ابعاد کنترل روانشناختی والدین: ارتباطات با پرخاشگری فیزیکی و رابطه پیش دبستانی در روسیه

Recently, it has been proposed that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) occupies the top of the hierarchical personality structure. We present a meta-analysis (K = 212, total N = 144,117) on the intercorrelations among the Big Five personality factors (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) to test for the existence of a GFP. In addition, we report a multi-method validity study testing the relationship between the GFP and supervisor-rated job performance. The meta-analysis provided supporting evidence for the two meta-factors Stability and Plasticity (or α and β, respectively) and a GFP at the highest hierarchal level. The validity study indicated that the GFP has a substantive component as it is related to supervisor-rated job performance.

A fundamental question in personality research is how many basic dimensions are needed to describe individual differences in personality. Over the past decades researchers have made substantial progress in answering this question by using hierarchical models that group behavioral measures into higher-order clusters. One well-known example of such a hierarchical model is the Big Five (Digman, 1990, Goldberg, 1981 and McCrae and Costa, 1999), consisting of Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. These basic factors can explain and predict individual differences over a wide range of settings, including mental health, job satisfaction, and work performance (e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1991 and Judge et al., 2002). Yet, the theoretical discussion about the number of underlying basic personality dimensions remains open. Among the best-known competing hierarchical models are Cattell’s (1987) 16 factors model, Eysenck, 1947 and Eysenck and Eysenck, 1970 Big Three factors of Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism (often referred by the acronym, PEN), and the Big Six (see, Ashton & Lee, 2007), which adds a Honesty–Humility dimension to the Big Five. Digman (1997) and DeYoung, Peterson, and Higgins (2002) made an important contribution to the debate by identifying two meta-factors beyond the Big Five. These meta-factors were later described as Stability and Plasticity (DeYoung et al., 2002). Stability subsumes Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (the reverse of Neuroticism), and Agreeableness, and refers to the extent to which an individual is consistent in motivation, mood, and social interactions. Plasticity encompasses Extraversion and Openness to experience, and refers to the extent to which a person actively searches for new and rewarding experiences, both intellectual and social. More recently, it has been suggested that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) is at the top of the hierarchical structure of personality, analogous to Spearman’s g, the general factor of mental ability ( Hofstee, 2001, Hofstee and Ten Berge, 2004, Musek, 2007 and Rushton et al., 2008). Musek (2007) emphasized the potential relevance of the GFP by stating that it might be a substantive construct with “…deep biological roots, evolutionary, genetic, and neurophysiological.” (p. 1213). Currently, the evidence in favor of a GFP is accumulating. For example, in Musek’s (2007) study, a GFP was identified in each of the three large samples with Big Five measures. Rushton and Irwing (2008) identified a GFP in the original 14 Big Five studies as mentioned by Digman (1997) and in a meta-analysis (N = 4000) of Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005). Although these previous studies already provided evidence for the existence of a GFP in Big Five measures, they either used raw item-level data or comprised data from a limited number of studies. Current scientific discussions about the GFP would benefit however from a meta-analysis based on a large number of Big Five studies. We therefore collated the results of 212 Big Five studies that reported intercorrelations among Big Five measures and estimated the matrix of true intercorrelations. We then applied factor analysis to test for the viability of a GFP in personality measures (Study 1). Although showing the existence of a GFP in personality measures is an important step, it does not necessarily reveal information about the theoretical or practical relevance of such a construct. Therefore, in Study 2 we test whether the GFP is related to job performance, as assessed by means of supervisor ratings. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies yet that have directly linked the GFP to such real-life outcomes. Nevertheless, it may be important to examine the criterion-related validity of the GFP because the debate about how to interpret a GFP is ongoing. Some researchers support the notion of a substantive GFP (e.g., Figueredo et al., 2006, Hofstee, 2001, Musek, 2007 and Rushton et al., 2008). Other researchers suggest that higher-order personality factors (beyond the Big Five) more likely reflect artifact than substance. For example, factors beyond the Big Five (including the GFP) have been argued to reflect social desirable response tendencies ( Bäckström, Björklund, & Larsson, 2009) or statistical artifacts ( Ashton, Lee, Goldberg, & de Vries, 2009). Regarding the social desirability account of the GFP, McCrae et al. (2008) used confirmatory factor analysis on twin-study data to argue that higher-order factors reflect a tendency to present oneself in a positive way when responding to questionnaires. While their reasoning specifically applied to the Big Two (α and β) as proposed by Digman, 1997 and DeYoung et al., 2002, it would apply just as well to any level above the Big Five, and thus also to the GFP. However, even though their artifact (response tendencies) models fit the data better than the substantive factor models, they also noted that models containing both artifacts and substance fit even better. DeYoung (2006) compared personality self-reports against peer ratings and came to a different conclusion than McCrae et al. (2008). Namely, he concluded that the Big Two are indeed substantive and reflect genuine personality factors. Notably, he also found a relatively strong correlation between the Big Two (Mr ≈ .45) but stated that it was uncertain whether this correlation was substantive or artifact. Bäckström (2007) examined social desirability and higher-order personality factors. He found a clear GFP in his IPIP-based personality dataset. This GFP showed an association with social desirability but he stated that despite this association it could not be concluded whether the general factor indeed was an artifact or instead reflected a fundamental factor of personality. Part of this uncertainty can probably also be ascribed to the status of social desirability as a mere response tendency causing artifacts. More specifically, some researchers would argue that social desirability does not only reflect response bias but is also partly a substantive personality construct (e.g., Hofstee, 2001). Ones, Viswesvaran, and Reiss (1996) referred to social desirability as a “red herring” distracting from the true content of factors. In addition, Carroll (2002) interpreted higher-order personality factors to reflect true social desirability in terms of General Social Competence and General Goodness of Personality. Regarding the statistical artifact explanation of a GFP (or other higher-order factors beyond the Big Five), Ashton et al. (2009) argued that higher-order factors reflect personality facets scores that correlate with multiple Big Five dimensions. Due to these multiple correlated facets, higher-order factors will emerge beyond the Big Five, but these higher-order factors may not represent true correlations between the Big Five but instead are statistical artifacts. Thus, they stated that the Big Five or Big Six in the HEXACO model reflect the highest meaningful personality dimensions. They also showed that structural equation models based on correlated facets showed a better fit than models based on substantive higher-order factors. In conclusion, there is evidence supporting the artifact explanation of the general personality factor, but there is also evidence in favor of its substantive nature. For example, Figueredo et al. (2006) showed that a GFP is, similar to other personality factors, related to several major life domains such as parent–child relationship, financial status, self- directedness/planning, subjective well-being, and medical symptoms. In addition, at least one study suggests that the GFP has a heritability coefficient of approximately .50 ( Rushton et al., 2009). In the substantive GFP-view, high-GFP individuals are assumed to have a mix of positive traits that pose an advantage in dealing with many social and environmental demands. In Big Five terms, high-GFP individuals are described as open-minded, hard-working, sociable, friendly, and emotionally stable. In our second study we indirectly address the social desirability or statistical artifact account of the GFP. Our reasoning is based on the assumption that if the GFP is indeed related to performance in a multi-method study (self-report and supervisor ratings) then it is likely to have a substantive component that either affects behavior directly or otherwise affects how other people (e.g., supervisors) perceive a specific individual. Before we outline the validity study however we will first describe how in a meta-analysis (Study 1) we collated the psychometric evidence bearing on the GFP.