Personality

c

  
 is defined as the totality of character attributes and behavioral traits of a person.
 
  is a methodology for categorizing the character and behavior of a person.  
    Personality concerns the most important, most noticeable parts of an individual's psychological life. Personality concerns whether a person is happy or sad, energetic or apathetic, smart or dull. Over the years, many different definitions have been proposed for personality. Most of the definitions refer to a mental system -- a collection of psychological parts including motives, emotions, and thoughts. The definitions vary a bit as to what those parts might be, but they come down to the idea that personality involves a pattern or global operation of mental systems. Here are some definitions: "Personality is the entire mental organization of a human being at any stage of his development. It embraces every phase of human character: intellect, temperament, skill, morality, and every attitude that has beeen built up in the course of one's life." (Warren & Carmichael, 1930, p. 333) (In an acknowledged overstatement...) "Personality is the essence of a human being." (Hall & Lindzey, 1957, p. 9, characterizing statements by Gordon Allport) "An individual's pattern of psychological processes arising from motives, feelings, thoughts, and other major areas of psychological function. Personality is expressed through its influences on the body, in conscious mental life, and through the individual's social behavior." (Mayer, 2005)   Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957). Theories of personality. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Mayer, J. D. (2005). A classification of DSM-IV-TR mental disorders according to their relation to the personality system. In J. C. Thomas & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology (CHOPP) Vol. 1: Personality and everyday functioning. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Warren, H. C., & Carmichael, L., Elements of human psychology (Rev. Ed.; Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1930), p. 333/Cited in Allport, Pattern & growth in personality (1937/1961, p.36).

personality - 7 dictionary results MBTI 
 Test Pick the Right Test for You & Take It. Rated A+ By the BBB. Visit Now! www.DiscoverYourPersonality.com Horoscope for all 2011 Claim your Free Reading from this accurate & talented Astrologer now AboutAstro.com/horoscope Polycythemia Vera Patient support group information Funding polycythemia vera research Sponsored Results www.mpdfoundation.org  
  o o [pur-suh-
-i-tee]

Show IPA

  
-ties.  the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others:He has a pleasing personality .  a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities: He isa curious personality.  Psychology .
 the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, andsocial characteristics of an individu al. 

the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of theindividual. â the quality of being a person; existence as a selfconscioushuman being; personal identity. ! the essential character of a person. " something apprehended as reflective of or analogous to adistinctive human personality, as the atmosphere of a placeor thing: This house has a warm personality. # a famous, notable, or prominent person; celebrity. $ application or reference to a particular person or particularpersons, often in disparagem ent or hostility. % a disparaging or offensive statement referring to a particularperson: The political debat e deteriorated into personalities. Use 
 in a Sentence See images of 
 &' ( 1350ƛ1400; ME personalite (< MF) < LL persl„
 . Seepero„a
, -y

š

 1. See character. Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. Cite This Source | Link To 



Melt Flow Testing Equipment for measuring the melt flow of plastic resins www.TiniusOlsen.com Publish Your Manuscripts World Journal of Psychology Call for Manuscripts in Psychology Sponsored Results www.sciedu.ca/wjp World English Dictionary 
  (öp$ös;önæliti)

Ɯ  , p
) 1 p
te um tta
f a

te beaviura
and menta
arateriti b mean f w . i an individua
i regnized abeing unique 2 te ditintive arater f a pern tat make im ia

attrative: a a
eman nee . d a
t f perna
it 3 a we

-knwn pern in a ertain fie
d, u a  rt rentertainment . 4 a remarkab
e ern: te 
d fe

w i a rea
erna
it . 5 te qua
it f being a unique ern . 6 te ditintive atm ere f a
ae r ituatin . 7 ( ften
ura
) a erna
remark .

C

in Eng
i Ditinar - Cm
ete & Unabridged 10t Editin 2009 © Wi

iam C

in Sn & C. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © Har erC

in Pub
ier 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Cite Ti Sure

Word Origin & History 
  late 14c., "quality or fact of being a person," from M.L.personalitatem (nom. personalit as ), from L. personalis (seepersonal). Sense of "a distinctive character" is first recorde d 1795,from Fr. personnalité. "Personality is the supreme realization of the innateidiosyncrasy of a living being. It is a n act of courage flung inthe face of life, the absolute affirmation of all that constitutesth e individual, the most successful adaptation to the universalconditions of existence, cou pled with the greatest possiblefreedom of self-determination." [C.G. Jung, 1875-1961] Meaning "person whose character stands out from that of others" isfrom 1889. Personal ity cult is attested from 1956. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper Cite This Source

Medical Dictionary

 
    Pronunciation: /öp;rs- ; n-öal-;t-ē, öp;r-ösnal-/ Function: n l ) ; ( the complex of characteristics that distinguishes anindividual especially in rela tionships with others 
( the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotionaltendencies ( the organization of the individual's distinguishing charactertraits, attitudes, or habits Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Cite This Source 
  per·son·al·i·ty (pûr's ;-nāl'ĭ-tē) n. 1. The quality or condition of being a person. 2. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character orbehavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. 3. The pattern of collective character, behavioral,temperamental, emotional, and men tal traits of a person.

4. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those personalcharacteristics that make one socially appealing. The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton M ifflinCompany. Cite This Source Legal Dictionary Main Entry:  
  Function: noun Inflected Form: lural ) ( the quality, state, or fact of being a erson ersonality> ( the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotionalcharacteristics ersonality disorder> Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Cite This Source Cultural Dictionary 
    The ttern of feelings, thoughts, nd ctivities th t distinguishesone erson from not her. The Americ n Herit ge® New Diction ry of Cultur l Liter cy, Third Edition Co yright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Com ny. Published by Houghton Mifflin Com ny. All rights reserved. Cite This Source F mous Quot tions 
 "When science, rt, liter ture, nd hiloso hy re sim l..." "Person lity is the su reme re liz tion of the inn te id..." "So little re the Homeric heroes resented s develo in..." "To insist on urity is to b tize instinct, to hum nize..." "There is very im ort nt nd fund ment l rel tion betw..." More Quotes

p
  *( „ e„ „
„„ „  „
e eP e b Se  „e w   ee 
 „ Te

 Ree e„e

MBT p
Te P e R Te  Y
& T e . R e A+ B e BBB. V N .De 
e „
. H  e 

2011 C
 
„ ee Re „   


e & 
e„e A 
e „ Ab
 ./  e 
e Ve

 e„ 
   
„  „ „
„„ 
e e ee  S „ e Re

 . 
„ „. 

6 e „
 „   „  W e , e  ee e„
 e

Te "p
+  , e 
e b e 16„ Q
e„„  e, e e 

  e
-e e b 
 R „ C e

. Be
   b
e 

„„  e
. R „ C e

' 16 e „
 „  

   , 

p 
 +  

 e „
,  „, 
, ee e, e e,  
,


W  ()

     

W , 
„, e„e  e , „
, e -„,

(S )

p rp ng, lkes peple (e )

Cnree nkng, lwer gener l en l  p , less nellgen, un ble   ndle bsr  prbles ( wer Sl s Men l C p )

Re snng (B)

bsr -nkng, re nellgen, brg, ger gener l en l  p ,  s le rner (Hger Sl s Men l C p )

Re ve en ll,  nge ble,

eed b eelngs, en ll less s ble, e sl upse ( wer Eg Sreng)

En l S bl (C)

En ll s ble, d pve,  ure,  es re l  ll (Hger Eg Sreng)

Deeren l, per ve, vds nl, subssve, uble, beden, e sl led, dle,

d ng (Subssveness)

Dn ne (E)

, resr ned, pruden,  urn, nrspeve, slen (Desurgen)

velness (F)

