Does the Five Factor Model Provide a Solid Foundation for an Adequate Personality Psychology?

In this essay, first the Five Factor Model (FFM) will be described. Secondly, psychologists for and against the model will be looked at. Following this, the stability of traits will be looked at, both longitudinal and cross situational. Finally, the application of the model within and outside psychology will be evaluated to show support that the FFM provides a solid foundation for an adequate personality psychology.

“The Five Factor Model provides a compelling framework for building personality measures that seek to represent the domain of individual terms broadly and systematically” (Briggs, 1989 as cited in McAdams. DP, 1992, p. 332). The FFM consists of five factors (The ‘Big Five’). They are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. When measured individuals can range from extremes on each of these traits. The FFM suggests that these factors are both fixed and stable and make up our personality. The FFM was designed to establish the basic units of personality by having everyday people rate themselves or others using words sampled from the dictionary (John, Angleitner, and Ostendorf, 1988 as cited in Pervin. AL, Cervone, D, Oliver. PJ, 2004). Many studies like this have been conducted and after factor analysing the ratings the five factors mentioned above were consistently found. Psychologist Lewis R. Goldberg reviewed the model and came up with the theory that the five factors are terms that over a long period of time, the human race has collectively narrowed down and use universally to describe an individuals personality. It gives individuals a sense of control in that behaviour can be predicted (Pervin. AL, Cervone. D, Oliver. PJ, 2004). This theory gives the FFM a biological basis. There is a lot of support for the FFM and its solid foundation for an adequate personality psychology including consistency in results from different researchers using different methods, the stability of the five factors and its application both within and outside of psychology.

Two psychologists that support the validity of the FFM are Eysenck and Cattell. Eysenck’s PEN model includes only three factors (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) but with a similar hierarchal structure as the FFM. That is that individuals can rate from extremes on each factor. He used the statistical measurement of factor analysis that identifies patterns and correlations of words, once and then again resulting in what are known as the three superfactors. Eysenck also believed that the basic factors of personality have a biological basis. For example, one hypothesis was that introverts are characterised by higher levels of cortical arousal than extraverts (Eysenck, 1967 as cited in Eysenck. HJ, 1981). EEG measures by Savage (cited in Eysenck. HJ, 1981), which are a reliable and scientific method of research, confirmed this hypothesis. This supports psychologists Costa and McCrae’s Five Factor Theory that the five factors have dispositional tendencies and that every individual’s personality matures intrinsically around these five factors.

Psychologist Gordon Allport criticises factor analysis and in turn the FFM because it focuses on the population not the individual (Davey. G, 2004). “In psychology, we’re not trying to explain a species, but we’re trying to explain the uniqueness of a person” (Allport. G, 1922 as cited in Evans. IR, 1981, p. 25). He also argues that motives of an individual are an important part of personality alongside psychologist McClelland who also believed that things such as needs and beliefs are an important factor and do not fit into the FFM (McAdams. DP, 1992).

Raymond B. Cattell on ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Raymond B. Cattell on the other hand also believed that states and roles of the individual are important in determining personality. But like Eysenck he shows great support for the FFM and its foundation for an adequate personality psychology. His model consists of sixteen factors but also has a similar hierarchal structure as the FFM. Cattell used reliable scientific methodology including Multivariate methods. This type of methodology has high ecological validity and addresses total personality. Cattell also found that ratings from L Data (peers), Q data (self reports) and OT data (subject unaware of relationship between response and personality characteristic being measured) lead to the same factors as those found from multivariate research. Other evidence that supports the reliability of ratings is Costa and McCrae’s NEO-PI-R questionnaire where subjects rate themselves on a five point scale on how much they agree/disagree. This has been shown to be valid across both spouses and peers.

For the FFM to have a solid foundation for an adequate personality psychology factors must be stable otherwise it would not be a valid measurement of personality. There are two types of stability, longitudinal and cross situational. Even trait theorists do not believe that if we are an aggressive person we will behave aggressively in every situation. They argue that traits are stable across a range of situations (Pervin. AL, Cervone, D, Oliver. PJ, 2004). Longitudinal stability means that the measurement of each factor will be consistent across time. Evidence by Costa and McCrae found that if person X is more extraverted than person Y at 30 they will also be at 40 (McCrae and Costa, 1990, p.45 as cited in Pervin. AL, Cervone, D, Oliver. PJ, 2004). This was also confirmed by consistent results in ratings by spouses and peers. A study by Hartshorne and May: Mischel and Peake, 1983 (as cited in Pervin. AL, Cervone, D, Oliver. PJ, 2004) showed that students who showed up to lectures and took good notes at the beginning of the year also did at the end of the year, supporting the stability of traits over time. One reason why traits are stable is because as supported by Eysenck, Cattell, and McCrae and Costa, is that the basis of the five factors is biological. Biological structures remain stable therefore so do out traits.

Research on cross situational stability has also been looked at. The study mentioned above by Mischel and Peake did not show strong support for cross situational stability. Those students who did turn up to lectures and take good notes (conscientious) were not necessarily conscientious in other settings. But although there is little evidence to support the consistency of traits across situations it may be because what behaviour is observed appears different but in fact belong to the same trait. For example, someone may express two different behaviours in different situations but actually are both forms of conscientious behaviour.

Another way of evaluating the validity of the FFM is whether or not it has been applied effectively both within and outside of psychology. Research by Freidman et al, 1984: Powell and Thereon, 1988 (as cited in Smith. TW and Williams. PG, 1992) shows that Type A people (people that rate high on extraversion and low on agreeableness) are more likely to have coronary heart disease because of physical entities triggered by environmental challenges and demands. By modifying Type A behaviour can decrease the risk of coronary heart disease. The FFM has also been applied within clinical psychology. Extremes of factors such as neuroticism could potentially lead to mental illness such as depression. By being able to predict behaviours of individuals can lead to improving lifestyle. Many studies also report that high neuroticism leads to more physical illnesses. Once again this can be applied to helping an individual rating high on neuroticism to adapt their behaviour to benefit both their mental and physical health (Smith. TW and Williams. PG, 1992).

Some criticisms of the application of the FFM to health are that it is too broad. The strength of how well traits can predict behaviour is questioned. But a lot of research has been conducted into the application of the five factors to health and does have reasonably strong support for improvement in health research (Smith. TW and Williams. PG, 1992).

Outside of psychology, the FFM has been applied effectively to large businesses. Personality questionnaires are used to determine measurements of the five factors to find suitability of an applicant for a particular job. Torres and Partners is an international executive search and selection company who are one example of a business that use personality questionnaires. They use personality questionnaires not to look at ability but personality suitability (Torres HR Ltd, 2004).

In conclusion, this essay has covered three main points that supports the validity of the FFM. The first showed how different researchers using different methods came out with models, not entirely the same but all based around the five factors. Secondly, evidence of trait stability showed the FFM can be considered a reliable form of measurement of personality. The last topic that was covered was the application of the model both within and outside of psychology. There is strong support for its application in both mental and physical health improvement as well as its application to businesses in selecting employees. As well as the three topics covered in this essay other research such as cross cultural studies and studies into trait stability from childhood to adulthood also show consistent results to support the validity of the FFM.

There are limitations to the FFM theory. Bandura, 1999 (as cited in situations Pervin. AL, Cervone, D, Oliver. PJ, 2004) suggests the model is too simplistic. Also, there has not been much research conducted into the organisation of the traits, and whether or not it is important (McAdams. DP, 1992). One main limitation is that the theory and model are not idiographic. Personality psychology should study individuals and the FFM does not. But in response to this, most trait theorists like Eysenck and Cattell, “study populations of individuals and identify the most important individual differences in the population at large” (Pervin. AL, Cervone. D, Oliver. PJ, 2004, p 229).

Overall, this essay has shown strong evidence in the consistency of findings that suggest the Five Factor Model does have a solid foundation for an adequate personality psychology, responding to criticisms with valid arguments. Its application to psychology and outside of psychology is also a convincing argument for the support of the model.

Word Count: 1513

Bibliography

DAVEY. G. (2004). Complete Psychology. Dubai: Hodder-Stoughton

EVANS. R.I. (1981). Dialogue with Gordan Allport. New York: Praeger.

EYSENCK. H.J. (1981). A Model for Personality. New York: Springer-Verlag.

MCADAMS. D.P. (1992). The Five Factor Model in Personality: a Critical Appraisal: Journal of personality. USA: Duke University P.

PERVIN. A.L. & CERVONE. D. & OLIVER. P.J. (2004). Personality: Theory and Research. USA: Wiley.

SMITH. T. W. and WILLIAMS. P.G. (1992). Personality and Health: Advantages and Limitations of the Five Factor Model: Journal of Personality. USA: Duke University. P.

Torres HR Ltd. (2004) retrieved November 8, 2005 from http://www.torres.co.uk/index.asp

Ceri Thomas

26/04/2007