Anda di halaman 1dari 44



  is defined as the totality of character attributes and behavioral traits of a
  is a methodology for categorizing the character and
behavior of a person.

Personality concerns the most important, most noticeable parts of an individual's
psychological life. Personality concerns whether a person is happy or sad, energetic or
apathetic, smart or dull. Over the years, many different definitions have been proposed
for personality. Most of the definitions refer to a mental system -- a collection of
psychological parts including motives, emotions, and thoughts. The definitions vary a bit
as to what those parts might be, but they come down to the idea that personality
involves a pattern or global operation of mental systems. Here are some definitions:

"Personality is the entire mental organization of a human being at any stage of his
development. It embraces every phase of human character: intellect, temperament,
skill, morality, and every attitude that has beeen built up in the course of one's life."
(Warren & Carmichael, 1930, p. 333)

(In an acknowledged overstatement...) "Personality is the essence of a human being."

(Hall & Lindzey, 1957, p. 9, characterizing statements by Gordon Allport)

"An individual's pattern of psychological processes arising from motives, feelings,

thoughts, and other major areas of psychological function. Personality is expressed
through its influences on the body, in conscious mental life, and through the individual's
social behavior." (Mayer, 2005)

Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957). Theories of personality. New York, NY: John Wiley &

Mayer, J. D. (2005). A classification of DSM-IV-TR mental disorders according to their

relation to the personality system. In J. C. Thomas & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive
handbook of personality and psychopathology (CHOPP) Vol. 1: Personality and everyday
functioning. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Warren, H. C., & Carmichael, L., Elements of human psychology (Rev. Ed.; Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin, 1930), p. 333/Cited in Allport, Pattern & growth in
personality (1937/1961, p.36).

- 7 dictionary results

Pick the Right Test for You & Take It. Rated A+ By the BBB.
Visit Now!

Horoscope for all 2011

Claim your Free Reading from this
accurate & talented Astrologer now

Polycythemia Vera
Patient support group information Funding
polycythemia vera research

Sponsored Results

o o [pur-suh-
 -i-tee] Show IPA


the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others:He has a pleasing personality

a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities: He isa curious personality.

Psychology .

the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, andsocial characteristics of an individu

the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of theindividual.


the quality of being a person; existence as a self-

conscioushuman being; personal identity.


the essential character of a person.


something apprehended as reflective of or analogous to adistinctive human personality,

as the atmosphere of a placeor thing: This house has a warm personality.


a famous, notable, or prominent person; celebrity.


application or reference to a particular person or particularpersons, often in disparagem

ent or hostility.


a disparaging or offensive statement referring to a particularperson: The political debat

e deteriorated into personalities.

  in a Sentence

See images of 


1350ƛ1400; ME personalite (< MF) < LL persl„  . Seepero„a, -y

1. See character. Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source

Link To  

Melt Flow Testing
Equipment for measuring the melt flow of plastic resins

Publish Your Manuscripts

World Journal of Psychology Call for Manuscripts in Psychology

Sponsored Results

World English Dictionary


Ɯ  , p )

1 p te um tta f a te beaviura and mentaarateriti b mean f w
. i an individua i regnized abeing unique

2 te ditintive arater f a pern tat make im iaattrative: a aeman nee
. d a t f pernait

3 a we-knwn pern in a ertain fied, u a  rt rentertainment


4 a remarkabe ern: te d few i a rea ernait


5 te quait f being a unique ern


6 te ditintive atm ere f a ae r ituatin


7 ( ften ura ) a erna remark


Cin Engi Ditinar - Cm ete & Unabridged 10t Editin

2009 © Wiiam Cin Sn & C. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © Har erCin
Pubier 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite Ti Sure
Word Origin & History


late 14c., "quality or fact of being a person," from M.L.personalitatem (nom. personalit
as ), from L. personalis (seepersonal). Sense of "a distinctive character" is first recorde
d 1795,from Fr. personnalité.

"Personality is the supreme realization of the innateidiosyncrasy of a living being. It is a

n act of courage flung inthe face of life, the absolute affirmation of all that constitutesth
e individual, the most successful adaptation to the universalconditions of existence, cou
pled with the greatest possiblefreedom of self-determination." [C.G. Jung, 1875-1961]

Meaning "person whose character stands out from that of others" isfrom 1889. Personal
ity cult is attested from 1956.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Cite This Source

Medical Dictionary


Pronunciation: /öp;rs- ; n-öal-;t-ē, öp;r-ösnal-/
Function: n
l )
; ( the complex of characteristics that distinguishes anindividual especially in rela
tionships with others
( the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotionaltendencies
( the organization of the individual's distinguishing charactertraits, attitudes, or habits

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Cite This Source

   per·son·al·i·ty (pûr's ;-nāl'ĭ-tē)
1. The quality or condition of being a person.
2. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character orbehavior, that are peculiar to a
specific person.
3. The pattern of collective character, behavioral,temperamental, emotional, and men
tal traits of a person.
4. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those personalcharacteristics that make
one socially appealing.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton M
Cite This Source

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: 

Function: noun
Inflected Form: lural )
( the quality, state, or fact of being a erson ersonality>
( the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotionalcharacteristics ersonality

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Cite This Source

Cultural Dictionary


ttern of feelings, thoughts,
ctivities th
t distinguishesone erson from
The Americ
n Herit
ge® New Diction
ry of Cultur
l Liter
cy, Third Edition
Co yright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Com
Published by Houghton Mifflin Com
ny. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

mous Quot


"When science,
rt, liter
nd hiloso hy
re sim l..."

lity is the su reme re
tion of the inn
te id..."

"So little
re the Homeric heroes resented
s develo in..."

"To insist on urity is to b

tize instinct, to hum

"There is
very im ort
nd fund
l rel
tion betw..."

More Quotes
p   *(

„ e„  „„„ „ 

 e eP e b


„e w  ee 
 „ Te
  Ree e„e

P e R Te  Y & T
e . R
e A+ B e BBB.

.De  e „


H  e 
  „ ee Re

e & 
e„e A e „

Ab ./  e


e„      „ 
„ „„ „

S „ e Re

. „

6 e „
„  W e 
, e  ee e„ e 

Te "p
 , e
 e b e 16„ Qe„„
 e, e e

e- e e b  R
„ C


be „„   e.
„ C
e' 16 e „



 e „
„, , ee e , W
, „,
e ,  
 e , „ , e
) p
ng, lkes peple

Cnree nkng, lwer gener

l bsr
-nkng, re nellgen,
, less nellgen, Re
snng brg, ger gener
l en
 prbles (B) 
s le
rner (Hger
( wer Sl
s Men
l C
) Sl
s Men
l C

ve en
l En
ll s

eed b eelngs, en

es re
less s
ble, e
sl upse ( wer
(C) (Hger Eg Sreng)
Eg Sreng)

l, per
n, reul,
nl, subssve, uble, Dn

ggressve, peve, subbrn,
beden, e
sl led, dle, (E)
bss (Dn

ng (Subssveness)

ed, spn
, resr
ned, pruden, 
urn, velness enus
pp g luk,
nrspeve, slen (Desurgen) (F) eerul, expressve, pulsve

Rule-nsus, duul,
Expeden, nnnrng, Rule-
nsenus, nrng,
rds rules, sel ndulgen Cnsusness
ls, s
d, rule bund (Hg
( w Super Eg Sreng) (G)
Super Eg Sreng)

S, re
-sensve, d, S
l Bldness S
ll bld, venurese, k
n, nd
ed (Tre
) (H) sknned, unnbed (

n, bjeve, Sensve,
ese, senen
l, ug nded, sel- ender nded, nuve, rened
reliant, no-nonsense, rough (I) (resia)

Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical,

Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, Vigilance
distrustful, oppositional
unconditional, easy (laxia) (L)

