THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND INTERPERSONAL ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(a) assess the five-factor model as faithfully as possible; and (b) maximize the convergent and discriminant validity of their factor domains" (p. 274). To assess the Five Factor Model, McCrae and Costa (1983) first obtained selfreports and spouse-ratings of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Six months later self-raings were again obtained. Internal consistency for both self-report and spouseratings ranged from .85 to .93. Additionally, retest rehability for self-reports of the three domains ranged from .86 to .91. McCrae and Costa (1983) concluded that the internal structure of these three factors was consistent across self-reports and spouse-ratings After the development of the NEO-PI, McCrae and Costa began to research the relationship between the five factors and other personality assessment instruments (McCrae, 1989). Subjects for this endeavor were part of the Bahimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA). This sample consisted of men and women, 21-96 years old Spouses, friends, and neighbors were also included to provide peer ratings of the BLSA subjects. Unless otherwise noted in the following review of McCrae and Costa's research, subjects were part of the BLSA. McCrae and Costa (1985) examined the correspondence between lexical and psychometric methods of personality assessment They administered Goldberg's (1983) 40-item adjective checklist and an additional, broader 40-hem checklist they created for this study to 459 BLSA subjects who had previously completed self-ratings on the NEO- PI. Over 200 spouses also completed peer ratings on the NEO-PI. From factor analyses emerged the Five Factor Model from Goldberg's adjective list as well as a combined 80- 24
item adjective list. McCrae and Costa (1985) examined the correlations among the lexical factors and the self and peer ratings on the NEO-PI The adjective measures and the NEO-PI self-report measures of neuroticism, extraversion, and opeimess were positively correlated. Convergent correlations above .50 were also obtained between the adjective measures and NEO-PI spouse ratings on the extraversion, neuroticism, and openness factors. The resuhs indicated that the NEO-PI factors corresponded well to factors developed from the lexical trah tradition A later study again examined the correspondence of the five factors between lexical and psychometric measures of personality across observers. McCrae and Costa (1987) added two subscales to assess agreeableness and conscientiousness to the NEO-PI Internal consistency for agreeableness was .89 for within peer-rating and .56 for within self-raings. McCrae and Costa (1987) stated that the low internal consistency of selfreports was due to the inclusion of only 10 items in the self-report scale and to lower average interitem correlations Internal consistency for Conscientiousness was 91 for within peer-ratings and .84 for within self-ratings. When these scales were combined with the neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness scales, then factor analyzed, the five factors emerged This analysis provided support for the validity of the NEO-PI McCrae and Costa (1987) then administered the revised measure and adjective lists to more than 1000 peers of the BLSA sample and requested they rate the subjects on these personaHty scales. According to McCrae and Costa (1987), convergent validity would be evident if there were agreement across observers and instruments The resuhs 25
Page 1 and 2: THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks
Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACT This study utilized the co
Page 7 and 8: CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION According to
Page 9 and 10: particular interaction episode" (p
Page 11 and 12: proximal context, which in turn aff
Page 13 and 14: contextual model should examine the
Page 15 and 16: Hypotheses The following hypotheses
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This c
Page 19 and 20: experience and interpersonal intera
Page 21 and 22: stability, and (e) culture McCrae a
Page 23 and 24: samples of aduhs and children They
Page 25 and 26: personality descriptors. In the sec
Page 27 and 28: the five factors were identified in
Page 29: When creating a new scale, it is ne
Page 33 and 34: was .72 and the largest divergent c
Page 35 and 36: Another study conducted by McCrae a
Page 37 and 38: as measured by the PRF, can be view
Page 39 and 40: Longitudinal studies provide insigh
Page 41 and 42: The major weakness of this line of
Page 43 and 44: interactions, men report higher inh
Page 45 and 46: more likely to avoid initiation int
Page 47 and 48: concluded that individuals high in
Page 49 and 50: type of self-disclosure was also as
Page 51 and 52: Emotional Support Emotional support
Page 53 and 54: likely to be desired if they have t
Page 55 and 56: self-esteem, self-confidence, inter
Page 57 and 58: colored by other information about
Page 59 and 60: confederates, but more negative soc
Page 61 and 62: esults cannot be generalized to opp
Page 63 and 64: Lloyd (1990) contacted the same cou
Page 65 and 66: poshively related to discussing and
Page 67 and 68: contrast, unstable couples were cha
Page 69 and 70: Personality and Interpersonal Compe
Page 71 and 72: partner's personaHty (e.g., extrave
Page 73 and 74: negatively associated whh prosocial
Page 75 and 76: ated by peers on assertiveness and
Page 77 and 78: These results support the premise t
Page 79 and 80: maintenance O'Brien and DeLongis (1
Page 81 and 82:
satisfaction, distal factors (persp
Page 83 and 84:
marriage and then annually for thre
Page 85 and 86:
study indicated that spouses' attri
Page 87 and 88:
Other studies have acknowledged bot
Page 89 and 90:
CHAPTER m METHOD Participants Parti
Page 91 and 92:
(steady dating=61%, engaged=9%, coh
Page 93 and 94:
Table 2. Distribution of scores for
Page 95 and 96:
elationship The hems were summed to
Page 97 and 98:
Beliefs Test (Eiedlson & Epstein, 1
Page 99 and 100:
CHAPTER IV RESULTS Preliminarv Anal
Page 101 and 102:
^ CN -.16* m .19* .29** O ON O .19*
Page 103 and 104:
Table 5 Regressions of proximal fac
Page 105 and 106:
Table 6. Regression of liking on th
Page 107 and 108:
Table 7 Regression of liking on the
Page 109 and 110:
Table 8 Hierarchical regression of
Page 111 and 112:
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This study exa
Page 113 and 114:
hierarchical level (Costa & McCrae,
Page 115 and 116:
Finally, the measure of satisfactio
Page 117 and 118:
"real" me, "I told my partner about
Page 119 and 120:
For example, openness may be more c
Page 121 and 122:
examined Neuroticism was negatively
Page 123 and 124:
Future research should examine how
Page 125 and 126:
developmental theory would help us
Page 127 and 128:
Boyle, G. J (1989) Re-examination o
Page 129 and 130:
Costa, P T , iS: McCrae, R R (1985)
Page 131 and 132:
Forgas, J , Levinger, G., & Moylan,
Page 133 and 134:
Kentle, R. L (1994) An examination
Page 135 and 136:
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989
Page 137 and 138:
Rusbuh, C. E . Johnson, D J., & Mor
Page 139 and 140:
Wildman, B. G. (1986) Perception of
Page 141 and 142:
Subject We would like you to answer
Page 143 and 144:
IF YOU ARE NOT IN A ROMANTIC RELATI
Page 145 and 146:
STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 1
Page 147 and 148:
I AM POOR I .AM EXTREMELY .AT THIS
Page 149 and 150:
Please answer the following questio
Page 151 and 152:
Next, we are interested in how your
Page 153 and 154:
NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY 1 2 3 4 5 4 Co
show all

THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND INTERPERSONAL ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?