A hierarchical faceted model of the Big Five

Abstract

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is nowadays the personality structure which has reached the highest consensus among researchers. Although there exists agreement on its general features, there are some controversies regarding its specific features. With this contribution we intend to add a`little brick' to the unfolding of the FFM. We propose a multifaceted organization of the Big Five and a methodological approach to reach this aim. Using a sample of 961 subjects and a data set of 116 adjectives, 22 facets were empirically developed. They proved to be reliable, convergent, discriminable, and coherent in meaning. When factor analysed together, they reproduced a clear FFM. Moreover, they proved to lie at the narrower core of their factor. To develop these facets we performed a series of principal-component analyses with Promax rotation on a set of adjectives already selected as lying in the core of the factors (i.e. a less than 308 distance from the factor). These facets and this methodology can help to bring out the more prototypical elements of the Big Five: a hierarchical multifaceted FFM is advocated as an approach that refines knowledge about the Big Five.

What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators of Conscientiousness (BIC)

“…The laziness factor at the four-factor solution encompasses many of the key components of achievement or industriousness (e.g., Persist at tasks after a failure; Work extra hard on a project to make sure that it is done right), though it is slightly broader in scope (e.g., Watched TV or went on the internet instead of taking care of responsibilities, Left dirty clothes on the floor) that suggest that industriousness carries over into non-achievement contexts. These results replicated past findings across a number of studies that suggest responsibility, order, industriousness, and self-control are four critical facets of conscientiousness (Peabody and De Raad (2002), Perugini and Gallucci (1997), Roberts et al (2004, 2005), Saucier and Ostendorf (1999); see Appendix A for the items associated with the four-factor solution).…”

“…Replicating past research (Peabody & De Raad, 2002; Perugini & Gallucci, 1997; Roberts et al, 2005; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999), the four-factor solution suggests that responsibility, order, impulse control, and laziness are the most important constructs related to conscientiousness. Extracting more than four factors revealed a number of other interesting candidates for the facets of conscientiousness such as formality, appearance, and punctuality.…”

The Structure of Conscientiousness: An Empirical Investigation Based on Seven Major Personality Questionnaires

“…They found four facets of Conscientiousness: orderliness, industriousness, responsibility, and decisiveness. In a similar study based on an Italian lexicon, Perugini and Gallucci (1997) found four distinct factors: meticulousness (akin to orderliness), superficiality (similar to industriousness), reliability, and recklessness. Moreover, Peabody and De Raad (2002) found independent evidence for facets that correspond to the orderliness, responsibility, industriousness, and impulse control.…”

Towards More Specific Personality Research in Entrepreneurship: Relating Conscientiousness Facets to Venture Performance

“…The identified taxonomies were then cross-referenced (Goldberg (1990), Costa et al (1991), Hofstee et al (1992), Saucier and Goldberg (1996), Paunonen and Jackson (1996), Perugini and Gallucci (1997), Saucier and Ostendorf (1999), Goldberg (1999), Peabody and De Raad (2002), Roberts et al (2004), Ashton and Lee (2005) Conscientiousness becomes somewhat unique when applied to entrepreneurial settings (Robinson et al 1991). Facets were thus reduced to those most entrepreneurially relevant.…”

“…Facets' more detailed explanatory power, combined with their ability to more relevantly target behaviors, also allows them to capture criterion-related variance better. The relationship between personality and other variables is thereby more accurately established (Carver 1989;Perugini and Gallucci 1997;Paunonen and Ashton 2001;Ashton and Lee 2005;Roberts et al 2014).…”