The Big 5 Personality Traits and Valentine's Advice

This post from the myPersonality Research blog presents results showing that traditional and conscientious people are more likely to be married. The blog-post discusses how it is possible that marriage might somehow cause people to change their personality to be more traditional and conscientious, rather than traditional and conscientious people getting and staying married. However, they still offer the following Valentine's advice: "to show that you’re marriage material ... we suggest that men should... ask their Valentine out with 40 traditional red roses, and arrive on time to take her to a nice conventional romantic dinner."

Are More Conscientious Entrepreneurs More Likely to Fail?

Which Big-Five personality traits drive entrepreneurial failure in highly innovative firms?

Sebastian Wilfling
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Department of Economics
Uwe Cantner
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Department of Economics
Rainer K. Silbereisen
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Institute of Psychology

Abstract:
The relation between the comprehensive personality of highly innovative entrepreneurs and their disposition to fail is still strongly underinvestigated. Therefore in this paper a dataset consisting of 423 entrepreneurs from the German federal state of Thuringia is employed in order to examine the relationship between the Big-Five personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness, neuroticism) and entrepreneurial failure in highly innovative industries. Correspondingly, we identify seemingly successful discontinuances as far as possible with the help of a credit rating. We find evidence that higher agreeable entrepreneurs have a lower probability to fail at all ages, while a higher level of conscientiousness increases the hazard rate at the time of entry, even if this effect diminishes over time. In contrast, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion are seemingly not related to the hazard of entrepreneurial failure.

The Psychology of Facebook

Of the 20 most popular websites in the world, 13 relate to corporations that have European headquarters in Ireland: Ebay, Google, Yahoo and Facebook. The last three of these corporations have been the source of much commentary on this blog. Facebook (FB) has 1.5 millions users in Ireland and it is competing strongly with Google for web-user time-allocation. The chart below (from comScore/Citi) shows FB's increasing share of web-user time-allocation since 2006. FB has an explicit interest in internet economics and it has been mentioned many times before on this blog: from ambient awareness to the App Economy, FB search data to Mulley Com's study of FB eye-tracking, the choice architecture of FB, the FB Global Happinness Index, and of course, the debate on whether FB-use hurts students' grades.


Earlier this week in the Irish Times, Eoin Burke Kennedy wrote an interesting article about the psychology of FB. "Extroverted people tend to have more friends on Facebook but reveal less about themselves while introverts disclose more personal details but to a smaller group." Extraversion is one of the Big 5 personality traits: often discussed on this blog in the context of non-cognitive ability. Here and here, for example. The Big 5 personality traits have also been discussed on this blog before - in relation to social networking and web-users' choice of email address. Readers who find these topics interesting may want to read about the developing field of cyberpsychology - this subject encompasses all the psychological phenomena that are associated with or affected by emerging technology.

The content of the Irish Times article (mentioned above) is based on work by Dublin Business School psychologist Dr Ciarán McMahon. "McMahon has conducted an extensive review of the psychological literature on Facebook to better understand what makes it tick". McMahon runs a blog, PsychBook Research, which links to one of his recent presentations: "Facebook and psychology: What we know so far". While the Geary Blog has often mentioned the career opportunities for economists in corporations such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft; and opportunities for applied economists in private sector firms such as Netflix, SeatGeek, Yapta, Inon and Nielsen; opportunities for psychologists seem likely in Facebook, and in other Web 2.0 commerce.

Using Measures of Non-Cognitive Ability in Economics

Cognitive ability (as measured by test scores) only determines part of a person's success in the labour market. This came into sharp focus in the economics profession at the 2001 meeting of the American Economics Association. At this meeting a number of papers were presented about the importance of non-cognitive ability (also referred to by some authors as 'non-cognitive skills'). An example is Heckman and Rubinstein (2001) who mention non-cognitive skills such as "persistence, reliability and self-discipline". Most often though, the phrasing of "non-cognitive ability" is used, for example: Heckman, Stixrud and Urzua (JLE, 2006): "The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labour Market Outcomes and Social Behavior."

Heckman and Rubinstein (2001) identified the importance of non-cognitive abilities with their observation that high school equivalency recipients earn less than high school graduates despite the fact that the high school equivalency recipients are smarter. They attribute this to the negative non-cognitive attributes of equivalency recipients originally dropping out. Their conclusion is that individuals with higher amounts of persistence and self-discipline may be more likely to attain academic qualifications.

In relation to further evidence, Heckman, Stixrud and Urzua (2006) model the influence of young individuals' cognitive and non-cognitive abilities on schooling and earnings. They find that better non-cognitive abilities lead to more schooling, but also have an earnings return over and above this. Kern and Friedman (2008) de-compose (overall) conscientiousness into a range of non-cognitive abilities, including persistence, industriousness, organisation and discipline (read previous blog discussion on this here).

The trait of conscientiousness is taken from the "Big Five" set of personality characteristics. Kyllonen, Walters and Kaufman (2005) review the literature on noncognitive constructs (such as the "Big Five"), and conclude with a discussion of how non-cognitive constructs (or personality factors) might be used in admissions and guidance applications for graduate education (read previous blog discussion on this here).

Braakmann (2009) has used the German Socio-Economic Panel to show that differences in various non-cognitive traits, specifically the Big Five, contribute to gender inequalities in wages and employment (this was previously mentioned on the blog here). Mueller and Plug (2004) shows that the labour market values conscientiousness and openness to experience for women (previous discussion on the blog here --- in relation to non-cognitive personality, education and earnings).

Kyllonen (2008) is perhaps the most detailed assessment of how to measure non-cognitive abilities; he associates the non-cognitive abilities shown below with the "Big Five" personality traits. Kyllonen is based at the Princeton Educational Testing Service (ETS) and put forward the framework below ("Enhancing Noncognitive Skills to Boost Academic Achievement") at a 2008 Washington conference entitled 'Educational Testing in America: State Assessments, Achievement Gaps, National Policy and Innovations'.

Personality and Life Expectancy (Conscientiousness and Non-Cognitive Skills)

Following on from growing evidence that higher levels of conscientiousness are associated with greater health protection, Kern and Friedman (2008) show that conscientious individuals tend to live longer. Associations with longevity were strongest for the achievement (persistent, industrious) and order (organised, disciplined) facets of conscientiousness.

This suggests that there may be links between longevity and what economists refer to as non-cognitive skills. Even more interesting is the approach taken to de-compose (overall) conscientiousness into a range of non-cognitive skills, including persistence, industriousness, organisation and discipline.

The importance of concientiousness is also documented by Terracciano et al (2008). Furthermore, this study shows that the association of personality traits with longevity is largely independent from the influence of smoking and obesity; longevity was associated with being conscientious, emotionally stable, and active (a facet of extraversion).

Low levels of neuroticism and high levels of extraversion are also associated with a lower later-life risk of developing dementia, according to recent research in Neurology (reported in the Leitrim Observer).

The Development of Personality Over the Life Cycle

Bart Golsteyn will be giving a seminar at 1pm in Geary tomorrow on "Economics and Personality." Borgahns and Golsteyn (2008) have done some work with the DBN Dutch panel data to examine whether changes in personality are related to changes in outcomes and/or specific events and activities during the life cycle.

They report that individuals become more extraverted, conscientious and emotionally stable across the life course. Openness to experience has a hump-shaped relation with age. Risk aversion increases dramatically after adolescence but remains relatively stable thereafter. They also report that individuals who start their college education become more extraverted and agreeable but less emotionally stable and conscientious.

In addition, Borgahns and Golsteyn report that time preference has a U-shaped relation with age: adolescents have very high time preference, then at 36 years of age time preference reaches its minimum, after which it increases again. This is the first longitudinal evidence that we know exists on time preferences. As we mentioned on the blog before, no longitudinal study has previously measured the mean-level stability of time preference over the life cycle, according to Frederick et al. (2002).

Psychological Traits and the Gender Gap in Wages

Nils Braakmann from Leuphana University, Lüneburg has used the German Socio-Economic Panel to show that differences in various non-cognitive traits, specifically the “Big Five”, positive and negative reciprocity, locus of control and risk aversion, contribute to gender inequalities in wages and employment. The evidence suggests that gender differences in psychological traits are more important for inequalities in wages than in employment. Differences in the “Big Five”, in particular in agreeableness, conscientiousness and neurocitism matter for both wages and employment. The paper is available here.

Extraversion and Expectations about the Returns to Higher Education

Gergely and Kézdi discuss college enrollment, the Big Five personality traits (in particular extraversion), and earnings expectations in the context of Hungarian higher education. They report that conditional on IQ and various measures of other personality traits, as well as past schooling experience and past behavioral problems, more extraverted men expect lower returns to higher education.

What Do We Know About Genes, Personality and Behaviour?

Deric Bownd's MindBlog is a useful resource to answer a question such as this. Here Bownds discusses the genetics of personality and well-being. He mentions a study by Weiss et al. (Psychological Science, 2008) that examines personality and subjective well-being in 973 twin pairs. Bownds mentions that numerous studies of personality have shown that genetic effects account for approximately 50% of the variance in the 'Big Five' peronslity traits. Weiss et al. report a very close genetic relationship between positive personality traits and well-being.

Bownds also mentions on his blog (here) that the Nov. 7 issue of Science Magazine is a gold mine of articles on genetics and behavior. He mentions that some believe that psychology is the last frontier of genetic analysis. Of particular interest, there is a story on the strengths and shortcomings of genetic studies of personality. Also, Bownds discusses on his blog (here) a gene that is associated with risk-taking.

How extraverted is honey.bunny77@hotmail.de?

A recent article in Technimentis explains what our email addresses may reveal about our personalities. (I had problems opening this webpage with Explorer so you may want to use a different browser). The story is based on findings by Back, Schmukle and Egloff (2008): "How extraverted is honey.bunny77@hotmail.de? Inferring personality from e-mail addresses", Journal of Research in Personality, 42 (4), 1116-1122.

