within-language factor structures, they found corrected English-German congruence coefficients ranging from .84 to .93, impressive values given that they have…...
[...]
...When should researchers use each of these instruments?...
[...]
...…address the need for a short instrument measuring the prototypical components of the Big Five that are common across investigators, John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991) constructed the Big Five Inventory (BFI; see also Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; John & Srivastava, 1999; Rammstedt & John, 2005, 2007)....
[...]
...John and Srivastava (1999) noted that in their data several NEO-FFI Openness items did not correlate well with the total scale and these less reliable items came 23 from particular openness facets, namely from openness to action (e.g., trying new and foreign foods) and from openness to values…...
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, a 10-item measure of the Big-Five personality dimensions is proposed for situations where very short measures are needed, personality is not the primary topic of interest, or researchers can tolerate the somewhat diminished psychometric properties associated with very brief measures.
6,574 citations
"Paradigm shift to the integrative B..." refers background in this paper
...The careful application of ethological and experimental methodology, and the high inter-observer reliability, in these studies make it unlikely that these findings merely reflect anthropomorphic projections (c.f., Gosling et al., 2003; Kwan, Gosling, & John, 2008)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1953
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe how Sullivan traced from early infancy to adulthood the formation of the person, opening the way to a deeper understanding of mental disorders in later life, using a developmental approach to psychiatry.
Abstract: This book contains the fullest statement of Sullivan's developmental approach to psychiatry, showing in detail how Sullivan traced from early infancy to adulthood the formation of the person, opening the way to a deeper understanding of mental disorders in later life.
6,221 citations
"Paradigm shift to the integrative B..." refers background in this paper
...The Big Five are taken to describe “the relatively enduring pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations that characterize a human life” (Sullivan, 1953, p. 110-111); thus conceptualizing the Big Five as descriptive concepts....
[...]
TL;DR: It is argued that the five-factor model of personality should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.
Abstract: The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. This article summarizes the history of the model and its supporting evidence; discusses conceptions of the nature of the factors; and outlines an agenda for theorizing about the origins and operation of the factors. We argue that the model should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.
5,838 citations