Article

Personality Trait Structure as a Human Universal

Personality, Stress, and Coping Section, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
American Psychologist (Impact Factor: 6.87). 06/1997; 52(5):509-16. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.52.5.509
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patterns of covariation among personality traits in English-speaking populations can be summarized by the five-factor model (FFM). To assess the cross-cultural generalizability of the FFM, data from studies using 6 translations of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (P.T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) were compared with the American factor structure. German, Portuguese, Hebrew, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese samples (N = 7,134) showed similar structures after varimax rotation of 5 factors. When targeted rotations were used, the American factor structure was closely reproduced, even at the level of secondary loadings. Because the samples studied represented highly diverse cultures with languages from 5 distinct language families, these data strongly suggest that personality trait structure is universal.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Paul Costa, Sep 01, 2015
88 Followers
 · 
6,407 Views
 · 
13,121 Downloads
  • Source
    • "3. Personality traits and test validity The most commonly assessed personality attribute is that of the personality trait and while there are a variety of trait approaches, traits are generally seen as intra-individual 'temperament-like variables' (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1995; McCrae et al., 2000). The identification of traits has been guided by the lexical approach to personality (traceable to Galton, Thurstone, and Cattell, amongst others—Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Matthews et al., 2003), utilising trait-term adjectives in language , as well as factor-analytic studies, to develop hierarchical models that identify higher level broad factors from clusters of lower level traits and specific acts (Eysenck, 1991, 1997; Goldberg, 1990; Matthews et al., 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Traits are commonly considered latent variables that underlie differences in observable test performance—''a trait is not an observable attribute of an individual. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Personality assessment helps us to predict how people behave under various circumstances or how well a person might perform within certain roles. However, there are reasons to question the supposed ‘construct validity’ of tests designed to assess various personality attributes including dispositional traits. To demonstrate this, the paper first discusses a realist account of test validity where validity requires that both the attribute exist and that changes in the attribute are causally related to changes in test scores. The paper demonstrates that the validity for tests of dispositional traits is questionable given conceptual problems with traits existing as within-person attributes capable of causing changes in test scores. The widespread reliance on Likert-style response formats is then discussed in relation to the assumed quantitative structure of personality attributes. Based on a realist view of measurement, the uncritical adoption of a representational theory of measurement within personality research means that the validity of all personality tests claiming to ‘measure’ personality attributes is questionable. Suggestions for addressing test validity in personality assessment are then discussed in terms of paying greater critical attention to personality theory itself and adopting a realist theory of assessment and measurement.
    Personality and Individual Differences 10/2015; 84. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.039 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Several such methods are available. For example, congruence coefficients between sets of factor loadings obtained by explorative factor analysis (EFA) may indicate replicability over different samples (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997). However, as this method assesses similarity in factor loadings patterns, but is insensitive to the magnitude of the loadings (Barrett, 1986), it is of less interest here. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Procrastination has been defined in different ways. Two instruments—the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS) and the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS)—focus on a core problem in procrastination—the irrational delay of intended behavio. The present paper examined the psychometric properties of the Norwegian translations of these scales. In five samples with students as well as non-students (aggregated n = 1045), standard psychometric properties of the instruments were assessed and their factor structures were compared in replication analyses. In addition, correlations between the instruments as well as other instruments (i.e., the Susceptibility to Temptation Scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale) were examined to determine convergent and divergent validity. Overall, the results indicated that both IPS and PPS are suitable for use as measures of procrastination.
    Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 08/2015; DOI:10.1080/00313831.2015.1066439 · 0.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Trait theorists (e.g., Allport, 1937) view traits as habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion, which are relatively stable over time and influence behavior. On the basis of factor-analytic evidence, we know that particular clusters of behaviors reliably covary to form underlying traits (Cattell, 1965; Eysenck, 1970; McCrae & Costa, 1997). High levels of trait induction imply more accurate schemas of how behaviors actually cluster around traits. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dispositional reasoning is defined as general reasoning about traits, behaviors, and situations. Although earlier accuracy studies found that it predicted interview judgment accuracy, they did not distinguish between its underlying components (i.e., trait induction, trait extrapolation, and trait contextualization). This drawback has hampered insight into the nature of the dispositional reasoning construct. Therefore, we use a componential approach to test if dispositional reasoning adheres to classical criteria for an intelligence. Results from 146 managerial interviewers who observed videotaped interviewees showed that the dispositional reasoning components had positive manifold and predicted interview accuracy. Moreover, they demonstrated discriminant validity with personality and incremental validity over cognitive ability in predicting interview accuracy. Together, findings suggest that dispositional reasoning broadly adheres to the classical criteria for an intelligence.
    Human Performance 07/2015; 28(3):199-221. DOI:10.1080/08959285.2015.1021046 · 1.27 Impact Factor
Show more