Dn n, reul, sserve,

ggressve, peve, subbrn, bss (Dn ne)

vel, n ed, spn neus, enus s,  pp g luk, eerul, expressve, pulsve (Surgen)

Expeden, nnnrng, dsreg rds rules, sel ndulgen ( w Super Eg Sreng)

Rule-nsus, duul, Rulensenus, nrng, Cnsusness r ls, s d, rule bund (Hg (G) Super Eg Sreng)

S, re -sensve, d, es n, nd ed (Tre )

S l Bldness S ll bld, venurese, k (H) sknned, unnbed ( r )

Ul r n, bjeve, unsenen l, ug nded, sel-

Sensv

Sensve, ese, senen l, ender nded, nuve, rened

reliant, no-nonsense, rough (Harria)

Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, unconditional, easy (laxia)

Grounded, practical, prosaic, solution oriented, steady, conventional (raxernia)

Forthright, genuine, artless, open, guileless, naive, unpretentious, involved (rtlessness)

(I)

Vigilance (L)

(resia)

Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical, distrustful, oppositional (rotension)

bstract, iaginative, absent bstractedness inded, ipractical, absorbed in (M) ideas (utia)

rivateness (N)

rivate, discreet, nondisclosing, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute, diploatic (Shrewdness)

Self-ssured, unworried, coplacent, secure, free of guilt, confident, self satisfied (Untroubled)

pprehensive, self doubting, pprehension worried, guilt prone, insecure, (O) worrying, self blaing (Guilt roneness)

Traditional, attached to failiar, conservative, respecting traditional ideas (Conservatis)

Openness to Change (Q1)

Open to change, experiental, liberal, analytical, critical, free thinking, flexibility (Radicalis)

Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner and follower dependent (Group dherence)

Self-Reliance (Q2)

Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, self sufficient (SelfSufficiency)

Tolerates disorder, unexacting, flexible, undisciplined, lax, selfconflict, ipulsive, careless of social rules, uncontrolled (Low

erfectionistic, organized, erfectionis copulsive, self-disciplined, (Q3) socially precise, exacting will power, control, self-sentiental

(H Se
„e  „ 
)

„e „)

Re
xed,
d,  „qu
,  d, e„, m sed
w d ve ( w E  Te„s„)

Te„s„ (Q4)

Te„se,  e„e y, m e„, d ve„,  us ed, ve w u, me d ve„. (H E  Te„s„)

P m y F  s „d Des   s „  e

's 16 Pe s„
y F  Mde
(Ad ed F m „„ & Reke, 1994).  e

ee ed  ese 16   s s m y   s, s  sed  e s

ed "B Fve"   s w e „sde ed 
b
  s.A

 e m y   s  e
e w 
b
  s „d u
d e e e be „sde ed sub  s w„ em. Ree e„es f

Cattell, R. B. (1946). Te e  t„ a„ ea
ee„t  e „alt. New Y k: Ha 
t, B ae, & W l.

f

Cattell, R. B. (1957). e „alt a„ tat„ t
t
e a„ ea
ee„t. New Y k: W l Bk.

f

Conn, S.R., & Rieke, M.L. (1994a). Te 16„ „i Eiion enia
an
a
. Capaign, IL: Insi
e or ersona
iy an Abi
iy Tesing, In.

f

Russell, M.T., & Karol, D. (2002). 16„ „ Eo„ a„sraorƞs a„ual

f

Big Five personality traits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia f In contemporary psychology, the ï  +-ï
  (or +-+
  . ; ++.) of personality are five broad domains or dimensions of personality which are used to describe human personality. f The Big five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism(OCEAN, or CANOE if rearranged). The neuroticism factor is sometimes referred to as "emotional stability". Some disagreement remains about how to interpret the openness factor, which is sometimes called "intellect". Each factor consists of a cluster of more specific traits that correlate together. f

For example, extraversion includes such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity and positive emotions.[1] f The Five Factor Model is a purely descriptive model of personality, but psychologists have developed a number of theories to account for the Big Five. Overview The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows: f



 ƛ (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience.

f

þ     ƛ (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim forachievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.

f

: 
- ƛ (outgoing/energetic vs. shy/reserved). Energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others.

f

 
  ƛ (friendly/compassionate vs. cold/unkind). A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspiciousand antagonistic towards others.

f

Ö / ƛ (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger,anxiety, depression, or vulnerability.

The Big Five model is a comprehensive, empirical, data-driven research finding. Identifying the traits and structure of human personality has been one of the most fundamental goals in all of psychology. The five broad factors were discovered and defined by several independent sets of researchers (Digman, 1990).[2] These researchers began by studying known personality traits and then factor-analyzing hundreds of measures of these traits (in self-report and questionnaire data, peer ratings, and objective measures from experimental settings) in order to find the underlying factors of personality. The initial model was advanced by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Cristal in 1961,[3] but failed to reach an academic audience until the 1980s. In 1990, J.M. Digman advanced his five factor model of personality, which Goldberg extended to the highest level of organization (Goldberg, 1993).[4] These five over-arching domains have been found to contain and subsume most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the basic structure behind all personality traits. These five factors provide a rich conceptual

framework for integrating all the research findings and theory in personality psychology. The Big Five traits are also referred to as the ï+-+
 . ï or FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992),[5] and as the Global Factors of personality (Russell & Karol, 1994).[6] At least four sets of researchers have worked independently for decades on this problem and have identified generally the same Big Five factors: Tupes & Cristal were first, followed by Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute,[7][8][9][10][11] Cattell at the University of Illinois,[12][13][14][15] and Costa and McCrae at the National Institutes of Health.[16][17][18][19] These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, and thus each set of five factors has somewhat different names and definitions. However, all have been found to be highly inter-correlated and factoranalytically aligned.[20][21][22][23][24] Because the Big Five traits are broad and comprehensive, they are not nearly as powerful in predicting and explaining actual behavior as are the more numerous lowerlevel traits. Many studies have confirmed that in predicting actual behavior the more numerous facet or primary level traits are far more effective (e.g. Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988;[25] Paunonon & Ashton, 2001[26]) When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousnessrating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet. Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures but have no great interest in art or poetry. The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are selfdescriptive sentences[27] or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single adjectives.[28] Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item balanced International English Big-Five Mini-Markers[29] or a very brief (10 item) measure of the Big Five domains.[30]

[edit]

    M i„ ti
e: O e„„e t ex e ie„e 

 i ge„e
ei ti„ f t, emti„, dve„tu e, u„uu
ide , im gi„ ti„, u iity, „d v iety f ex e ie„e. The t it diti„guihe im gi„ tive e
e f m dw„-t-e th, „ve„ti„
e
e. Pe
e wh e  e„ t ex e ie„e

e i„te

etu

y u iu, ei tive f t, „d e„itive t be uty. They te„d t be, m ed t 
ed e
e, m e  e tive „d m e w e f thei fee
i„g. They e m e
ike
y t h
d u„„ve„ti„
be
ief. Pe
e with
w  e „  e„„e te„d t h ve m e „ve„ti„
, t diti„
i„te et. They efe the
i„, t ightf w d, „d bviu ve the m
ex,

mbiguu, „d ubt
e. They m y eg d the t „d ie„e with u ii„  eve„ view thee e„de v   u„i„te eti„g. [edit]  

 f

I have a rich vocabulary.

f

I have a vivid imagination.

f

I have excellent ideas.

f

I spend time reflecting on things.

f

I use difficult words.

f

I am not interested in abstractions. (reersed)

f

I do not have a good imagination. ( eve ed)

