Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: More on the "Big Five" Five-Factor Model of Personality

  1. Top | #51
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    9,384
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    26,213
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Words on a chart derived by successive applications of factor analysis then putting words to resulting successive groupinga. Been there rejected that. This stuff is supported by method more than science therefore the warthog uselessness analogy.
    Factor analysis is a recognized statistical technique and Principal component analysis is a common method of it.

    If you think that the Big Five advocates are chasing statistical artifacts, then make your case. Like point to numbers that are easily in the range of random-number simulations.

  2. Top | #52
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,490
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,703
    Rep Power
    57
    First, I'm much more comfortable with working with psychiatrists who apply neuroscientific methods, yano, this drug that hormone sorts of work, to clinical study. With this paper pencil, interview stuff, It's easy enough to follow up such with selective path analysis to show that intercorrelations among labels are way too high for statistical independence presumptions. Besides it's correlation, not deterministic method. What I enjoy is all the fictional reports, based on variance of interpretations, which are soooo different among users of such methods.

    GIGO. For your enjoyment .... here is an academic 'free lunch' study on the subject.

    From: What Do We Assess When We Assess a Big 5 Trait? : A ContentAnalysis of the Aff Analysis of the Affective, Behavioral, and, and Cognitive Processes ocessesRepresented in Big 5 Personality Inventories https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...xt=psychfacpub


    Assume for the moment that there is some very basic coreor-reality to Big 5–level traits, that the ABC dimensions are highly meaningful constructs for assessing that core, and that the operational definitions of traits on ABC dimensions in major inventories reasonably reflect those underlying latent traits. Given those assumptions, our findings suggest that abstract arguments (and conceptual definitions of traits, such as found in personality texts) about the basic nature of traitsmay miss the mark. The Big 5 traits seem to be very different from each other in basic dimensions of structure and substance, not merely in which facets they subsume. Abstract arguments about whether “traits” should include motivation orbe conceptualized as behavioral dispositions rather than as affective or cognitive in nature, and so forth, are largely irrelevant if these major broad traits are substantially different in underlying substance and structure.

    In addition, if the Big 5 traits are vastly different from each other in underlying structure and substance, then different traits may require different types of measurement models and instruments (as previously noted by Hirschberg, 1978). For example, if observers are better judges ofbehavior and self-reports are most accurate for more covertthoughts and feelings (as argued by Johnson, 1997), then—judging from the current fndings— peer reports may bemore accurate assessments of Conscientiousness, whereasself-reports may be more accurate for assessing Neuroticismand Openness. Finer-grained analyses aimed at identifyingthe types or subsets of ABC constructs related to individual traits might be particularly useful for further reflectionon and refinement of trait assessments (Hirschberg, 1978).For example, the cognitive items used to assess Agreeableness may include more belief statements, whereas the cognitive items assessing other traits may focus more on cognitive processes (e.g., the tendency to be inclusive in one’sthinking [Openness]).

    However, we remain conscious that the most obviouslimitation to this study is that although it describes how traitsare currently measured, it leaves unanswered the question ofhow traits should be measured. If we are right in identifyingthe importance of ABC constructs for defining the structureof traits, but wrong in assuming that the operational definitions of traits in the inventories we have studied reflect theunderlying traits, then the missing components, such as thecognitive components of Extraversion and Neuroticism andthe affective component of Conscientiousness, suggest thatmore balanced inventories need to be developed.
    I get seasick with all the interlocking handwave technology here.
    Last edited by fromderinside; 05-26-2020 at 12:46 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 09-24-2018, 11:53 AM
  2. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-14-2016, 09:44 PM
  3. FAUX Noise; Mixing Equal Portions Of "Stud" & "Bubblehead"
    By Medicine Man in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2016, 08:42 PM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-15-2014, 12:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •