Five Factor Model Introduction Central

¶ … Five Factor Model

Introduction central aim in psychology has been the establishment of a comprehensive and applicable model that can adequately describe human personality as well as human personality disorders. To this end, there are a number of models that are vying for prominence in the field. One of the most successful and well accepted of these models is the five-factor model of personality or FFM. This theory posits five different variables that constitute a conceptual mode for describing human personality. These are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

The theory has created an intensive body of literature surrounding its applicability as well as the value that it has in comparison to other models, such as Eysenck's three factor or PEN model. (Digman, 1990) There is also heated debate in the literature about the applicability and the testing value of the "Big Five" model. The following literature review will attempt to provide a concise but comprehensive overview of the most salient aspects relating to this model in the literature

2. Literature overview

2.1. Describing the five-factor model of personality

Ewen's work, Personality: A topical approach (1998) provides a fundamental and insightful overview of the way that each element of the FFM models describe personality traits. Ewen refers, for example, to the fact that extroversion is defined as, "...a trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown" (Ewen, 1998, p. 289). Neuroticism has negative connotations and is described in studies as being related to levels of anxiety and volatility. Pervin, (1989) provides the view that neuroticism is "a dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as opposed to instability and high anxiety at the other end" (Pervin, 1989, p. G-7).

Numerous studies go further in the description of these factors. Rogosch and Cicchetti (2004) emphasize the important view that the five factors are dimensions rather then types. From this perspective, "... people vary continuously on them, with most people falling in between the extremes" (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004). This study also refers to the estimated duration of these traits and their heritability.

Another important characteristic is that these factors are universal and are not specific to one nation or area. "...the factors are considered universal, having been recovered in languages as diverse as German and Chinese" (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004). This study also deal with the importance of the five factors in therapy and stresses that, "... The factors are useful for insight and improvement through therapy" (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004).

Rogosch and Cicchetti (2004) also point out the origins of the five-factor model and explore the description of the model as a hierarchically organized personality taxonomy. This study also asserts that the five dimensions of the FFM represent higher order traits or broad general dimensions of individual differences in personality. More specific, circumscribed, lower order traits are hierarchically organized through their association with the higher order traits. (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004)

The authors also make the important point that the Five-factor model is closely related to other contending models, the most obvious of which is Eysenck's three factor or PEN model, as well as Tellegen's system of personality structure and Cloninger's temperament model.(Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004).

One of the most cogent descriptions of the five-factor model in terms of treating psychological abnormalities can be found in Pervin's work, Personality: Theory and research (1989). Pervin outlines the clinical aspects of this model as follows.

People who have a certain characteristic that falls at an extreme on the chart of one or more of the five variables are likely to have some sort of psychological abnormality associated with that trait. People are likely to select their environment in such a way that this trait is perpetuated. To keep this cycle from iterating, psychologists make their patients come to terms with the flawed trait, allowing the patient to break the cycle. (Pervin, 1989, p. 318).

An excellent and extensive article, which also provides insight into the development of FFM within psychology, is Behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology: Unified perspective on personality research (1998). The article explores the emergence of FFM from factor-analytical studies of English-language trait descriptors. The study also discusses the five factors in detail and relates the understanding of personality to the process of evolutionary psychology.

2.2. The Development of FFM

Essentially, the development of the five - factor model was the result of derivation from factor analyses of a large number of self and peer reports on personality-relevant adjectives and questionnaire items. There are a wide range of articles and studies that expand on this aspect of the study of the FFM model. A very useful starting point is the Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement and Theoretical perspectives, by John and Srivastava, in the Handbook of personality: Theory and research (1999). This study provides a clear and comprehsive overview of the history and development of the FFM Model.

Another insightful study in this regard is Digman (1996), the curious history of the Five-Factor Model. This article discuses, among others, the history of the model as well as the early precursors of the theory, such as D.W. Fiske's analysis of 22 rating scales, L.L. Thurstone's study of temperament; as well as other historical precursors and early forms of the "Big Five" theory.

2.3. The FFM and predictive validity

The value of the Big Five model is that it is able to be clinically applied and is effective in the ascertaining of personality states and conditions. As Pervin states in Personality: Theory and research (1989), supporters of the five-factor model point to the fact that factor analysis, "...serves as a useful bridge between the more clinical theories...and the learning, behavioral theories" (Pervin, 1989, p. 326).

With regard to the validly of the measurement of the five-factor model, there are various measurement techniques that can be applied. A study entitled, Assessment of the Five-Factor Model of Personality by Widiger and Trull, (1997), provides an overview and assessment of these measures. The authors state that the five-factor model of personality provides constructive "...validation, recognition, and practical consideration across a broad domain of fields, including clinical psychology, industrial -- organizational psychology, and health psychology " (Widiger & Trull, 1997, p. 228).

The article deals in depth with the various instruments that have been developed and presents an overview and critiques of, among others, the Goldberg Big Five Markers, the revised NEO Personality Inventory, the Interpersonal Adjective Scales, the Personality Psychopathology, and the Hogan Personality Inventory. (Widiger & Trull, 1997, p. 228)

An important aspect of the measurement and validly debate of this theory is that explicit measurement techniques have certain limitations. A study that investigates the implicit mode of the measurement of the FFM model is Measuring Big-Five personality dimensions with the implicit association test - Implicit personality traits or self-esteem? By Grumma and von Collani (2007). This study posits that explicit measures can easily be distorted by participants.

In particular, self-presentational strategies and faking tendencies due to socially desirable responding have turned out to be critical. Thus www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy2.usouthal.edu/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4PG2KK3-2&_user=446474&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020381&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=446474&md5=7807e0c4c182faee89c8fc70f95daf4d" Borkenau and Ostendorf (1992), e.g. showed that socially desirable responding is a problem in the measurement of the Big-Five. (Grumma and von Collani, 2007)

Grumma and von Collani suggest that an assessment of more implicit methods of measurement should be considered. These implicit methodologies are characterized by aspect such as automatic, intuitive and uncontrolled responding. (Grumma and von Collani, 2007) This study and others suggest that these implicit methods can avoid many of the pitfalls of the more explicit measurement methods and techniques.

In this regard, an informative article is Implicit Measures in Social Cognition Research: Their Meaning and Use, by Russell H. Fazio and Michael a. Olson (2003). This work explores various implicit methods that avoid the biases that can occur in direct reports. The article reviews the range of implicit methods and the way that they can be applied over several domains, including attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (Fazio and Olson, 2003). Furthermore, the article discuses the predictive validity of these methods. Attention is also given to various priming measures as well as the Implicit Association Test. The study investigates the kinds of behavior each measure is likely to predict, their sensitivity to context, and the construct's potential for change. (Fazio and Olson, 2003).

2.4. Critiques of the FFM approach to personality

The acceptance of the five-factor model is by no means universal and there are many contending voices and alternative theories that are suggested to replace the FFM models. One of the best-known critiques is by Block (1995). In his article, a contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description, Block asserts that there are many inconsistencies and areas of contention in the theory of the five -factor model. He suggests that while advocates of the theory state that factor analysis has "discovered' the basic dimensions of personality description (p.187), the theory "...may not permit us to reach higher or high enough into the psychological heavens to warrant acceptance of this conformity" (p. 214). The author notes many empirical reasons for his critique of the five-factor model. Among the many objections that are put forward is the assertion that there is in the breadth of the five factors an indefiniteness and inconsistency. Block also refers to the descriptive coarseness of the "Big Five."

Block's article has created much debate on this subject. A useful study that counters many of arguments put forward by Block is Solid Ground in the Wetlands of Personality: A Reply to Block by Costa and McCrae (1995). In contrast to Block's critique, this article suggest that, "...the most impressive achievement of the FFM is its reduction of conceptual jangle, showing how constructs ostensibly as different as absorption, intuition, and need for change all reflect aspects of the single, broader construct of Openness. " (Costa and McCrae, 1995).

The validity and acceptance of the FFM model and the various aspects that are open to discussion and debate are discussed in an article by DeYoung et al. (2007) entitled, Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. The article refers to the levels of the hierarchy above the Big Five domains, as well as the 'facets' at a second level. The authors state that insufficient attention has been given to a level of trait organization located between facets and domains.

One of the most significant critiques, or rather amendments, of the five-factor model is the three-factor model of personality suggested by H.J. Eysenck. Eysenck criticizes the five-factor model on the grounds that there are overlaps in the five factors as well as in their correlates and suggests that a three factor model would be a more appropriate and correct assessment of personality. (Eysenck, 1991, p. 775) as already noted, this critique led Eysenck to suggest the PEN model, which posits the factors of psychoticism, extroversion and neuroticism. Eysenck states that, "Factor analysis has improved the situation...but the problem of naming factors is of course still with us" (Eysenck, 1991, p. 775).