نامزدی و کنترل نفس: ابعاد مافوق از صفات پنج عامل بزرگ

Two separate factor analyses of Big Five traits have independently identified two higher-order factors. These factors have been interpreted quite differently by their respective researchers. This conceptual paper posits the superordinate personality dimensions of Engagement (engaged versus disengaged) and Self-Control as the common elements of these higher-order factors. A review and integration of existing research shows that Engagement traits decline and Self-Control traits increase during adulthood. The Big Five traits of the Engagement dimension are each empirically related to positive affect, academic engagement in the form of classroom participation, benefiting from major life challenges, sensation seeking, and the construct of inspiration. Self-Control traits are negatively related to variables such as problematic work-related behaviors and job performance, personality disorders, negative affect, and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.

The Five Factor Model of personality has attained a prominent status in the effort to identify the underlying structure of personality traits. The five factors (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience) have been found in numerous personality inventories and are widely applicable cross-culturally (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Two separate and independent factor analyses of the Big Five, using different types of data, have identified two higher-order factors. Results of these analyses suggest an underlying two-dimensional structure of personality traits. However, these higher-order factors have been interpreted quite differently by their respective factor analysts. The present conceptual paper addresses the question: What are the essential elements of these two fundamental dimensions? Digman (1997) factor analyzed sets of factor correlations from 14 studies of Big Five traits. All 14 studies produced five primary factors that were the standard Big Five. Exploratory factor analyses indicated two––and only two––factors were evident in the 14 studies. This stable structure was present despite the wide diversity of data used. Methods involved teachers’ ratings, personality inventories, peer ratings, and self-ratings. The data were also based on varied populations of participants: first- and second-grade children, mostly of Asian ancestry; early adolescents; university students in Germany and Hong Kong; and mature adults in the United States. The two factors found in the exploratory factor analyses comprised Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability (labeled Alpha), and Extraversion and Intellect/Openness (labeled Beta). Mean loadings on the five factors were then correlated across the nine adult studies and across the five studies that were based on children and early adolescents. Several models were then tested by confirmatory factor analyses. Across all 14 studies, the two most stringent models yielded a comparative fit index (CFI) ranging from .957 to 1.000 (Model 1) and .981 to 1.000 (Model 2). A CFI value greater than .90 is considered an excellent fit (Bentler, 1990). Thus, the two higher-order factors appear to be robust across a wide range of participants. Digman (1997) noted these two higher-order factors are necessarily abstract and very broad. He interpreted factor Alpha, which involves the common elements of Agreeableness (versus Hostility), Conscientiousness (versus Heedlessness), and Emotional Stability (versus Neuroticism), as a factor that “represents the socialization process itself” (p. 1249). In this regard, a variety of personality theories from psychoanalysis to behaviorism have emphasized the development of impulse restraint and conscience and the reduction of hostility, aggression, and neurotic defense. Factor Beta was interpreted as personal growth versus personal constriction, a dimension emphasized by personal growth theorists. Thus, the combination of Extraversion, with descriptors such as outgoing, adventurous, and active, and Openness to Experience, with descriptors of creative, imaginative, and open to new ideas and change, is seen as involving personal growth, “an enlargement of self by a venturesome encounter with life and its attendant risks, by being open to all experience, especially new experience” (Digman, 1997, p. 1250). Digman’s (1997) analyses were based on factor correlations rather than item ratings. More recently, Carroll (2002) conducted an extensive hierarchical analysis of teacher ratings of 43 characteristics on 499 early adolescents, a data set previously analyzed by Digman and Inouye (1986) (and not included in the 14 studies analyzed by Digman, 1997). Block (2001) noted the advantage of Carroll’s method of analysis that included individual items because it allowed identification of the particular personality traits associated with the resultant higher-order factors. In Carroll’s procedure, factor analysis of the initial, first-order personality traits of the participants resulted in the standard five second-order FFM factors. The correlations among the five factors of the FFM were then factored, producing two uncorrelated third-order “superfactors.” The superfactors were defined by examining the characteristics with high factor loadings. On Superfactor 1 (SF1), the 15 variables with the highest loadings were: socially confident (.82), adaptable (.76), perceptive (.75), verbal (.73), original (.72), sensible (.72), knowledgeable (.70), curious (.68), imaginative (.68), planful (.66), not lethargic (.66), not rigid (.62), not submissive (.56), aesthetic (.52), and persevering (.54) (as well as assertive (.47) and energetic (.45)). Carroll (2002) labeled this factor General Social Competence. However, many of these variables do not refer primarily to social competence but rather to varieties of experiential engagement (e.g., original, curious, energetic, imaginative, aesthetic, persevering, not lethargic, planful). The 15 variables with the highest loadings on Superfactor 2 (SF2), labeled General Goodness of Personality, were: not impulsive (.85), not restless (.81), not rude (.80), does not fidget (.79), not spiteful (.77), not outspoken (.76), self-minimizing (.76), not assertive (.73), not jealous (.66), not complaining (.65), not verbally fluent (.65), not careless (.59), considerate of others (.58), not fickle (.58), and conscientious (.56) (as well as careful (.50)). There are several limitations to Digman’s (1997) and Carroll’s (2002) interpretations of these higher-order factors. Digman himself noted the difficulty in defining his higher-order factors. One of the limitations of interpreting the factors as representing the socialization process and personal growth is that these concepts refer more closely to developmental processes and outcomes than to personality dimensions per se. Block (2001) noted the “more uncertain, groping terms” (p. 102) used by Digman to describe the Beta (personal growth) factor. Interpreting a trait dimension as “personal growth” uses a term that denotes dynamic change to describe a dimension comprised of static traits. Also, the term personal growth may involve an excessively value-laden judgment of a trait dimension involving high Extraversion and Openness to Experience. It can be argued that low scores on these traits (i.e., Introversion and low Openness) can be associated with growth as much as high scores, albeit perhaps of a different nature. Introversion and low Openness may not necessarily imply absent or stunted growth anymore than Extraversion and high Openness imply a high level of growth. With regard to Carroll’s SF1, the factor variables clearly appear to encompass a wider dimension of engagement than the label of General Social Competence. The traits loading on this factor involve intellectual and experiential qualities as well as social competence, with characteristics reflecting curiosity, imagination, energy, and adaptive flexibility. In regard to SF2, the label of General Goodness of Personality is very vague. Based on the traits loading on this factor, Carroll described high scorers as “considerate of others, conscientious, and thoughtful. Persons with low scores on this factor would be those who tend to be antisocial, too assertive, too talkative, or otherwise objectionable” (p. 119). More precisely than “General Goodness of Personality” therefore, high scores appear to reflect characteristics of self-control such as restraint, (e.g., “not impulsive”), caution (e.g., “careful”), and inhibition of antisocial behaviors.

Engagement and Self-Control appear to reflect the fundamental dimensions of Big Five traits and are related to a variety of psychological and behavioral variables. This suggests the most basic personality trait characteristics are, in broad terms, the extent to which individuals (a) actively engage their inner and outer worlds, and (b) exert self-control. As noted, this bivariate structure of personality traits is significantly related to bivariate dimensions of mood––Positive Affect and Negative Affect. Motives, another major area of personality, are fundamentally distinct from traits (Winter, John, Stewart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). Accumulating evidence from several literatures has cohered around the idea that there are two basic motivational systems, approach and avoidance. It has been argued that approach-avoidance motivation, which has a long and rich intellectual history, should be viewed as fundamental to the study of behavior (Elliot & Covington, 2001). The fact that fundamental traits, motivation, and affect all appear to have a bivariate structure raises the intriguing possibility that the core, underlying structure of basic personality is fundamentally bivariate in nature. Additional research is needed regarding the relations among these elements of personality. Research is also needed to develop and validate measures that operationalize the Big Two constructs of Engagement and Self-Control. One approach to this task is to use existing scales such as measures of Big Five traits. Another approach would be to develop more sensitive measures that directly target the constructs of Engagement and Self-Control. Future research should also examine the relation of Engagement and Self-Control to other behaviors and personality variables. Another research focus is the relation of trait facets to more narrow and specific aspects of Engagement and Self-Control-related behaviors. Facets may provide better “fidelity” in prediction of specific behaviors than broader band-width factors (Ones & Viswesveran, 1996).