Evaluating the Big Five as an Organizing Framework for Commonly Used Psychological Trait Scales
The Big Five is often represented as an effective taxonomy of psychological traits, yet little research has empirically examined whether stand-alone assessments of psychological traits can be located within the Big Five framework. Meanwhile, construct proliferation has created difficulty navigating...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of personality and social psychology 2022-04, Vol.122 (4), p.749-777 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 777 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 749 |
container_title | Journal of personality and social psychology |
container_volume | 122 |
creator | Bainbridge, Timothy F. Ludeke, Steven G. Smillie, Luke D. |
description | The Big Five is often represented as an effective taxonomy of psychological traits, yet little research has empirically examined whether stand-alone assessments of psychological traits can be located within the Big Five framework. Meanwhile, construct proliferation has created difficulty navigating the resulting landscape. In the present research, we developed criteria for assessing whether the Big Five provides a comprehensive organizing framework for psychological trait scales and evaluated this question across three samples (Total N = 1,039). Study 1 revealed that 83% of an author-identified collection of scales (e.g., Self-Esteem, Grit, etc.) were as related to the Big Five as at least four of 30 Big Five facets, and Study 2 found that 71% of scales selected based on citation counts passed the same criterion. Several scales had strikingly large links at the Big Five facet level, registering correlations with individual Big Five facets exceeding .9. We conclude that the Big Five can indeed serve as an organizing framework for a sizable majority of stand-alone psychological trait scales and that many of these scales could reasonably be labeled as facets of the Big Five. We suggest an integrative pluralism approach, where reliable, valid scales are located within the Big Five and pertinent Big Five research is considered in all research using trait scales readily located within the Big Five. By adopting such an approach, construct proliferation may be abated and it would become easier to integrate findings from disparate fields. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1037/pspp0000395 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2620081084</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2620081084</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-7b172b4d1601fe6da557fe26ad50cab9f9dbdf33d137a6fc3df2681660adb7723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90c9rFDEUB_Agit1WT94l4EXQ0bxkMrM56tJVoVDB9hze5Mc2dWYyJjOV9a9vlq0iHswlgXzyfY88Ql4AewdMtO-nPE2sLKHkI7ICJVQFAuRjsmKM80pIqE_Iac63xdSS86fkREjGpVRyRfT5HfYLzmHc0fnG0Y9hR7fhzlHMFEd6mXY4hl-H223Cwf2M6Tv1MdFNHIY49nt6nZ2lX_Pe3MQ-7oLBnl4lDDP9Vo4uPyNPPPbZPX_Yz8j19vxq87m6uPz0ZfPhosIa1Fy1HbS8qy00DLxrLErZescbtJIZ7JRXtrNeCAuixcYbYT1v1tA0DG3XtlyckdfH3CnFH4vLsx5CNq7vcXRxyZo3nLE1sHVd6Kt_6G1c0li6K0pyWIvi_q9Aleq8PpR9c1QmxZyT83pKYcC018D0YTr6r-kU_fIhc-kGZ__Y3-Mo4O0R4ITl5d5gmoMp32iWlNw4H9I0cK5r3dZK3ANjtplv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2619268242</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating the Big Five as an Organizing Framework for Commonly Used Psychological Trait Scales</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Bainbridge, Timothy F. ; Ludeke, Steven G. ; Smillie, Luke D.</creator><contributor>Lucas, Richard E</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bainbridge, Timothy F. ; Ludeke, Steven G. ; Smillie, Luke D. ; Lucas, Richard E</creatorcontrib><description>The Big Five is often represented as an effective taxonomy of psychological traits, yet little research has empirically examined whether stand-alone assessments of psychological traits can be located within the Big Five framework. Meanwhile, construct proliferation has created difficulty navigating the resulting landscape. In the present research, we developed criteria for assessing whether the Big Five provides a comprehensive organizing framework for psychological trait scales and evaluated this question across three samples (Total N = 1,039). Study 1 revealed that 83% of an author-identified collection of scales (e.g., Self-Esteem, Grit, etc.) were as related to the Big Five as at least four of 30 Big Five facets, and Study 2 found that 71% of scales selected based on citation counts passed the same criterion. Several scales had strikingly large links at the Big Five facet level, registering correlations with individual Big Five facets exceeding .9. We conclude that the Big Five can indeed serve as an organizing framework for a sizable majority of stand-alone psychological trait scales and that many of these scales could reasonably be labeled as facets of the Big Five. We suggest an integrative pluralism approach, where reliable, valid scales are located within the Big Five and pertinent Big Five research is considered in all research using trait scales readily located within the Big Five. By adopting such an approach, construct proliferation may be abated and it would become easier to integrate findings from disparate fields.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3514</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000395</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35025595</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Classification ; Female ; Five factor model ; Five Factor Personality Model ; Human ; Humans ; Labeling ; Male ; Persistence ; Personality ; Personality Inventory ; Personality Traits ; Psychological research ; Reproducibility of Results ; Self esteem ; Taxonomies</subject><ispartof>Journal of personality and social psychology, 2022-04, Vol.122 (4), p.749-777</ispartof><rights>2022 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2022, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Apr 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-7b172b4d1601fe6da557fe26ad50cab9f9dbdf33d137a6fc3df2681660adb7723</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-5899-893X ; 0000-0001-5148-8358 ; 0000-0002-3546-2008</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999,33774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35025595$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Lucas, Richard E</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bainbridge, Timothy F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludeke, Steven G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smillie, Luke D.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating the Big Five as an Organizing Framework for Commonly Used Psychological Trait Scales</title><title>Journal of personality and social psychology</title><addtitle>J Pers Soc Psychol</addtitle><description>The Big Five is often represented as an effective taxonomy of psychological traits, yet little research has empirically examined whether stand-alone assessments of psychological traits can be located within the Big Five framework. Meanwhile, construct proliferation has created difficulty navigating the resulting landscape. In the present research, we developed criteria for assessing whether the Big Five provides a comprehensive organizing framework for psychological trait scales and evaluated this question across three samples (Total N = 1,039). Study 1 revealed that 83% of an author-identified collection of scales (e.g., Self-Esteem, Grit, etc.) were as related to the Big Five as at least four of 30 Big Five facets, and Study 2 found that 71% of scales selected based on citation counts passed the same criterion. Several scales had strikingly large links at the Big Five facet level, registering correlations with individual Big Five facets exceeding .9. We conclude that the Big Five can indeed serve as an organizing framework for a sizable majority of stand-alone psychological trait scales and that many of these scales could reasonably be labeled as facets of the Big Five. We suggest an integrative pluralism approach, where reliable, valid scales are located within the Big Five and pertinent Big Five research is considered in all research using trait scales readily located within the Big Five. By adopting such an approach, construct proliferation may be abated and it would become easier to integrate findings from disparate fields.</description><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Five factor model</subject><subject>Five Factor Personality Model</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Labeling</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Persistence</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Personality Inventory</subject><subject>Personality Traits</subject><subject>Psychological research</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Self esteem</subject><subject>Taxonomies</subject><issn>0022-3514</issn><issn>1939-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp90c9rFDEUB_Agit1WT94l4EXQ0bxkMrM56tJVoVDB9hze5Mc2dWYyJjOV9a9vlq0iHswlgXzyfY88Ql4AewdMtO-nPE2sLKHkI7ICJVQFAuRjsmKM80pIqE_Iac63xdSS86fkREjGpVRyRfT5HfYLzmHc0fnG0Y9hR7fhzlHMFEd6mXY4hl-H223Cwf2M6Tv1MdFNHIY49nt6nZ2lX_Pe3MQ-7oLBnl4lDDP9Vo4uPyNPPPbZPX_Yz8j19vxq87m6uPz0ZfPhosIa1Fy1HbS8qy00DLxrLErZescbtJIZ7JRXtrNeCAuixcYbYT1v1tA0DG3XtlyckdfH3CnFH4vLsx5CNq7vcXRxyZo3nLE1sHVd6Kt_6G1c0li6K0pyWIvi_q9Aleq8PpR9c1QmxZyT83pKYcC018D0YTr6r-kU_fIhc-kGZ__Y3-Mo4O0R4ITl5d5gmoMp32iWlNw4H9I0cK5r3dZK3ANjtplv</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Bainbridge, Timothy F.</creator><creator>Ludeke, Steven G.</creator><creator>Smillie, Luke D.</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5899-893X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5148-8358</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3546-2008</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>Evaluating the Big Five as an Organizing Framework for Commonly Used Psychological Trait Scales</title><author>Bainbridge, Timothy F. ; Ludeke, Steven G. ; Smillie, Luke D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a419t-7b172b4d1601fe6da557fe26ad50cab9f9dbdf33d137a6fc3df2681660adb7723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Five factor model</topic><topic>Five Factor Personality Model</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Labeling</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Persistence</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Personality Inventory</topic><topic>Personality Traits</topic><topic>Psychological research</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Self esteem</topic><topic>Taxonomies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bainbridge, Timothy F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludeke, Steven G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smillie, Luke D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Access via APA PsycArticles® (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bainbridge, Timothy F.</au><au>Ludeke, Steven G.</au><au>Smillie, Luke D.</au><au>Lucas, Richard E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating the Big Five as an Organizing Framework for Commonly Used Psychological Trait Scales</atitle><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle><addtitle>J Pers Soc Psychol</addtitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>122</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>749</spage><epage>777</epage><pages>749-777</pages><issn>0022-3514</issn><eissn>1939-1315</eissn><abstract>The Big Five is often represented as an effective taxonomy of psychological traits, yet little research has empirically examined whether stand-alone assessments of psychological traits can be located within the Big Five framework. Meanwhile, construct proliferation has created difficulty navigating the resulting landscape. In the present research, we developed criteria for assessing whether the Big Five provides a comprehensive organizing framework for psychological trait scales and evaluated this question across three samples (Total N = 1,039). Study 1 revealed that 83% of an author-identified collection of scales (e.g., Self-Esteem, Grit, etc.) were as related to the Big Five as at least four of 30 Big Five facets, and Study 2 found that 71% of scales selected based on citation counts passed the same criterion. Several scales had strikingly large links at the Big Five facet level, registering correlations with individual Big Five facets exceeding .9. We conclude that the Big Five can indeed serve as an organizing framework for a sizable majority of stand-alone psychological trait scales and that many of these scales could reasonably be labeled as facets of the Big Five. We suggest an integrative pluralism approach, where reliable, valid scales are located within the Big Five and pertinent Big Five research is considered in all research using trait scales readily located within the Big Five. By adopting such an approach, construct proliferation may be abated and it would become easier to integrate findings from disparate fields.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>35025595</pmid><doi>10.1037/pspp0000395</doi><tpages>29</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5899-893X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5148-8358</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3546-2008</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-3514 |
ispartof | Journal of personality and social psychology, 2022-04, Vol.122 (4), p.749-777 |
issn | 0022-3514 1939-1315 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2620081084 |
source | MEDLINE; Sociological Abstracts; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Classification Female Five factor model Five Factor Personality Model Human Humans Labeling Male Persistence Personality Personality Inventory Personality Traits Psychological research Reproducibility of Results Self esteem Taxonomies |
title | Evaluating the Big Five as an Organizing Framework for Commonly Used Psychological Trait Scales |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T13%3A37%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20the%20Big%20Five%20as%20an%20Organizing%20Framework%20for%20Commonly%20Used%20Psychological%20Trait%20Scales&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20personality%20and%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Bainbridge,%20Timothy%20F.&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=122&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=749&rft.epage=777&rft.pages=749-777&rft.issn=0022-3514&rft.eissn=1939-1315&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/pspp0000395&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2620081084%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2619268242&rft_id=info:pmid/35025595&rfr_iscdi=true |