I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (reversed)[31] [edit]þ    

f

r „ 
e: „e„
„e þ      e„de„y  hw e
f-dp
„e,  d
f


y, „d m f

heveme„. The   hw p efe e„e f p
„„ed he h „ p„ „e
 beh v . I „f

e„e he w y „ whh we „ 
, eg

e, „d d e 
mp

e. „e„
„e „

de he f  k„w„  Need f Aheveme„ (NAh). [ed      f

I am always prepared.

f

I am exacting in my work.

f

I follow a schedule.

f

I like order.

f

I pay attention to details.

f

I leave my belongings around. (reversed)

f

I make a mess of things. ( ee se)

f

I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reerse)

I shirk my duties. (reersed)[31] [edit]: 
- 

f

r i„ rti
e: Extr ersi„ „d i„trersi„ : 
- is h r terized by psitie emti„s, surge„y, „d the te„de„y t seek ut stimu
ti„ „d the mp „y f thers. The tr it is m rked by pr„u„ed e„g geme„t with the exter„
wr
d. Extr erts e„jy bei„g with pep
e, „d re fte„ pereied s fu

f e„ergy. They te„d t be e„thusi sti, ti„-rie„ted i„diidu
s wh re
ike
y t s y "Yes!" r "Let's g!" t pprtu„ities fr exiteme„t. I„ grups they
ike t t
k, ssert themse
es, „d dr w tte„ti„ t themse
es. I„trerts
k the si
exuber „e „d tiity
ee
s f extr erts. They te„d t seem quiet,
w-key, de
iber te, „d
ess i„
ed i„ the si
wr
d. Their
k f si
i„
eme„t shu
d „t be i„terpreted s shy„ess r depressi„. I„trerts simp
y „eed
ess stimu
ti„ th „ extr erts „d mre time
„e. They m y be ery tie

„d e„ergeti, simp
y „t si

y. [edit]
 
-  f

I am the life of the party.

f

I don't mind being the center of attention.

f

I feel comfortable around people.

f

I start conversations.

f

I talk to a lot of different people at parties.

f

I am quiet around strangers. (reersed)

f

I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reersed)

f

I don't talk a lot. ( ee ed)

I have little to say. ( eve se)[31] [eit] 
 

f

rai„ a tile:  eeable„ess  
  is a te„e„y to be ompassio„ate a„ oope ative athe tha„ suspiious a„ a„tao„isti towa s othe s. The t ait eflets i„iviual iffe e„es i„ e„e al o„e „ fo soial ha mo„y.  eeable i„iviuals value etti„ alo„ with

others. They are generally considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy. Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with othersƞ well-being, and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about othersƞ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. [edit '    f

I am interested in people.

f

I feel others' feelings.

f

I have a soft heart.

f

I make people feel at ease.

f

I sympathize with othersƞ feelings.

f

I take time out for others.

f

I am not interested in other peopleƞs problems. (reersed)

f

I am not really interested in others. (reersed)

f

I feel little concern for others. (reerse)

f

I insult people. ( ee se)[31]

I like being isolated. ( ee sed) [edit]Ö / rain a tile: Ne
otiis f

Ö / is the tendeny to expe iene negatie eotions, s
h as ange , anxiety, o dep ession. It is soeties alled eotional instability. Those who so e high in ne
otiis a e eotionally eatie and 
lne able to st ess. They a e o e likely to inte p et o dina y sit
ations as th eatening, and ino f
st ations as hopelessly diffi
lt. Thei negatie eotional eations tend to pe sist fo
n
s
ally long pe iods of tie, whih eans they a e often in a bad ood. These p obles in eotional eg
lation an diinish the ability of a pe son so ing high on ne
otiis to think lea ly, ake deisions, and ope effetiely with st ess. At the othe end of the sale, indiid
als who so e low in ne
otiis a e less easily
pset and a e less eotionally eatie. They tend to be al, eotionally stable, and f ee f o pe sistent negatie feelings. F eedo f o negatie feelings does not ean that low so e s expe iene a lot of positie feelings.

†e      f

I am easily disturbed.

f

I change my mood a lot.

f

I get irritated easily.

f

I get stressed out easily.

f

I get upset easily.

f

I have frequent mood swings.

f

I often feel blue.

f

I worry about things.

f

I am relaxed most of the time. (reersed)

I seldom feel blue. ( ee sed)[31] [edit]Histo y

f

[edit]:
 

  Sir Francis Galton was the first scientist to recognize what is now known as the Lexical Hypothesis. This is the idea that the most salient and socially relevant personality differences in peopleƞs lives will eventually become encoded into language. The hypothesis further suggests that by sampling language, it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits. In 1936, Gordon Allport and H. S. Odbert put this hypothesis into practice.[32] They worked through two of the most comprehensivedictionaries of the English language available at the time and extracted 17,953 personality-describing words. They then reduced this gigantic list to 4,504 adjectives which they believed were descriptive of observable and relatively permanent traits. Raymond Cattell obtained the Allport-Odbert list in the 1940s, added terms obtained from psychological research, and then eliminated synonyms to reduce the total to 171.[12] He then asked subjects to rate people whom they knew by the adjectives on the list and analyzed their ratings. Cattell identified 35 major clusters of personality traits which he referred to as the "personality sphere." He and his associates then constructed personality tests for these traits. The data they obtained from these tests were analyzed with the emerging technology of computers combined with the statistical method of factor analysis. This resulted in sixteen major personality factors, which led to the development of the 16PF Personality Questionnaire.

In 1961, two Air Force researchers, Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal, analyzed personality data from eight large samples. Using Cattell's trait measures, they found five recurring factors, which they named "Surgency", "Agreeableness", "Dependability", "Emotional Stability", and "Culture".[33] This work was replicated by Warren Norman, who also found that five major factors were sufficient to account for a large set of personality data. Norman named these factors Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Culture.[34] Raymond Cattell viewed these developments as an attack on his 16PF model and never agreed with the growing Five Factor consensus. He refers to "...the five factor heresy" which he considers "...is partly directed against the 16PF test". Responding to Goldberg's article in the American Psychologist, 'The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits', Cattell stated, "No experienced factorist could agree with Dr Goldberg's enthusiasm for the five factor personality theory". This determined rejection of the FFM challenge to his 16 factor model is presented in an article published towards the end of his life and entitled 'The fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere', Cattell, R. B. (1995), The Psychologist, The British Psychological Society, May Issue pp 207ƛ208. [edit]
 
  For the next two decades, the changing zeitgeist made publication of personality research difficult. In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walter Mischel asserted that personality tests could not predict behavior with a correlation of more than 0.3. Social psychologists like Mischel argued that attitudes and behavior were not stable, but varied with the situation. Predicting behavior by personality tests was considered to be impossible. Emerging methodologies challenged this point of view during the 1980s. Instead of trying to predict single instances of behavior, which was unreliable, researchers found that they could predict patterns of behavior by aggregating large numbers of observations. As a result correlations between personality and behavior increased substantially, and it was clear that Ơpersonalityơ did in fact exist. Personality and social psychologists now generally agree that both personal and situational variables are needed to account for human behavior. Trait theories became justified, and there was a resurgence of interest in this area. By 1980, the pioneering research by Tupes, Christal, and Norman had been largely forgotten by psychologists. Lewis Goldberg started his own lexical project, independently found the five factors once again, and gradually brought them back to