Grounded, practical, prosaic, bstract, iaginative, absent

solution oriented, steady, inded, ipractical, absorbed in
conventional (raxernia) ideas (utia)

Forthright, genuine, artless, open, rivate, discreet, nondisclosing,

guileless, naive, unpretentious, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute,
involved (rtlessness) diploatic (Shrewdness)

Self-ssured, unworried, pprehensive, self doubting,

coplacent, secure, free of guilt, pprehension worried, guilt prone, insecure,
confident, self satisfied (O) worrying, self blaing (Guilt
(Untroubled) roneness)

Traditional, attached to failiar, Openness to Open to change, experiental,

conservative, respecting traditional Change liberal, analytical, critical, free
ideas (Conservatis) (Q1) thinking, flexibility (Radicalis)

Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful,

and follower dependent (Group individualistic, self sufficient (Self-
dherence) Sufficiency)

Tolerates disorder, unexacting, erfectionistic, organized,

erfectionis copulsive, self-disciplined,
flexible, undisciplined, lax, self-
conflict, ipulsive, careless of socially precise, exacting will
social rules, uncontrolled (Low power, control, self-sentiental
„) (H Se„e  „ )

„qu,  d, Te„se,  e„e y, m

e„, m sed w d ve ( w d ve„,  us
ed, ve w u,
E  Te„s„) me d ve„. (H E  Te„s„)

P m
y F
„d Des   s „ 
e's 16 Pe s„
y F
 Mde (Ad
ed F m
„„ & Reke, 1994).

e ee ed  ese 16 
s m
s  sed  e s
ed "B
 s w e „sde ed b
 s.A  e m
 s  e
e w
„d ud e e e be „sde ed sub
 s w„ em.
Ree e„es

f Cattell, R. B. (1946). Te e  t„ a„ ea ee„t  e „alt. New Y k:

Ha  t, B ae, & W l .
f Cattell, R. B. (1957). e „alt a„ tat„ t t e a„ ea ee„t. New
Y k: W l Bk.
f Conn, S.R., & Rieke, M.L. (1994a). Te 16„ „i E iion enia
ana. Capaign, IL: Insie or ersonaiy an Abiiy Tesing, In.
f Russell, M.T., & Karol, D. (2002). 16„ „ E o„ a „sraorƞs a„ual

f Big Five personality traits

f From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
f In contemporary psychology, the ï  +-ï  (or +-+ 
.  ; ++.) of personality are five broad domains or dimensions
of personality which are used to describe human personality.
f The Big five factors
are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness,
and neuroticism(OCEAN, or CANOE if rearranged). The neuroticism factor is
sometimes referred to as "emotional stability". Some disagreement remains
about how to interpret the openness factor, which is sometimes called "intellect".
Each factor consists of a cluster of more specific traits that correlate together.
For example, extraversion includes such related qualities as gregariousness,
assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity and positive emotions.[1]
f The Five Factor Model is a purely descriptive model of personality, but
psychologists have developed a number of theories to account for the Big Five.


The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:


 ƛ (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation

for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience.
f þ

 ƛ (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). A tendency to
show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim forachievement; planned rather than
spontaneous behavior.
f : -
ƛ (outgoing/energetic vs. shy/reserved). Energy, positive
emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others.
 ƛ (friendly/compassionate vs. cold/unkind). A tendency to
be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspiciousand antagonistic towards
f Ö / ƛ (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). A tendency to experience
unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger,anxiety, depression, or vulnerability.
The Big Five model is a comprehensive, empirical, data-driven research finding.
Identifying the traits and structure of human personality has been one of the most
fundamental goals in all of psychology. The five broad factors were discovered and
defined by several independent sets of researchers (Digman, 1990).[2] These
researchers began by studying known personality traits and then factor-analyzing
hundreds of measures of these traits (in self-report and questionnaire data, peer
ratings, and objective measures from experimental settings) in order to find the
underlying factors of personality.

The initial model was advanced by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Cristal in 1961,[3] but
failed to reach an academic audience until the 1980s. In 1990, J.M. Digman advanced
his five factor model of personality, which Goldberg extended to the highest level of
organization (Goldberg, 1993).[4] These five over-arching domains have been found to
contain and subsume most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the
basic structure behind all personality traits. These five factors provide a rich conceptual
framework for integrating all the research findings and theory in personality psychology.
The Big Five traits are also referred to as the ï+-+ .  ï or FFM (Costa &
McCrae, 1992),[5] and as the Global Factors of personality (Russell & Karol, 1994).[6]

At least four sets of researchers have worked independently for decades on this
problem and have identified generally the same Big Five factors: Tupes & Cristal were
first, followed by Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute,[7][8][9][10][11] Cattell at the
University of Illinois,[12][13][14][15] and Costa and McCrae at the National Institutes of
Health.[16][17][18][19] These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in
finding the five traits, and thus each set of five factors has somewhat different names
and definitions. However, all have been found to be highly inter-correlated and factor-
analytically aligned.[20][21][22][23][24]

Because the Big Five traits are broad and comprehensive, they are not nearly as
powerful in predicting and explaining actual behavior as are the more numerous lower-
level traits. Many studies have confirmed that in predicting actual behavior the more
numerous facet or primary level traits are far more effective (e.g. Mershon & Gorsuch,
1988;[25] Paunonon & Ashton, 2001[26])

When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented
as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousnessrating in the 80th percentile
indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an
Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need
for solitude and quiet. Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates,
exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register
high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and
willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall
Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures but have no
great interest in art or poetry.

The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are self-
descriptive sentences[27] or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single
adjectives.[28] Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short
forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where
questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item
balanced International English Big-Five Mini-Markers[29] or a very brief (10 item)
measure of the Big Five domains.[30]



tie: O e„„e t ex e ie„e


ti„ f
t, emti„,
dve„tu e, u„uu
ti„, u iity,
„d v
iety f ex e ie„e. The t
it diti„guihe im
e e f m dw„-t-e
th, „ve„ti„
 e e. Pe e wh
e  e„ t ex e ie„e

e i„teetu
y u iu,
tive f
„d e„itive t be
uty. They te„d t be,
ed t ed e e, m e  e
„d m e
e f thei feei„g. They
m e ikey t hd u„„ve„ti„

Pe e with w  e „  e„„e te„d t h

ve m e „ve„ti„
, t

i„te et. They efe the 
i„, t
ightf w
„d bviu ve the m ex,

„d ubte. They m
y eg
d the
„d ie„e with u ii„  eve„
view thee e„de
 u„i„te eti„g.

f I have a rich vocabulary.

f I have a vivid imagination.
f I have excellent ideas.
f I spend time reflecting on things.
f I use difficult words.
f I am not interested in abstractions. (reersed)
f I do not have a good imagination. ( eve ed)
f I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (reversed)[31]



e: „e„„e


e„de„y  hw ef-dp„e,
m f

heveme„. The 
p efe e„e f p
he h
„ p„
v . I „fe„e he w
y „ whh we „ , eg
„d d e  mpe.
„e„„e „de he f
 Need f Aheveme„ (NAh).


f I am always prepared.
f I am exacting in my work.
f I follow a schedule.
f I like order.
f I pay attention to details.
f I leave my belongings around. (reversed)
f I make a mess of things. ( ee se )
f I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reerse )
f I shirk my duties. (reersed)[31]
[edit]: -


rtie: Extr
„d i„trersi„

: -
is h
terized by psitie emti„s, surge„y,
„d the te„de„y t
seek ut stimu
„d the mp
„y f thers. The tr
it is m
rked by pr„u„ed
geme„t with the exter„
 wrd. Extr
erts e„jy bei„g with pepe,
re fte„
s fu f e„ergy. They te„d t be e„thusi
ti„-rie„ted i„diidu
re ikey t s
y "Yes!" r "Let's g!" t pprtu„ities fr exiteme„t. I„ grups
they ike t t
ssert themsees,
„d dr
tte„ti„ t themsees.

k the si
tiity ees f extr
erts. They te„d t
seem quiet, w-key, deiber
„d ess i„ed i„ the si
 wrd. Their 
k f
 i„eme„t shud „t be i„terpreted
s shy„ess r depressi„. I„trerts simpy
„eed ess stimu
ti„ th
„ extr
„d mre time
„e. They m
y be ery

„d e„ergeti, simpy „t si

[edit]  -

f I am the life of the party.

f I don't mind being the center of attention.
f I feel comfortable around people.
f I start conversations.
f I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
f I am quiet around strangers. (reersed)
f I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reersed)
f I don't talk a lot. ( ee ed)
f I have little to say. ( eve se )[31]
[e it]  

rai„ a tile:  eeable„ess

 is a te„ e„y to be ompassio„ate a„ oope ative athe tha„
suspiious a„ a„tao„isti towa s othe s. The t ait eflets i„ ivi ual iffe e„es i„
e„e al o„e „ fo soial ha mo„y.  eeable i„ ivi uals value etti„ alo„ with
others. They are generally considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to
compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view
of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are
generally unconcerned with othersƞ well-being, and are less likely to extend themselves
for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about othersƞ motives causes them to be
suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.
[edit '  

f I am interested in people.
f I feel others' feelings.
f I have a soft heart.
f I make people feel at ease.
f I sympathize with othersƞ feelings.
f I take time out for others.
f I am not interested in other peopleƞs problems. (reersed)
f I am not really interested in others. (reersed)
f I feel little concern for others. (reerse )
f I insult people. ( ee se )[31]
f I like being isolated. ( ee sed)
[edit]Ö /
rain a tile: Ne otiis

Ö / is the tendeny to expe iene negatie eotions, sh as ange , anxiety,
o dep ession. It is soeties alled eotional instability. Those who so e high in
ne otiis a e eotionally eatie and lne able to st ess. They a e o e likely to
inte p et o dina y sitations as th eatening, and ino f st ations as hopelessly
diffilt. Thei negatie eotional eations tend to pe sist fo nsally long pe iods of
tie, whih eans they a e often in a bad ood. These p obles in eotional
eglation an diinish the ability of a pe son so ing high on ne otiis to think
lea ly, ake deisions, and ope effetiely with st ess.

At the othe end of the sale, indiidals who so e low in ne otiis a e less easily
pset and a e less eotionally eatie. They tend to be al, eotionally stable, and
f ee f o pe sistent negatie feelings. F eedo f o negatie feelings does not ean
that low so e s expe iene a lot of positie feelings.

f I am easily disturbed.
f I change my mood a lot.
f I get irritated easily.
f I get stressed out easily.
f I get upset easily.
f I have frequent mood swings.
f I often feel blue.
f I worry about things.
f I am relaxed most of the time. (reersed)
f I seldom feel blue. ( ee sed)[31]
[edit]Histo y

Sir Francis Galton was the first scientist to recognize what is now known as the Lexical
Hypothesis. This is the idea that the most salient and socially
relevant personality differences in peopleƞs lives will eventually become encoded into
language. The hypothesis further suggests that by sampling language, it is possible to
derive a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits.

In 1936, Gordon Allport and H. S. Odbert put this hypothesis into practice.[32] They
worked through two of the most comprehensivedictionaries of the English language
available at the time and extracted 17,953 personality-describing words. They then
reduced this gigantic list to 4,504 adjectives which they believed were descriptive of
observable and relatively permanent traits.

Raymond Cattell obtained the Allport-Odbert list in the 1940s, added terms obtained
from psychological research, and then eliminated synonyms to reduce the total to
171.[12] He then asked subjects to rate people whom they knew by the adjectives on
the list and analyzed their ratings. Cattell identified 35 major clusters of personality
traits which he referred to as the "personality sphere." He and his associates then
constructed personality tests for these traits. The data they obtained from these tests
were analyzed with the emerging technology of computers combined with the statistical
method of factor analysis. This resulted in sixteen major personality factors, which led
to the development of the 16PF Personality Questionnaire.
In 1961, two Air Force researchers, Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal, analyzed
personality data from eight large samples. Using Cattell's trait measures, they found
five recurring factors, which they named "Surgency", "Agreeableness", "Dependability",
"Emotional Stability", and "Culture".[33] This work was replicated by Warren Norman,
who also found that five major factors were sufficient to account for a large set of
personality data. Norman named these factors Surgency, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Culture.[34] Raymond Cattell viewed these
developments as an attack on his 16PF model and never agreed with the growing Five
Factor consensus. He refers to "...the five factor heresy" which he considers " partly
directed against the 16PF test". Responding to Goldberg's article in the American
Psychologist, 'The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits', Cattell stated, "No
experienced factorist could agree with Dr Goldberg's enthusiasm for the five factor
personality theory". This determined rejection of the FFM challenge to his 16 factor
model is presented in an article published towards the end of his life and entitled 'The
fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere', Cattell, R. B. (1995), The
Psychologist, The British Psychological Society, May Issue pp 207ƛ208.
For the next two decades, the changing zeitgeist made publication of personality
research difficult. In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walter Mischel asserted
that personality tests could not predict behavior with a correlation of more than
0.3. Social psychologists like Mischel argued that attitudes and behavior were not
stable, but varied with the situation. Predicting behavior by personality tests was
considered to be impossible.
Emerging methodologies challenged this point of view during the 1980s. Instead of
trying to predict single instances of behavior, which was unreliable, researchers found
that they could predict patterns of behavior by aggregating large numbers of
observations. As a result correlations between personality and behavior increased
substantially, and it was clear that Ơpersonalityơ did in fact exist. Personality and social
psychologists now generally agree that both personal and situational variables are
needed to account for human behavior. Trait theories became justified, and there was a
resurgence of interest in this area.

By 1980, the pioneering research by Tupes, Christal, and Norman had been largely
forgotten by psychologists. Lewis Goldberg started his own lexical project,
independently found the five factors once again, and gradually brought them back to
the attention of psychologists.[35] He later coined the term "Big Five" as a label for the
[edit]      +-
In a 1981 symposium in Honolulu, four prominent researchers, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi
Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available
personality tests of the day. They concluded that the tests which held the most promise
measured a subset of five common factors, just as Norman had discovered in 1963.
This event was followed by widespread acceptance of the five factor model among
personality researchers during the 1980s. In 1984 Peter Saville and his team included
the five-factor ƠPentagonơ model with the original OPQ. Pentagon was closely followed
by the NEO five-factor personality inventory, published by Costa and McCrae in 1985.

One of the most significant advances of the five-factor model was the establishment of
a common taxonomy that demonstrates order in a previously scattered and
disorganized field. What separates the five-factor model of personality from all others is
that it is not based on the theory of any one particular psychologist, but rather
on language.

A number of meta-analyses have confirmed the predictive value of the Big Five across a
wide range of behaviors. Saulsman and Page examined the relationships between the
Big Five personality dimensions and each of the 10 personality disorder categories in
theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Across 15
independent samples, the researchers found that each disorder displayed a unique and
predictable five-factor profile. The most prominent and consistent personality predictors
underlying the disorders were positive associations with Neuroticism and negative
associations with Agreeableness.[36]

In the area of job performance, Barrick and Mount reviewed 117 studies utilizing 162
samples with 23,994 participants. They found that conscientiousness showed consistent
relations with all performance criteria for all occupational groups. Extraversion was a
valid predictor for occupations involving social interaction (e.g. management and sales).
Furthermore, extraversion and openness to experience were valid predictors of training
proficiency criteria.[37][38]
[edit]Selected scientific findings

Ever since the 1990s when the consensus of psychologists gradually came to support
the Big Five, there has been a growing body of research surrounding these personality
traits (see for instance, Robert Hogan's edited book "Handbook of Personality
Psychology" (Academic Press, 1997).
This section / 0 

 Pleaseimprove this section if you can. The talk page may
contain suggestions. (June 2010)

All five factors show an influence from both heredity and environment. Studies of twins
suggest that these effects contribute in roughly equal proportion.[39] Of four recent twin
studies, the mean estimated broad heritabilities on self-report measures for the Big Five
traits were as follows:[40]
Openness: 57%
Conscientiousness: 49%
Extraversion: 54%
Agreeableness: 42%
Neuroticism: 48%
[edit]- /

Many studies of longitudinal data, which correlate people's test
scores over time, and cross-sectional data, which compare
personality levels across different age groups, show a high
degree of stability in personality traits during adulthood.[41] More
recent research and meta-analyses of previous studies, however,
indicate that change occurs in all five traits at various points in
the lifespan. The new research shows evidence for
a maturation effect. On average, levels of Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness typically increase with time, whereas
Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness tend to decrease.[42] In
addition to these group effects, there are individual differences:
different people demonstrate unique patterns of change at all
stages of life.[43]

Cross-cultural research from 26 nations (N = 23,031 subjects)
and again in 55 nations (N = 17,637 subjects) has shown a
universal pattern of sex differences on responses to the Big Five
Inventory. Women consistently report higher Neuroticism and
Agreeableness, and men often report higher Extraversion and
Conscientiousness. Sex differences in personality traits are larger
in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women
have more opportunities that are equal to those of men; both
men and women tend to grow more extraverted and
conscientious and less neurotic and agreeable as cultures grow
more prosperous and egalitarian, but the effect is stronger for
The suggestion has often been made that individuals differ by
the order of their births. Frank J. Sulloway argues that birth
order is correlated with personality traits. He claims that
firstborns are more conscientious, more socially dominant, less
agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to laterborns.

However, Sullowayƞs case has been called into question. One

criticism is that his data confounds family size with birth order.
Subsequent analyses have shown that birth order effects are only
found in studies where the subjectsƞ personality traits are rated
by family members (such as siblings or parents) or by
acquaintances familiar with the subjectsƞ birth order. Large scale
studies using random samples and self-report personality tests
like the NEO PI-R have found no significant effect of birth order
on personality.[46][47]
[edit]þ )   
The Big Five have been replicated in a variety of different
languages and cultures, such as German[48] and
Chinese.[49] Thompson has demonstrated the Big Five structure
across several cultures using an international English language

Recent work has found relationships between Geert Hofstedeƞs

cultural factors, Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, and
Uncertainty Avoidance, with the average Big Five scores in a
country.[50] For instance, the degree to which a country values
individualism correlates with its average Extraversion, while
people living in cultures which are accepting of large inequalities
in their power structures tend to score somewhat higher on
Conscientiousness. The reasons for these differences are as yet
unknown; this is an active area of research.

Additionally, there has been an introduction of a correlation

between leadership and Taoist (or Daoist) Big Five and Water-
like (W-L) Leadership/Personality as discussed by the Chinese
psychologist Yueh-Ting Lee.
) /

The big five personality factors have been assessed in some non-
human species. In one series of studies, human ratings
ofchimpanzees using the Chimpanzee Personality Questionnaire
(CPQ) revealed factors of extraversion, conscientiousness and
agreeableness ƛ as well as an additional factor of dominance ƛ
across hundreds of chimpanzees in zoological parks, a large
naturalistic sanctuary and a research laboratory. Neuroticism and
Openness factors were found in an original zoo sample, but did
not replicate in a new zoo sample or to other settings (perhaps
reflecting the design of the CPQ).[51]

Much research has been conducted on the Big Five. This has
resulted in both criticism[52] and support[53] for the model. Critics
argue that there are limitations to the scope of Big Five as an
explanatory or predictive theory. It is argued that the Big Five
does not explain all of human personality. The methodology used
to identify the dimensional structure of personality traits, factor
analysis, is often challenged for not having a universally-
recognized basis for choosing among solutions with different
numbers of factors. Another frequent criticism is that the Big Five
is not theory-driven. It is merely a data-driven investigation of
certain descriptors that tend to cluster together under factor
One common criticism is that the Big Five does not explain all of
human personality. Some psychologists have dissented from the
model precisely because they feel it neglects other domains of
personality, such
as Religiosity, Manipulativeness/Machiavellianism,Honesty, Self-
Awareness, Thriftiness, Conservativeness, Critical
Judgement, Masculinity/Femininity, Snobbishness, Sense of
humour,Identity, Self-concept, and Motivation. Correlations have
been found between some of these variables and the Big Five,
such as the inverse relationship between political conservatism
and Openness;[54] although variation in these traits is not well
explained by the Five Factors themselves. McAdams has called
the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger," because they refer to
traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other
aspects of personality that are more privately held or more
context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five.[55]

In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one
another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Negative
correlations often appear between Neuroticism and Extraversion,
for instance, indicating that those who are more prone to
experiencing negative emotions tend to be less talkative and
outgoing. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some
researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the
dimensions. This is particularly important when the goal of a
study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality
with as few variables as possible.
The methodology used to identify the dimensional structure of
personality traits, factor analysis, is often challenged for not
having a universally-recognized basis for choosing among
solutions with different numbers of factors. That is, a five factor
solution depends on some degree of interpretation by the
analyst. A larger number of factors may, in fact, underlie these
five factors. This has led to disputes about the "true" number of
factors. Big Five proponents have responded that although other
solutions may be viable in a single dataset, only the five factor
structure consistently replicates across different studies.[citation

A methodological criticism often directed at the Big Five is that

much of the evidence relies on self report questionnaires; self-
report bias and falsification of responses are difficult to deal with
and account for. This becomes especially important when
considering why scores may differ between individuals or groups
of people ƛ differences in scores may represent genuine
underlying personality differences, or they may simply be an
artifact of the way the subjects answered the questions. The five
factor structure has been replicated in peer reports.[56] However,
many of the substantive findings rely on self-reports.
A frequent criticism is that the Big Five is not based on any
underlying theory; it is merely an empirical finding that certain
descriptors cluster together under factor analysis. While this does
not mean that these five factors don't exist, the underlying
causes behind them are unknown. Sensation seeking and
cheerfulness are not linked to Extraversion because of an
underlying theory; this relationship is an empirical finding to be
Jack Blockƞs final published work before his death in January
2010 drew together his lifetime perspective on the five factor
model [57]

He summarised his critique of the model in terms of:

f the atheoretical nature of the five-factors

f their cloudy measurement
f the modelƞs inappropriateness for studying early childhood
f the use of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for
conceptualizing personality
f the continuing non-consensual understandings of the five-
f the existence of various unrecognised but successful efforts
to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the five-
He went on to suggest that repeatedly observed higher order
factors hierarchically above the proclaimed five may promise
deeper biological understanding of the origins and implications of
these superfactors.
[edit]Further research

Current research concentrates on a number of areas. One

important question is: are the five factors the right ones?
Attempts to replicate the Big Five in other countries with local
dictionaries have succeeded in some countries but not in others.
Apparently, for instance, Hungarians donƞt appear to have a
single Agreeableness factor.[58] Other researchers find evidence
for Agreeableness but not for other factors.[27]

In an attempt to explain variance in personality traits more fully,

some have found seven factors,[59] some eighteen,[60] and some
only three.[61] What determines the eventual number of factors is
essentially the kind of information that is put into the factor
analysis in the first place (i.e. the "Garbage in, Garbage
out" principle). Since theory often implicitly precedes empirical
science (such as factor analysis), the Big Five and other proposed
factor structures should always be judged according to the items
that went into the factor analytic algorithm. Recent studies show
that seven- or eighteen-factor models have their relative
strengths and weaknesses in explaining variance in DSM-based
symptom counts in nonclinical samples[62] and in psychiatric
patients.[63] and do not seem to be clearly outperformed by the
Big Five.

A validation study, in 1992, conducted by Paul Sinclair and Steve

Barrow, involved 202 Branch Managers from the then TSB Bank.
It found several significant correlations with job performance
across 3 of the Big Five scales. The correlations ranged from .21
ƛ .33 and were noted across 3 scales: High Extraversion, Low
Neuroticism and High Openness to Experience.[64]

Another area of investigation is to make a more complete model

of personality. The "Big Five" personality traits are empirical
observations, not a theory; the observations of personality
research remain to be explained. Costa and McCrae have built
what they call the Five Factor Theory of Personality as an
attempt to explain personality from the cradle to the grave. They
don't follow the lexical hypothesis, though, but favor a theory-
driven approach inspired by the same sources as the sources of
the Big Five.[citation needed]
Another area of investigation is the downward extension of Big
Five theory, or the Five Factor Model, into childhood. Studies
have found Big Five personality traits to correlate with children's
social and emotional adjustment and academic achievement.
More recently, the Five Factor Personality Inventory ƛ
Children[65] was published extending assessment between the
ages of 9 and 18. Perhaps the reason for this recent publication
was the controversy over the application of the Five Factor Model
to children. Studies by Oliver P. John et al. with adolescent boys
brought two new factors to the table: "Irritability" and "Activity".
In studies of Dutch children, those same two new factors also
became apparent. These new additions "suggest that the
structure of personality traits may be more differentiated in
childhood than in adulthood",[66] which would explain the recent
research in this particular area.
[edit]Being Evaluated

The following resources and tests are available for a self-test or

an administered test:

[edit]See also

f Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

f Personality psychology
f Revised NEO Personality Inventory
f Trait theory
[edit]Textbooks on Personality Assessment

The field's standard reference: Title: Handbook of Psychological

Assessment Author: Gary Groth-Marnat Publisher: Wiley; 5
edition (May 4, 2009) ISBN-10: 0470083581 ISBN-13: 978-

1. 6 Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C.

(2003).ersnaity Traits. Cambridge University ress.
age 24.
2. 6 Digman, J.M. (1990). "Personality structure:
Emergence of the five-factor model". nnual Revie of
Psychology â: 417ƛ440.
3. 6 Tupes, E.C., & Cristal, R.E., Recurrent Personality
Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Technical Report ASD-TR-
61-97, Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory,
Air Force Systems Command, 1961
4. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1993). "The structure of phenotypic
personality traits". erican sychologist â$ (1): 26ƛ
34.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26. MID 8427480.
5. 6 Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Rese NEO
Perso„at „e„tor (NEOP R) a„ NEO „e„actor
„e„tor (NEO„„ ) a„a. O essa, „L: Pschoogca
Assesse„t Resorces.
6. 6 Russell, M.T., & Karol, D. (1994). 16„ „ E o„
a „sraorƞs a„ual.ƞƞ a a„,  „sue or
erso„al & bl Tes„.
7. 6 Goldberg, L.R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some
explorations in the language of personality. In C.D.
Spielberger & J.N. Butcher (Eds.), Adances in personality
assessment, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. 6 Norman, W.T.; Goldberg, L.R. (1966). "Raters, ratees,
and randomness in personality structure". Journal o
ersonality and Social sycology â: 681ƛ
691. doi:10.1037/0024002.
9. 6 Peabody, D.; Goldberg, L.R. (1989). "Some
determinants of factor structures from personality-trait
descriptors". Journal of Personality and Social
Psycology !# (3): 552ƛ567.doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.57.3.552. PMID 2778639.
10. 6 Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L.R. (1996). The language of
personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model.
In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of
personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.
11. 6 Digman, J.M. (1989). "Five robust trait dimensions:
Development, stability, and utility". Journal o
ersonality !# (2): 195ƛ214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1989.tb00480.x.MID 2671337.

12. 6 Cattell, R. B.; Marshall, MB; Georgiades, S (1957).
"Personality and motivation: Structure and
measurement".Journal o Personality Disorders % (1):
53ƛ67.doi:10.1521/pedi. PMID 15899720.
13. 6 Karson, S. & OƞDell, J.W. (1976).   e o e lnal
se o e 16„. Campan, IL: Inse or ersonaly
& bly Tesn.
14. 6 Krug, S.E.; Johns, E.F. (1986). "A large scale cross-
validation of second-order personality structure defined by
the 16PF".Psychological Reports !%: 683ƛ693.
15. 6 Cattell, H.E.P, and Mead, A.D. (2007). The 16
Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In G.J. Boyle, G.
Matthews, and D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of
ersonality theory and testin Vol. 2 Personality
easureent and assessent.London Sae.
16. 6 Costa, P.T.; Jr, RR; McCrae, R.R. (1976). "Age
differences in personality structure: A cluster analytic
approach". Jor„a o Gero„oo  (5): 564ƛ
570. PMID 950450.
17. 6 Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1985). Te NEO
Perso„at „e„tor a„a. Odessa, FL: Pscoogca
Assesse„t Resorces.
18. 6 McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T.; Jr (1987). "Validation of the
five-factor model of personality across instruments and
observers".Journal of Personality and Social
Psycholoy ! (1): 81ƛ90.doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.52.1.81. PMID 3820081.
19. 6 McCrae, R.R.; John, O.P. (1992). "An introduction to
the five-factor model and its applications". Journal of
Personalit "4 (2): 175ƛ215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1992.tb00970.x.PMID 1635039.
20. 6 International Personality Item Pool. (2001). A scientific
collaboratory for the development of advanced measures
of personality traits and other individual differences
21. 6 Carnivez, G.L. & Allen, T.J. (2005). Cnveren an
arial vali i  e 16„ an e NEO . aper
presene a e annual nvenin  e Amerian
slial Assiain, Wasinn, D.C.
22. 6 Conn, S. & Rieke, M. (1994). Te 16„ „i E iion
. C
ign, IL: Insie or erson
& Abiiy Tesing.
23. 6 Cattell, H.E. (1996). "The original big five: A historical
perspective". Eropean evie of Applie scholog â":
24. 6 Grucza, R.A.; Goldberg, L.R. (2007). "The comparative
validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions
of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical
indicators". Journal of Personality Assessment $% (2):
187.doi:10.1080/00223890701468568. PMID 17764394.
25. 6 Mershon, B.; Gorsuch, R.L. (1988). "Number of factors
in the personality sphere: does increase in factors
increase predictability of real-life criteria?". Journal of
ersonality and Social sycholoy !!: 675ƛ
680. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675.
26. 6 Paunonen, S.V.; Ashton, M.S. (2001). "Big Five factors
and facets and the prediction of behavior". Journa of
Personait & Socia Pschoog $: 524ƛ
539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524.

27. 6 De Fruyt, F.; McCrae, R. R.; Szirmák, Z.; Nagy, J.
(2004). "The Five-Factor personality inventory as a
measure of the Five-Factor Model: Belgian, American, and
Hungarian comparisons with the NEO-PI-
R.". Assessment  (3): 207ƛ
215.doi:10.1177/1073191104265800. PMID 15358876.
28. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). "The development of markers
for the Big-five factor structure". Journal of ersonalit
and Social scholog !% (6): 1216ƛ
1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. MID 2283588.

29. 6 Thompson, E.R. (2008). "Development and
validation of an international English big-five mini-
markers". ersonalit and ndividal Differenes â! (6):
30. 6 Gosling, S. D.; Rentfrow, P. J.; Swann Jr, W. B. (2003).
"A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality
domains". Journal of Researh in Personality # (6): 504ƛ
528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
31. 6 International Personality Item Pool
32. 6 Allport, G. W.; Odbert, H. S. (1936). "Trait names: A
psycholexical study". sycholoical ronoraphs â#: 211.
33. 6 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent
personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF ASD Tech.
Rep. No. 61-97, Lackland Airforce Base, TX: U. S. Air
34. 6 Norman, W. T. (1963). "Toward an adequate taxonomy
of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in
peer nomination personality ratings". Journal of bnormal
and Social sycology "": 574ƛ
583. doi:10.1037/0040291.MID 13938947.
35. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual
differences: The search for universals in personality
lexicons. In Wheeler (Ed.), Revie of ersonality and
social psychology, Vol. 1, 141ƛ165. Beverly Hills, CA:
36. 6 Saulsman, L. M.; Page, A. C. (2004). "The five-factor
model and personality disorder empirical literature: A
meta-analytic review". Clinical Psychology eview  (8):
1085.doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001. PMID 14729423.
37. 6 Barrick, M. R.; Mount, M. K. (1991). "The Big Five
Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-
Analysis". Personnel Psychology ââ: 1ƛ
26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
38. 6 Mount, M. K.; Barrick, M. R. (1998). "Five reasons why
the "Big Five" article has been frequently cited". ersonnel
sychology!: 849ƛ857. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
39. 6 Jang, K.; Livesley, W. J.; Vemon, P. A. (1996).
"Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions and
Their Facets: A Twin Study". Journal of
Personality "â (3): 577ƛ591.doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1996.tb00522.x. PMID 8776880.
40. 6 Bouchard & McGue, 2003. "Genetic and environmental
influences on human psychological differences." Journal
of Neurobiology, 54, 4ƛ45. doi:10.1002/neu.10160
41. 6 McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1990). Perso„at „
a too .New York: Te G for Press.
42. 6 Srivastava, S.; John, O. P.; Gosling, S. D.; Potter, J.
(2003). "Development of personality in early and middle
adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?". Journal
o ersonalit and Social scholog $â (5): 1041ƛ
1053. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.84.5.1041. MID 12757147.
43. 6 Roberts, B. W.; Mroczek, D. (2008). "Personality trait
change in adulthood". urrent Directions in Psychological
Science #(1): 31ƛ35. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2008.00543.x.PMID 19756219.
44. 6 Costa, P.T. Jr.; Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R.R. (2001).
"Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures:
Robust and Surprising Findings". Journal of Personality
and Social Psycology $ (2): 322ƛ
331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322. PMID 11519935.
45. 6 Schmitt, D. P.; Realo, A.; Voracek, M.; Allik, J. (2008).
"Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences
in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures". Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology %â (1): 168ƛ
182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168. PMID 18179326.
46. 6 Harris, J. R. (2006). N  aie Ha„ „are a„
a„ i„ ii ai. WW Nr„ & Cpa„.
47. 6 Jefferson, T.; Herbst, J. H.; McCrae, R. R. (1998).
"Associations between birth order and personality traits:
Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings". Jornal
of Research in ersonality : 498ƛ
48. 6 Ostendorf, F. (1990). S r
e nd
ersoenetsstrtr Zr V
et des FnfF
rodes der ersoenet. Regensbrg, Germ
ny S.
Roderer Ver
49. 6 Trull, T. J.; Geary, D. C. (1997). "Comparison of the
big-five factor structure across samples of Chinese and
American adults". Journal of ersonality
Assessment "% (2): 324ƛ
341.doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6902_6. MID 9392894.
50. 6 McCrae R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the
Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Personality
Profiles of Cultures: Aggregate Personality Traits. Journal
of Personality an Social Psychology $%, No.3, 407ƛ425.
51. 6 Weiss, A; King, JE; Hopkins, WD (2007). "A cross-
setting study of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) personality
structure and development: zoological parks and Yerkes
National Primate Research Center.". American journal of
primatology "% (11): 1264ƛ
77. doi:10.1002/ajp.20428. PMID 17397036.
52. 6 A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to
personality description
53. 6 Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to
54. 6 McCrae, R. R. (1996). "Social consequences of
experiential openness". scoloical Bulletin 4 (3):
2909.120.3.323. MID 8900080.
55. 6 McAdams, D. P. (1995). "What do we know when we
know a person?". Jorna o Personat ": 365ƛ
56. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). "An alternative "description of
personality": The big-five factor structure". Journal of
ersonality and Social sychology !% (6): 1216ƛ
1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. MID 2283588.
57. 6 Block, Jack (2010). The five-factor framing of
personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological
Inquiry, 21(1), 2-25.
58. 6 Szirmak, Z.; De Raad, B. (1994). "Taxonomy and
structure of Hungarian personality traits". European
Journal of ersonality $: 95ƛ
117. doi:10.1002/per.2410080203.
59. 6 Cloninger, C. R.; Svrakic, D. M.; Przybeck, T. R. (1993).
"A psychobiological model of temperament and
character".rche  Ge„era chatr !4 (12): 975ƛ
990.MID 8250684.
60. 6 Livesley, W. J.; Jackson, D. N. (1986). "The internal
consistency and factorial structure of behaviors judged to
be associated with DSM-III personality
disorders". erican Journal of sychiatry â (11):
1473ƛ4. MID 3777245.
61. 6 Eysenck, H. J. (1991). "Dimensions of personality: 16,
5 or 3?ƜCriteria for a taxonomic paradigm". ersonality
and ndiidal Differences : 773ƛ
790. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90144-Z.
62. 6 Bagby, R. M.; Marshall, M. B.; Georgiades, S. (2005).
"Dimensional personality traits and the prediction of DSM-
IV personality disorder symptom counts in a nonclinical
sample".Journal of ersonal Disorders % (1): 53ƛ
63. 6 De Fruyt, F.; De Clercq, B. J.; de Wiele, L.; Van
Heeringen, K. (2006). "The validity of Cloninger's
psychobiological model versus the five-factor model to
predict DSM-IV personality disorders in a heterogeneous
psychiatric sample: domain facet and residualized facet
descriptions". Journal of ersonality #â(2): 479ƛ
510. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2006.00382.x.MID 16529584.
64. 6 Sinclair, P. & Barrow, S. (1992)Identifying Personality
Traits predictive of Performance. The BPSƞs journal on
Occupational Testing ƛ Selection & Development Review,
SDR ƛ October 1992 Volume 8 (5)
65. 6 McGhee, R.M., Ehrler, D.J., & Buckhalt, J. (2007). Five
Factor Personality Inventory ƛ Children (FFPI-C). Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
66. 6 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait
taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical
perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John
(Eds.), H
„db  e s„
 (V. 2, . 102ƛ138). New Y  Gu d P ess.


„s > Pe s„
 > F eud's Pe s„
T ee eves 
e„ess | T ee m „e„s  e s„
 | E„e g
exs | S w

Sgmu„d F eud des bed seve

 m „e„s w 
ve bee„ ve  „ue„
u„de s
„d„g e s„
=  -  

F eud de„ed  ee de e„
s  e m„d, b
sed „ u eve 

Te „sus m„d s we e we
 e mme„. I „udes „
u u e„ „„g esses
„d bjes 
„d e„e „sues

  u u e„


Te e„sus „udes se „gs  w we
e, bu we e we
e „

e„„. We 
„ se 

e„„  ese
„d debe
e b „g em
„ e „sus m„d.
„ „  u
„ exe„,  m us„g „ ve  se „ „e
 sees  ex
„d „sus„ess  „ude
mu  e„sus „ m
s ssbe.

A e sub„sus eve, e ess
„d „e„
e u  d e e
„sus m„d. Te sub„sus us „s
s „de e„de„.
O„e  F eud's e „d„gs w
 mu be
v s d ve„ d e  m e
sub„sus m„d. Ts 
s e

m„g „seque„e 
ge u„
„  u be
v ,
„d „

 w we wud smemes ee 
M e ee„ ese
s sw„ 
 e sub„sus m„d s b
b eve„ m e „

ge  u
„ eve„ F eud 
d e
=  /

 sgs D„ B
s des bed F eud's s„ „ e um
e s„

s be„g

eed. He s
„ w
web ed s „se

d (e su e eg)
zed m„e (e d)
e  eve e„g
„ m 
, e s ugge be„g ee eed b

e „e vus b
„ e 
(e eg)."
Thus an individualƞs feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are the result of the interaction
of the id, the superego, and the ego. This creates conflict, which creates anxiety, which
leads to Defense Mechanisms.

The Id contains our primitive drives and operates largely according to the pleasure
principle, whereby its two main goals are the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of
It has no real perception of reality and seeks to satisfy its needs through what Freud
called theprimary processes that dominate the existence of infants, including hunger
and self-protection.
The energy for the Id's actions come from libido, which is the energy storehouse.
The id has 2 major instincts:

à : : the life intinct that mtivate peple t fcu n pleau e-eeking
tendencie (e.g., exual u ge).
à =
: e de
e peple  ue
ggreive urge 
Unlike the Id, the Ego is aware of reality and hence operates via the reality
principle, whereby it recognizes what is real and understands that behaviors have
consequences. This includes the effects of social rules that are necessary in order to
live and socialize with other people. It usessecondary processes (perception,
recognition, judgment and memory) that are developed during childhood.
The dilemma of the Ego is that it has to somehow balance the demands of the Id and
Super ego with the constraints of reality.
The Ego controls higher mental processes such as reasoning and problem-solving,
which it uses to solve the Id-Super ego dilemma, creatively finding ways to safely
satisfy the Id's basic urges within the constraints of the Super ego.
The Super ego contains our values and social morals, which often come from the rules
of right and wrong that we learned in childhood from our parents (this is Freud,
remember) and are contained in the conscience.
The Super ego has a model of an ego ideal and which it uses as a prototype against
which to compare the ego (and towards which it encourages the ego to move).
The Super ego is a counterbalance to the Id, and seeks to inhibit the Id's pleasure-
seeking demands, particularly those for sex and aggression.
Freud viewed the forces on us as a form of energy, with energy from the senses being
converted into psychic energy in the personality through a topographic model that
takes sensed energy, filters it through various associative metaphors, then passes it
through the unconscious and preconscious before it finally reaches the conscious mind.
This is the investment of energy in the image of an object, or the expenditure of
energy in discharge action upon such an object. It occurs in the Id.
: )  
This is the investment of energy in mental representations of reality through
associations and metaphors, which is needed for the Ego's secondary processes. It
occurs in the Ego.

This is energy used to block object-cathexes of the Id. Repression occurs in the battle
between cathexis and anti-cathexis. It occurs in the Ego and Super Ego.

Although later theories have improved understanding, Freud's ideas still provide a
useful model for the more complex actions that are really going on.
To persuade, you can appeal either to the basic urges of the Id or the higher morals of
the Super ego. Then encourage the Ego to make the 'right choice'.
Defense Mechanisms, Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theor

The two factors that affect personality is environment and heredity.

Nature vs Nurture

Scientists have argued for many years what is the factor that shape us, is it our genes?
Or is it our environment? The simple answer is both. Imagine Johnny and Blake who's
parents are both mathematical genuinenesses who unfortunately died in a car accident.
John and Blake are twins but were separated at birth Johnny was taken by a doctor and
Blake was stolen and raised by hardened criminals accustomed to violence in a daily
basis. Johny how ever was raised in a formal way with a loving, peaceful and caring
community and supportive parents as his environment. Among the two who is most
likely to do a crime as an adult?

Blake of course having a violent environment growing up. But there is a chance that
both men will be good at mathematics since there parents are brilliant at it, its called
aptitude. I'll explain about it later.

The heredity factor

When we are conceived we are given 24 chromosomes carried by the sperm (male) and
it pairs up with 24 from ovum (female) making a new individual with 48 chromosomes
each one different, containing different information about us this explains why we have
our mother's nose or our father's hair. The chromosomes are the vessels that contain
our parents genetic make up passed on to us. But of course there is what we call
genetic gap where a trait is not passed directly to the children but to the next
generation the grandchildren or even the next. That explains why some of us look like
our grandparents and not our parents.

Aptitude and Ability

Aptitude is a pattern of traits needed for learning a task. Ability is to execute what you
have learned. Aptitude is inherited ability is acquired. Let's say you are good in
basketball. Can you say your children will be good at it? No, aptitude will be passed
on(like Blake and Johny being good in Mathematics) not your skills as a basketball
player although aptitude can be inherited to learn the task they can not inherit the
ability to do a slam dunk it would take some time and practice.

Environment Factor

A child's behavior is also learned from environment the things and the people around
the child. At birth, the new born has no understanding of the world around him. He has
to learn to learn to walk, eat, talk and act like others which is socially accepted. The
people he would be interacting with will play a big role in molding his personality since
it will determine the GOOD and the BAD in him. For example is stealing bad or good? It
will depend on the society he lives at weather or not it is socially acceptable.

By 5 years old we already have an idea of who we are I'm nice, I'm cute, I'm naughty,
people like me when I smile etc... we already have an idea of who we are. During this
crucial stage the primary group which are our family, playmates and neighbors they are
the ones we have face to face contact with the second groups are the ones later on in
life like School, classmates and new peers.

My name is Kim Ian Tumblod I'm a psychologist so I'm pretty sure with I'm saying. To
know more about how to develop you personality and self improvement visit our

Article Source:

Big Five Personality Factors

Why do we study personality?

The NEO that you have just completed looks at 5 personality traits, known as the Big
Five. We will briefly look at what traits are, how these personality factors were
determined, what the traits mean, what the Big Five predict about our behaviour, and
how these factors might relate to motivation.

What are traits?

Traits are consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, or actions that distinguish people
from one another. Traits are basis tendencies that remain stable across the life span,
but characteristic behaviour can change considerably through adaptive pr ocesses. A
trait is an internal characteristic that corresponds to an extreme position on a
behavioural dimension.

There have been different theoretical perspectives in the field of personality psychology
over the years including human motivation, the whole person, and individual
differences. The Big Five falls under the perspective of individual differences.

How were these personality factors determined?

The Big Five represents a taxonomy (classification system) of traits that some
personality psychologists suggest capture the essence of individual differences in
personality. These traits were arrived at through factor analysis studies. Factor anal ysis
is a technique generally done with the use of computers to determine meaningful
relationships and patterns in behavioural data. You begin with a large number of
behavioural variables. The computer finds relationships or natural connections where
vari ables are maximally correlated with one another and minimally correlated with
other variables, and then groups the data accordingly. After this process has been done
many times a pattern appears of relationships or certain factors that capture the
essence of all of the data. Such a process was used to determine the Big Five
Personality factors. Many researchers tested factors other than the Big Five and found
the Big Five to be the only consistently reliable factors.

Strict trait personality psychologists go so far as to say our behaviour is really

determined by these internal traits, giving the situation a small role in determining
behaviour. In other words, these traits lead to an individual acting a certain way in a
given situation.

Allport, Norman and Cattell were influential in formulating this taxonomy which was
later refined. Allport compiled a list of 4500 traits. Cattell reduced this list to 35 traits.
Others continued to analyze these factors and found congruence with self- ratings,
ratings by peers and ratings by psychological staff, that eventually became the Big Five

The Big Five factors are: I ƛ extraversion vs introversion

II ƛ agreeableness vs antagonism
III ƛ conscientiousness vs undirectedness

IV ƛ neuroticism vs emotional stability

V ƛ openness to experience vs not open to experience

Cross-cultural studies looking at the replicability of the Big Five have been less
extensive due to the costs and difficulties involved. One reason for looking at cross
cultural consistency is that it could provide an evolutionary interpretation of the way
individual differences have been processed or encoded as personality categories in
language. A Dutch analysis found 5 factors as well, the first 4 being similar to 4 of the
Big Five, and the 5th being closer to unconventionality and rebell iousness. A German
factor analysis replicated the Big Five factors. A problem with interpreting cross-cultural
data is language translation. Some mistranslation may result in underestimating cross-
cultural generalizability. Work has been done to reduce th is problem and higher
congruence has been found with correlational analysis. Overall, the Big Five have been
studied in 7 languages. The 5th factor (openness to experience) has the weakest

There was a need for an integrative framework for measuring these factors. The NEO
Personality Inventory was created by Costa and McCrae and originally measured only
neuroticism, extraversion and openness. The other factors were added later. There are
other measures of the Big Five, such as the BFI (Big Five Inventory) and the TDA
(Traits Descriptive Adjectives). The NEO has the highest validity of the Big Five
measurement devices.

What do the five traits mean? (*put up overhead)

Keep in mind that the traits fall on a continuum and this overhead shows characteristics
associated with each of the traits. Looking at these characteristics we can formulate
what each of the traits mean.

E Extraversion ƛ means a person is, talkative, social and assertive

A Agreeableness ƛ means a person is good natured, co-operative and trusting

C Conscientiousness ƛ means a person is responsible, orderly and dependable

N Neuroticism ƛ means a person is anxious, prone to depression and worries alot

O Openness ƛ means a person is imaginative, independent minded and has divergent

: -
implies an energetic approach to the social and material world and
includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality.

 contrasts a prosocial and communal orientation toward others with
antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and


 describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task
and goal-directed behaviour, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification,
following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tas ks.

Ö / contrasts emotional stability and even-temperedness with negative

emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and tense.

 (versus closed-mindedness) describes the breadth, depth,
originality, and complexity of an individualƞs mental and experiential life.

The Big Five are broad dimensions or categories in a hierarchical sense, such that they
encompass a lot without detail. Inevitably you lose information, and while the Big Five
factors provide useful personality descriptors they are somewhat less useful at
predicting specific berhaviours. So a researcher chooses a hierarchical level of analysis
suited to the research being conducted. Some researchers such as Norman, Goldberg
and Costa and McCrae, have developed middle level categories that provide more
description or are less abstract but I wonƞt go into that here.
What do the Big Five predict about our behaviour?

(Handbook of Personality Psychology by Hogan, Johnson, and Briggs, 1997)

First, having a trait means reacting consistently to the same situation overtime, for
example, being agreeable or cooperative means consistently going along with
reasonable requests, but does not mean always complying with othersƞ wishes.

Second, to respond consistently in the same situation people must have a capacity to
respond to situational cues, that is to have the trait to be responsive to situations. For
example, if someone purchases a house in the woods, they might want that hou se
because of its secluded location.

Third, behaving differently in a given situation does not mean there is inner
inconsistency. For example, someone who likes to attend parties might not often do so
because of a stronger desire to work.

Here are some examples of what the Big Five predict in regards to life outcomes and
behaviour. *While I am giving you these examples, notice how different combinations
of traits can lead to very different outcomes and behaviours, and think about why t his
might be the case. Also, think about whether you see any of these combinations in your
own personality.

Generally speaking, low agreeablesness and low conscientiousness can predict juvenile

Neuroticism and low conscientiousness can predict internalizing disorders (such as

mental disorders).

Conscientiousness and openness can predict school performance.

Conscientiousness is also a general predictor of job performance, while other Big Five
traits predict job performance in specific types of jobs. For instance extraversion
predicts success in sales and management positions.

High conscientiousness is related to better health and longevity, whereas low

agreeableness and high neuroticism seem to be health risk factors.

Extraversion is associated with leadership behaviour.

Agreeableness is associated with behaviours such as helping others and donating to


Neuroticism is related to vulnerability and depression.

Openness is related to behaviours associated with creative performance.

Overall, traits are relatively poor predictors of single behavioural acts, but are better
predictors of general trends of a personƞs behaviour. Looking at past behaviour of an
individual may be the best predictor of future behaviour.

How might these factors relate to motivation?

Letƞs look quickly at each trait. I will only present one end of the continuum, for
example extraversion as opposed to introversion. Since these traits are on a continuum
someone at the opposite extreme would show very different types of motivation tha n
those at the extreme I will be talking about.

Extraversion has an interpersonal component and is strongly related to positive affect

such as being enthusiastic, energetic, interested and friendly. Fremont and Means
(1970) found that extraverts show less anxiety over negative feedback. If yo u
remember I said earlier that extraversion is associated with leadership. So extraverts
are highly motivated to seek social situations and to be dominant in those situations.
Extraverts are motivated by change, variety in their lives, challenge, and are easily
bored. Extraverts have more recently been seen as adaptive, ambitious and

Agreeableness also has an interpersonal component. Agreeable individuals tend toward

conformity in groups, toward modesty, toward not being demanding, and toward being
sympathetic. These individuals might be motivated toward helping others and t oward
prosocial behaviour in general. There may be a link between the motivational processes
operating within individuals in regards to this trait, such that agreeable individuals strive
for intimacy and solidarity in groups they belong to, which provides emotional rewards.

Conscientiousness is related to such things as achievement, perseverance, organization

and responsibility. Conscientious individuals are motivated toward achievement through
social conformity. *Add my own experience - internally driven.

Neuroticism tends to be viewed negatively and is associated with negative affect, being
tense and nervous. Keep in mind that neuroticism is only one trait that an individual
has. A person could be neurotic and conscientious which may have negati ve health
effects but may motivate an individual toward success in school and work situations.

Openness is associated with tolerance of ambiguity (which means when something is

not clear), a capacity to absorb information, being very focused and the ability to be
aware of more feelings, thoughts and impulses simultaneously. The result is deeper
more intense experiences. Open individuals are motivated to seek out the unfamiliar
and to look for complexity.

The bottom line is that the Big Five are an integral part of the study of personality
psychology, and it is fascinating to learn about what makes people tick.


1. Pervin, L. & John, O. (Eds.) (1999). Handbook of personality: theory and

research. New York: Gilford.
2. Hogan, R., Johnson, J. & Briggs, S. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of personality
psychology. California: Academic Press.
3. Potkay, C. & Allen, B. (1986). Personality: theory, research, and applications.
California: Brooks/Cole.

  - /
)5 )

Related to adolescent friendships and personality development is an aspect of

personality known as self-concept. Some personality theorists and researchers contend
that the developing and changing view a person holds of herself is an important aspect
of individual differences and is often neglected under the temperament or trait
conceptions of personality. From this perspective, a person's self-concept (which
incorporates such features as the individual's history, sense of competency, and goals
for the future) is an important behavioral determinant that is more dynamic, malleable,
and encompassing than temperament or personality traits.

A critical component in the development of one's self-concept is referencing, including

temporal referencing, a self-comparison from an earlier time to a later time, and social
referencing, a comparison of one's self to others. Temporal and social referencing yield
the type of self-examination that serves to increase the stability of individual differences
through an individual making behavioral and/or environmental changes to maintain a
self-concept. The particular style of referencing most commonly adopted changes
across the lifespan. Temporal referencing is most common in childhood and in old age
when relatively rapid physical and cognitive changes are most apparent. Conversely,
social referencing is most common in adolescence and adulthood when individual
change is less appreciable.

Read more: Personality Development - Self-concept - Individual, Social, Referencing,

Friendships, Successful, and Children