Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## PYSC.pdf
**## PYSC.pdf**
Write the paper how a entry level college student would
write it
You have been given a grant to study one of these five personality traits: openness to
experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
● Define and describe the personality trait you chose.
● How might this personality trait be measured?
● What are the advantages and drawbacks of using the personality trait
approach?
Make sure to include terminology from the textbook and include citations.
Your paper should include and incorporate three scholarly sources. Your paper must be
in APA Style and include in-text citations and a reference list. Your textbook can be one
of the sources.
Rubric
PSYC_160_OL – Paper Rubric (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This
criterion
is linked
to a
Learning
Outcome
Content
25 to >22.25 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsThe writer clearly and
effectively responds to the assignment with details and specific examples.
Content fully addresses all aspects of the assignment. Main ideas are clear and
are well supported by detailed and accurate information. All content is accurate.
All opinions are thoroughly supported.
22.25 to >18.75 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsThe response to the assignment
is generally adequate, but may not be thorough. May be lacking some details and
explanations. Main ideas are clear but are not well supported by detailed
information. Content addresses, or partially addresses, most aspects of the
assignment. Most content is accurate. Most opinions are supported in some way.
18.75 to >14.75 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe response to the assignment is
vague and/ or inaccurate. May be lacking several details and explanations. Main
ideas are not always clear or supported. Content addresses few aspects of the
assignment. Much of the content is inaccurate in some way. Few opinions are
supported.
14.75 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe writer does not respond to the
assignment or the response is far outside the parameters of the assignment. The
topic and main ideas are not clear. Most content is inaccurate.
25
pts
This
criterion
is linked
to a
Learning
Outcome
Organiza
tion
15 to >13.35 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsInformation is relevant and
presented in a logical order. Writing and integration of source materials is
eloquent and skillful. Connections among topics are clear without being repetitive
or redundant.
13.35 to >11.25 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsWriting and integration of source
materials is adequate with lapses in structure. Most connections among topics
are clear without being repetitive or redundant.
11.25 to >8.85 ptsBelow ExpectationsWriting and integration of source
materials is awkward or confusing. Few connections among topics are clear.
There is some repetitiveness or redundancy.
8.85 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThere is no clear , structure. Writing
lacks skill. Sources are not present. Connections among topics are not evident.
15
pts
This
criterion
is linked
to a
Learning
Outcome
Mechani
cs and
APA
10 to >8.9 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsThe assignment consistently
follows current APA Style and is free from errors in formatting, citation, and
references. No grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. All sources are cited
and referenced correctly. The paper meets all assignment criteria in length,
structure, and source criteria.
8.9 to >7.5 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsThe assignment consistently follows
current APA Style with only isolated and inconsistent mistakes and/or has a few
grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. Most sources are cited and
referenced correctly. The paper meets most of the assignment criteria in length,
structure, and source criteria.
7.5 to >5.9 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe assignment occasionally follows current
or outdated APA Style with multiple mistakes and/or grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors. Few sources are cited and referenced correctly. The paper
meets some of the assignment criteria in length, structure, and source criteria.
5.9 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe assignment does not follow
current APA Style and/or has many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.
Many sources are cited and referenced incorrectly, or citations and references are
missing. The paper meets few of the assignment criteria in length, structure, and
source criteria.
10
pts
Total Points: 50
USE THIS INformation for the citations and when it
asks you to go back to the txtbook ON THE PAPER
Module 32
Trait, Learning, Biological and Evolutionary, and Humanistic Approaches to Personality
LEARNING OUTCOME
LO 32-1 What are the major aspects of trait, learning, biological and evolutionary,
and humanistic approaches to personality?
“Tell me about Nelson,” said Johnetta.
“Oh, he’s just terrific. He’s the friendliest guy I know—goes out of his way to be nice to
everyone. He hardly ever gets mad. He’s just so even-tempered, no matter what’s
happening. And he’s really smart, too. About the only thing I don’t like is that he’s
always in such a hurry to get things done. He seems to have boundless energy, much
more than I have.”
