Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Big Five Personality Traits: Psychological Entities or Statistical Constructs?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Behavior Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 24 December 2013

Abstract

The present study employed multivariate genetic item-level analyses to examine the ontology and the genetic and environmental etiology of the Big Five personality dimensions, as measured by the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) [Costa and McCrae, Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, 1992; Hoekstra et al., NEO personality questionnaires NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI: manual, 1996]. Common and independent pathway model comparison was used to test whether the five personality dimensions fully mediate the genetic and environmental effects on the items, as would be expected under the realist interpretation of the Big Five. In addition, the dimensionalities of the latent genetic and environmental structures were examined. Item scores of a population-based sample of 7,900 adult twins (including 2,805 complete twin pairs; 1,528 MZ and 1,277 DZ) on the Dutch version of the NEO-FFI were analyzed. Although both the genetic and the environmental covariance components display a 5-factor structure, applications of common and independent pathway modeling showed that they do not comply with the collinearity constraints entailed in the common pathway model. Implications for the substantive interpretation of the Big Five are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Other designs, e.g., the nuclear twin family design, the stealth design, or the cascade design permit simultaneous estimation of A, C, D and E effects (Keller et al. 2010).

  2. Although item-specific residual factors can be subjected to their own AC(D)E decomposition, in the present paper this was not done given our focus on dimensionality assessment and the common/independent pathway model comparison. The residual covariances between the twins were however added. These covariances were estimated separately in the MZs and DZs, given the possible genetic residual effects.

  3. TLI is an incremental fit index based on the difference in fit of a baseline model with uncorrelated variables and the fitted model. The standard rule of thumb was formulated for the analyses of scale scores, not item score. As item scores tend to correlate to a lesser extent than scale scores (often based on multiple items), the standard TLI rule of thumb is hard to satisfy. See e.g. Kenny (2012).

  4. As MPlus output obtained using the WLSMV estimator could not be used for subsequent Chi square difference testing due to the non-linear constraints in the model, estimation was performed using the WLSM estimator.

References

  • Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936) Trait names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychol Monogr 47(1):1–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block J (1995) A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychol Bull 117(2):187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Block JH, Block J (1980) The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In: Collins WA (ed) Minnesota symposium on child psychology, vol 13. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 39–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard TJ Jr, Loehlin JC (2001) Genes, evolution, and personality. Behav Genet 31(3):243–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Comrey AL (1995) Factor analysis of the Neo-PI inventory and the Comrey personality scales in an Italian sample. Personal Individ Differ 18(2):193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB (1943a) The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 38(4):476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB (1943b) The description of personality. I. Foundations of trait measurement. Psychol Rev 50(6):559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB (1945) The description of personality: principles [sic] findings in a factor analysis. Am J Psychol 58:69–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervone D (2005) Personality architecture: within-person structures and processes. Annu Rev Psychol 56:423–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa PT, McCrae RR (1985) The NEO personality inventory: manual, form S and form R. Psychological assessment resources, Odessa

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc., Odessa

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa P, McCrae R (2008) The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, pp 2179–2198

  • de Moor MH, Costa P, Terracciano A, Krueger R, De Geus E, Toshiko T, Penninx B, Esko T, Madden P, Derringer J (2010) Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for personality. Mol Psychiatry 17(3):337–349

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung CG, Hirsh JB, Shane MS, Papademetris X, Rajeevan N, Gray JR (2010) Testing predictions from personality neuroscience brain structure and the big five. Psychol Sci 21(6):820–828

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan CV (1994) Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and 7 response categories: a comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. Br J Math Stat Psychol 47(2):309–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epskamp S, Cramer AOJ, Waldorp LJ, Schmittmann VD, Borsboom D (2012) qgraph: network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. J Stat Softw 48(4):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longmans Green, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora DB, Curran PJ (2004) An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 9(4):466–491

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franić S, Dolan CV, Borsboom D, Boomsma DI (2012) Structural equation modeling in genetics. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York, pp 617–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Franić S, Dolan CV, Borsboom D, Hudziak JJ, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Boomsma DI (2013a) Can genetics help psychometrics? Improving dimensionality assessment through genetic factor modeling. Psychol Methods 18(3):406–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franić S, Dolan CV, Borsboom D, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Boomsma DI (2013b) Three-and-a-half-factor model? The genetic and environmental structure of the CBCL/6-18 internalizing grouping. doi:10.1007/s10519-013-9628-4

  • French JW (1953) The description of personality measurements in terms of rotated factors. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LR (1977) Language and personality: developing a taxonomy of trait descriptive terms. Invited address to the division of evaluation and measurement at the annual meeting of the American psychological association, San Francisco

  • Goldberg LR (1980) Some ruminations about the structure of individual differences: developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of personality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the western psychological association, Honolulu, HI

  • Goldberg LR (1981) Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality lexicons. Rev Personal Soc Psychol 2(1):141–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LR (1982) From ace to zombie: some explorations in the language of personality. Adv Personal Assess 1:203–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LR (1983) The magical number five, plus or minus two: Some conjectures on the dimensionality of personality descriptions. Paper presented at a research seminar, Gerontology Research Center, Baltimore, MD

  • Goldberg LR (1990) An alternative description of personality—the big-5 factor structure. J Personal Soc Psychol 59(6):1216–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LR (1992) The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol Assess 4(1):26–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LR (1993) The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am Psychol 48:26–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn R, Comrey AL (1994) Factor analysis of the NEO-PI and the Comrey personality scales. Psychol Rep 75(1):355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra HA, Ormel J, De Fruyt F (1996) NEO personality questionnaires NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI: manual. Swet & Zeitlinger BV, Lisse

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson W, Krueger RF (2004) Genetic and environmental structure of adjectives describing the domains of the big five model of personality: a nationwide US twin study. J Res Personal 38(5):448–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog KG (1993) Testing structural equation models. In: Bollen KA, Long SJ (eds) Testing structural equation models. SAGE, Newbury Park, pp 294–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (2004) LISREL. Scientific Software International, Inc., Skokie

  • Keller MC, Coventry WL (2005) Quantifying and addressing parameter indeterminacy in the classical twin design. Twin Res Hum Genet 8(3):201–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller MC, Medland SE, Duncan LE (2010) Are extended twin family designs worth the trouble? A comparison of the bias, precision, and accuracy of parameters estimated in four twin family models. Behav Genet 40(3):377–393

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kendler KS, Heath AC, Martin NG, Eaves LJ (1987) Symptoms of anxiety and symptoms of depression—same genes, different environments. Arch Gen Psychiatry 44(5):451–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA (2012) Measuring model fit. http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm. Accessed 28 June 2013

  • Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin JC (1989) Partitioning environmental and genetic contributions to behavioral development. Am Psychol 44(10):1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin J, Martin N (2001) Age changes in personality traits and their heritabilities during the adult years: evidence from Australian twin registry samples. Personal Individ Differ 30(7):1147–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus K, Borsboom D (2013) Frontiers of validity theory: measurement, causation, and meaning. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin NG, Eaves LJ (1977) Genetic-analysis of covariance structure. Heredity 38:79–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mather K, Jinks JL (1971) Biometrical genetics. Chapman and Hall, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle JJ, Goldsmith HH (1990) Alternative common factor models for multivariate biometric analyses. Behav Genet 20(5):569–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr (1983) Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience. Personal Individ Differ 4(3):245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae RR, Costa PT (1999) A five-factor theory of personality. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae RR, Costa PT (2008) Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, vol 1. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 273–294

  • McCrae RR, John OP (1992) An introduction to the 5-factor model and its applications. J Personal 60(2):175–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae RR, Zonderman AB, Costa PT, Bond MH, Paurnonen S (1996) Evaluating replicebility of factors in the revised NEO personality inventory: confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. J Personal Soc Psychol 70:552–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellenbergh GJ (1989) Item bias and item response theory. Int J Educ Res 13(2):127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor-analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58(4):525–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mroczek DK (1992) Personality and psychopathology in older men: the five factor model and the MMPI-2. Dissert Abstr int 53(4B):2095

  • Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2007) Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles

  • Neale MC (2000) MxGui (1.7.03) [Computer software]. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

  • Neale MC, Cardon L (1992) Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nigg JT, John OP, Blaskey LG, Huang-Pollock CL, Willicut EG, Hinshaw SP, Pennington B (2002) Big five dimensions and ADHD symptoms: links between personality traits and clinical symptoms. J Personal Soc Psychol 83(2):451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman WT (1963) Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 66(6):574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norman WT (1967) 2800 personality trait descriptors: normative operating characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker JD, Bagby RM, Summerfeldt LJ (1993) Confirmatory factor analysis of the revised NEO personality inventory. Personal Individ Differ 15(4):463–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peabody D, Goldberg LR (1989) Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. J Personal Soc Psychol 57(3):552–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pervin LA (1994) Further reflections on current trait theory. Psychol Inq 5(2):169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomin R, Caspi A (1990) Behavioral genetics and personality. Handbook of personality: theory and research, vol 2. Guilford Press, New York, pp 251–276

  • R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  • Rebollo I, de Moor MHM, Dolan CV, Boomsma DI (2006) Phenotypic factor analysis of family data: correction of the bias due to dependency. Twin Res Hum Genet 9(3):367–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra A, Bentler PM (2001) A scaled difference Chi square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66(4):507–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmit MJ, Ryan AM (1993) The Big five in personnel selection: factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. J Appl Psychol 78(6):966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tupes EC, Christal RE (1992) Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. J Personal 60(2):225–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dongen JP, Draisma HHM, Martin NG, Boomsma DI (2012) The continuing value of twin studies in the omics era. Nat Rev Genet 13(9):640–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willemsen G, Vink JM, Abdellaoui A, den Braber A, van Beek JHDA, Draisma HHM, van Dongen J, van‘t Ent D, Geels LM, van Lien R (2013) The adult Netherlands twin register: twenty-five years of survey and biological data collection. Twin Res Hum Genet 16(1):271–281

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Sanja Franić, Conor V. Dolan & Dorret I. Boomsma

  2. Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Denny Borsboom

Authors
  1. Sanja Franić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denny Borsboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Conor V. Dolan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dorret I. Boomsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanja Franić.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Franić, S., Borsboom, D., Dolan, C.V. et al. The Big Five Personality Traits: Psychological Entities or Statistical Constructs?. Behav Genet 44, 591–604 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-013-9625-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-013-9625-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation