Meta-analytic five-factor model personality intercorrelations: Eeny, meeny, miney, moe, how, which, why, and where to go.

Abstract

Meta-analysis is frequently combined with multiple regression or path analysis to examine how the Big Five/Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality traits relate to work outcomes. A common approach in such studies is to construct a synthetic correlation matrix by combining new meta-analyses of FFM-criterion correlations with previously published meta-analytic FFM intercorrelations. Many meta-analytic FFM intercorrelation matrices exist in the literature, with 3 matrices being frequently used in industrialorganizational (I-O) psychology and related fields (i.e., Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005;Ones, 1993; van der Linden, te Nijenhuis, & Bakker, 2010). However, it is unknown how the choice of FFM matrix influences study conclusions, why we observe such differences in the matrices, and which matrix researchers and practitioners should use for their specific studies. We conducted 3 studies to answer these questions. In Study 1, we demonstrate that researchers' choice of FFM matrix can substantively alter conclusions from meta-analytic regressions or path analyses. In Study 2, we present a new meta-analysis of FFM intercorrelations using measures explicitly constructed around the FFM and based on employee samples. In Study 3, we systematically explore the sources of differences in FFM intercorrelations using second-order meta-analyses of 44 meta-analytic FFM matrices. We find that personality rating source (self vs. other) and inventory-specific substantive and methodological features are the primary moderators of meta-analytic FFM intercorrelations. Based on the findings from these studies, we provide a framework to guide future researchers in choosing a meta-analytic FFM matrix that is most appropriate for their specific studies, research questions, and contexts.

Who complies with COVID-19 transmission mitigation behavioral guidelines?

“…First, the TIPI that is used to measure the Big Five might be inferior to other scales, given its internal-consistency issues [ 27 ]. However, as Park, Wiernik [ 66 , p. 1] explain, different big-five factor models are recommended based on “specific studies, research questions, and contexts”. As the TIPI is characterized by having a high level of content validity and is highly urged in situations “when brevity is a priority” [ 41 , p. 289], such as the outbreak of the deadly pandemic, we see its relevance to our study.…”

Open Peer Commentary and Author's Response

“…Beyond those mere assertions, Ones et al complained that the HEXACO factors are overly narrow. In previous work, Viswesvaran and Ones (2016) had made a similar assertion with respect to the Honesty–Humility factor in particular, calling it a “bloated specific.” In our target paper, we demonstrated that this assertion is unfounded by showing that factor loadings of the variables defining Honesty–Humility are not larger than the corresponding loadings for the variables defining other factors. In their commentary, Ones et al have made an even grander argument: All six HEXACO factors are bloated specifics—not just Honesty–Humility.…”

“…We also suspect that Viswesvaran and Ones (2016) are correct in understanding honest–humility as a bloated specific factor (BSF). Ashton and Lee (2020a) suggest that if honesty–humility was “a ‘bloated specific’, then it would be defined by terms that not only seem redundant but also are very highly intercorrelated, thereby producing very high loadings for the defining terms of this factor” (p. 30).…”

“…Personality traits can be meaningfully described at multiple levels of complexity (Ones et al, 2016). At the highly abstract end, broad patterns of trait covariation might be described in terms of two, three, four, or five dimensions (Markon, 2009).…”

“…These rather low correlations don't support their claim quoted above. Note that the corresponding values for NEO-PI-R Agreeableness (from Park et al, 2020) are .25/.20/.09/.25 for low Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness of the NEO-PI-R.…”