“He sounds great to me, especially in comparison to Rico,” replied Johnetta. “He is so
self-centered and arrogant that it drives me crazy. I sometimes wonder why I ever
started going out with him.”
Friendly. Even-tempered. Smart. Energetic. Self-centered. Arrogant.
The above exchange is made up of a series of trait characterizations of the speakers’
friends. In fact, much of our own understanding of others’ behavior is based on the
premise that people possess certain traits that are consistent across different situations.
For example, we generally assume that if someone is outgoing and sociable in one
situation, then they are outgoing and sociable in other situations (Leising et al., 2014;
Arvantis & Kalliris, 2020; Atherton et al., 2021).
Dissatisfaction with the emphasis in psychoanalytic theory on unconscious—and
difficult-to-demonstrate—processes in explaining a person’s behavior led to the
development of alternative approaches to personality, including a number of trait-based
approaches. Other theories reflect established psychological perspectives, such as
learning theory, biological and evolutionary approaches, and the humanistic approach.
Trait Approaches: Placing Labels on Personality
If someone asked you to characterize another person, as Johnetta did of her friend, you
probably would come up with a list of traits. Traits are consistent, habitual personality
characteristics and behaviors that are displayed across different situations.
Study Alert
All trait theories explain personality in terms of traits (consistent personality
characteristics and behaviors), but they differ in terms of which and how many traits are
seen as fundamental.
Trait theory is the personality approach that seeks to identify the basic traits necessary
to describe personality. Trait theorists do not assume that some people have a particular
trait while others do not. Instead, they propose that all people possess a set of traits, but
the degree to which a particular trait applies to a specific person varies and can be
quantified.
For instance, they might assume that all people have the trait of “friendliness” but in
different degrees. You may be relatively friendly, whereas I may be relatively unfriendly.
But we both have a “friendliness” trait, although your degree of “friendliness” is higher
than mine.
The major challenge for trait theorists taking this approach has been to identify the
specific basic traits necessary to describe personality. As we shall see, different
theorists have come up with surprisingly different sets of traits. (Also see the Applying
Psychology in the 21st Century feature.)
APPLYING PSYCHOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY
IS YOUR PERSONALITY WRITTEN ALL OVER YOUR FACE?
Have you ever seen a self-portrait and wondered whether the artist really looked like
that or whether the self-portrait didn’t perhaps reflect at least a little bit of wishful
thinking?
Personality researchers have wondered the same thing—not just about artists but about
all of us. Specifically, they are studying whether the way we see ourselves physically
reflects something about how we see ourselves psychologically. That is, if you think of
yourself as a shy and meek person, for example, do you imagine those personality
characteristics to be apparent from the way you look (Junior et al., 2019; Kachur et al.,
2020; Kosinski, 2021)?
caia image/Alamy Stock Photo
To answer this question, researchers used software to generate many hundreds of
images of human face shapes with small variations. Then they showed them two at a
time to participants and asked them each time to choose which face looked more like
their own. Participants then completed questionnaire measures of their personality traits
and current self-esteem. The researchers then used software to combine all the facial
images that each individual participant chose as more like their own into one composite
face for that participant. And, incidentally, software analysis demonstrated that those
composite faces did each resemble photographs of the participants’ actual faces
(Maister et al., 2021).
Then, in a second phase of the study, other participants were randomly shown the
composite faces as well as the actual photographs of each of the original participants,
and they were asked to rate the personality of each face using the same questionnaire
measure of personality the first group used. The researchers found that in relation to
participants who had described themselves as more extraverted, raters tended to judge
the composite face as looking more extraverted compared with the actual face. The
same was true for personality traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and openness to experience. That is, participants in this phase of the study tended to
exaggerate the degree to which those personality traits were reflected in their facial
appearance.
Interestingly, however, participants whose self-esteem scores were higher with regard to
social interactions were less likely to show this exaggerated self-view. The researchers
speculated that perhaps people with higher social self-esteem get more frequent and
better feedback from others on their actual appearance. Alternatively, people with
accurate self-views may be more likely to have satisfying social relationships, and those
relationships then bolster their social self-esteem.
Overall, the findings indicate that the beliefs and attitudes people hold about themselves
are reflected in how they view their own appearance. These findings consequently
suggest that the way in which we view our personality is embodied in how we think we
look to others.
RETHINK
One interpretation of these findings is that people distort their physical self-views to fit
their psychological self-views. Do you think it’s possible that the opposite happens; that
is, that people’s personalities develop to match how they look? Why or why not?
Why can’t the researchers say definitively that accurate self-views enhance social
interactions or, alternatively, that better social interactions improve the accuracy of one’s
self-views?
Page 397
ALLPORT’S TRAIT THEORY: IDENTIFYING BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
When personality psychologist Gordon Allport systematically pored over an unabridged
dictionary in the 1930s, he came up with some 18,000 separate terms that could be
used to describe personality. Although he was able to pare down the list to 4,500
descriptors after eliminating words with similar meanings, he was left with a problem
crucial to all trait approaches: Which traits are the most important in characterizing
personality?
Page 398
Allport eventually answered this question by suggesting that there are three
fundamental categories of traits: cardinal, central, and secondary (Allport, 1966;
Doremus, 2021):
Cardinal traits. A cardinal trait is a single, overriding characteristic that motivates most
of a person’s behavior. For example, a totally selfless person may direct all their energy
toward humanitarian activities; an intensely power-hungry person may be driven by an
all-consuming need for control.
Central traits. Few people have a single, comprehensive cardinal trait. Instead, they
possess 5–10 central traits that make up the core of personality. Central traits, such as
warmth or honesty, describe an individual’s major characteristics. Each central trait is
assumed to imply the presence of other traits. For example, people who have a central
trait of warmth also are likely to be sociable and friendly.
Secondary traits. Finally, secondary traits are characteristics that affect behavior in
fewer situations and are less influential than central or cardinal traits. For instance, a
reluctance to eat meat and a love of modern art would be considered secondary traits
(Kahn et al., 2013; Zhao & Smillie, 2015).
CATTELL AND EYSENCK: FACTORING OUT PERSONALITY
Later attempts to identify primary personality traits centered on a statistical technique
known as factor analysis. Factor analysis is a statistical method of identifying patterns
among a large number of variables and combining them into more fundamental
groupings. For example, a personality researcher might ask a large group of people to
rate themselves on a number of specific traits. By using factor analysis and statistically
computing which traits are associated with one another, a researcher can identify the
fundamental patterns of traits—called factors—that cluster together in the same person.
Using factor analysis, personality psychologist Raymond Cattell suggested that 16 pairs
of traits represent the basic dimensions of personality. Using that set of traits, he
developed the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, or 16 PF, a personality scale
that is still in use today (Djapo et al., 2011; Wright, 2017; Schermer et al., 2020).
Another trait theorist, psychologist Hans Eysenck (1995), also used factor analysis to
identify patterns of traits, but he came to a very different conclusion about the nature of
personality. He found that personality could best be described in terms of just three
major dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. The extraversion
dimension describes a person’s level of sociability, whereas the neuroticism dimension
encompasses an individual’s emotional stability. Finally, psychoticism is the degree to
which reality is distorted. By evaluating people along these three dimensions, Eysenck
was able to predict behavior accurately in a variety of situations. Figure 1 lists specific
traits associated with each of the dimensions.
FIGURE 1 Eysenck described personality in terms of three major dimensions:
extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Using these dimensions, he could predict
people’s behavior in many types of situations.
Extraversion
Sociable
Lively
Active
Assertive
Sensation-seeking
Neuroticism
Anxious
Depressed
Guilt feelings
Low self-esteem
Tense
Psychoticism
Aggressive
Cold
Egocentric
Impersonal
Impulsive
Source: Ruch et al., 2021.
Note that serious questions have been raised about the integrity of Eysenck’s research.
Still, his work was influential in the field of personality and was a springboard for
additional research (Craig et al., 2021).
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS
Study Alert
You can remember the Big Five set of personality traits by using the acronym OCEAN
(openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism).
For the past two decades, the most influential trait approach contends that five traits or
factors—called the “Big Five”—lie at the core of personality. Using factor analytic
statistical techniques, a consistent body of research has identified a similar set of five
factors that underlie personality. The specific five factors are openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (emotional stability).
They are described in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2 Five broad trait factors, referred to as the “Big Five,” are considered to be the
core of personality.
Table Summary: A table summarizes the big five personality factors and dimensions of
sample traits in 2 columns. Three sample traits are listed for each of the 5 personality
factors.
The Big Five Personality Factors and Dimensions of Sample Traits
Openness to experience
Independent—Conforming
Imaginative—Practical
Preference for variety—Preference for routine
Agreeableness
Sympathetic—Fault-finding
Kind—Cold
Appreciative—Unfriendly
Conscientiousness
Careful—Careless
Disciplined—Impulsive
Organized—Disorganized
Neuroticism (Emotional stability)
Stable—Tense
Calm—Anxious
Secure—Insecure
Extraversion
Talkative—Quiet
Fun-loving—Sober
Sociable—Retiring
Source: Adapted from John, Robins, & Pervin, 2010.
The Big Five emerge consistently across a number of domains: for example, factor
analyses of major personality inventories, self-report measures made by observers of
others’ personality traits, and checklists of self-descriptions yield similar factors. In
addition, the Big Five emerge consistently in different populations of individuals,
including children, college students, older adults, and speakers of different languages.
Cross-cultural research conducted in areas ranging from Europe to the Middle East to
Africa also has been supportive. Finally, studies of brain functioning show that Big Five
personality traits are related to the way the brain processes information (Saucier &
Srivastava, 2015; Bouvard & Roulin, 2017; Hall et al., 2019; John, 2021).
– Rubric
**## PYSC.pdf**
Write the paper how a entry level college student would
write it
You have been given a grant to study one of these five personality traits: openness to
experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
● Define and describe the personality trait you chose.
● How might this personality trait be measured?
● What are the advantages and drawbacks of using the personality trait
approach?
Make sure to include terminology from the textbook and include citations.
Your paper should include and incorporate three scholarly sources. Your paper must be
in APA Style and include in-text citations and a reference list. Your textbook can be one
of the sources.
Rubric
PSYC_160_OL – Paper Rubric (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This
criterion
is linked
to a
Learning
Outcome
Content
25 to >22.25 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsThe writer clearly and
effectively responds to the assignment with details and specific examples.
Content fully addresses all aspects of the assignment. Main ideas are clear and
are well supported by detailed and accurate information. All content is accurate.
All opinions are thoroughly supported.
22.25 to >18.75 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsThe response to the assignment
is generally adequate, but may not be thorough. May be lacking some details and
explanations. Main ideas are clear but are not well supported by detailed
information. Content addresses, or partially addresses, most aspects of the
assignment. Most content is accurate. Most opinions are supported in some way.
18.75 to >14.75 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe response to the assignment is
vague and/ or inaccurate. May be lacking several details and explanations. Main
ideas are not always clear or supported. Content addresses few aspects of the
assignment. Much of the content is inaccurate in some way. Few opinions are
supported.
14.75 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe writer does not respond to the
assignment or the response is far outside the parameters of the assignment. The
topic and main ideas are not clear. Most content is inaccurate.
25
pts
This
criterion
is linked
to a
Learning
Outcome
Organiza
tion
15 to >13.35 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsInformation is relevant and
presented in a logical order. Writing and integration of source materials is
eloquent and skillful. Connections among topics are clear without being repetitive
or redundant.
13.35 to >11.25 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsWriting and integration of source
materials is adequate with lapses in structure. Most connections among topics
are clear without being repetitive or redundant.
