1 / 21

The five-factor model of personality – all we need?

The five-factor model of personality – all we need?. Paul Deakin OPP Ltd BPS Division of Occupational Psychology Conference - Jan 2014. What we’ll be covering. Alternative models of personality: Trait vs Type Relationship between models Results from our research Discussion Q&A.

danae
Télécharger la présentation

The five-factor model of personality – all we need?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The five-factor model of personality – all we need? Paul Deakin OPP Ltd BPS Division of Occupational Psychology Conference - Jan 2014

  2. What we’ll be covering..... • Alternative models of personality: Trait vs Type • Relationship between models • Results from our research • Discussion • Q&A

  3. Introduction • Research team led by Dr Walter Renner (Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Austria). Co-authors Jutta Menschik-Bendele & Rainer Alexandrowicz • Prevalent models of personality – Traits vs Type • Are these different models measuring the same thing?

  4. FFM traits vs MBTI preferences

  5. McCrae & Costa (1989) Correlational analysis: **p<.01, *P<.05 Males n=267, Females n=201

  6. Biderman et al (2012) Correlational analysis: ***p<.001 n=328

  7. Our research

  8. Objective Strong evidence that MBTI and FFM are correlated But Is it reasonable to conclude equivalence from this?

  9. Methodology • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test three different models describing the relationships of the MBTI dimensions with four of the FFM traits • Sample: 435 psychology students (255 women and 180 men) • Measures: MBTI Step I questionnaire and NEO-FFI (both in German)

  10. Model 1: two orthogonal factors Two orthogonal factors NEO E NEO Assumes that the respective MBTI and NEO-FFI scales would measure two uncorrelated latent factors for each pair of scales MBTI E MBTI

  11. Model 2: two correlated factors Two correlated factors NEO E NEO Assumes that the respective MBTI and NEO-FFI scales would measure correlated, but distinct latent factors for each pair of scales MBTI E MBTI

  12. Model 3: one common factor One common factor NEO Assumes that the respective MBTI and NEO-FFI scales would measure identical latent factors for each pair of scales E MBTI

  13. Our results

  14. Correlational results **p<.01, *P<.05 Females n=255, Males n=180 Results consistent with previous research

  15. Confirmatory factor analysis results (1) Stage 1: CFA used to test unidimensionality of individual NEO-FFI and MBTI scales

  16. Confirmatory factor analysis results (2) Results (for all scales): • Normed chi-square values ≤4.1 (but signif) • CFI & TLI mostly >.8 (all >.7), RMSEA & SRMR <.09 Acceptable fit with unidimensional models can be assumed. Notes: CFI = Comparative Fit Index TLI = Tucker Lewis Index RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation SRMR = Standardised Root Mean Square Residual

  17. Confirmatory factor analysis results (3) Stage 2: CFA used to test alleged equivalence of MBTI and NEO-FFI scales.

  18. Confirmatory factor analysis results (4) Results (for all pairs): • Normed chi-square values ≤2 (but signif) • CFI & TLI .70 to .82 • RMSEA approx .05 • SRMR approx .06 For all four scale pairs, Model 2 shows best fit. Suggests distinct but correlated latent factors. Factors correlated at .61 to .79

  19. Model showing best fit Two correlated factors NEO NEO .61 to .79 MBTI MBTI

  20. Discussion • Alignment between NEO-FFI and MBTI dimensions? Yes • Identical? No. They are conceptually related but distinct. • Both instruments can add to the information provided by the other

  21. Thank you! Any questions? Download slides from: www.opp.com/bps_dop_2014

More Related