Critique of the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Boyle, Gregory J.

doi:10.4135/9781849200462.n14

Cited by 62 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 128 publications

(139 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, there have been significant challenges to the FFM, including alternate systems (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2008;Block, 1995Block, , 2001Boyle, 2008;Cattell, 1995;Eysenck, 1991Eysenck, , 1992. As Piekkola (2011) pointed out: 'According to this approach there are five underlying structural factors common to all people and independent of cultural influences À an asocial, ahistorical, biologically based conception.…”

Section: Systematic Framework For Personality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…352À356). It would be expected that for both state and trait measures, dependability coefficients would be high (say 0.8 or 0.9), that longer-term stability coefficients would remain relatively high for trait measures (say 0.7 to 0.8), but would be considerably lower for state measures (say 0.3 or 0.4), if they are truly sensitive to situational variability (Boyle, , 2008. To take just one illustrative example, Borteyrou et al (2008), reported that for the French adaptation of Spielberger's STAXI-2, over a two-month testÀretest interval (N 5 139), stability coefficients were found to be .70 for the trait anger scale and .32 for the state anger scale, respectively.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Scales and Measures

Boyle¹,

Saklofske²,

Matthews³

2015

Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Systematic Framework For Personality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Scales and Measures

Boyle¹,

Saklofske²,

Matthews³

2015

Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most trait researchers see the FFM as at least a useful working approximation of psychometric structure, but whether the FFM is a precise and universal measurement model remains open to debate. The extent to which latent factor modeling identifies the FFM remains controversial (Boyle, ), and scales do not meet strict criteria for measurement invariance across cultures (Church, ; Fetvadjiev & Van de Vijver, ).…”

Section: Unresolved Issues In Personality Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive‐Adaptive Trait Theory: A Shift in Perspective on Personality

Matthews

2017

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional, biologically based trait theories have deservedly gained broad acceptance, but some long-standing core issues of personality research remain unresolved. Recent research questions whether (a) there can be a single universal structural model of personality superfactors, (b) current theory adequately specifies the processes that mediate behavioral and emotional expressions of traits, and (c) brain-based accounts of traits adequately explain their role in real-world functioning and adaptation. This article reviews the perspective on these issues provided by cognitive-adaptive trait theory. This theory rejects the view that personality dimensions directly reflect brain systems. Instead, traits correspond to variation in strategies for managing key adaptive challenges. Thus, each trait is expressed in environments that pose those challenges, and each trait corresponds to skills and self-knowledge that facilitate adaptation to those environments. The cognitive-adaptive theory affords novel perspectives on trait psychometrics, theoretical accounts of mediating processes, and real-world adaptation.

show abstract

“…It is also efficient as it provides a global description of personality with only five scores, which represent the five fundamental dimensions of personality [40]. On the other hand, the model has received not little criticism by personality psychologists [44,45,46] regarding the number of factors describing personality and the nature of the factors themselves. However, the model has gained a wide acceptance in literature, being today a default model of personality structure [47].…”

Section: Personality Models Metrics and Other Psychometric Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality, emotional intelligence and work preferences in software engineering: An empirical study

Kosti

Feldt

Angelis

2014

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: There is an increasing awareness among Software Engineering (SE) researchers and practitioners that more focus is needed on understanding the engineers developing software. Previous studies show significant associations between the personalities of software engineers and their work preferences.Objective: Various studies on personality in SE have found large, small or no effects and there is no consensus on the importance of psychometric measurements in SE. There is also a lack of studies employing other psychometric instruments or using larger datasets. We aim to evaluate our results in a larger sample, with software engineers in an earlier state of their career, using advanced statistics.Method: An operational replication study where extensive psychometric data from 279 master level students have been collected in a SE program at a Swedish University. Personality data based on the Five-Factor Model, Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire and Self-compassion have been collected. Statistical analysis investigated associations between psychometrics and work preferences and the results were compared to our previous findings from 47 SE professionals.Results: Analysis confirms existence of two main clusters of software engineers; one with more "intense" personalities than the other. This corroborates our earlier results on SE professionals. The student data also show similar associations between personalities and work preferences. However, for other associations there are differences due to the different population of subjects. We also found connections between the emotional intelligence and work preferences, while no associations were found for self-compassion. Conclusion:The associations can help managers to predict and adapt projects and tasks to available staff. The results also show that the Emotional Intelligence instrument can be predictive. The research methods and analytical tools we employ can detect subtle associations and reflect differences between different groups and populations and thus can be important tools for future research as well as industrial practice.

show abstract

Critique of the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Cited by 62 publications

References 128 publications

Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Scales and Measures

Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Scales and Measures

Cognitive‐Adaptive Trait Theory: A Shift in Perspective on Personality

Personality, emotional intelligence and work preferences in software engineering: An empirical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About