11.25 to >8.85 ptsBelow ExpectationsWriting and integration of source
materials is awkward or confusing. Few connections among topics are clear.
There is some repetitiveness or redundancy.
8.85 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThere is no clear , structure. Writing
lacks skill. Sources are not present. Connections among topics are not evident.
15
pts
This
criterion
is linked
to a
Learning
Outcome
Mechani
cs and
APA
10 to >8.9 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsThe assignment consistently
follows current APA Style and is free from errors in formatting, citation, and
references. No grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. All sources are cited
and referenced correctly. The paper meets all assignment criteria in length,
structure, and source criteria.
8.9 to >7.5 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsThe assignment consistently follows
current APA Style with only isolated and inconsistent mistakes and/or has a few
grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. Most sources are cited and
referenced correctly. The paper meets most of the assignment criteria in length,
structure, and source criteria.
7.5 to >5.9 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe assignment occasionally follows current
or outdated APA Style with multiple mistakes and/or grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors. Few sources are cited and referenced correctly. The paper
meets some of the assignment criteria in length, structure, and source criteria.
5.9 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe assignment does not follow
current APA Style and/or has many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.
Many sources are cited and referenced incorrectly, or citations and references are
missing. The paper meets few of the assignment criteria in length, structure, and
source criteria.
10
pts
Total Points: 50
USE THIS INformation for the citations and when it
asks you to go back to the txtbook ON THE PAPER
Module 32
Trait, Learning, Biological and Evolutionary, and Humanistic Approaches to Personality
LEARNING OUTCOME
LO 32-1 What are the major aspects of trait, learning, biological and evolutionary,
and humanistic approaches to personality?
“Tell me about Nelson,” said Johnetta.
“Oh, he’s just terrific. He’s the friendliest guy I know—goes out of his way to be nice to
everyone. He hardly ever gets mad. He’s just so even-tempered, no matter what’s
happening. And he’s really smart, too. About the only thing I don’t like is that he’s
always in such a hurry to get things done. He seems to have boundless energy, much
more than I have.”
“He sounds great to me, especially in comparison to Rico,” replied Johnetta. “He is so
self-centered and arrogant that it drives me crazy. I sometimes wonder why I ever
started going out with him.”
Friendly. Even-tempered. Smart. Energetic. Self-centered. Arrogant.
The above exchange is made up of a series of trait characterizations of the speakers’
friends. In fact, much of our own understanding of others’ behavior is based on the
premise that people possess certain traits that are consistent across different situations.
For example, we generally assume that if someone is outgoing and sociable in one
situation, then they are outgoing and sociable in other situations (Leising et al., 2014;
Arvantis & Kalliris, 2020; Atherton et al., 2021).
Dissatisfaction with the emphasis in psychoanalytic theory on unconscious—and
difficult-to-demonstrate—processes in explaining a person’s behavior led to the
development of alternative approaches to personality, including a number of trait-based
approaches. Other theories reflect established psychological perspectives, such as
learning theory, biological and evolutionary approaches, and the humanistic approach.
Trait Approaches: Placing Labels on Personality
If someone asked you to characterize another person, as Johnetta did of her friend, you
probably would come up with a list of traits. Traits are consistent, habitual personality
characteristics and behaviors that are displayed across different situations.
Study Alert
All trait theories explain personality in terms of traits (consistent personality
characteristics and behaviors), but they differ in terms of which and how many traits are
seen as fundamental.
Trait theory is the personality approach that seeks to identify the basic traits necessary
to describe personality. Trait theorists do not assume that some people have a particular
trait while others do not. Instead, they propose that all people possess a set of traits, but
the degree to which a particular trait applies to a specific person varies and can be
quantified.
For instance, they might assume that all people have the trait of “friendliness” but in
different degrees. You may be relatively friendly, whereas I may be relatively unfriendly.
But we both have a “friendliness” trait, although your degree of “friendliness” is higher
than mine.
The major challenge for trait theorists taking this approach has been to identify the
specific basic traits necessary to describe personality. As we shall see, different
theorists have come up with surprisingly different sets of traits. (Also see the Applying
Psychology in the 21st Century feature.)
APPLYING PSYCHOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY
IS YOUR PERSONALITY WRITTEN ALL OVER YOUR FACE?
Have you ever seen a self-portrait and wondered whether the artist really looked like
that or whether the self-portrait didn’t perhaps reflect at least a little bit of wishful
thinking?
Personality researchers have wondered the same thing—not just about artists but about
all of us. Specifically, they are studying whether the way we see ourselves physically
reflects something about how we see ourselves psychologically. That is, if you think of
yourself as a shy and meek person, for example, do you imagine those personality
characteristics to be apparent from the way you look (Junior et al., 2019; Kachur et al.,
2020; Kosinski, 2021)?
caia image/Alamy Stock Photo
To answer this question, researchers used software to generate many hundreds of
images of human face shapes with small variations. Then they showed them two at a
time to participants and asked them each time to choose which face looked more like
their own. Participants then completed questionnaire measures of their personality traits
and current self-esteem. The researchers then used software to combine all the facial
images that each individual participant chose as more like their own into one composite
face for that participant. And, incidentally, software analysis demonstrated that those
composite faces did each resemble photographs of the participants’ actual faces
(Maister et al., 2021).
Then, in a second phase of the study, other participants were randomly shown the
composite faces as well as the actual photographs of each of the original participants,
and they were asked to rate the personality of each face using the same questionnaire
measure of personality the first group used. The researchers found that in relation to
participants who had described themselves as more extraverted, raters tended to judge
the composite face as looking more extraverted compared with the actual face. The
same was true for personality traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and openness to experience. That is, participants in this phase of the study tended to
exaggerate the degree to which those personality traits were reflected in their facial
appearance.
Interestingly, however, participants whose self-esteem scores were higher with regard to
social interactions were less likely to show this exaggerated self-view. The researchers
speculated that perhaps people with higher social self-esteem get more frequent and
better feedback from others on their actual appearance. Alternatively, people with
accurate self-views may be more likely to have satisfying social relationships, and those
relationships then bolster their social self-esteem.
Overall, the findings indicate that the beliefs and attitudes people hold about themselves
are reflected in how they view their own appearance. These findings consequently
suggest that the way in which we view our personality is embodied in how we think we
look to others.
RETHINK
One interpretation of these findings is that people distort their physical self-views to fit
their psychological self-views. Do you think it’s possible that the opposite happens; that
is, that people’s personalities develop to match how they look? Why or why not?
Why can’t the researchers say definitively that accurate self-views enhance social
interactions or, alternatively, that better social interactions improve the accuracy of one’s
self-views?
Page 397
ALLPORT’S TRAIT THEORY: IDENTIFYING BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
When personality psychologist Gordon Allport systematically pored over an unabridged
dictionary in the 1930s, he came up with some 18,000 separate terms that could be
used to describe personality. Although he was able to pare down the list to 4,500
descriptors after eliminating words with similar meanings, he was left with a problem
crucial to all trait approaches: Which traits are the most important in characterizing
personality?
Page 398
Allport eventually answered this question by suggesting that there are three
fundamental categories of traits: cardinal, central, and secondary (Allport, 1966;
Doremus, 2021):
Cardinal traits. A cardinal trait is a single, overriding characteristic that motivates most
of a person’s behavior. For example, a totally selfless person may direct all their energy
toward humanitarian activities; an intensely power-hungry person may be driven by an
all-consuming need for control.
Central traits. Few people have a single, comprehensive cardinal trait. Instead, they
possess 5–10 central traits that make up the core of personality. Central traits, such as
warmth or honesty, describe an individual’s major characteristics. Each central trait is
assumed to imply the presence of other traits. For example, people who have a central
trait of warmth also are likely to be sociable and friendly.
Secondary traits. Finally, secondary traits are characteristics that affect behavior in
fewer situations and are less influential than central or cardinal traits. For instance, a
reluctance to eat meat and a love of modern art would be considered secondary traits
(Kahn et al., 2013; Zhao & Smillie, 2015).
CATTELL AND EYSENCK: FACTORING OUT PERSONALITY
Later attempts to identify primary personality traits centered on a statistical technique
known as factor analysis. Factor analysis is a statistical method of identifying patterns
among a large number of variables and combining them into more fundamental
groupings. For example, a personality researcher might ask a large group of people to
rate themselves on a number of specific traits. By using factor analysis and statistically
computing which traits are associated with one another, a researcher can identify the
fundamental patterns of traits—called factors—that cluster together in the same person.
Using factor analysis, personality psychologist Raymond Cattell suggested that 16 pairs
of traits represent the basic dimensions of personality. Using that set of traits, he
developed the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, or 16 PF, a personality scale
that is still in use today (Djapo et al., 2011; Wright, 2017; Schermer et al., 2020).
Another trait theorist, psychologist Hans Eysenck (1995), also used factor analysis to
identify patterns of traits, but he came to a very different conclusion about the nature of
personality. He found that personality could best be described in terms of just three
major dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. The extraversion
dimension describes a person’s level of sociability, whereas the neuroticism dimension
encompasses an individual’s emotional stability. Finally, psychoticism is the degree to
which reality is distorted. By evaluating people along these three dimensions, Eysenck
was able to predict behavior accurately in a variety of situations. Figure 1 lists specific
traits associated with each of the dimensions.
FIGURE 1 Eysenck described personality in terms of three major dimensions:
extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Using these dimensions, he could predict
people’s behavior in many types of situations.
Extraversion
Sociable
Lively
Active
Assertive
Sensation-seeking
Neuroticism
Anxious
Depressed
Guilt feelings
Low self-esteem
Tense
Psychoticism
Aggressive
Cold
Egocentric
Impersonal
Impulsive
Source: Ruch et al., 2021.
Note that serious questions have been raised about the integrity of Eysenck’s research.
Still, his work was influential in the field of personality and was a springboard for
additional research (Craig et al., 2021).
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS
Study Alert
You can remember the Big Five set of personality traits by using the acronym OCEAN
(openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism).
For the past two decades, the most influential trait approach contends that five traits or
factors—called the “Big Five”—lie at the core of personality. Using factor analytic
statistical techniques, a consistent body of research has identified a similar set of five
factors that underlie personality. The specific five factors are openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (emotional stability).
They are described in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2 Five broad trait factors, referred to as the “Big Five,” are considered to be the
core of personality.
Table Summary: A table summarizes the big five personality factors and dimensions of
sample traits in 2 columns. Three sample traits are listed for each of the 5 personality
factors.
The Big Five Personality Factors and Dimensions of Sample Traits
Openness to experience
Independent—Conforming
Imaginative—Practical
Preference for variety—Preference for routine
Agreeableness
Sympathetic—Fault-finding
Kind—Cold
Appreciative—Unfriendly
Conscientiousness
Careful—Careless
Disciplined—Impulsive
Organized—Disorganized
Neuroticism (Emotional stability)
Stable—Tense
Calm—Anxious
Secure—Insecure
Extraversion
Talkative—Quiet
Fun-loving—Sober
Sociable—Retiring
Source: Adapted from John, Robins, & Pervin, 2010.
The Big Five emerge consistently across a number of domains: for example, factor
analyses of major personality inventories, self-report measures made by observers of
others’ personality traits, and checklists of self-descriptions yield similar factors. In
addition, the Big Five emerge consistently in different populations of individuals,
including children, college students, older adults, and speakers of different languages.
Cross-cultural research conducted in areas ranging from Europe to the Middle East to
Africa also has been supportive. Finally, studies of brain functioning show that Big Five
personality traits are related to the way the brain processes information (Saucier &
Srivastava, 2015; Bouvard & Roulin, 2017; Hall et al., 2019; John, 2021).
– Rubric