Talk:Big Five personality traits

Openness to experience and perseverance

The absence of a reference made me skeptical about this statement : "Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance ." How can you explain this ? One can seek creativity, or being inventive without perseverance ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.158.72.212 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy the Big Five approach, but what I think they are saying is "artists get satisfaction from splashing paint; accountants get satisfaction from making the numbers add up; inventors get satisfaction from flashes of brilliance; craftsmen get satisfaction from building and repairing" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.36.162 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Proto's comment on this article

Dr. Proto has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

After

"Moreover, individuals high in neuroticism tend to experience more negative life events,[46][51] but neuroticism also changes in response to positive and negative life experiences"

I would add:

The relationship between income and positive affects seem to be modulated by neuroticims (Boyce and Wood, 2011; Proto and Rustichini 2015)

Proto, Eugenio & Rustichini, Aldo, 2015. "Life satisfaction, income and personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 17-32

Boyce, Christopher J. & Wood, Alex M., 2011. "Personality and the marginal utility of income: Personality interacts with increases in household income to determine life satisfaction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 183-191.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Proto has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Eugenio Proto & Aldo Rustichini, 2012. "Life Satisfaction, Household Income and Personality Theory," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 453, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

isn't this the definition of "original research"?

Learning Styles

As there is no evidence of learning "styles", proposed personality factors cannot be associated with any of the promised many learning styles. Humans pretty much process information the same way as they have very similar cognitive systems. Cognitive styles, involving differences in how humans think, are different than learning styles and only slightly less questionable. I suggest that whole section be deleted or reduced to a mention that learning styles lack empirical support so "research" into links to personality traits are not valid.Robotczar (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Conscientiousness

There is no main section on Conscientiousness. Gypsydoctor (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I stuck it back in. It was deleted about a month ago without explanation and that must have gone unnoticed. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Openness to experience

I removed parts of this section because the sources do not support the conclusions. The Boileau reference basically states that gay computer-literate males who have higher scores on the "openness" factor are more likely to be accepting of an "other" race partner. The conclusion that "There is a strong connection between liberal ethics and openness..." hardly follows.

In the McRae reference, some 277 people were asked to describe themselves and others using 80 adjective pairs, two of which were "liberal/conservative" and "analytic/unanalytic". There was a slightly significant tendency for raters in the group who opined that another member was conservative to also consider them to be unanalytic. The conclusion that political conservatives are in fact less capable of symbol manipulation hardly follows.

Which is not to say its not true. PAR (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Openness to Experience portions of the article need reworking.

Granted, a person low in openness (to actions) will try to avoid risks, and as such, be a cautious person. However, it should be understood that this just partially reflects the slightly negative correlation that exists between openness to experience and conscientiousness, for "cautious" is generally descriptive of someone who scores high in the deliberation facet, or also known as the cautiousness facet of conscientiousness (depending on whether it's the Costa and McCrae's NEO PI-R or the IPIP scale). For this reason, and the fact that Openness to Experience comprises 6 facets, namely: Aesthetics, Actions, Values, Ideas, Fantasy & Feelings (and not just actions) it would be best to find another term that would adequately exemplify the average of those who are or tend to be low in openness (e.g. ordinary, usual, down-to-earth, etc.) . Unless, of course, that someone can support such lexical claim with sufficiently strong evidence. Now, I might be wrong in my estimation that "Openness to actions" accounts for most of the variance in the negative correlation between cautiousness and openness to experience, but even then, the correlation between openness to experience and deliberation doesn't seem to be strong. And more generally, to be insightful about the source of the problems that I've encountered while reading this, I think there is probably a confusion between Novelty seeking and Openness to Experience, which are nonetheless correlated.

I would like to add as well that a person high in openness to experience can be data-driven, after all mystics and skeptics are prone to be more open to new experiences than the rest...... One more thing, the Sample items for Openness to Experience are disproportionately skewed towards the intellect aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.168.167 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Five factors

Please review the following paragraph from section:

"No Strong Preferences (all five dimensions): are adaptable, moderate and reasonable personalities, but can be perceived as unprincipled, inscrutable and calculating.[4]"

English is not my mother tongue, anyway I think it needs clarification and it also contains grammatical and syntactic issues:

- I think there's wrong use of colon punctuation (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Colons.htm)

- Why is "No Strong Preferences" capitalized? What is it?

- What is the meaning of whole paragraph? If I understand well, it could be rephrased as "People who don't exhibit clear tendency towards specific characteristics chosen from above-mentioned related pairs in all five dimensions are [considered] adaptable, moderate and reasonable personalities, but can be perceived as unprincipled, inscrutable and calculating.[4]".

I would like to read what you think. As I stated before I need help with language before considering editing, especially where I'm not so accustomed to. Unfortunately, psychology is one of these fields.

Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fabio Maria De Francesco. I believe that was written to be a bulleted list item (hence the capitalization, the colon, and the brevity), but for some reason it was left unbulleted by itself. I agree that the colon use is not correct (I'd do away with the "are" if it were part of a bulleted list that established this format). I think your interpretation is correct (I might add a "the" before "above-mentioned" and an "a" before "clear tendency", but the meaning is clear). Thank you for pointing that out! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Me, Myself & I (☮). Thank you for your reply. I'm going to make the proposed changes and add the missing articles you pointed out to me. I just want to wait till tomorrow in case some more indications would come. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

clarify please

" Raymond Cattell retained the adjectives, and eliminated synonyms to reduce the total to 171.[9] He constructed a self-report instrument for the clusters of personality traits he found from the adjectives, which he called the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Based on a subset of only 20 of the 36 dimensions that Cattell had originally discovered,"

i just get confused over this. he reduced the number to 171, then further reduced that to 16. then where originate the 36 in the next sentence to be reduced to 20? i am missing here the link between the earlier mentioned 16 and the later 36.176.63.176.112 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC).