facets can understanding facets of personality lead to a better understanding of behaviour
Post on 29-Dec-2015
Embed Size (px)
FACETSCan Understanding Facets of Personality lead to a Better Understanding of Behaviour
Five Factor Model of Personality and its Facets
Openness to ExperienceFantasy/imagination Artistic Interests Emotions & FeelingsAdventurousness Intellect LiberalismConscientiousnessCompetency Orderliness DutifulnessAchievement Striving Self-Discipline CautiousnessExtraversionFriendliness Gregariousness AssertivenessActivity Level Excitement-Seeking CheerfulnessAgreeablenessTrust Sincerity AltruismCompliance Modesty SympathyNeuroticismAnxiety Anger DepressionSelf-Consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability
ImpulsivenessOne of the facets of NeuroticismStrong cravings and urges which are difficult to resistShort term pleasure rather than long term consequences
Whiteside and Lynam, 2001Explored the relationship between the FFM and the multi-faceted Impulsivity4 distinct factors linked to N,C,EUrgency experience strong impulses under negative conditionsLack of Premeditation Spur of the momentLack of Perseverance difficulty staying focussedSensation seeking- enjoy and pursue risky experiences.
Substance useHypothesis that impulsivity is a risk factor for substance use (Acton, 2003),Antisocial Behaviour and ADHD(Nigg et al, 2002).
Why use facets?Paunonen and Ashton (2001)
Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of BehaviourHierarchy: Big Five Factors narrower traits even narrower behaviours
Behaviour variation Independent of the Big FiveSome other variables not covered by Big Five?Some traits independent of the 5FM?Other personality variables that might contribute to the prediction and understanding of behaviour beyond that achieved by the 5FMDebate about utility to the measurement of the narrow constituent facets of BF factors
Research PurposeFurther evaluate the relative contributions of personality factors and personality facets to the prediction of behaviour.
Paunonen (1998)aggregating personality traits into their underlying personality factors could result in decreased predictive accuracy due to the loss of trait-specific but criterion-valid varianceCriticism: lower level trait > higher level factorDifferences between the present study and Paunonens
Method141 students (46M, 95F)2 sessions separated by a week1st session: a battery of self-report measures2nd session: additional self-report measures & peer-rating form
Personality MeasuresPRF-JPI & NEO-PI-R (self-report; both lower level traits and higher level factors)
Criterion Measures:Behaviour Report Form (self-rated & peer-rated); pencil-paper task; experimenter rating; university record; other records.Rater JudgmentsPersonality-Criterion Association
ResultsOverviewReliability of Rater Judgments:PRF-JPI mean 0.390.72 mean reliability for combined panel of 5 judgesNEO-PI-R mean 0.500.81 mean reliability for 5-member panel.Reliability of Personality MeasuresInternal consistency and reliability of self-reports on PRF-JPI trait scales and NEO-PI-R facets scales.
Criterion Validity of Personality Predictors4 separate multiple regression:PRF-JPI factor scalesPRE-JPI trait scalesNEO-PI-R domain scalesNEO-PI-R facet scales
Incremental Validity of Personality PredictorsPRF-JPI trait scales over NEO-PI-R domain scalesNEO-PI-R facet scales over PRF-JPI factor scales
Result of ComparisonsA few carefully selected personality facet scales can predict as well as or better than can all of the Big Five factors scales combinedA substantial part of the criterion variance predicted by the facet scales is variance not predicted by the factor scales
DiscussionGeneralizability of the Present Results
Expected Prediction Results?
Unidimensional vs. Multidimensional Criteria
Beyond the Big Five
ConclusionMeasures of Big Five factors can help to predict and understand behaviour.Also reliable personality-based variation in behaviour not accounted for by Big Five.Sources of non-Big Five personality variance can and should be used for the purposes of reducing error in behaviour prediction and increasing accuracy in behaviour explanation.
Female students disordered eating and the Big 5 facetsMacLaren & Best, 2009; Eating behaviours
Lit review + Intro2.8% of women and 0.5% of men reported significant symptoms of eating disorders (Gadalla & Piran, 2007)Eating disorders relatively rare, but unhealthy preoccupations with weight common (Hautala et al., 2008)25% of normal white US girls perceive themselves as fat50% report controlling their weight in unhealthy manner
Eating disorders and Personality disorderN most consistently associated with eating disorder diagnosis and correlated with eating disorder symptoms in non-clinical samplesSpecifically, combination of high N and low E risk factor (Miller et al, 2006)
Purpose of studyTo characterise individual dispositions that may increase vulnerability to disordered eating at factor and facet level
MethodN = 378 nonclinical female university studentsAll completed NEO-PI-R and Eating attitudes test-26 (EAT) EAT measures atypical behaviours and attitudes about eating; Ps indicate frequency of eating-related thoughts, feelings and behaviours; 3 subscales: 1. Dieting, 2. Bulimia and food preoccupation,3. oral controlEAT used to assign participants into 2 groups:- Sympomatic group (N = 43)- Nonsymptomatic groups (N= 335)Nonsymptomatic groups trait/facet scores were compared with symptomatic groups scores Symptomatic groups scores were correlated with their EAT-subscale scores
Results group comparisonsSymptomatic group:DomainsHigher N, lower ENHigher on all facets, except impulsivenessAHigher on tender-mindednessELower on assertiveness and excitement-seeking
Results- Subscale correlates..Dieting: High dieting scores associated withLow impulsiveness (r = -.34)High self-discipline (r = .34)Oral control: High oral control associated withLow overall N (esp. Impulsiveness and angry-hostility)High overall A (esp. Compliance and Modesty)High self-discipline (r=.43); impulsiveness (r = - .62); angry-hostility (r = -.37), Compliance (r = .46), Modesty (r = .36), Bulimia: high bulimia score associated withhigh impulsivity (r = .35)
DiscussionStudy revealed some robust relationships between personality and disordered eatingSome facets correlated differently with subscales, e.g. Impulsivitynegative correlation with dieting and oral control, pos correlated with bulimia (maybe difference differentiates between Anorexic and Bulimic tendencies)Robust correlates indicate we can to some extent predict behavioural tendencies, i.e. make out people at risk, and maybe even use e.g. anorexia vs bulemia)