Five Factor Model

Question 1

What is the Five Factor Model?

Answer 1

• A normothetic approach
• Individual difference exist due to different combination of consistent variables
• 5 categories: Openess, Conscientiouness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism

Question 2

Describe the lexical hypothesis and its relevance to FFM

Answer 2

• Lexical hypothesis described how the most important and relevant individual differences become encoded into language and appear more frequently (Allport & Odbert, 1936)
• With the most salient becoming single words, known as trait descriptors (Galton, 1886)
• Allport & Odbert analysed the English dictionary for over 4,500 words for specific traits
• This creates an almost incomprehensible concept of personality
• Maltby (2018) describes under heuristic value, how a theory can create enormous interest but have little scientific substance

Question 3

Describe early attempts to structure personality

Answer 3

• Allport (1961) began structuring his findings into cardinal and secondary traits
• Thurstone (1934) and Cattell (1965) were amongst the first to use factor analysis within personality
• Thurstone isolated five factors to sufficiently explain individual differences
• Cattell created a more complex 16-factor model
• Later, a 3-factor model (Eysenck) also appeared

Question 4

Why is Five Factors used over 3 or 16-factor models?

Answer 4

• FFM (McCrae & Costa, 1997) is the most accepted balance between oversimplified 3-factor model and the complex 16-factor model (Cherry, 2018)
• Attempts to reproduce the 16-factor model proved unsuccessful, and generated further support for FFM (Fiske, 1949)
• One of the most salient parts of FFM is its data-derived hypothesis, compared to theory-based hypotheses (Maltby et al, 2013)

Question 5

Critique the descriptions in FFM

Answer 5

• Some contention over descriptions within FFM
• Agreeableness factor has been labelled ‘conformity’ (Maltby et al, 2013)
• Disagreement over number of factors to be parsimonious
• Six or seven factor models have been proposed
• Concept of higher order factors (similar to concept of G in intelligence) (Maltby et al, 2013)
• Strict adherence to either creates vulnerability to “Jangle fallacies”
• These are identical concepts that are percieved as distinct due to different labelling (Kelley, 1927)

Question 6

Ouline how criticisms over description are circumvented

Answer 6

• Thurstone proposed a solution, stating “these categories should frankly be regarded as temporary and subject to redfinition in successive experiments”
• There have been echoes to adopt more scientific approachs that attempt to find contridictory evidence against the FFM rather than confirmatory evidence for other models (Maltby et al, 2013)
• Use of synonyms and equivalent terminology under a unified framework enables greater generalisability and applicability to individuals

Question 7

Critique the comprehensiveness of FFM

Answer 7

• Comprehensive model for explaining normal and abnormal personality
• Normothetic methods uses norms to establish relative comparisons
• Level of each factor helps explain personality
• High levels of openess produce creative and independent individuals
• Low levels produce rigid individuals, resistant to change
• At extreme cases, the latter is a characteristic of Autism Spectrum Disorder, currently seen as abnormal personality
• Social anxiety disorder can be described by a combination of high neuroticism and low extraversion

Question 8

Critique the applied value of FFM

Answer 8

• FFM is measured using the gold-standard NEO-PI-R to predict behaviour (Maltby et al, 2013)
• A cross-cultural study demonstrated the systematic patterns within personality norms across over 50 cultures (McCrae, 2002)
• Factors used in FFM have been universally described across language, age, and race (Maltby et al, 2013)
• Consistency of factors enables research using large diverse sample to identify more powerful results
• Example, assessing benefit of social problem-solving therapy in individuals with low extraversion
• NEO-PI-R widely used in personality and cultural studies, and practical applications such as police selection (McCrae, 2002)
• Valid for prediciting clinician ratings of personality disorders, and learning styles and college grades (McCrae, 2002)

Question 9

Critique the heuristic value of FFM

Answer 9

• Various studies have used FFM as basis to uncover biological and environmental influences on personality
• Study of 250 pairs of twins suggest between 40-60% of personality has a hereditary component
• Last decade, several genome-wide studies conducted, but yet to determine genetic variables
• More recent genomic analysis known as GREML has successfully confirmed a hereditary aspect
• Sample of 12,000 individuals provided evidence for single point mutations accounting for a significant but small variance (6% in neuroticism) in factors as per the FFM
• Also some support for a hertiable general factor of personality (Power and Pluess, 2015)
• Research for biological aspects may pave the way for new management of personality disorders, which have hisotrically been considered inflexible and extremely resistant to psychotherapy (Prados, 2018)

Question 10

Conclude findings and critiques on FFM

Answer 10

• ​FFM is a nomothetic approach with a data-derived hypothesis
• Contention exists over the number of factors, and use of descriptors
• This may not be important as per “Jangle fallacies”
• Establishment of norms allows comprehensive evaluation of normal and abnormal personality
• Wealth of evidence to support initial factor analysis and its universal concept
• Quantitive approach enables biological research, potential for new exciting perspectives on personality