Upload
jason-scott
View
240
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
LECTURE OUTLINE (cont) Cross-cultural Validity of the FFM –Age and gender differences across cultures –Convergent validity Cross-cultural comparisons Interpretations and implications
Citation preview
COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY
The Five Factor Model of Personality
LECTURE OUTLINE
• Personality theories• Background• Five Factor Model• Is the FFM universal?
– Etic research– Emic research
• Is the FFM sufficient?
LECTURE OUTLINE (cont)
• Cross-cultural Validity of the FFM– Age and gender differences across
cultures– Convergent validity
• Cross-cultural comparisons• Interpretations and implications
PERSONALITY THEORIES
• Broad and comprehensive theories of human behaviour
• Psychoanalytic, Behavioural, Cognitive, Humanistic, Trait theories
PERSONALITY…
Relatively stable psychological structures and processes that organize human experience and shape a person’s actions and reactions to the environment
Lazarus
PERSONALITY AND INDIGENOUS PSYCHOLOGY
• Systematic attempts to interpret ancient religious, philosophical writings and traditions
• Empirical research based on observations of distinct, indigenous traits or characteristics
PERSONALITY AND INDIGENOUS PSYCHOLOGY
THEORY-BASED
EMPIRICALLY BASED
RELIGION, FOLK PSYCHOLOGY
Yogic, Buddhist, Confucian philosophies
Research on the effects of meditation
EXPERT, SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY
Social orientation of Chinese
Face and favour, kiasu, bahala na
Background of Universals
• Trait theories• Comparative approaches and
taxonomies
FIVE-FACTOR MODEL (FFM)
The structure of personality:• Psycho-lexical approach• 4000 trait names in English• Reduced to five factors
- The Big Five amongst hierarchical models of personality (Cattell, 1996; Eysenck, 1991, 1992)- The cross-cultural generalizability of the Five-Factor Model (Costa & McRae, 1992, 1996)
NEUROTICISM
• Vs. adjustment• Inclination to construct, perceive and
feel reality as problematic, threatening, and difficult
EXTRAVERSION
• Vs. introversion• Quantity and intensity of social
relationships with the environment• Tendency to engage or seek contact
OPENNESS
• Active search for and love of new experiences
• Eagerness for novelty without anxiety
AGREEABLENESS
• Concerns nature of one’s relationships with others
• Interpersonal relationships from compassion to antagonism
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
• Persistency of behaviour and control of impulses
• Dynamic (e.g., anticipation, task orientation) and control (e.g., organization, perseverence) elements
NEO PI
• Neuroticism– Anxiety– Angry hostility – Depression– Self consciousness– Impulsiveness– Vulnerability
NEO PI
• Extraversion– Warmth– Gregariousness – Assertiveness– Activity– Excitement-seeking– Positive emotions
NEO PI
• Openness– Fantasy– Aesthetics– Feelings– Actions– Ideas– Values
NEO PI
• Agreeableness– Trust– Straightforwardness– Altruism– Compliance– Modesty– Tendermindedness
NEO PI
• Conscientiousness– Competence– Order– Dutifulness– Achievement striving– Self discipline– Deliberation
SAMPLE ITEMS
• I am not a worrier.• I like to have a lot of people around me.• I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.• I like to keep my belongings neat and clean.• I don’t like to waste my time on day-dreaming.
FACTOR STRUCTURE (Costa & McCrae,
1992): NEUROTICISM
N E O A C
Anxiety .83 -.12 -.02 -.05 -.08
Angry hostility .65 .12 -.03 -.38 -.12
Depression .75 -.24 -.03 -.02 -.27
Self-consciousness .64 -.31 -.11 -.04 -.13
Impulsiveness .56 .26 .12 -.17 -.38
Vulnerability .74 -.10 -.22 .10 -.34
FACTOR STRUCTURE: EXTRAVERSION
N E O A C
Warmth -.02 .66 .09 .49 .06
Gregariousness -.03 .67 -.12 .22 -.12
Assertiveness -.13 .66 .08 -.15 .20
Activity .04 .64 -.07 -.03 .41Excitement Seeking .03 .51 .19 -.28 -.12
Positive Emotions -.23 .60 .18 -.30 .03
FACTOR STRUCTURE: OPENNESS
N E O A C
Fantasy .13 .04 .55 -.15 -.31
Aesthetics .00 .11 .67 .27 -.05
Feelings .50 .23 .56 .06 .11
Actions -.21 .28 .29 -.09 -.28
Ideas -.15 -.10 .61 -.03 .32
Values -.17 .04 .43 .06 .03
FACTOR STRUCTURE: AGREEABLENESS
N E O A C
Trust -.23 .18 .02 .68 .12
Straightforwardness -.07 -.23 .03 .68 .13
Altruism -.10 .29 .18 .64 .29
Compliance -.09 -.17 -.06 .69 -.08
Modesty .29 -.46 -.14 .32 -.15
Tender-mindedness .27 .19 .15 .62 .02
FACTOR STRUCTURE: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
N E O A C
Competence -.39 .28 .16 -.14 .65Order -.07 .05 .00 .07 .73Dutifulness -.15 -.03 -.07 .28 .69Achievement-striving
-.03 .22 .07 .04 .78
Self-discipline -.30 .15 -.04 .14 .78Deliberation -.29 -.19 .05 .04 .69
COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE(Rolland, 2002)
SAMPLE N E O A CChinese .97 .93 .92 .94 .97Croatian .95 .80 .92 .86 .94Dutch .96 .98 .97 .98 .97Estonian .95 .90 .95 .92 .96French .89 .96 .97 .97 .97Hebrew .98 .92 .96 .94 .95Icelandic .93 .94 .95 .98 .96
COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE
SAMPLE N E O A C
Italian .92 .80 .94 .81 .98Korean .97 .94 .94 .95 .96Malay .94 .93 .83 .94 .97Norwegian .96 .93 .90 .96 .94Philippine .96 .86 .95 .89 .97Portuguese .98 .89 .89 .93 .96Russian .92 .93 .92 .96 .95Spanish .94 .90 .92 .86 .95
ETIC STUDIES
• The cross-cultural generalizability of Neuroticism, Openness and conscientiousness is evident
• Certain facets of Extraversion and Agreeableness seem to be more sensitive to cultural context
EMIC STUDIES
• In some psycho-lexical emic studies (e.g., Italy, Hungary) Openness cannot be extracted
• In some instances more than 5 factors emerge
Cross-cultural validity
• Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness is clearly established by emic and etic approaches
• Neuroticism and Openness seems to be more problematic using emic methods
AGE DIFFERENCES ON NEO-PI
• N,E,and O decline from adolescence to 30
• A and C increase from adolescence to 30
• Same trends apparent after 30 but at slower rate
CORRELATIONS WITH EPQ AND HOFSTEDE DIMENSIONS
EPQ N E O A C Neuroticism .63** -.47* .12 -.53* .16 Extraversion -.62** .19 .00 .34 .19 Psychoticism .36 -.64** .09 -.08 .26 Lie-Scale .20 -.40 -.23 -.07 .54* PD .28 -.58* -.40* .19 .52* UA .58* .03 .31 -.56* -.25 Individualism -.12 .64* .34* -.07 -.30 Masculinity .55* -.27 .37* -.32 .06
CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCESN E O A C
Indonesians 48.6 43.3 49.9 51.9 50.3PRC Chinese 53.1 44.5 48.3 47.8 50.3Canadians 50.5 51.7 51.6 51.9 49.2Indians (Telugu) 52.3 43.5 44.0 55.9 54.0Germans 52.8 47.3 56.7 49.1 46.7South Africans (bl) 49.1 41.4 47.7 50.4 47.9Czechs 54.2 47.4 52.3 50.7 47.5Turks 50.9 50.3 50.8 48.5 50.4Peruvians 50.8 45.5 50.0 48.6 49.0
QUESTION
• Costae and McCrae (1996):“Individual differences are ubiquitous, but it appears that the ways in which people differ are everywhere the same.” (p. 207)
• Is the comparative approach to personality a useful endeavour?