the attention of psychologists.[35] He later coined the term "Big Five" as a label for the factors. [edit]
     +- In a 1981 symposium in Honolulu, four prominent researchers, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available personality tests of the day. They concluded that the tests which held the most promise measured a subset of five common factors, just as Norman had discovered in 1963. This event was followed by widespread acceptance of the five factor model among personality researchers during the 1980s. In 1984 Peter Saville and his team included the five-factor ƠPentagonơ model with the original OPQ. Pentagon was closely followed by the NEO five-factor personality inventory, published by Costa and McCrae in 1985. One of the most significant advances of the five-factor model was the establishment of a common taxonomy that demonstrates order in a previously scattered and disorganized field. What separates the five-factor model of personality from all others is that it is not based on the theory of any one particular psychologist, but rather on language. A number of meta-analyses have confirmed the predictive value of the Big Five across a wide range of behaviors. Saulsman and Page examined the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and each of the 10 personality disorder categories in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Across 15 independent samples, the researchers found that each disorder displayed a unique and predictable five-factor profile. The most prominent and consistent personality predictors underlying the disorders were positive associations with Neuroticism and negative associations with Agreeableness.[36] In the area of job performance, Barrick and Mount reviewed 117 studies utilizing 162 samples with 23,994 participants. They found that conscientiousness showed consistent relations with all performance criteria for all occupational groups. Extraversion was a valid predictor for occupations involving social interaction (e.g. management and sales). Furthermore, extraversion and openness to experience were valid predictors of training proficiency criteria.[37][38] [edit]Selected scientific findings Ever since the 1990s when the consensus of psychologists gradually came to support the Big Five, there has been a growing body of research surrounding these personality

traits (see for instance, Robert Hogan's edited book "Handbook of Personality Psychology" (Academic Press, 1997). [edit]
  This section /
0
 /c1
20
  

 Pleaseimprove this section if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (June 2010) All five factors show an influence from both heredity and environment. Studies of twins suggest that these effects contribute in roughly equal proportion.[39] Of four recent twin studies, the mean estimated broad heritabilities on self-report measures for the Big Five traits were as follows:[40] Openness: 57% Conscientiousness: 49% Extraversion: 54% Agreeableness: 42% Neuroticism: 48% [edit]- /  Many studies of longitudinal data, which correlate people's test scores over time, and cross-sectional data, which compare personality levels across different age groups, show a high degree of stability in personality traits during adulthood.[41] More recent research and meta-analyses of previous studies, however, indicate that change occurs in all five traits at various points in the lifespan. The new research shows evidence for a maturation effect. On average, levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness typically increase with time, whereas Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness tend to decrease.[42] In addition to these group effects, there are individual differences: different people demonstrate unique patterns of change at all stages of life.[43] [edit]3   Cross-cultural research from 26 nations (N = 23,031 subjects) and again in 55 nations (N = 17,637 subjects) has shown a universal pattern of sex differences on responses to the Big Five

Inventory. Women consistently report higher Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and men often report higher Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities that are equal to those of men; both men and women tend to grow more extraverted and conscientious and less neurotic and agreeable as cultures grow more prosperous and egalitarian, but the effect is stronger for men.[44][45] [edit]    The suggestion has often been made that individuals differ by the order of their births. Frank J. Sulloway argues that birth order is correlated with personality traits. He claims that firstborns are more conscientious, more socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to laterborns. However, Sullowayƞs case has been called into question. One criticism is that his data confounds family size with birth order. Subsequent analyses have shown that birth order effects are only found in studies where the subjectsƞ personality traits are rated by family members (such as siblings or parents) or by acquaintances familiar with the subjectsƞ birth order. Large scale studies using random samples and self-report personality tests like the NEO PI-R have found no significant effect of birth order on personality.[46][47] [edit]þ )

  The Big Five have been replicated in a variety of different languages and cultures, such as German[48] and Chinese.[49] Thompson has demonstrated the Big Five structure across several cultures using an international English language scale.[29] Recent work has found relationships between Geert Hofstedeƞs cultural factors, Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance, with the average Big Five scores in a country.[50] For instance, the degree to which a country values

individualism correlates with its average Extraversion, while people living in cultures which are accepting of large inequalities in their power structures tend to score somewhat higher on Conscientiousness. The reasons for these differences are as yet unknown; this is an active area of research. Additionally, there has been an introduction of a correlation between leadership and Taoist (or Daoist) Big Five and Waterlike (W-L) Leadership/Personality as discussed by the Chinese psychologist Yueh-Ting Lee. [edit]Ö ) /
 The big five personality factors have been assessed in some nonhuman species. In one series of studies, human ratings ofchimpanzees using the Chimpanzee Personality Questionnaire (CPQ) revealed factors of extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness ƛ as well as an additional factor of dominance ƛ across hundreds of chimpanzees in zoological parks, a large naturalistic sanctuary and a research laboratory. Neuroticism and Openness factors were found in an original zoo sample, but did not replicate in a new zoo sample or to other settings (perhaps reflecting the design of the CPQ).[51] [edit]Criticisms Much research has been conducted on the Big Five. This has resulted in both criticism[52] and support[53] for the model. Critics argue that there are limitations to the scope of Big Five as an explanatory or predictive theory. It is argued that the Big Five does not explain all of human personality. The methodology used to identify the dimensional structure of personality traits, factor analysis, is often challenged for not having a universallyrecognized basis for choosing among solutions with different numbers of factors. Another frequent criticism is that the Big Five is not theory-driven. It is merely a data-driven investigation of certain descriptors that tend to cluster together under factor analysis.

[edit],/  One common criticism is that the Big Five does not explain all of human personality. Some psychologists have dissented from the model precisely because they feel it neglects other domains of personality, such as Religiosity, Manipulativeness/Machiavellianism,Honesty, SelfAwareness, Thriftiness, Conservativeness, Critical Judgement, Masculinity/Femininity, Snobbishness, Sense of humour,Identity, Self-concept, and Motivation. Correlations have been found between some of these variables and the Big Five, such as the inverse relationship between political conservatism and Openness;[54] although variation in these traits is not well explained by the Five Factors themselves. McAdams has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger," because they refer to traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five.[55] In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Negative correlations often appear between Neuroticism and Extraversion, for instance, indicating that those who are more prone to experiencing negative emotions tend to be less talkative and outgoing. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions. This is particularly important when the goal of a study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality with as few variables as possible. [edit].   
 The methodology used to identify the dimensional structure of personality traits, factor analysis, is often challenged for not having a universally-recognized basis for choosing among solutions with different numbers of factors. That is, a five factor solution depends on some degree of interpretation by the analyst. A larger number of factors may, in fact, underlie these five factors. This has led to disputes about the "true" number of

factors. Big Five proponents have responded that although other solutions may be viable in a single dataset, only the five factor structure consistently replicates across different studies.[citation needed]

A methodological criticism often directed at the Big Five is that much of the evidence relies on self report questionnaires; selfreport bias and falsification of responses are difficult to deal with and account for. This becomes especially important when considering why scores may differ between individuals or groups of people ƛ differences in scores may represent genuine underlying personality differences, or they may simply be an artifact of the way the subjects answered the questions. The five factor structure has been replicated in peer reports.[56] However, many of the substantive findings rely on self-reports. [edit]=  

 A frequent criticism is that the Big Five is not based on any underlying theory; it is merely an empirical finding that certain descriptors cluster together under factor analysis. While this does not mean that these five factors don't exist, the underlying causes behind them are unknown. Sensation seeking and cheerfulness are not linked to Extraversion because of an underlying theory; this relationship is an empirical finding to be explained. Jack Blockƞs final published work before his death in January 2010 drew together his lifetime perspective on the five factor model [57] He summarised his critique of the model in terms of: f

the atheoretical nature of the five-factors

f

their cloudy measurement

f

the modelƞs inappropriateness for studying early childhood

f

the use of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing personality

f

the continuing non-consensual understandings of the fivefactors

f

the existence of various unrecognised but successful efforts to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the fivefactors

He went on to suggest that repeatedly observed higher order factors hierarchically above the proclaimed five may promise deeper biological understanding of the origins and implications of these superfactors. [edit]Further research Current research concentrates on a number of areas. One important question is: are the five factors the right ones? Attempts to replicate the Big Five in other countries with local dictionaries have succeeded in some countries but not in others. Apparently, for instance, Hungarians donƞt appear to have a single Agreeableness factor.[58] Other researchers find evidence for Agreeableness but not for other factors.[27] In an attempt to explain variance in personality traits more fully, some have found seven factors,[59] some eighteen,[60] and some only three.[61] What determines the eventual number of factors is essentially the kind of information that is put into the factor analysis in the first place (i.e. the "Garbage in, Garbage out" principle). Since theory often implicitly precedes empirical science (such as factor analysis), the Big Five and other proposed factor structures should always be judged according to the items that went into the factor analytic algorithm. Recent studies show that seven- or eighteen-factor models have their relative strengths and weaknesses in explaining variance in DSM-based symptom counts in nonclinical samples[62] and in psychiatric patients.[63] and do not seem to be clearly outperformed by the Big Five. A validation study, in 1992, conducted by Paul Sinclair and Steve Barrow, involved 202 Branch Managers from the then TSB Bank. It found several significant correlations with job performance

across 3 of the Big Five scales. The correlations ranged from .21 ƛ .33 and were noted across 3 scales: High Extraversion, Low Neuroticism and High Openness to Experience.[64] Another area of investigation is to make a more complete model of personality. The "Big Five" personality traits are empirical observations, not a theory; the observations of personality research remain to be explained. Costa and McCrae have built what they call the Five Factor Theory of Personality as an attempt to explain personality from the cradle to the grave. They don't follow the lexical hypothesis, though, but favor a theorydriven approach inspired by the same sources as the sources of the Big Five.[citation needed] Another area of investigation is the downward extension of Big Five theory, or the Five Factor Model, into childhood. Studies have found Big Five personality traits to correlate with children's social and emotional adjustment and academic achievement. More recently, the Five Factor Personality Inventory ƛ Children[65] was published extending assessment between the ages of 9 and 18. Perhaps the reason for this recent publication was the controversy over the application of the Five Factor Model to children. Studies by Oliver P. John et al. with adolescent boys brought two new factors to the table: "Irritability" and "Activity". In studies of Dutch children, those same two new factors also became apparent. These new additions "suggest that the structure of personality traits may be more differentiated in childhood than in adulthood",[66] which would explain the recent research in this particular area. [edit]Being Evaluated The following resources and tests are available for a self-test or an administered test:

[edit]See also f

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

f

Personality psychology

f

Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Trait theory [edit]Textbooks on Personality Assessment

f

The field's standard reference: Title: Handbook of Psychological Assessment Author: Gary Groth-Marnat Publisher: Wiley; 5 edition (May 4, 2009) ISBN-10: 0470083581 ISBN-13: 9780470083581 [edit]References 1. 6 Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003).ersna
ity Traits. Cambridge University ress. age 24. 2. 6 Digman, J.M. (1990). "Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model". nnual Revie of Psychology â: 417ƛ440. 3. 6 Tupes, E.C., & Cristal, R.E., Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Technical Report ASD-TR61-97, Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, 1961 4. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1993). "The structure of phenotypic personality traits". erican sychologist â$ (1): 26ƛ 34.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26. MID 8427480. 5. 6 Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Rese NEO Perso„a
t „e„tor (NEOP R) a„ NEO „e„actor „e„tor (NEO„„ ) a„
a
. Oessa, „L: Pscho
ogca
Assesse„t Reso
rces. 6. 6 Russell, M.T., & Karol, D. (1994). 16„ „ Eo„ a„sraorƞs a„ual.ƞƞ a a„,  „sue or erso„al & bl Tes„. 7. 6 Goldberg, L.R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In C.D. Spielberger & J.N. Butcher (Eds.), Adances in personality assessment, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

8. 6 Norman, W.T.; Goldberg, L.R. (1966). "Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure". Journal o ersonality and Social sycology â: 681ƛ 691. doi:10.1037/0024002. 9. 6 Peabody, D.; Goldberg, L.R. (1989). "Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors". Journal of Personality and Social Psycology !# (3): 552ƛ567.doi:10.1037/00223514.57.3.552. PMID 2778639. 10. 6 Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L.R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford. 11. 6 Digman, J.M. (1989). "Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility". Journal o ersonality !# (2): 195ƛ214. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.1989.tb00480.x.MID 2671337. 12. 6



Cattell, R. B.; Marshall, MB; Georgiades, S (1957). "Personality and motivation: Structure and measurement".Journal o Personality Disorders % (1): 53ƛ67.doi:10.1521/pedi.19.1.53.62180. PMID 15899720.

13. 6 Karson, S. & OƞDell, J.W. (1976).  
e o e lnal
se o e 16„. Campan, IL: Ins
e or ersonaly & bly Tesn. 14. 6 Krug, S.E.; Johns, E.F. (1986). "A large scale crossvalidation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF".Psychological Reports !%: 683ƛ693. 15. 6 Cattell, H.E.P, and Mead, A.D. (2007). The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, and D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of ersonality theory and testin Vol. 2 Personality easureent and assessent.London Sae. 16. 6 Costa, P.T.; Jr, RR; McCrae, R.R. (1976). "Age differences in personality structure: A cluster analytic

approach". Jo
r„a
o Gero„o
o  (5): 564ƛ 570. PMID 950450. 17. 6 Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1985). Te NEO Perso„a
t „e„tor a„
a
. Odessa, FL: Psco
ogca
Assesse„t Reso
rces. 18. 6 McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T.; Jr (1987). "Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers".Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoy ! (1): 81ƛ90.doi:10.1037/00223514.52.1.81. PMID 3820081. 19. 6 McCrae, R.R.; John, O.P. (1992). "An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications". Journal of Personalit "4 (2): 175ƛ215. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.1992.tb00970.x.PMID 1635039. 20. 6 International Personality Item Pool. (2001). A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences (IPIP.ori.org) 21. 6 Carnivez, G.L. & Allen, T.J. (2005). Cnveren an arial valii  e 16„ an e NEO . aper presene a e annual nvenin  e Amerian slial Assiain, Wasinn, D.C. 22. 6 Conn, S. & Rieke, M. (1994). Te 16„ „i Eiion eni
 n

. C p ign, IL: Insi
e or erson
iy & Abi
iy Tesing. 23. 6 Cattell, H.E. (1996). "The original big five: A historical perspective". E
ropean evie of Applie scholog â": 5ƛ14. 24. 6 Grucza, R.A.; Goldberg, L.R. (2007). "The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators". Journal of Personality Assessment $% (2): 167ƛ 187.doi:10.1080/00223890701468568. PMID 17764394.

25. 6 Mershon, B.; Gorsuch, R.L. (1988). "Number of factors in the personality sphere: does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria?". Journal of ersonality and Social sycholoy !!: 675ƛ 680. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675. 26. 6 Paunonen, S.V.; Ashton, M.S. (2001). "Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior". Journa
of Persona
it & Socia
Pscho
og $: 524ƛ 539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524. 27. 6



De Fruyt, F.; McCrae, R. R.; Szirmák, Z.; Nagy, J. (2004). "The Five-Factor personality inventory as a measure of the Five-Factor Model: Belgian, American, and Hungarian comparisons with the NEO-PIR.". Assessment  (3): 207ƛ 215.doi:10.1177/1073191104265800. PMID 15358876.

28. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-five factor structure". Journal of ersonalit and Social scholog !% (6): 1216ƛ 1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. MID 2283588. 29. 6



Thompson, E.R. (2008). "Development and validation of an international English big-five minimarkers". ersonalit and ndivid
al Differenes â! (6): 542ƛ548.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013.

30. 6 Gosling, S. D.; Rentfrow, P. J.; Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). "A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains". Journal of Researh in Personality # (6): 504ƛ 528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1. 31. 6



  

International Personality Item Pool

32. 6 Allport, G. W.; Odbert, H. S. (1936). "Trait names: A psycholexical study". sycholoical ronoraphs â#: 211. 33. 6 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97, Lackland Airforce Base, TX: U. S. Air Force.

34. 6 Norman, W. T. (1963). "Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings". Journal of bnormal and Social sycology "": 574ƛ 583. doi:10.1037/0040291.MID 13938947. 35. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler (Ed.), Revie of ersonality and social psychology, Vol. 1, 141ƛ165. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 36. 6 Saulsman, L. M.; Page, A. C. (2004). "The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review". Clinical Psychology eview  (8): 1055ƛ 1085.doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001. PMID 14729423. 37. 6 Barrick, M. R.; Mount, M. K. (1991). "The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A MetaAnalysis". Personnel Psychology ââ: 1ƛ 26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x. 38. 6 Mount, M. K.; Barrick, M. R. (1998). "Five reasons why the "Big Five" article has been frequently cited". ersonnel sychology!: 849ƛ857. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.1998.tb00743.x. 39. 6 Jang, K.; Livesley, W. J.; Vemon, P. A. (1996). "Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Their Facets: A Twin Study". Journal of Personality "â (3): 577ƛ591.doi:10.1111/j.14676494.1996.tb00522.x. PMID 8776880. 40. 6 Bouchard & McGue, 2003. "Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences." Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 4ƛ45. doi:10.1002/neu.10160 41. 6 McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1990). Perso„a
t „ a

too.New York: Te G

for Press. 42. 6 Srivastava, S.; John, O. P.; Gosling, S. D.; Potter, J. (2003). "Development of personality in early and middle

adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?". Journal o ersonalit and Social scholog $â (5): 1041ƛ 1053. doi:10.1037/00223514.84.5.1041. MID 12757147. 43. 6 Roberts, B. W.; Mroczek, D. (2008). "Personality trait change in adulthood". urrent Directions in Psychological Science #(1): 31ƛ35. doi:10.1111/j.14678721.2008.00543.x.PMID 19756219. 44. 6 Costa, P.T. Jr.; Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R.R. (2001). "Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings". Journal of Personality and Social Psycology $ (2): 322ƛ 331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322. PMID 11519935. 45. 6 Schmitt, D. P.; Realo, A.; Voracek, M.; Allik, J. (2008). "Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology %â (1): 168ƛ 182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168. PMID 18179326. 46. 6 Harris, J. R. (2006). N  a
ie H
a„ „a
re a„ 
a„ i„ii
a
i. WW Nr„ & Cpa„. 47. 6 Jefferson, T.; Herbst, J. H.; McCrae, R. R. (1998). "Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings". Jo
rnal of Research in ersonality : 498ƛ 509.doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233. 48. 6 Ostendorf, F. (1990). S r e
nd ersoen
etsstr
t
r Z
r V
dt et des F
nfF toren rode

s der ersoen
et. Regensb
rg, Germ ny S. Roderer Ver
g. 49. 6 Trull, T. J.; Geary, D. C. (1997). "Comparison of the big-five factor structure across samples of Chinese and American adults". Journal of ersonality Assessment "% (2): 324ƛ 341.doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6902_6. MID 9392894.

50. 6 McCrae R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Personality Profiles of Cultures: Aggregate Personality Traits. Journal of Personality an Social Psychology $%, No.3, 407ƛ425. 51. 6 Weiss, A; King, JE; Hopkins, WD (2007). "A crosssetting study of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) personality structure and development: zoological parks and Yerkes National Primate Research Center.". American journal of primatology "% (11): 1264ƛ 77. doi:10.1002/ajp.20428. PMID 17397036. 52. 6 A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description 53. 6 Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block 54. 6 McCrae, R. R. (1996). "Social consequences of experiential openness". scoloical Bulletin 4 (3): 323ƛ337.doi:10.1037/00332909.120.3.323. MID 8900080. 55. 6 McAdams, D. P. (1995). "What do we know when we know a person?". Jo
rna
o Persona
t ": 365ƛ 396.do:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x. 56. 6 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). "An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure". Journal of ersonality and Social sychology !% (6): 1216ƛ 1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. MID 2283588. 57. 6 Block, Jack (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 2-25. 58. 6 Szirmak, Z.; De Raad, B. (1994). "Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits". European Journal of ersonality $: 95ƛ 117. doi:10.1002/per.2410080203. 59. 6 Cloninger, C. R.; Svrakic, D. M.; Przybeck, T. R. (1993). "A psychobiological model of temperament and

character".rche  Ge„era
chatr !4 (12): 975ƛ 990.MID 8250684. 60. 6 Livesley, W. J.; Jackson, D. N. (1986). "The internal consistency and factorial structure of behaviors judged to be associated with DSM-III personality disorders". erican Journal of sychiatry â (11): 1473ƛ4. MID 3777245. 61. 6 Eysenck, H. J. (1991). "Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?ƜCriteria for a taxonomic paradigm". ersonality and ndiid
al Differences : 773ƛ 790. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90144-Z. 62. 6 Bagby, R. M.; Marshall, M. B.; Georgiades, S. (2005). "Dimensional personality traits and the prediction of DSMIV personality disorder symptom counts in a nonclinical sample".Journal of ersonal Disorders % (1): 53ƛ 67.doi:10.1521/pedi.19.1.53.62180. 63. 6 De Fruyt, F.; De Clercq, B. J.; de Wiele, L.; Van Heeringen, K. (2006). "The validity of Cloninger's psychobiological model versus the five-factor model to predict DSM-IV personality disorders in a heterogeneous psychiatric sample: domain facet and residualized facet descriptions". Journal of ersonality #â(2): 479ƛ 510. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.2006.00382.x.MID 16529584. 64. 6 Sinclair, P. & Barrow, S. (1992)Identifying Personality Traits predictive of Performance. The BPSƞs journal on Occupational Testing ƛ Selection & Development Review, SDR ƛ October 1992 Volume 8 (5) 65. 6 McGhee, R.M., Ehrler, D.J., & Buckhalt, J. (2007). Five Factor Personality Inventory ƛ Children (FFPI-C). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. 66. 6 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John

(Eds.), H „db  e s„
 Te  „d ese  (V
. 2, . 102ƛ138). New Y  Gu
 d P ess. +2
 +
  Ex
„ „s > Pe s„
 > F eud's Pe s„
 F  s T ee
eve
s  w e„ess | T ee m „e„s  e s„
 | E„e g „d C exs | S w ? Sgmu„d F eud des bed seve
m „e„s w  ve bee„ ve  „
ue„
„ u„de s „d„g e s„
. = - 

  F eud de„ed  ee de e„ s  e m„d, b sed „ u
eve
 w e„ess. þ  /  Te „sus m„d s we e we e „g e„„  e mme„. I „
udes „
 u u e„ „„g esses „d bjes  e„„, „d e„e „sues ve 
ge   u u e„ w e„ess.   /  Te e„sus „
udes se „gs  w we e w e, bu we e we e „ „g e„„. We  „ se   e„„  ese „d de
be e
 b „g em „ e „sus m„d. We  „ „ 
u w e„ess  e  „ exe„,  m us„g „ ve  
se
 „ „e „sus   wde w e„ess   sees  ex „d „sus„ess  „
ude s mu  e„sus „ m „ s ssb
e. 5   /  A e sub„sus
eve
, e ess „d „e„ e u  d e e   e „sus m„d. Te sub„sus us „s „d s „de e„de„
. O„e  F eud's e „d„gs w s   mu be v s d ve„ d e
  m e sub„sus m„d. Ts  s e
m„g „seque„e   we e
ge
 u„ b
e  „ 
u be v , „d „ u
  w we wu
d smemes ee  vd. M e ee„ ese   s sw„   e sub„sus m„d s b b
 eve„ m e „  ge  u „s  „ eve„ F eud  d e
zed. =  /   
  C
„
s
gs D„ B „„se  s des bed F eud's s„ „ e um „ e s„
 s be„g "...b s

 b 
ee
d. He s d e

„ w we

b ed s „se
d (e su e eg) „d sex zed m„e (e d) e  eve e„g ged „ m 
mb , e s ugg
e be„g ee eed b e „e vus b „ 
e  (e eg)."

Thus an individualƞs feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are the result of the interaction of the id, the superego, and the ego. This creates conflict, which creates anxiety, which leads to Defense Mechanisms.  The Id contains our primitive drives and operates largely according to the pleasure principle, whereby its two main goals are the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has no real perception of reality and seeks to satisfy its needs through what Freud called theprimary processes that dominate the existence of infants, including hunger and self-protection. The energy for the Id's actions come from libido, which is the energy storehouse. The id has 2 major instincts: : : the life intinct that mtivate peple t fcu n pleau e-eeking tendencie (e.g., exual u ge). à = „ : e de  i„i„c   miv e peple  ue ggreive urge  dery. à

:  Unlike the Id, the Ego is aware of reality and hence operates via the reality principle, whereby it recognizes what is real and understands that behaviors have consequences. This includes the effects of social rules that are necessary in order to live and socialize with other people. It usessecondary processes (perception, recognition, judgment and memory) that are developed during childhood. The dilemma of the Ego is that it has to somehow balance the demands of the Id and Super ego with the constraints of reality. The Ego controls higher mental processes such as reasoning and problem-solving, which it uses to solve the Id-Super ego dilemma, creatively finding ways to safely satisfy the Id's basic urges within the constraints of the Super ego. 5  The Super ego contains our values and social morals, which often come from the rules of right and wrong that we learned in childhood from our parents (this is Freud, remember) and are contained in the conscience. The Super ego has a model of an ego ideal and which it uses as a prototype against which to compare the ego (and towards which it encourages the ego to move). The Super ego is a counterbalance to the Id, and seeks to inhibit the Id's pleasureseeking demands, particularly those for sex and aggression. :  
þ
   Freud viewed the forces on us as a form of energy, with energy from the senses being converted into psychic energy in the personality through a topographic model that

takes sensed energy, filters it through various associative metaphors, then passes it through the unconscious and preconscious before it finally reaches the conscious mind.  *)
   This is the investment of energy in the image of an object, or the expenditure of energy in discharge action upon such an object. It occurs in the Id. : )
   This is the investment of energy in mental representations of reality through associations and metaphors, which is needed for the Ego's secondary processes. It occurs in the Ego.  )
   This is energy used to block object-cathexes of the Id. Repression occurs in the battle between cathexis and anti-cathexis. It occurs in the Ego and Super Ego. 5 
  Although later theories have improved understanding, Freud's ideas still provide a useful model for the more complex actions that are really going on. To persuade, you can appeal either to the basic urges of the Id or the higher morals of the Super ego. Then encourage the Ego to make the 'right choice'. 5
  Defense Mechanisms, Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theor

The two factors that affect personality is environment and heredity. Nature vs Nurture Scientists have argued for many years what is the factor that shape us, is it our genes? Or is it our environment? The simple answer is both. Imagine Johnny and Blake who's parents are both mathematical genuinenesses who unfortunately died in a car accident. John and Blake are twins but were separated at birth Johnny was taken by a doctor and Blake was stolen and raised by hardened criminals accustomed to violence in a daily basis. Johny how ever was raised in a formal way with a loving, peaceful and caring community and supportive parents as his environment. Among the two who is most likely to do a crime as an adult? Blake of course having a violent environment growing up. But there is a chance that both men will be good at mathematics since there parents are brilliant at it, its called aptitude. I'll explain about it later. The heredity factor

When we are conceived we are given 24 chromosomes carried by the sperm (male) and it pairs up with 24 from ovum (female) making a new individual with 48 chromosomes each one different, containing different information about us this explains why we have our mother's nose or our father's hair. The chromosomes are the vessels that contain our parents genetic make up passed on to us. But of course there is what we call genetic gap where a trait is not passed directly to the children but to the next generation the grandchildren or even the next. That explains why some of us look like our grandparents and not our parents. Aptitude and Ability Aptitude is a pattern of traits needed for learning a task. Ability is to execute what you have learned. Aptitude is inherited ability is acquired. Let's say you are good in basketball. Can you say your children will be good at it? No, aptitude will be passed on(like Blake and Johny being good in Mathematics) not your skills as a basketball player although aptitude can be inherited to learn the task they can not inherit the ability to do a slam dunk it would take some time and practice. Environment Factor A child's behavior is also learned from environment the things and the people around the child. At birth, the new born has no understanding of the world around him. He has to learn to learn to walk, eat, talk and act like others which is socially accepted. The people he would be interacting with will play a big role in molding his personality since it will determine the GOOD and the BAD in him. For example is stealing bad or good? It will depend on the society he lives at weather or not it is socially acceptable. By 5 years old we already have an idea of who we are I'm nice, I'm cute, I'm naughty, people like me when I smile etc... we already have an idea of who we are. During this crucial stage the primary group which are our family, playmates and neighbors they are the ones we have face to face contact with the second groups are the ones later on in life like School, classmates and new peers. My name is Kim Ian Tumblod I'm a psychologist so I'm pretty sure with I'm saying. To know more about how to develop you personality and self improvement visit our site http://developthypersonality.blogspot.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kim_Ian_Tumblod Big Five Personality Factors Why do we study personality? The NEO that you have just completed looks at 5 personality traits, known as the Big Five. We will briefly look at what traits are, how these personality factors were

determined, what the traits mean, what the Big Five predict about our behaviour, and how these factors might relate to motivation. What are traits? Traits are consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, or actions that distinguish people from one another. Traits are basis tendencies that remain stable across the life span, but characteristic behaviour can change considerably through adaptive pr ocesses. A trait is an internal characteristic that corresponds to an extreme position on a behavioural dimension. There have been different theoretical perspectives in the field of personality psychology over the years including human motivation, the whole person, and individual differences. The Big Five falls under the perspective of individual differences. How were these personality factors determined? The Big Five represents a taxonomy (classification system) of traits that some personality psychologists suggest capture the essence of individual differences in personality. These traits were arrived at through factor analysis studies. Factor anal ysis is a technique generally done with the use of computers to determine meaningful relationships and patterns in behavioural data. You begin with a large number of behavioural variables. The computer finds relationships or natural connections where vari ables are maximally correlated with one another and minimally correlated with other variables, and then groups the data accordingly. After this process has been done many times a pattern appears of relationships or certain factors that capture the essence of all of the data. Such a process was used to determine the Big Five Personality factors. Many researchers tested factors other than the Big Five and found the Big Five to be the only consistently reliable factors. Strict trait personality psychologists go so far as to say our behaviour is really determined by these internal traits, giving the situation a small role in determining behaviour. In other words, these traits lead to an individual acting a certain way in a given situation. Allport, Norman and Cattell were influential in formulating this taxonomy which was later refined. Allport compiled a list of 4500 traits. Cattell reduced this list to 35 traits. Others continued to analyze these factors and found congruence with self- ratings, ratings by peers and ratings by psychological staff, that eventually became the Big Five factors. The Big Five factors are: I ƛ extraversion vs introversion II ƛ agreeableness vs antagonism

