ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080402

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractIt is argued that the fifth factor of the Big Five Model of personality traits cannot yet claim universal status. In order to identify a fifth factor within the lexical approach it is necessary to make full use of the potentialities of the psycholexical principles. Several flaws in the lexical enterprise are discussed, both regarding the theoretical delineation of traits and the operational—dictionary‐related—identification of trait descriptors. Hitherto largely implicit definitions of traits should be made explicit, and agreement should be reached about the theoretical width of the trait domain. Also, in order to obtain cross‐culturally comparable results, the procedural steps in the lexical search for trait terms should follow an agreed‐upon standard. None of the nominated fifth factors, for instance, Culture, Intellect, or Openness to Experience, has both proceeded from the lexical method and received unquestionable cross‐cultural

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080403

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe fifth factor in lexical studies of trait adjectives is commonly interpreted as Intellect, whereas the corresponding factor derived from questionnaire studies is typically identified as Openness to Experience. Intellect as a construct is problematic because it erroneously suggests an equivalence of Factor V with intelligence, describes aspects of Factor III (Conscientiousness) as well as of Factor V, and fails to suggest the diverse psychological correlates that Factor V is known to have. By contrast, Openness to Experience is a broader construct that implies both receptivity to many varieties of experience and a fluid and permeable structure of consciousness. Data from analyses of adjectives, established personality questionnaires, and Hartmann's (1991) new Boundary Questionnaire support these interpretations. The construct of Openness can be transported across geographical and cultural boundaries to function as a universal dimension of personality structure.

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080404

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractIn a recent article, Saucier (1992) disputed McCrae's (1990) view that lexically defined Intellect differs in fundamental ways from questionnaire‐defined Openness to Experience, and that these differences are due to lexical underrepresentation of some openness facets. A re‐analysis of Saucier's (1992) lexical data and questionnaire ‘Factor V’ from three samples are presented, which calls into question Saucier's conclusion that the Openness‐against‐Intellect debate may be ‘much ado about nothing’. Two facets of incommensurability are identified between Intellect and Openness variants of Factor V: competency

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080405

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractAlthough Trapnell (1994) provides an interesting demonstration of the orthogonal relations between intuitively constructed English‐language adjective scales for competence and liberalism, the critique of an earlier article (Saucier, 1992) is marred by recurrent conceptual confusions between lexical and questionnaire factors, and by an overly narrow and misleading conception of the lexical Factor V. As one antidote to future confusions, I point toward an appropriately broad conceptual interpretation of the lexical Factor

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080406

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe quasi‐consensual ‘Big Five’ personality variables of the Five Factor Model (FFM) have typically been advanced and welcomed as dimensions that are purely orectic. By contrast, people's differences in general intelligence (g) are held to exist in some separate, noetic, cognitive ‘domain’. However, the exclusion of g from the realm of personality cannot be sustained either theoretically or empirically. The FFM's ‘fifth’ dimension (whether called Intellect (from lexical studies) or Openness (from questionnaire studies)) would be substantially correlated with g in the general population—across a normal population range of IQ and Mental Age. FFM fifth factors are thus loaded too highly by aesthetic, cultural, and theoretical interests, while qualities of tender‐mindedness, sympathy, and trust are displaced to load on the Agreeableness dimension. FFM Agreeableness thus becomes highly value‐loaded: it literally pits ‘love’, ‘empathy’, and ‘co‐operation’ against ‘aggression’, ‘autonomy’ and ‘competition’. No such simple contrast is viable. Social theorists as varied as Adam Smith, Freud, Adler, and Lorenz have all rejected the option. No fewer than six major, independent dimensions of personality require recognition. These ‘Comprehensive Six’ are (g), neuroticism/emotionality (n), energy/extraversion (e), conscientiousness/control (c), will/independence (w), and affection/pathemia (a). These are essentially the same as those recovered most often in the work of Cattell, so they furnish a six‐dimensional model (SDM) having a long track record of cross‐cultural validation. Several look interpretable in terms of basic Freudian concepts; and, in the terms of folk psychology, the SDM's ‘Comprehensive Six’ might be considered to reflect individual differences in the qualities of the mind (g), the heart (n), the soul

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080407

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe Abridged Big Five‐Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C) Model of Hofstee, De Raad and Goldberg (1992) represents trait terms as blends of factors. Analyses suggest that different scales for measuring Factor V (Mentality) may reflect blends of this factor with either Factor 111 (Constraint) or Factor I (Extraversion/Surgency). Measures saturated primarily by Factor V alone (V+V+ in the AB5C terms of Hofstee et al.) represent Creative Mentality. Measures that blend Factor V with the positive pole of Factor III represent Constrained Mentality (V+III+ ), with the negative pole, Unconstrained Mentality (V+III–). Measures that blend Factors V and I represent Surgent Mentality (V+I+). While all of these variants are perfectly valid forms of Factor V, Creative Mentality seems to be the central core of Factor V and is represented by the Openness to Ideas and Openness to Aesthetics Scales of Costa and McCrae (1992) and by the Generates Ideas and Culture Scales of Hogan and Hogan (19

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080408

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractIn a comment on the special issue of the European Journal of Personality on Factor V from the Five‐Factor Model, I argue that attempts to arrive at a definitive interpretation are premature in view of the limitations of the item pools that have been used, arbitrariness in choosing criteria for item selection, and limitations of sample sizes. At present, the best tentative interpretation of V is Creativity/Imagination. However, the relation of this concept to the domain of measured intelligence should be reconsidered. The joint study of temperament (Factors I and IV), character (II and HI), and intelligence factors should provide insight into the fascinating blends that arise between these dimensions. Such blends are captured by the Abridged Big‐Five Dimensional Circumplex approach to personality structure in a parsimonious man

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080409

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractDiscrepancies among different versions of Factor V may be largely explained by differences in the personality definitions and the variable selections used in various national trait taxonomies. Like any other social category the fifth factor has fuzzy boundaries and its meaning depends on the number and prototypicality of the exemplars included in the category. Resulting from taxonomies of traits (Norman, 1967; Goldberg, 1990) or dispositions (Ostendorf, 1990) the Five‐Factor Model is not intended to represent or capable of representing the structure of all individual differences (e.g. attitudes, physical characteristics). Clear Intellect and Imagination versions of Factor V have only resulted from taxonomies including abilities and talents in their trait definition. The meaning of at least three of the Big Five would probably change if values—which we view as action prescriptions or behavioural intentions—were regarded as dispositions. Intellect, Imagination, and Creativity are the most prototypical attributes belonging to the core of Factor V. Comparisons among the various personality definitions and the procedures currently used in trait taxonomic research are needed to examine their effects on the replicability and the meaning of Fac

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080410

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe controversy concerning the two dominant interpretations of Factor V reflects a confusion in the scientific literature between two different five‐factor models, each proposed for a different purpose. In the ‘Five‐Factor Model’ of genotypic personality dispositions, the fifth factor is interpreted as a broad dimension of Openness to Experience. On the other hand, in the ‘Big‐Five’ model of phenotypic personality‐trait descriptors, Factor V is best labeled as Intellect or Imagination, and Openness is viewed as a narrower and more specific attribute at a lower level in the hierarchy of lexicalized personality characteristics. As future investigators begin to differentiate more clearly between the two purposes of these models, their differential use of the two labels should serve to signal their sci

ISSN:0890-2070    

DOI:10.1002/per.2410080411

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY