1 / 26

Predicting performance from personality: Fewer factors produce feebler forecasts

Predicting performance from personality: Fewer factors produce feebler forecasts. Rob Bailey, OPP Ltd Fiona Young, Oxford University Leonie Nicks, Oxford University BPS DOP, January 2014. Presentation overview. What is the Single Factor of Personality?

maxine
Télécharger la présentation

Predicting performance from personality: Fewer factors produce feebler forecasts

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. Predicting performance from personality: Fewer factors produce feebler forecasts Rob Bailey, OPP Ltd Fiona Young, Oxford University Leonie Nicks, Oxford University BPS DOP, January 2014

  2. Presentation overview • What is the Single Factor of Personality? • Our attempts to find a single factor in 16PF data • Broad factors or specific ones: which predict more? • Discussion and implications RB

  3. Introduction • The 5-Factor structure of personality as the most parsimonious structure of personality has been questioned, given observations of inter-correlations among the traits (Digman, 1997) • A two-factor structure has been argued by some researchers: - Alpha / Beta model (Digman, 1997) - Stability / Plasticity (DeYoung et al, 2001) • Researchers have recently proposed a universal single-factor structure to personality (The General Factor of Personality, GFP, e.g. Musek, 2007; van der Linden, Nijenhuis, & Bakker, 2010) RB

  4. What’s in the general factor of personality? Individuals high on the GFP: • Altruistic • Relaxed • Sociable • Intellectually open • High levels of well-being • Satisfied with life • High self-esteem • Emotional intelligence Individuals low on the GFP: • Not altruistic • Tense • Reserved • Tough-minded • Low well-being • Dissatisfied with life • Low self-esteem • Lack of emotional intelligence Good? Bad? RB

  5. Is this any use in practice? • Two criteria which should be considered: • Conceptual considerations and empirical evidence • A good theory, with supporting data? • Utility for practitioner and value for respondent • Practical use? RB

  6. Criticisms of the SFP • It is due to socially desirable responding (diminishes significantly in non-applicant samples) (Ziegler, 2012) • It diminishes when problematic questionnaire items are corrected so that they are not disproportionally more attractive to endorse than others (Björklund & Bäckström, 2013) • Broad descriptors obscure relationships between personality and criterion measures (Hough, 1992). FFM too broad to be helpful in understanding behaviour (Block, 1995). RB

  7. Our studies • Looking for the SFP in the 16PF • Investigating the role of Impression Management (Social Desirability) in the SFP • Using broad or specific factors to predict work-related criteria FY

  8. Method: measures, participants, procedure FY

  9. Datasets FY

  10. Measures • Personality: European English and US English Versions of the 16 Personality Factor (16PF) 5th Edition Questionnaire (Cattell, & Cattell, 1995) • Engagement at work questions • Self-reported salary and promotions • Competencies: Benchmarks 360 Competency questionnaire (CCL) in US English FY

  11. Study 1: Looking for the SFP • Factor Analysis (PCA) of: • UK/Ireland standardisation set • US & UK HR sets • Same pattern of factors in all datasets • No SFP • Applicants vs. non applicants did not make a difference • Adding Impression Management (social desirability) did not create an SFP FY

  12. Results • Factor 1: • Introverted • Tough-minded (not open) • Accommodating (agreeable) • Self-controlled (conscientious) • Factor 2: • Extraverted • Stable (not neurotic) • Tough-minded (not open) • Self-controlled (conscientious) 37.2% variance Total 62.8% variance 25.5% variance FY

  13. Study 2: splitting the 16PF by IM • Perhaps we could get a SFP by choosing the questionnaire items showing most IM? • Datasets: as before • Answer: No • This still produces a 2 Factor model LN

  14. Study 3: do broad factors predict? LN

  15. Results: r LN

  16. Results: variance LN

  17. Results LN

  18. Discussion RB

  19. Discussion • No adequate single factor in UK or US data • IM did not bind a single factor • Increased predictive power when using more granular personality data RB

  20. Implications • Trade-off between questionnaire length and validity • Impact on high-stakes applications • Under-estimation of the relevance of personality when conducting research on the Big Five • Diminished credibility of psychology and psychometrics RB

  21. Recommendations • Move away from convenient Big Five studies • Investigate specific personality variables and their relationship with specific criteria • Job analysis and detailed assessment are essential for high-stakes decisions such as recruitment RB

  22. Conclusion • The single factor of personality is of interest in improving our understanding of personality measurement • The predictive power of personality is not in broad/generic concepts, but in the specifics • Use of 5 only factors is unforgivable in selection RB

  23. References • Cattell, R.B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book • Cattell, H.E.P., & Cattell, R.B. (1995) Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16PF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 926-937. • Costa, Jr, P.T. And McCrae, R.R. (1989) The NEO-FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FLA: Psychological Assessment Resources. • DeYoung, C.G., Peterson, J.B., & Higgins, D.M. (2002). Higher order factors of the big five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533-552. • Digman, J.M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256. • Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. RB

  24. References • Judge, T.A., Heller, D. and Mount, M.K. (2002) Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 530-541. • McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90. • Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence of the Big One in the Five Factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213-1233. • van der Linden, D., Nijenhuis, J., Bekker, A.B. (2010). The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five inter-correlations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315-327. RB

  25. Copy of slides www.opp.com/bps_dop_2014 RB

  26. Thank you! Any questions? RB

More Related