Alternative Five-factor Model Research Articles

The typological approach to the risky behavior of adolescents

The main research problem is focused on the following question: Is it possible to identify specific patterns of interaction between precipitating and protective factors for the risky behavior among adolescents. The research was conducted on the sample of 204 adolescents of both genders (18 to 20 years old). Specific personality traits and socio-demographic characteristics are manifested as the most important precipitating and/or protective factors for the risky behavior. The frame of reference for personality assessment was the alternative five-factor model (Zuckerman, 2002), specified in the ZKPQ-50-CC questionnaire, and consisted of the five biologically determined personality traits: activity, aggressiveness/hostility, impulsive sensation seeking, neuroticism/anxiety and sociability. Latent dimensions of the risky behavior: risky activities and life - conditions, were extracted by applying the homogeneity analyses (HOMALS). The matrix of squared Euclidean distances (in the common space of factor scores on the principal components of ZKPQ questionnaire, scores on HOMALS dimensions and school grades) was a subject of the Ward hierarchical cluster analysis method, extracting three clusters. According to the discriminant functions: risk proneness and pro-social activity, the clusters were identified: the group of pro-social oriented adolescents, the aloof group and the group of adolescents prone to risky behavior. The results have considerable implications for the prevention programs? development and implementation.

Heritability of dimensions of Eysenck's pen model and the alternative five-factor model of personality

The main aim of this study is to estimate the heritability of AFFM and PEN dimensions, including 67 pairs of twins (34 monozygotic and 33 dizygotic) of both genders, aged 18 - 44. The heritability has been estimated by the biometric method, two full (ACE and ADE) and three reduced (AE, DE and CE) models tested for each personality trait. Taking into consideration the AFFM dimensions, additive genetic factors and a non-shared environment contribute the most significantly to the phenotypic variation of activity, sociability and the impulsive sensation seeking; anxiety and aggressiveness are best accounted for by the dominant genetic effects. In the PEN domain, fit indicators suggest that ACE and the reduced AE models provide the best explanation for the phenotypic manifestations of neuroticism, while ACE and CE models account for the variation of L scale. Although the fit indicators calculated for extraversion and psychotic behavior are somewhat problematic, the parameter estimates show that extraversion is best accounted for by the additive genetic variance, shared environmental effects, and the non-shared environment, whereas psychotic behavior is the most adequately explained by both shared and non-shared environmental effects.

ZUCKERMAN-KUHLMAN'S PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE IN PATIENTS WITH MAJOR DEPRESSION

Depression influences personality measures like Eysenck's Big Three, Costa and McCrae's Big Five or Cloninger's Seven Factor models, and might also affect Zuckerman-Kuhlman's Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ), an alternative five-factor model. The authors therefore tested ZKPQ in 85 patients suffering from major depression and in 82 healthy subjects in order to clarify this effect. Depressive mood was measured with Plutchik – van Praag's Depression Inventory (PVP). Patients scored significantly higher on PVP, Neuroticism-Anxiety and Aggression-Hostility, but lower on Activity and Sociablity than did healthy volunteers. In the general sample (N = 167), Neuroticism-Anxiety and Aggression-Hostility scores were positively correlated, while the Sociability score was negatively correlated with the PVP score. These results indicate that when the clinical significance relating to personality traits in patients is interpreted, depressive mood must also be considered.

Schizotypal personality traits: An extension of previous psychometric investigations

In an exploratory scale factor analysis of the Combined Schizotypal Traits Questionnaire, Claridge et al. (1996) reported four schizotypal trait dimensions, which they labelled Aberrant Perceptions and Beliefs, Cognitive Disorganisation with Anxiety, Introvertive Anhedonia, and Asocial Behaviour. The present paper reports the findings of a further examination of both scale and item factor analyses, and proposes an alternative five-factor model. Positive and negative schizotypal trait factors emerged separately from general personality factors pertaining to extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, showing that schizotypal traits cannot simply be reduced to the Eysenckian personality dimensions. The positive schizotypal factor also exhibited strong loadings on measures of delusions, suggesting that delusional cognition is a major component of schizotypal personality. The present five-factor model (supported by LISREL confirmatory factor analyses) may have important implications for future research into and clinical assessment of schizotypal personality traits.

A factor-analytic study of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory: An integration of theory and data

Restricted (confirmatory) and unrestricted (exploratory) factor analyses were used to investigate the factor structure of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory (SPSI; D'Zurilla & Nezu, 1990). The SPSI is based on a theoretical model consisting of two general components (problem orientation and problem-solving skills) which are further divided into seven primary subcomponents (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of problem orientation and four specific problem-solving skills). Thus, both a two-factor model and a hierarchical model with seven first-order factors and two second-order factors were tested. The results provided only modest support for the two-factor model, and the hierarchical model failed to show substantial improvement over this model. Further analyses using exploratory as well as confirmatory methods found that an alternative five-factor model was best for the SPSI in the sense of goodness of fit, parsimony, and cross-validation. The implications of these results for social problem-solving theory and assessment are discussed.