Successful Explanations Start with Accurate Descriptions: Questionnaire Items as Personality Markers for More Accurate Predictions

Abstract

Personality-outcome associations, typically represented using the Big Five personality domains, are ubiquitous, but often weak and possibly driven by the constituents of these domains. We hypothesized that representing the associations using personality questionnaire items (as markers for personality nuances) could increase prediction strength. Using the National Child Development Study (N = 8719), we predicted 40 diverse outcomes from both the Big Five domains and their 50 items. Models were trained (using penalized regression) and applied for prediction in independent sample partitions (with 100 permutations). Item models tended to out-predict Big Five models (explaining on average 30% more variance), regardless of outcomes' independently rated breadth versus behavioural specificity. Moreover, the predictive power of Big Five domains per se was at least partly inflated by the unique variance of their constituent items, especially for generally more predictable outcomes. Removing the Big Five variance from items marginally reduced their predictive power. These findings are consistent with the possibility that the associations of personality with outcomes often pertain to (potentially large numbers of) specific behavioural, cognitive, affective, and motivational characteristics represented by single questionnaire items rather than to the broader (underlying) traits that these items are ostensibly indicators of. This may also have implications for personality-based interventions.

Bridging the gap: A network approach to Dark Triad, Mental Toughness, the Big Five, and perceived stress

“…Recent research has shown that connections at the level of broader constructs might mask more complex patterns of relationships at the level of specific items (e.g., Mõttus, ; Mõttus et al, ; Seeboth & Mõttus, ; see also Christensen, Cotter, & Silva, ). In our case, a trait‐level analysis does not allow excluding that the connection between narcissism and confidence could involve only a very specific subset of items, for instance due to specific aspects of narcissism (Ackerman et al, ).…”

“…However, it should be noted here that the present investigation has used the BFI (John & Srivastava, ) to assess B5. While the BFI is an established and valid measure of the B5 traits, it is also relatively limited in its specification of personality characteristics and it has not been designed to assess different facets of the B5 traits (Soto & John, ). Future studies may employ the revised version of the scale (BFI‐2; Soto & John, ) in an attempt to shed additional light into the role of the B5 in accounting for the connection between the DT and MT.…”

“…While the BFI is an established and valid measure of the B5 traits, it is also relatively limited in its specification of personality characteristics and it has not been designed to assess different facets of the B5 traits (Soto & John, ). Future studies may employ the revised version of the scale (BFI‐2; Soto & John, ) in an attempt to shed additional light into the role of the B5 in accounting for the connection between the DT and MT. Furthermore, although the B5 constitute a parsimonious model that includes several necessary components to the description of personality, they may not encompass some personality manifestations (Saucier & Srivastava, ), which constitute nonetheless important elements to fully describe personality structure and dynamics (e.g., Clough et al, ; Furnham et al, ).…”

Development is in the details: Age differences in the Big Five domains, facets, and nuances.

“…Even the very evidence for their existence is based on the "scraps" of the Big Five domain and facet measures -the leftover variance in individual items specifically designed not to measure nuances. Clearly, we will need an empirically based and comprehensive taxonomy of nuances and tools for measuring them if we are to tap into the currently almost hidden but vast personality variance, be it for predicting outcomes (Seeboth & Mõttus, 2018), studying personality development, or other purposes.…”

A Clinician’s Primer for Idiographic Research: Considerations and Recommendations

“…For example, researchers may use the item "How down are you feeling right now" to represent depressed mood. Although one-item-per construct is obviously easier on participants who are completing multiple surveys per day, there are multiple psychometric issues with using only one item to measure a construct and contrasting viewpoints regarding under what circumstances (if any) this makes sense (see, e.g., Fried & Cramer, 2017;Mõttus, 2016;Mõttus, Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, & McCrae, 2017;Seeboth & Mõttus, 2018). 3 Furthermore, there are almost no available directions on how to assess or improve psychometrics in EMA studies (cf.…”