Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values Notes
Introduction
The five-factor model (FFM) is the dominant approach for representing human trait structure.
It asserts that five basic factors describe most personality traits: Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.
Researchers have used the model to predict individual differences in various settings, including clinical, industrial, organizational, and counseling contexts.
Values are cognitive representations of desirable, abstract goals (e.g., security, justice).
Values motivate actions, similar to needs, motives, and goals.
Values are transsituational, unlike specific goals.
Values are inherently desirable and cognitively represented for communication, unlike needs and motives.
This study examines relations between traits and personal values to deepen the understanding of both.
Value Theory by Schwartz (1992)
Values are defined as desirable, transsituational goals that vary in importance as guiding principles in people’s lives.
The crucial content aspect that distinguishes among values is the type of motivational goal they express.
Schwartz derived 10 types of values, each expressing a distinct motivational goal:
Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-direction
Universalism
Benevolence
Tradition
Conformity
Security
He also specified the structure of relations among these values.
The theory has been tested in more than 200 samples from more than 60 countries, verifying the distinctiveness of the 10 values and the structure of their relations.
The set of 10 values has been used to explain a wide variety of attitudes, behaviors, and subjective states across many nations.
Traits vs Values
Traits: Enduring dispositions describing "what people are like," varying in frequency and intensity.
Values: Enduring goals describing "what people consider important," varying in importance as guiding principles.
Values are considered desirable, whereas traits can be positive or negative.
Values justify choices/actions, serving as standards for judging behavior, whereas traits do not.
Competence example:
Trait: Frequency/intensity of competent actions/ideas.
Value: Importance attributed to demonstrating competence as a guide to action.
High competence value does not guarantee competence trait, and vice versa.
Comparison of Value Theory and FFM
Origins:
Schwartz postulates three universal requirements of human existence give rise to the set of 10 distinct motivational goals:
(a) basic needs of the individual as a biological organism (e.g., stimulation values),
(b) requirements of successful interaction among people (e.g., benevolence),
(c) requirements for the survival of groups and societies (e.g., conformity).
The FFM was derived by inference from empirical analyses rather than deduced from theory.
Content:
Both theories aim at comprehensive coverage of their basic domains of content.
The value theory may represent all broad motivational goals recognized and discriminated across cultures.
The FFM claims to represent comprehensively the basic factors that organize human traits.
Structure:
The value theory explicates the dynamic structure of relations among values.
Actions in pursuit of any value have psychological, practical, and social consequences that may conflict or be congruent with the pursuit of other values.
The total pattern of relations of conflict and compatibility among values yields the structure.
Trait-Value Links
Several mechanisms may link traits and values:
Inborn temperaments may give rise to parallel traits and values.
Values and traits may also mutually influence one another.
Values may affect traits because, other things equal, people try to behave in ways consistent with their values.
Traits may affect values because people who consistently exhibit a behavioral trait are likely to increase the degree to which they value the goals that trait serves
Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) might suggest that traits influence values because people infer what is important to them from their consistent (trait-expressive) behavior.
Hypotheses
Each factor is compatible with the motivational goals of some values and incompatible with the goals of other values.
If the behavioral tendencies that characterize a factor facilitate attainment of the motivational goal of one value, they are likely to interfere with attainment of the goals of values in opposing positions in the circular value structure.
Extraversion
Individuals who score high on Extraversion tend to be sociable, talkative, assertive, and active; those who score low tend to be retiring, reserved, and cautious.
Extraversion is compatible with pursuing excitement, novelty, and challenge, the goals of stimulation values.
Extroverted behavior is also likely to facilitate the pursuit of pleasurable experience, the goal of hedonism values.
Hypothesized order of correlations:
stimulation (1), hedonism and achievement (tied as 2); self-direction, power (tied as 4.5); universalism, security (tied as 6.5); conformity, benevolence (tied as 8.5), tradition (10).
Hypotheses for the facets of Extraversion:
achievement values to correlate most strongly with the assertiveness and activity facets
stimulation and hedonism values to correlate most strongly with the excitement-seeking facet
benevolence values to correlate with the warmth facet
power values to correlate with the assertiveness facet.
Agreeableness
Individuals who score high on Agreeableness tend to be good-natured, compliant, modest, gentle, and cooperative.
Agreeableness is highly compatible with the motivational goal of benevolence values—concern for the welfare of people with whom one has personal contact.
Hypothesized order of correlations:
benevolence (1); tradition, conformity (tied as 2.5); universalism (4); security (5); self-direction (6); stimulation (7); hedonism (8); achievement (9); power (10).
Hypotheses for the facets of Agreeableness:
trust, altruism, straightforwardness, and tender-mindedness facets to correlate most strongly with benevolence values
compliance and modesty facets to correlate most strongly with conformity and tradition values.
Openness to Experience
Individuals who score high on this dimension tend to be intellectual, imaginative, sensitive, and open-minded.
Openness to Experience is highly compatible with the motivational goals of self-direction (autonomy of thought and action and openness to new ideas and experiences) and universalism (understanding and tolerance for all people and ideas and appreciation of beauty and nature).
Hypothesized order of correlations:
self-direction and universalism (tied as 1.5); stimulation (3); benevolence (4); hedonism (5); achievement (6); power (7); tradition, conformity, security (tied as 9).
Hypotheses for the subscales of Openness to Experience:
action facet to correlate most strongly with stimulation values
aesthetics facet with universalism values
fantasy and ideas facets with self-direction values.
Conscientiousness
Individuals high in Conscientiousness tend to be careful, thorough, responsible, organized, and scrupulous.
McCrae and John (1992) identify two distinct aspects of Conscientiousness, a proactive aspect (will to achieve) and an inhibitive aspect (holding impulsive behavior in check).
Hypotheses:
achievement values correlate with the competence, achievement-striving, and self-discipline
conformity values correlate with the order, dutifulness, and deliberation facets
the order and deliberation facets correlate positively with security values.
A blended set of conscientious values correlates most strongly with the Conscientiousness trait factor and with all of its facets.
Neuroticism
Individuals high on Neuroticism tend to be anxious, depressed, angry, and insecure.
Hypotheses:
No positive associations between value priorities and Neuroticism.
Religiosity
Hypotheses:
values explain variance in religiosity over and above the variance predicted by personality traits
traits add little to the prediction of religiosity by values.
Positive affect
Hypotheses:
personality factors explain variance in positive affect over and above the variance predicted by values
values add little to the prediction of positive affect by personality.
Method
Participants were 246 introductory psychology students at an Israeli university.
Instruments
Values: Measured with the Schwartz (1992) value inventory expanded to include the five Conscientiousness items.
Personality factors: Measured the five personality factors with a version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) translated to Hebrew and abbreviated by Montag and Levin (1994).
Positive affect: Measured with the five positive items from the 10-item Bradburn (1969) Positive/Negative Affect Scale
Religiosity: Respondents reported their subjective religiosity ona0(not religious at all) to 7 (very religious) scale
Results and Discussion
All the hypothesized correlations of values with the broad Extraversion factor and its facets were confirmed (all ps < .01).
Spearman correlation coefficient of (p < .01) confirmed the integrated hypothesis for Extraversion.
A Spearman correlation of (p < .01) between the predicted and observed order of correlations supported the integrated hypotheses for Openness.
The Spearman correlation between the hypothesized and observed order of correlations was for Agreeableness.
Conscientiousness correlated most positively with the set of Conscientiousness value items added in this study ().
Values accounted for % of the variance in religiosity when entered in the first step (Panel A).
The personality factors accounted for only % of additional variance for religiosity prediction.
Consistent with the hypothesis, the five personality factors accounted for % of the variance in positive affect when entered in the first step.
Values added only % to the explained variance for Positive affect prediction.
Introduction
The five-factor model (FFM) is the dominant approach for representing human trait structure.
It posits that five broad factors encapsulate most personality traits: Neuroticism (tendency to experience negative emotions), Openness to Experience (intellectual curiosity and creativity), Extraversion (sociability and assertiveness), Agreeableness (compassion and cooperativeness), and Conscientiousness (organization and responsibility).
This model has been extensively utilized in various domains, including:
Clinical settings: Understanding personality disorders and mental health issues.
Industrial and organizational contexts: Personnel selection, team dynamics, and leadership assessment.
Counseling: Facilitating self-awareness and personal growth.
Values are cognitive representations of desirable, abstract goals that individuals strive to achieve (e.g., security, justice, equality).
These values serve as guiding principles that shape attitudes, behaviors, and life choices.
Values operate as motivators of action, akin to needs, motives, and goals, influencing behavior across diverse situations.
Key characteristics of values:
Transsituational: Applicable across various contexts, providing a stable framework for decision-making.
Desirable: Intrinsically positive and sought after, reflecting what individuals consider important and good.
Cognitively represented: Abstracted and articulated for communication and reflection, allowing individuals to share and discuss their values.
This study aims to explore the intricate relationships between traits and personal values to enhance our understanding of both constructs. The research investigates how:
Personality traits influence the prioritization and expression of values.
Values shape the manifestation and development of personality traits.
The interplay between traits and values affects behavior and well-being.
Value Theory by Schwartz (1992)
Values are defined as desirable, transsituational goals that vary in importance, serving as guiding principles in people’s lives.
They are ordered by importance relative to one another.
The crucial content aspect that distinguishes among values is the type of motivational goal they express.
Schwartz derived 10 types of values, each expressing a distinct motivational goal:
Power: Social status, control, and dominance over people and resources.
Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.
Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself.
Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.
Self-direction: Independent thought and action—choosing, creating, and exploring.
Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature.
Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact.
Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self.
Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms.
Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.
He also specified the structure of relations among these values.
The values form a circular continuum where adjacent values are related, and opposing values are conflicting.
The theory has been tested in more than 200 samples from more than 60 countries, verifying the distinctiveness of the 10 values and the structure of their relations.
Empirical evidence from diverse cultures supports the universality and applicability of Schwartz's value theory.
The set of 10 values has been used to explain a wide variety of attitudes, behaviors, and subjective states across many nations.
Applications of the theory span diverse areas, including political attitudes, consumer behavior, and environmental activism.
Traits vs Values
Traits: Enduring dispositions describing "what people are like," varying in frequency and intensity.
Traits reflect consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across time and situations.
Examples include sociability, conscientiousness, and emotional stability.
Values: Enduring goals describing "what people consider important," varying in importance as guiding principles.
Values represent abstract ideals that individuals strive to achieve and uphold.
Examples include honesty, loyalty, and achievement.
Values are considered desirable, whereas traits can be positive or negative.
Values embody what is considered good or important, while traits can encompass both positive and negative characteristics.
Values justify choices/actions, serving as standards for judging behavior, whereas traits do not.
Values provide a rationale for behavior, while traits describe behavioral tendencies without necessarily justifying them.
Competence example:
Trait: Frequency/intensity of competent actions/ideas.
Indicating how often and effectively someone demonstrates competence.
Value: Importance attributed to demonstrating competence as a guide to action.
Highlighting how much someone prioritizes and values competence in their life.
High competence value does not guarantee competence trait, and vice versa.
Someone may value competence but not consistently exhibit competent behavior, and vice versa.
Comparison of Value Theory and FFM
Origins:
Schwartz posits three universal requirements of human existence give rise to the set of 10 distinct motivational goals:
(a) basic needs of the individual as a biological organism (e.g., stimulation values),
Reflecting the need for excitement and arousal to maintain optimal functioning.
(b) requirements of successful interaction among people (e.g., benevolence),
Emphasizing the importance of prosocial behavior and cooperation for social harmony.
(c) requirements for the survival of groups and societies (e.g., conformity).
Highlighting the necessity of adherence to norms and rules for collective well-being.
The FFM was derived by inference from empirical analyses rather than deduced from theory.
The FFM emerged from statistical analyses of trait descriptors, identifying common factors that underlie personality.
Content:
Both theories aim at comprehensive coverage of their basic domains of content.
The value theory may represent all broad motivational goals recognized and discriminated across cultures.
The value theory seeks to capture the full spectrum of human values that guide behavior across different societies.
The FFM claims to represent comprehensively the basic factors that organize human traits.
The FFM aims to provide a complete framework for understanding the fundamental dimensions of personality.
Structure:
The value theory explicates the dynamic structure of relations among values.
The value theory illustrates how different values are related to each other in a circular continuum.
Actions in pursuit of any value have psychological, practical, and social consequences that may conflict or be congruent with the pursuit of other values.
Pursuing one value may either facilitate or hinder the pursuit of other values, creating trade-offs and synergies.
The total pattern of relations of conflict and compatibility among values yields the structure.
The overall configuration of value relationships determines the organization and dynamics of the value system.
Trait-Value Links
Several mechanisms may link traits and values:
Inborn temperaments may give rise to parallel traits and values.
Genetic predispositions may influence both personality traits and value orientations.
Values and traits may also mutually influence one another.
Traits can shape the development and expression of values, and values can guide the manifestation of traits.
Values may affect traits because, other things equal, people try to behave in ways consistent with their values.
Individuals may cultivate traits that align with their values to enhance self-consistency and integrity.
Traits may affect values because people who consistently exhibit a behavioral trait are likely to increase the degree to which they value the goals that trait serves
Individuals may come to value goals that are facilitated by their traits, reinforcing the alignment between traits and values.
Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) might suggest that traits influence values because people infer what is important to them from their consistent (trait-expressive) behavior.
Individuals may infer their values from observing their own behavior, leading traits to shape value self-perception.
Hypotheses
Each factor is compatible with the motivational goals of some values and incompatible with the goals of other values.
Personality traits predispose individuals to prioritize certain values and reject others.
If the behavioral tendencies that characterize a factor facilitate attainment of the motivational goal of one value, they are likely to interfere with attainment of the goals of values in opposing positions in the circular value structure.
Traits that promote the pursuit of one value may hinder the pursuit of conflicting values, reflecting the inherent trade-offs in the value system.
Extraversion
Individuals who score high on Extraversion tend to be sociable, talkative, assertive, and active; those who score low tend to be retiring, reserved, and cautious.
Extraversion reflects a general tendency to seek stimulation and engagement with the external world.
Extraversion is compatible with pursuing excitement, novelty, and challenge, the goals of stimulation values.
Extroverted individuals are drawn to experiences that offer novelty, excitement, and stimulation.
Extroverted behavior is also likely to facilitate the pursuit of pleasurable experience, the goal of hedonism values.
Extroverted individuals often seek out opportunities for pleasure and enjoyment in social contexts.
Hypothesized order of correlations:
stimulation (1), hedonism and achievement (tied as 2); self-direction, power (tied as 4.5); universalism, security (tied as 6.5); conformity, benevolence (tied as 8.5), tradition (10).
This ordering reflects the expected alignment and conflict between Extraversion and different values.
Hypotheses for the facets of Extraversion:
achievement values to correlate most strongly with the assertiveness and activity facets
stimulation and hedonism values to correlate most strongly with the excitement-seeking facet
benevolence values to correlate with the warmth facet
power values to correlate with the assertiveness facet.
These hypotheses specify how different aspects of Extraversion relate to specific values.
Agreeableness
Individuals who score high on Agreeableness tend to be good-natured, compliant, modest, gentle, and cooperative.
Agreeableness reflects a concern for social harmony and positive relationships with others.
Agreeableness is highly compatible with the motivational goal of benevolence values—concern for the welfare of people with whom one has personal contact.
Agreeable individuals prioritize the well-being and interests of those around them.
Hypothesized order of correlations:
benevolence (1); tradition, conformity (tied as 2.5); universalism (4); security (5); self-direction (6); stimulation (7); hedonism (8); achievement (9); power (10).
This ordering reflects the expected alignment and conflict between Agreeableness and different values.
Hypotheses for the facets of Agreeableness:
trust, altruism, straightforwardness, and tender-mindedness facets to correlate most strongly with benevolence values
compliance and modesty facets to correlate most strongly with conformity and tradition values.
These hypotheses specify how different aspects of Agreeableness relate to specific values.
Openness to Experience
Individuals who score high on this dimension tend to be intellectual, imaginative, sensitive, and open-minded.
Openness to Experience reflects a curiosity and receptivity to new ideas, experiences, and perspectives.
Openness to Experience is highly compatible with the motivational goals of self-direction (autonomy of thought and action and openness to new ideas and experiences) and universalism (understanding and tolerance for all people and ideas and appreciation of beauty and nature).
Open individuals value independence, creativity, and tolerance for diversity.
Hypothesized order of correlations:
self-direction and universalism (tied as 1.5); stimulation (3); benevolence (4); hedonism (5); achievement (6); power (7); tradition, conformity, security (tied as 9).
This ordering reflects the expected alignment and conflict between Openness and different values.
