One of the long held goals of psychology has been to establish a model that can conveniently describe human personality, and disorders therein, with the intent to use this model in the remedying of personality disorders and improving general understanding of personality. Currently, a handful of models have risen to prominence, and have thus far stood the test of time. Some models are more generally accepted than others. Support for some models seems to come and go in cycles.
One of the more prominent models in contemporary psychology is what is known as the five-factor model of personality (Digman, 1990). This theory incorporates five different variables into a conceptual model for describing personality. These five different factors are often referred to as the "Big 5" (Ewen, 1998, p. 140). The five-factor theory is among the newest models developed for the description of personality, and this model shows promise to be among the most practical and applicable models available in the field of personality psychology (Digman, 1990). Thorough critical attention is given to the proposal that the five-factor model is in fact a great theory.
Extroversion has long been one of the traits that has appeared in factor-analytic models, and is one of the two traits to appear in both the five-factor model and Eysenck's PEN and E-IN models. Extroversion also is sometimes referred to as social adaptability, though the popularity of this term seems to be waning (Zuckerman, 1991). Extroversion is defined as "a trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown" (Ewen, 1998, p. 289).
Neuroticism is the other trait to play a role in most of the contemporary factor models for personality. In some studies, adjustment is examined as a factor, instead of neuroticism. In this case, higher scores will indicate a positive result, consistent with the other four factors. This is because the term neuroticism has an inherent negative denotation (Bradshaw, 1997). The bases of neuroticism are levels of anxiety and volatility. Within these bounds, neuroticism is "a dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as opposed to instability and high anxiety at the other end" (Pervin, 1989, p. G-7).
Openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are all terms with which most people outside the realm of psychology are familiar. In general, openness refers to how willing people are to make adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new ideas or situations. Agreeableness measures how compatible people are with other people, or basically how able they are to get along with others. Conscientiousness refers to how much a person considers others when making decisions.
As with the two factors in the big five from Eysenck's E-IN, these three are also placed on sliding scales. These three scales, like neuroticism and extroversion, slide between their limits to give a clear picture of personality. The limits of these scales give a clear idea of their applications and are defined as "trusting and helpful versus suspicious and uncooperative (agreeableness), hard working and reliable versus lazy and careless (conscientiousness), and nonconformist and creative versus conventional and down-to-earth (openness)"
Five criteria were established to test the hypothesis that the five-factor model was a great psychological theory. The first criterion for greatness was that the theory should be compatible with other major psychological theories. On this point, the five-factor model was shown to be not only compatible, but even complementary to other theories, including a theory that would seemingly be at the other end of the spectrum from the five-factor model, Freud's highly subjective theory of psychoanalysis. Second, it was suggested that a great theory should be empirical. Although the five-factor model leaves much to be desired as far as the explanation of the numbers, it was shown that with the sliding scales associated with each of the five variables, the five-factor model was easily quantifiable. The five-factor model does have some real problems when scrutinized for its theoretical qualities. It has been suggested that the five-factor model was not so much a theory, but rather, just an idea or a means of classification. This is certainly a stumbling block for the five-factor model's chances at greatness. Also, whereas the five-factor model passed the test of originality with flying colors, when examined to see if it held true universally (or as close as a psychological theory can get) another flaw appeared. The broad taxonomy that is so elemental to the model makes it difficult to specifically anticipate behavior in many situations.
"From the standpoint of a multifaceted personology, the five-factor model is one important model in personality studies, not the integrative model of personality," says McAdams (1992, p. 355) in the conclusion to his critique of the five-factor model. This model does not meet all the criteria for greatness, and though it seems to have great potential, it is, as McAdams suggests, not the final all-encompassing theory of psychology. This is a high mark to hit, but one to which, when models like the five-factor are accompanied with theories like Freud's psychoanalysis, contemporary psychology is getting closer. As this model does not quite live up to the standards for a great theory in personality (it would be tough to find a theory that does) perhaps a more appropriate name for it would be a great taxonomy in personality.
One of the more prominent models in contemporary psychology is what is known as the five-factor model of personality (Digman, 1990). This theory incorporates five different variables into a conceptual model for describing personality. These five different factors are often referred to as the "Big 5" (Ewen, 1998, p. 140). The five-factor theory is among the newest models developed for the description of personality, and this model shows promise to be among the most practical and applicable models available in the field of personality psychology (Digman, 1990). Thorough critical attention is given to the proposal that the five-factor model is in fact a great theory.
The Five Factors
As it became evident to many psychologists that, mathematically, combinations of five factors were useful in describing personality, there was a need to clearly define what these factors were. Indeed, this process led to some dissent in the ranks. One dissenter from the five-factor theorists was renowned psychologist H. J. Eysenck. Eysenck felt that, due to overlaps in the five factors and their correlates, in fact a three-factor model was more appropriate and accurate. His theory is called the PEN model (which stand for psychoticism, extroversion, neuroticism) (Eysenck, 1991), or sometimes is even shortened to the two factor E-IN model (extroversion-introversion, neuroticism) (Eysenck, 1991). According to Eysenck, "Factor analysis has improved the situation...but the problem of naming factors is of course still with us" (Eysenck, 1991, p. 775). Many psychologists support Eysenck's PEN model. However, of the major "factor-analytic models...the Big Five dominates the landscape of current psychological research" (Ewen, 1998, p. 141). Through extensive debating and experimenting, there is currently a general consensus in the realms of scholarly psychology as to the identity of the five factors, and their basic interpretations and values to analysis of personality. The five factors are extroversion-introversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness (Ewen, 1998).Extroversion has long been one of the traits that has appeared in factor-analytic models, and is one of the two traits to appear in both the five-factor model and Eysenck's PEN and E-IN models. Extroversion also is sometimes referred to as social adaptability, though the popularity of this term seems to be waning (Zuckerman, 1991). Extroversion is defined as "a trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown" (Ewen, 1998, p. 289).
Neuroticism is the other trait to play a role in most of the contemporary factor models for personality. In some studies, adjustment is examined as a factor, instead of neuroticism. In this case, higher scores will indicate a positive result, consistent with the other four factors. This is because the term neuroticism has an inherent negative denotation (Bradshaw, 1997). The bases of neuroticism are levels of anxiety and volatility. Within these bounds, neuroticism is "a dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as opposed to instability and high anxiety at the other end" (Pervin, 1989, p. G-7).
Openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are all terms with which most people outside the realm of psychology are familiar. In general, openness refers to how willing people are to make adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new ideas or situations. Agreeableness measures how compatible people are with other people, or basically how able they are to get along with others. Conscientiousness refers to how much a person considers others when making decisions.
As with the two factors in the big five from Eysenck's E-IN, these three are also placed on sliding scales. These three scales, like neuroticism and extroversion, slide between their limits to give a clear picture of personality. The limits of these scales give a clear idea of their applications and are defined as "trusting and helpful versus suspicious and uncooperative (agreeableness), hard working and reliable versus lazy and careless (conscientiousness), and nonconformist and creative versus conventional and down-to-earth (openness)"
Application
In accordance with the aforesaid flaw in the second criterion for greatness, the five-factor model runs into the most trouble when approached through the standards set forth by the third criterion. This criterion calls for a great theory to be applicable. McAdams (1992) states, "Personality theories do more than specify traits" (p. 336). In essence, what he is getting at is that the five-factor model (although it provides an excellent basis for the description of much of what, in psychology, falls into the realm of personality study) falls short of attaining or ever having a chance to attain the title of the unified psychological theory (McAdams, 1992). As stated, the five-factor model is used effectively in application. Because of this, it can be said that it is applicable, even though this does not address McAdams' claim that the five-factor theory should not really be considered a theory, but more appropriately just a list of five variables that are useful when attempting to identify and classify personality traits. In general, though, most of the applications of the five-factor model as it now exists seem to come in the academic and experimental forum. In reference to the model's usefulness in academics, Digman (1990) says, "At a minimum, research on the five-factor model has given us a useful set of very broad dimensions that characterize individual differences. These dimensions can be measured with high reliability and impressive validity" (p. 436). In summary, Digman states that the five variables that compose the five-factor model "provide a good answer to the question of personality structure"Five criteria were established to test the hypothesis that the five-factor model was a great psychological theory. The first criterion for greatness was that the theory should be compatible with other major psychological theories. On this point, the five-factor model was shown to be not only compatible, but even complementary to other theories, including a theory that would seemingly be at the other end of the spectrum from the five-factor model, Freud's highly subjective theory of psychoanalysis. Second, it was suggested that a great theory should be empirical. Although the five-factor model leaves much to be desired as far as the explanation of the numbers, it was shown that with the sliding scales associated with each of the five variables, the five-factor model was easily quantifiable. The five-factor model does have some real problems when scrutinized for its theoretical qualities. It has been suggested that the five-factor model was not so much a theory, but rather, just an idea or a means of classification. This is certainly a stumbling block for the five-factor model's chances at greatness. Also, whereas the five-factor model passed the test of originality with flying colors, when examined to see if it held true universally (or as close as a psychological theory can get) another flaw appeared. The broad taxonomy that is so elemental to the model makes it difficult to specifically anticipate behavior in many situations.
"From the standpoint of a multifaceted personology, the five-factor model is one important model in personality studies, not the integrative model of personality," says McAdams (1992, p. 355) in the conclusion to his critique of the five-factor model. This model does not meet all the criteria for greatness, and though it seems to have great potential, it is, as McAdams suggests, not the final all-encompassing theory of psychology. This is a high mark to hit, but one to which, when models like the five-factor are accompanied with theories like Freud's psychoanalysis, contemporary psychology is getting closer. As this model does not quite live up to the standards for a great theory in personality (it would be tough to find a theory that does) perhaps a more appropriate name for it would be a great taxonomy in personality.
No comments:
Post a Comment