III ƛ conscientiousness vs undirectedness IV ƛ neuroticism vs emotional stability V ƛ openness to experience vs not open to experience Cross-cultural studies looking at the replicability of the Big Five have been less extensive due to the costs and difficulties involved. One reason for looking at cross cultural consistency is that it could provide an evolutionary interpretation of the way individual differences have been processed or encoded as personality categories in language. A Dutch analysis found 5 factors as well, the first 4 being similar to 4 of the Big Five, and the 5th being closer to unconventionality and rebell iousness. A German factor analysis replicated the Big Five factors. A problem with interpreting cross-cultural data is language translation. Some mistranslation may result in underestimating crosscultural generalizability. Work has been done to reduce th is problem and higher congruence has been found with correlational analysis. Overall, the Big Five have been studied in 7 languages. The 5th factor (openness to experience) has the weakest replicability. There was a need for an integrative framework for measuring these factors. The NEO Personality Inventory was created by Costa and McCrae and originally measured only neuroticism, extraversion and openness. The other factors were added later. There are other measures of the Big Five, such as the BFI (Big Five Inventory) and the TDA (Traits Descriptive Adjectives). The NEO has the highest validity of the Big Five measurement devices. What do the five traits mean? (*put up overhead) Keep in mind that the traits fall on a continuum and this overhead shows characteristics associated with each of the traits. Looking at these characteristics we can formulate what each of the traits mean. E Extraversion ƛ means a person is, talkative, social and assertive A Agreeableness ƛ means a person is good natured, co-operative and trusting C Conscientiousness ƛ means a person is responsible, orderly and dependable N Neuroticism ƛ means a person is anxious, prone to depression and worries alot O Openness ƛ means a person is imaginative, independent minded and has divergent thinking

: 
- implies an energetic approach to the social and material world and includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality.  
  contrasts a prosocial and communal orientation toward others with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty. þ     describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task and goal-directed behaviour, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tas ks. Ö / contrasts emotional stability and even-temperedness with negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and tense. 

    (versus closed-mindedness) describes the breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individualƞs mental and experiential life.

The Big Five are broad dimensions or categories in a hierarchical sense, such that they encompass a lot without detail. Inevitably you lose information, and while the Big Five factors provide useful personality descriptors they are somewhat less useful at predicting specific berhaviours. So a researcher chooses a hierarchical level of analysis suited to the research being conducted. Some researchers such as Norman, Goldberg and Costa and McCrae, have developed middle level categories that provide more description or are less abstract but I wonƞt go into that here.

What do the Big Five predict about our behaviour? (Handbook of Personality Psychology by Hogan, Johnson, and Briggs, 1997) First, having a trait means reacting consistently to the same situation overtime, for example, being agreeable or cooperative means consistently going along with reasonable requests, but does not mean always complying with othersƞ wishes. Second, to respond consistently in the same situation people must have a capacity to respond to situational cues, that is to have the trait to be responsive to situations. For example, if someone purchases a house in the woods, they might want that hou se because of its secluded location. Third, behaving differently in a given situation does not mean there is inner inconsistency. For example, someone who likes to attend parties might not often do so because of a stronger desire to work. Here are some examples of what the Big Five predict in regards to life outcomes and behaviour. *While I am giving you these examples, notice how different combinations of traits can lead to very different outcomes and behaviours, and think about why t his might be the case. Also, think about whether you see any of these combinations in your own personality. Generally speaking, low agreeablesness and low conscientiousness can predict juvenile delinquency. Neuroticism and low conscientiousness can predict internalizing disorders (such as mental disorders). Conscientiousness and openness can predict school performance. Conscientiousness is also a general predictor of job performance, while other Big Five traits predict job performance in specific types of jobs. For instance extraversion predicts success in sales and management positions. High conscientiousness is related to better health and longevity, whereas low agreeableness and high neuroticism seem to be health risk factors. Extraversion is associated with leadership behaviour. Agreeableness is associated with behaviours such as helping others and donating to charity. Neuroticism is related to vulnerability and depression.

Openness is related to behaviours associated with creative performance. Overall, traits are relatively poor predictors of single behavioural acts, but are better predictors of general trends of a personƞs behaviour. Looking at past behaviour of an individual may be the best predictor of future behaviour. How might these factors relate to motivation? Letƞs look quickly at each trait. I will only present one end of the continuum, for example extraversion as opposed to introversion. Since these traits are on a continuum someone at the opposite extreme would show very different types of motivation tha n those at the extreme I will be talking about. Extraversion has an interpersonal component and is strongly related to positive affect such as being enthusiastic, energetic, interested and friendly. Fremont and Means (1970) found that extraverts show less anxiety over negative feedback. If yo u remember I said earlier that extraversion is associated with leadership. So extraverts are highly motivated to seek social situations and to be dominant in those situations. Extraverts are motivated by change, variety in their lives, challenge, and are easily bored. Extraverts have more recently been seen as adaptive, ambitious and hardworking. Agreeableness also has an interpersonal component. Agreeable individuals tend toward conformity in groups, toward modesty, toward not being demanding, and toward being sympathetic. These individuals might be motivated toward helping others and t oward prosocial behaviour in general. There may be a link between the motivational processes operating within individuals in regards to this trait, such that agreeable individuals strive for intimacy and solidarity in groups they belong to, which provides emotional rewards. Conscientiousness is related to such things as achievement, perseverance, organization and responsibility. Conscientious individuals are motivated toward achievement through social conformity. *Add my own experience - internally driven. Neuroticism tends to be viewed negatively and is associated with negative affect, being tense and nervous. Keep in mind that neuroticism is only one trait that an individual has. A person could be neurotic and conscientious which may have negati ve health effects but may motivate an individual toward success in school and work situations. Openness is associated with tolerance of ambiguity (which means when something is not clear), a capacity to absorb information, being very focused and the ability to be aware of more feelings, thoughts and impulses simultaneously. The result is deeper more intense experiences. Open individuals are motivated to seek out the unfamiliar and to look for complexity. The bottom line is that the Big Five are an integral part of the study of personality

psychology, and it is fascinating to learn about what makes people tick. References: 1. Pervin, L. & John, O. (Eds.) (1999). Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York: Gilford. 2. Hogan, R., Johnson, J. & Briggs, S. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of personality psychology. California: Academic Press. 3. Potkay, C. & Allen, B. (1986). Personality: theory, research, and applications. California: Brooks/Cole. 
 - / )5)  Related to adolescent friendships and personality development is an aspect of personality known as self-concept. Some personality theorists and researchers contend that the developing and changing view a person holds of herself is an important aspect of individual differences and is often neglected under the temperament or trait conceptions of personality. From this perspective, a person's self-concept (which incorporates such features as the individual's history, sense of competency, and goals for the future) is an important behavioral determinant that is more dynamic, malleable, and encompassing than temperament or personality traits. A critical component in the development of one's self-concept is referencing, including temporal referencing, a self-comparison from an earlier time to a later time, and social referencing, a comparison of one's self to others. Temporal and social referencing yield the type of self-examination that serves to increase the stability of individual differences through an individual making behavioral and/or environmental changes to maintain a self-concept. The particular style of referencing most commonly adopted changes across the lifespan. Temporal referencing is most common in childhood and in old age when relatively rapid physical and cognitive changes are most apparent. Conversely, social referencing is most common in adolescence and adulthood when individual change is less appreciable.

Read more: Personality Development - Self-concept - Individual, Social, Referencing, Friendships, Successful, and Children http://social.jrank.org/pages/473/PersonalityDevelopment-Self-Concept.html#ixzz17hn2CH13