Hypotheses for the subscales of Openness to Experience:
action facet to correlate most strongly with stimulation values
aesthetics facet with universalism values
fantasy and ideas facets with self-direction values.
These hypotheses specify how different aspects of Openness relate to specific values.
Conscientiousness
Individuals high in Conscientiousness tend to be careful, thorough, responsible, organized, and scrupulous.
Conscientiousness reflects a tendency to be organized, responsible, and goal-oriented.
McCrae and John (1992) identify two distinct aspects of Conscientiousness, a proactive aspect (will to achieve) and an inhibitive aspect (holding impulsive behavior in check).
Conscientiousness encompasses both a drive for achievement and a capacity for self-control.
Hypotheses:
achievement values correlate with the competence, achievement-striving, and self-discipline
conformity values correlate with the order, dutifulness, and deliberation facets
the order and deliberation facets correlate positively with security values.
These hypotheses specify how different aspects of Conscientiousness relate to specific values.
A blended set of conscientious values correlates most strongly with the Conscientiousness trait factor and with all of its facets.
The overall alignment between Conscientiousness and related values reinforces the coherence of this trait.
Neuroticism
Individuals high on Neuroticism tend to be anxious, depressed, angry, and insecure.
Neuroticism reflects a tendency to experience negative emotions and psychological distress.
Hypotheses:
No positive associations between value priorities and Neuroticism.
Religiosity
Hypotheses:
values explain variance in religiosity over and above the variance predicted by personality traits
traits add little to the prediction of religiosity by values.
Positive affect
Hypotheses:
personality factors explain variance in positive affect over and above the variance predicted by values
values add little to the prediction of positive affect by personality.
Method
Participants were 246 introductory psychology students at an Israeli university.
Instruments
Values: Measured with the Schwartz (1992) value inventory expanded to include the five Conscientiousness items.
Personality factors: Measured the five personality factors with a version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) translated to Hebrew and abbreviated by Montag and Levin (1994).
Positive affect: Measured with the five positive items from the 10-item Bradburn (1969) Positive/Negative Affect Scale
Religiosity: Respondents reported their subjective religiosity ona0(not religious at all) to 7 (very religious) scale
Results and Discussion
All the hypothesized correlations of values with the broad Extraversion factor and its facets were confirmed (all ps < .01).
Spearman correlation coefficient of (p < .01) confirmed the integrated hypothesis for Extraversion.
A Spearman correlation of (p < .01) between the predicted and observed order of correlations supported the integrated hypotheses for Openness.
The Spearman correlation between the hypothesized and observed order of correlations was for Agreeableness.
Conscientiousness correlated most positively with the set of Conscientiousness value items added
The FFM (Five-Factor Model) primarily focuses on broad personality traits and may not fully account for the impact of specific situations on behavior. It is more descriptive, outlining what people are generally like in terms of traits, and less concerned with the underlying processes that generate behavior in various situations. This can be perceived as a limitation when trying to understand and
The FFM (Five-Factor Model) primarily focuses on broad personality traits and may not fully account for the impact of specific situations on behavior. It is more descriptive, outlining what people are generally like in terms of traits, and less concerned with the underlying processes that generate behavior in various situations. This can be perceived as a limitation when trying to understand and
The FFM (Five-Factor Model) primarily focuses on broad personality traits and may not fully account for the impact of specific situations on behavior. It is more descriptive, outlining what people are generally like in terms of traits, and less concerned with the underlying processes that generate behavior in various situations. This can be perceived as a limitation when trying to understand and
The FFM (Five-Factor Model) primarily focuses on broad personality traits and may not fully account for the impact of specific situations on behavior. It is more descriptive, outlining what people are generally like in terms of traits, and less concerned with the underlying processes that generate behavior in various situations. This can be perceived as a limitation when trying to understand and
The FFM (Five-Factor Model) primarily focuses on broad personality traits and may not fully account for the impact of specific situations on behavior. It is more descriptive, outlining what people are generally like in terms of traits, and less concerned with the underlying processes that generate behavior in various situations. This can be perceived as a limitation when trying to understand and
The FFM (Five-Factor Model) primarily focuses on broad personality traits and may not fully account for the impact of specific situations on behavior. It is more descriptive, outlining what people are generally like in terms of traits, and less concerned with the underlying processes that generate behavior in various situations. This can be perceived as a limitation when trying to understand and