While there are many approaches to analyzing personality, the field of study continues to see growth as humans continue to be presented with new avenues that challenge and shape behavior and our understanding of personality. Some theories such as “The Big Five” is research driven (Friedman & Schustack, 2016); however, this author believes such research springs from foundational theories and any further research will draw on historically posited knowledge.
Friedman and Schustack (2016) explain that one of the approaches to analyzing personalities is a contemporary trait approach which requires an assumption that “an individual’s consistent reaction patterns can be predicted from knowing his or her core personality traits (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).” This approach to understanding and labeling a personality uses “basic and limited sets of adjectives or adjective dimensions to describe and scale individuals (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).” However, just looking at a dictionary one can find thousands of words expressive of character. As such, the most remarkable and controversial development in the approach to trait personality is the agreement on traits or dimension schemes, one scheme of five dimensions to engulph and explain personality.
In fact, this has been so widely accepted that leading matrimonial companies rely on such personality dimensions to initially assess their members before mating them. Subscribers to sites such as eHarmony might be familiar with the old “Book of You” they used to publish after a member completes an elaborate questionnaire that derives questions from the Big Five and the HEXACO assessments, although, eHarmony calls it the “Science of Love” (Beber, 2014).
The Big Five Traits
The “Big Five” personality traits are also sometimes referenced as the Five Factor Model (Block, 1995) and those compose of “Openness [to experiences], Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Extroversion (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).
1. Openness describes an individual’s ability to be open to life experiences, intellectual pursuits and cultural. People scoring high in this dimension are considered profound, complex and not shallow or plain (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).
2. Neuroticism describes an individual's emotional stability. People scoring high in this dimension are considered volatile, moody and tense. Low scoring people in this dimension are considered emotionally stable, calm and contended (Friedman & Schustack, 2016)
3. Conscientiousness describes an individual’s lack of impulsivity. People scoring high in this dimension are considered cautious, dependable, preserving and organized. Low scoring people are understood to be careless, disorderly, and undependable. Some researchers thought of this dimension as Will (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).
2. Neuroticism describes an individual's emotional stability. People scoring high in this dimension are considered volatile, moody and tense. Low scoring people in this dimension are considered emotionally stable, calm and contended (Friedman & Schustack, 2016)
3. Conscientiousness describes an individual’s lack of impulsivity. People scoring high in this dimension are considered cautious, dependable, preserving and organized. Low scoring people are understood to be careless, disorderly, and undependable. Some researchers thought of this dimension as Will (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).
4. Agreeableness describes how an individual is friendly, cooperative and trusting (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).
5. Extroversion describes surgency. People scoring high in this dimension are understood to be energetic, enthusiastic, dominant and talkative – the opposite of introverted people who are quiet, shy, retiring, and submissive.
The limitations of this approach
A harsh critique to this approach is that it is not a theory, rather a categorization structure that can identify traits but cannot help to identify the processes involved in the development of the traits, nor explicate the connection between the construct trait and behavior of the individual (Epstein, 1994). The Big Five does not operate as a theory but is simply research drive categories. Another limitation stems from bias on behalf of the raters seeing something not there, or conversely, not seeing something that is there (Friedman & Schustack, 2016). For example, confirmation bias theories and research would allow a person to identify themselves to every category if they feel it to favorably describe their character.
References
Beber, J. (2014, July 29). Why Your Personality Type Doesn’t Matter - eHarmony Advice. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from https://www.eharmony.com/blog/personality-type-doesnt-matter/
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological bulletin, 117(2), 187.
Epstein, S. (1994). Trait theory as personality theory: Can a part be as great as the whole?. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), 120-122.
Friedman, H. S. & Schustack, M. W. (2016). Personality: Classic theories and modern research (6th ed.). MA: Pearson
Comments
Post a Comment