» The Five Factor Model > Myers-Briggs
Myers-Briggs is basically some stuff Jung made up off the top of his head. Since it was invented, research has found it to be kind-of scientific. It’s not concise: the factors are correlated (eg: Intraversion and Thinking) so it could be that a different set of factors would describe a person in less variables. It’s not complete: emotional stability is intentionally left out of Myers-Briggs so nobody’s feelings get hurt.
So to develop a new trait model, psychologists took all the words that are used to describe peoples’ personalities and checked which ones were correlated: they fall into five piles (all the armchair theorists in history were wrong). The Five Factor Model is concise, complete and precise: different ways of measuring yield the same result. The problem is that it’s always presented with a normative interpretation: you are a better person if you score higher on each factor (even though high scores are correlated with some negative things). A Five Factor terminology called “SLOAN” gives more neutral names, I’ve adapted them here:
| Numbering | Psychology term | Low score term | High score term | Organizational behaviour term |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Extraversion | Private | Outgoing | Social |
| II | Agreeableness | Critical | Agreeable | Tact |
| III | Conscientiousness | Easygoing | Industrious | Work |
| IV | Neuroticism | Calm | Emotive | Stress |
| V | * | Practical | Inquisitive | Interest |
* Researchers are divided on what factor V actually represents: “openness”, “intellect”, “imagination” and “culture” are some terms. In general, the terms hide the nuance in each factor, so don’t confuse the popular meaning of the term with its operational definition.
To my knowledge, no one has come up with cutesy names for the 32 poles in five-factor space. This apparently-first-year psychology paper provides a good overview of extensions and criticisms of the model.
This is why left-brain science-types “let’s categorize everything”-people shouldn’t do psychology. This model looks like it’s sitting there, begging for a disproof. It rings so false.
Jack
27 Aug 09 at 11:55 am
Sounds like a good definition of “scientific theory” to me.
Don
27 Aug 09 at 12:33 pm
I heart the five-factor model, but I disagree with “you are a better person if you score higher on each factor.”
Extremely high or low scores on each of the factors are associated with psychological problems (although perhaps the labels make one pole seem more desirable). Example: extremely high agreeableness is associated with gullibility, indiscriminate trust of others, inability to stand up for oneself, and excessive generosity even when it is counter to one’s self-interest.
In fact, one way of conceptualizing personality disorders (or even just maladaptive personality traits) is that they are rigid, inflexible, extreme personality traits leading to maladaptive interpersonal styles and poor coping under stress. Psych. research has found that many DSM-IV personality disorders are associated with extremely high or low levels of each of the five factors (and their lower-order facets, in some cases). Example: Narcissistic Personality Disorder – associated with high neuroticism, high extraversion, high openness, low agreeableness, and somewhat high conscientiousness.
Another interesting tidbit: the five factors of personality do change over the lifespan in somewhat predictable ways (at least as measured by the NEO-PI-R, one of the best-empirically-supported self-reported measures of the FFM). Although the five factors are relatively stable over time after age 30, neuroticism and extraversion tend to decrease with age, while agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase. So perhaps there is hope for those poor kids in foster care and their parents yet?
Laura
27 Aug 09 at 1:23 pm
@Don: Damn, fair point. I suppose I should say it looks trivial to dismantle, but then: I ain’t no kinda expert.
@Laura: So what does association between the Five Factor Model and disorders mean? That disorders upset the model or that the model predicts the disorders? Something else? My gut reaction is that disorders interfere with the model, but as Don pointed out my opinion doesn’t count as science.
Jack
27 Aug 09 at 2:10 pm
@Jack: I think all it means is that the Five Factor Model is correlated with the disorders – although not even that highly in some cases. It doesn’t predict them and the disorders don’t interfere with the model I wouldn’t say (although “Problems with DSM-IV Personality Disorder Diagnoses” is another subject altogether). It is kind of interesting that the FFM can still account for the personality disorders to some extent even though the DSM-IV personality disorders are just a kind of mish mash of psychodynamic theory and invented symptom checklists, while the FFM is fairly soundly empirically supported. I was just trying to suggest that extreme (high or low) scores on any FFM dimension could be associated with dysfunctional personality traits (or disorders) because extreme scores represent a very inflexible way of being.
Laura
27 Aug 09 at 2:33 pm
@Laura: I think I’ve been using a way of thinking about this stuff that’s broken, call it the disease model.
I’ve been assuming that the FFM would be screwed up by, say, narcissistic personality disorder. Questions like, “I enjoy being the center of attention” seem to hit both extraversion and narcissism.
Now I realize that seeing the disorder as separate from the personality might be wrong? There is no “underlying” personality the FFM is trying to quantify and that the disorder is interfering with. The FFM is just measuring the effects of narcissism as a component of the personality. Is that closer to what’s accepted as correct?
Jack
27 Aug 09 at 3:58 pm
@Jack: Some would say that the personality disorders are qualitatively different from normal personality, which is how the DSM is written. Do you have 7 of the following 11 symptoms/maladaptive behaviours? Then you have a PERSONALITY DISORDER. However, it seems more likely to me that a personality disorder is just an extreme on the continuum of normal personality. So, yes, the item “I enjoy being the center of attention” would perhaps tap into both extraversion and narcissism. According to the view of personality disorders as only quantitatively (rather than qualitatively) different from normal personality, the FFM can easily be used to explain normals and PDs. (Side note: many other psychological personality inventories are not written this way – they are tapping only pathological aspects of personality. Take an MMPI-2 or a MCMI-II and you can come out only two ways: crazy or faking sane. Well maybe a third way: very subtly faking sane.)
Laura
28 Aug 09 at 2:57 pm
[...] that I ran into a female narcissist (she was a student — of course she needs a better job). We narcissists don’t brook the smallest criticism. It turns out that people like me, if not as entertaining [...]
Fringe Fest Failure | MentalPolyphonics
29 Aug 09 at 12:48 am
[...] Jack on Thursday, 2009-September-3rd at 2:17 pm Despite all the kerfuffle about Myers-Briggs I found my ENFP diagnosis very useful. I take the descriptions with a grain of [...]
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Try | MentalPolyphonics
3 Sep 09 at 2:36 pm
[...] makes me wonder about the validity of this test (and similar self-reports), but at least we weren’t using the neuro-linguistic programming model that highschool [...]
Homework: Learning Style | MentalPolyphonics
16 Sep 09 at 5:47 pm