Individual Differences in Need for Precision

1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 717-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madhubalan Viswanatian
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Need For Cognition ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Tolerance For Ambiguity ◽  
Motivational Influence ◽  
And Mathematics

This article develops and validates a measure of the construct of need for precision (NFP), defined as a preference for engaging in a relatively fine-grained mode of processing, and studies its relationship to several constructs. NFP is argued to have a motivational influence on several facets of social cognition. The nature of the NFP construct is discussed in the theoretical context of the five-factor model from personality research. A measure of NFP was developed and modified on the basis of tests of reliability and unidimensionality across several studies. The scale was also tested for different forms of validity across several studies using self-reports and behavioral tasks. AHP was related to several constructs from past research including breadth of categorization, unit of perception, need for cognition, tolerance for ambiguity, intelligence, field dependability, and attitudes toward numerical information, statistics, and mathematics.

Development of a Measure of Calculative Mindset (CM): Establishing a Nomological Net and Predictive Utility of the CM Measure

2021 ◽  
pp. 003329412110102
Author(s):  
Joongseo Kim ◽  
I. M. Jawahar ◽  
Brigitte Steinheider ◽  
Thomas Stone ◽  
Brandon Ferrell
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Citizenship ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Work Behavior ◽  
Hierarchical Regression ◽  
Organizational Contexts ◽  
Personality Research

A calculative mindset (CM) describes the tendency to analyze and convert qualitative social values into numeric or monetary metrics and is a predisposition that shapes behaviors and actions of the employee. CM has been manipulated in experimental studies, but it has not been investigated in field research due to the absence of a scale to measure CM. In study 1, we followed Hinkin’s scale development protocol to conceptualize, develop, and validate a measure of CM to facilirate research in organizational contexts. In Study 2, we examined the relationship between CM and measures of performance, counterproductive work behavior (CWB), organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and in role-performance (IRP). Results from hierarchical regression analyses indicate that CM is related to these performance outcomes and explains incremental variance over established measures of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Implications for personality research, selection of human resources, and facilitation of an ethical workplace are discussed.

scholarly journals Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Mõttus ◽  
Jüri Allik ◽  
Anu Realo
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Informant Ratings ◽  
Self Reports

Personality researchers often supplement or substitute self-reports with ratings from knowledgeable informants, at least implicitly assuming that the same constructs are measured regardless of the source of ratings. However, measurement invariance (MI) of personality constructs across these rating types has rarely been empirically tested. Here, this was done for the Five-Factor Model domains and their 30 facets (N = 3,253). Four domains and 26 facets showed the level of invariance (metric MI) required for comparing the relative standings of individuals across self-reports and informant-ratings, which is what researchers mostly do. However, 28 of the 35 scales failed to achieve the level of invariance (scalar MI) recommended when comparing mean scores. Self-informant pairs who contributed to higher MI also tended to display higher cross-rater agreement. In conclusion, self-reports and informant-ratings appear to measure reasonably similar constructs for most research purposes, but poor MI may contribute to imperfect cross-rater agreement.

scholarly journals Ethnicity and Impressions of Personality Using the Five-Factor Model: Stereotyping or Cultural Sensitivity?

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-133
Author(s):  
Andrea Kay Cooper ◽  
David Chin Evans
Keyword(s):  
Social Environment ◽  
Cultural Sensitivity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Facial Symmetry ◽  
Interpersonal Perceptions ◽  
Group Members

The current research investigates whether communities use ethnicity as a cue when forming personality impressions of others. Past research has shown that dress, smiling, hairstyle, and even facial symmetry of targets produce systematic differences in personality impressions across the domains of the Five Factor model of personality. We investigated whether the stated or apparent ethnicity of groups and individuals also produce stereotypic impressions of personality. This study compared impressions across members and non-members of the target groups and examined “cue utility” i.e. whether impressions of the groups agreed with aggregated self-impressions by group members. In all, the results clearly suggest that people utilize ethnicity as a cue when forming impressions of the personalities of groups and individuals, and although those impressions are exaggerated consistent with stereotype theory, they confer some utility in interpersonal perceptions across cultures. Stereotypes are a strategy used to interpret the complex social environment in the absence of more specific information. When that information is available, perceptions of others become more refined and accurate.

UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENCES IN WEB USAGE: THE ROLE OF NEED FOR COGNITION AND THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy L. Tuten ◽  
Michael Bosnjak
Keyword(s):  
Product Information ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Need For Cognition ◽  
Openness To Experience ◽  
Web Usage ◽  
Five Factors ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Web

Using the Five-factor model of personality and Need for Cognition, the authors investigated the relationship between personality and Web usage. Of the five factors, Openness to Experience and Neuroticism showed the greatest association to Web usage. Openness to Experience was positively related to using the Web for entertainment and product information, while Neuroticism was negatively related to Web usage. Need for Cognition was significantly and positively correlated with all Web activities involving cognitive thought.

From types to typological thinking: a reply to Asendorpf

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert R. McCrae ◽  
Antonio Terracciano ◽  
Paul T. Costa ◽  
Daniel J. Ozer
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Typological Thinking ◽  
Q Sort

We continue to disagree with Asendorpf (2006) on the best way to analyse Q‐sort data and on our priorities for personality research. We believe on statistical grounds that the large first factor found in inverse factor analyses of raw CAQ items tells us much about response norms, but little or nothing about individual differences. These emerge more clearly in analyses of standardised items, which show the familiar dimensions of the Five‐Factor Model. Based on our research on types and the mixed results reported by other researchers, we do not believe that replicable empirical types are likely to be found, and suggest that a more profitable line of research would focus on the heuristics of types and the configural interpretation of traits. Published in 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

scholarly journals Ratings of dimensional traits in clinical practice: Comparing therapist and client perspectives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Balling ◽  
Sean Patrick Lane ◽  
Douglas Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Rating Form

Research has repeatedly evidenced the structural validity of the Five Factor Model (FFM), but questions remain about the use of its dimensions in clinical practice. Samuel and colleagues (2018) found therapists reported their clients had lower levels of personality pathology compared to clients’ own self-reports when using the unipolar PID-5 scale. The present study utilized the same sample of 54 client-therapist dyads to examine their use of the bipolar FFM Rating Form (FFMRF). When comparing the clinical ratings to expertly-rated healthy profile ratings, clients rated themselves as more aligned with healthy than their therapists rated them. Alternatively, clients were up to 3.6 times more likely to use the extreme (i.e. theoretically pathological) ratings of the FFMRF compared to their therapists. These results suggest that therapists and clients use these measures quite differently, and we cannot firmly conclude which source reports more pathology. Theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

Merging Structural and Process-related Approaches to the Study of Agreeableness: A Preregistered Replication and Extension Attempt

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Vize ◽  
Donald Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Hierarchical Models ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Antisocial Behaviors ◽  
Substantial Evidence ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Emotional Processes ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Insight Into

Agreeableness is one of the major domains included within prominent hierarchical models of personality like the Five-factor Model (FFM). (Low) agreeableness is the strongest correlate of a variety of antisocial behaviors relative to the other FFM domains. Though there is substantial evidence that (low) agreeableness is arguably the most important personality correlate of various antisocial behaviors, this evidence is descriptive and provides little information on the direction or processes underlying the relation. Process-related research has started to provide more insight into how agreeableness-related traits give rise to various antisocial and prosocial behaviors. The proposed study looked to first replicate previous research on some of the potential cognitive/emotional processes related to agreeableness, and then conduct exploratory analyses to identify which, if any, of the empirically identified facets of agreeableness bear specific relations to the processes under study. Overall, we were unable to replicate the primary effects of interest in regard to processes of agreeableness and found little support for our preregistered confirmatory and exploratory hypotheses despite having high power to detect these effects. Nonetheless, process-models of personality remain at the vanguard of personality research and we discuss how the current results can inform future work in this area.

A Preliminary Validation of Preadolescents' Self-Reports Using the Five-Factor Model of Personality

2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M. Markey ◽  
Charlotte N. Markey ◽  
Barbara J. Tinsley ◽  
Andrea J. Ericksen
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Preliminary Validation ◽  
Self Reports

Personality Neuroscience and the Five Factor Model

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy A. Allen ◽  
Colin G. DeYoung
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Neuroscience Research ◽  
Behavior Motivation ◽  
Psychological Functions

Personality psychology seeks both to understand how individuals differ from one another in behavior, motivation, emotion, and cognition and to explain the causes of those differences. The goal of personality neuroscience is to identify the underlying sources of personality traits in neurobiological systems. This chapter reviews neuroscience research on the traits of the Five Factor Model (the Big Five: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness/Intellect, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness). The review emphasizes the importance of theoretically informed neuroscience by framing results in light of a theory of the psychological functions underlying each of the Big Five. The chapter additionally reviews the various neuroscientific methods available for personality research and highlights pitfalls and best practices in personality neuroscience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document