Field Of Personality Research Research Articles

Big Five personality traits predicting active procrastination at work: When self- and supervisor-ratings tell different stories

What are active procrastinators like? Past research examining the Big Five personality predictors of active procrastination (AP) has found Extraversion and Emotional Stability to be predictive of such a behavioral characteristic. Yet, previous studies suffered from the fact that data were solely collected from undergraduates in academic settings using self-reports of personality. Attempting to extend the personality-AP associations among college students to working adults as well as to expand our knowledge on the personality profiles of active procrastinators according to both self- and other reports, the present study investigated the predictive effects of N = 173 full-time employees’ Big Five personality traits on their AP behaviors in the workplace via self- and supervisor-rated personality. Results revealed that Extraversion and Emotional Stability predicted AP across both rating sources and that in the supervisor-rating results only, the trait Agreeableness emerged as another (negative) predictor of AP. In light of recent developments with multimethod studies in the field of personality research, we discussed possible reasons for the current findings together with the study implications for research and practice related to AP at work.

Feasibility of Linking Molecular Genetic Markers to Real-World Social Network Size Tracked on Smartphones.

The study of individual differences in human social behavior has a long tradition in (personality) psychology focusing on traits such as extraversion linked to vividness and assertiveness. The study of molecular genetic underpinnings of individual differences in social behavior produced many genetic association studies with only few genetic variants, robustly associated with individual differences in personality. One possible reason for non-replication of findings might be the different inventories used to assess human social traits. Moreover, self-report methods to assess personality and social behavior might be problematic due to their susceptibility to different biases such as social desirability or poor abilities in self-reflection. We stress the importance of including recorded behavior to understand the molecular genetic basis of individual differences in personality and linked social traits. We present preliminary data linking oxytocin genetics to individual differences in social network size derived from smartphones. Here, the genetic variation rs2268498, located in the adjacent area of the promoter of the gene coding for the oxytocin receptor (OXTR), was linked to the number of active contacts and incoming calls, tracked on the smartphone for 12 days (note that these results became a bit weaker when age was controlled for). Although the present empirical findings should only be seen as a proof of concept study, this work demonstrates the feasibility to combine molecular genetic variables with real world behavior. If this approach keeps its promises, the field of personality research might experience a boost in psychometric quality in the near future.

Hierarchies of factor solutions in the intelligence domain: Applying methodology from personality psychology to gain insights into the nature of intelligence

Research on the structure of psychometric intelligence has used hierarchical models like the higher-order and the bi-factor model and has studied the hierarchical relationship between factors within these models. In contrast, research on the structure of personality has not only used hierarchical models but has also studied hierarchies of factor solutions. We clarify the theoretical and conceptual differences between hierarchical models and the solutions-hierarchy approach used in the field of personality research, and suggest that the solutions-hierarchy perspective can provide a novel perspective for intelligence research. We used the solutions-hierarchy approach to study four correlation matrices (N=230 to 710; 38 to 63 tests), and a large dataset (N=16,823; 44 tests). Results provided (a) insights into relationships between intelligence constructs across the hierarchy of factor solutions, and (b) evidence that intelligence has a 1–2–3–5 hierarchy of factor solutions with a g factor at the top, gc and gf factors at the second level, a speed–reasoning–knowledge taxonomy at the third level, and possibly a speed-reasoning–fluency–knowledge–memory/perception taxonomy at the fifth level.

Personality and the neural efficiency theory

The neural efficiency theory was formulated in the field of intelligence research and it posits that better performers require less brain activity to successfully perform a task of a given difficulty level. Here we suggest that in the field of personality research, the neural efficiency concept could be reformulated so that habitual behavior requires less brain activity. To test this hypothesis, 46 participants were presented with a social interactions task, in which they had to choose one out of three ways of interaction with a virtual ‘person’: ‘attack’, ‘avoid’, or ‘make friends’, while EEG was recorded simultaneously. Personality was assessed using the Eysenck Personality Profiler. Extraverts made more friendly choices and these choices were accompanied by smaller event-related theta synchronization in the left prefrontal cortex. Neuroticism did not show significant behavioral effects, but in high neuroticism scorers, the choice of avoidance was accompanied by smaller theta synchronization in the right prefrontal cortex. Psychoticism was positively associated with the number of aggressive choices and in high psychoticism scorers, these choices were accompanied by smaller theta synchronization in the left precentral cortex. These results are consistent with the extension of the neural efficiency concept for personality.

The Big Five: Pro et Contra

The field of the personality research is very active these days; probably more research is being conducted than ever. Most of the research studies are conducted referring to the Big Five model. Nevertheless, this model is controversial. Some researchers emphasize the merits of the Big Five model and the others name the shortcomings of the model. The main merits of the Big Five model are: empirical validity, cross-cultural validity, stability of individual differences and practical model value. Still the Big Five model receives criticism. The main critiques are: discussions about lexical hypothesis, orthogonality of factors, problems in cross – cultural research and prognostic value of the Big Five model. Despite the debates, nonetheless, the strongest arguments are for Big Five model. There is more empirical evidence still difficulties arise because of the research procedure or method inaccuracy. Most of the researchers confirmed that it is complicated to extract less than five factors in many research data. Five factors is the optimal number. There also have been determined many associations between Big Five traits and other mental / psychological phenomena. For a long time Big Five was only the research model, but presently initial theoretical interpretations were offered – R. R. McCrae and P. T. Costa Five Factor Theory also D. P. McAdams and J. L. Pals New Big Five. This was a substantial sally – Big Five has a potential to become the real personality theory, but there are still some problems left unsolved – extracted factor relevance to the individual in large samples is unclear, newly posed statements about personality structure lack empirical evidence. Alternative models to the Big Five model are offered: Biggest One, Big Two, Giant Three, HEXACO and Big Seven. Presently alternative models are not in competition with Big Five. Perhaps more promising is a HEXACO model with its theoretical interpretations. Alternative models to Big Five model play another important role – they encourage cross-cultural research, the search of the neurological correlates. Thus Big Five is very dynamic field of personality research, pretending to become very important and influential personality theory. Herewith it is obvious: there is an essential challenge against Big Five model– whether it will become one or not? Establishing Big Five or other close models’ theoretical interpretations give hope, but the final result is still to be expected.

ROY G. BIV and the OCEAN

The five-factor model has ascended to a dominant position within the field of personality research over the last two decades. In this paper, I present a framework for understanding the `truth value' of the five-factor model by comparing the role of the five-factor model in personality theory with the role of the ROY G. BIV scheme for organizing the color spectrum. The philosophical assumptions and critiques of the five-factor model are examined in light of this comparison. The result is a heuristic metaphor that maintains the integrity of the work of the big five theorists while also acknowledging the valid criticisms offered by thoughtful critics.

Personnel selection: looking toward the future--remembering the past.

This chapter reviews personnel selection research from 1995 through 1999. Areas covered are job analysis; performance criteria; cognitive ability and personality predictors; interview, assessment center, and biodata assessment methods; measurement issues; meta-analysis and validity generalization; evaluation of selection systems in terms of differential prediction, adverse impact, utility, and applicant reactions; emerging topics on team selection and cross-cultural issues; and finally professional, legal, and ethical standards. Three major themes are revealed: (a) Better taxonomies produce better selection decisions; (b) The nature and analyses of work behavior are changing, influencing personnel selection practices; (c) The field of personality research is healthy, as new measurement methods, personality constructs, and compound constructs of well-known traits are being researched and applied to personnel selection.

Dominance and altruism among adolescent males: A comparison of ethological and psychological methods

Three methods of assessing dominance and altruism in adolescents were compared: self-reports, observation of behavior, and peer rankings. Results indicate that the behavior observation and peer assessment methods are congruent in portraying which adolescents were the most and least dominant and altruistic. While the self-report measure of social responsibility is significantly related to the behavioral assessment of altruism, there is little relationship between these two methods of assessing dominance. An ethological approach to studying human behavior fulfills one aspect of what personality theorists report is urgently needed in the field of personality research: observation of behavior in natural settings.