Six hundred participants provided their e-mail address and were assessed with a short form of the Big Five Inventory, and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Another batch of participants ("observers") rated all of the first groups’ e-mail addresses on 11 personality ratings. The researchers discovered three main results:

1. Observers agreed on their ratings of the e-mail address owners’ personalities.
2. Observers’ ratings were accurate on all personality dimensions except extraversion.
3. E-mail addresses influenced observers, provided valid personality cues, and were utilized fully to make judgments.

The conclusion offered is that individuals could accurately judge the openness level of an individual solely on e-mail address alone; conscientiousness and narcissism are somewhat more difficult to track, and agreeableness and neuroticism slightly more challenging again.

Recent Research on 'Openness to Change', and Other Personality Traits

Justin Wehr mentions on his blog that there is a recent article in Scientific American which discusses research findings on the personality trait: 'openness to change'. According to the article, people become increasingly open to change until they reach about age 30; at that point the trait begins a gradual decline. In the article, one suggested explanation is that people need to be open to change when they are looking for a mate, but once they settle down and have kids, they have a greater need for security.

Myself and Liam have been reading for some time about evidence on whether there is stability in personality traits such as 'openness to change'. An argument in favour of this viewpoint is that there are 'powerful forces' for stability (genes and habit), according to Borghans et al. (2008) . However, the literature on the stability of personality traits over the life cycle has mixed findings.

An 'extreme but common' view among psychologists is that mean-level change in personality is nearly impossible after early adulthood (Borghans et al., 2008). However, it is also suggested that the greatest mean-level change in most personality traits takes place in young adulthood (i.e. early 20's) (Borghans et al., 2008). An exception is the trait of sensation seeking (which is linked to risk aversion); there is a dramatic peak in sensation seeking during adolescence (Spear, 2000).

According to Borghans et al. (2008), less is known about the stability of 'preferences in economic decision-making', in comparison to the stability of personality traits. No longitudinal study has measured the mean-level stability of time preference over the life cycle (Frederick et al., 2002). Sahm (2007) shows that risk aversion is not a perfectly stable characteristic over the lifecycle and that it increases with age.

Even if preferences in the economic decision-making of a cohort change as the cohort gets older, myself and Liam have argued that there is still a mean-level in the cohort preferences --- which is relatively stable over a relatively short time frame e.g. the enrolment duration of undergraduate students. Given this, as well as the evidence for an adolescent peak in sensation-seeking, we present the argument that the non-cognitive personality traits of students are not endogenous in an empirical model of human capital investment during higher education. This argument is enhanced by the findings mentioned in Scientific American - that 'openness to change' generally does not start to decline until age 30 and later.

Other recent research and meta-analyses of previous studies, indicate that change occurs in all of the major ('Big Five') personality traits at various points in the lifespan. On average, levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness typically increase with time, whereas extraversion, neuroticism, and openness tend to decrease (Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., and Potter, J.; 2003). In addition to these group effects, there are individual differences: different people demonstrate unique patterns of change at all stages of life (Roberts, B. W., and Mroczek, D.; 2008). However, it should also be remembered that the 'Big Five' is thought to refer to traits that are not context-dependent (McAdams, D. P., 1995).

The Big One

In search of the Big One
----------------------------------------

Nice, nasty, charming, chatty, vulpine, vulgar...when we get down to it, just how many personality traits are there? It's a question psychologists and philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries.

In recent years, researchers have tended to agree that personality is pretty much summed up by the Big Five factors of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness. Now Janek Musek at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia has waded into the debate with the suggestion that there exists an overriding personality characteristic - he calls it the 'Big One' - with which all other personality traits are correlated.

Musek tested hundreds of participants using numerous personality measures, including the Big Five Inventory, the Big Five Observer and the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS).

Using a statistical technique called factor analysis, Musek found that a single factor explained much of the variance in people's scores on the Big Five Dimensions of personality. This means that someone who scores highly on one of the five factors (in the case of neuroticism, scores are reversed so that a 'high score' reflects emotional stability) is also more likely to score high on the others. In other words, there seems to be some key trait that captures the essence of all these dimensions.

What does this mean in psychological terms? The Big One seems to reflect a contrast between the socially desirable and undesirable components of the Big Five. "The Big One unifies positive aspects of conformity (stability) and non-conformity (plasticity) within a single superordinated dimension,"
Musek wrote.

And according to Musek there could even been a physiological basis for the person who scores high on the Big One - "combining low levels of the functioning of the central serotonergic system and higher levels of the functioning of the ascending rostral dopaminergic system."
_________________________________

Musek Janek (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213-1233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003

The benefits of being a copycat

Two fairly recent studies show that high self-monitors use mimicry, possible nonconsciously, to get along with others. Self-monitoring is also involved in controlling emotional reactivity and the expression of other personality characteristics. When predicting workplace fit high self-monitoring may be a more important factor than personality traits such as the Big Five (Barrick et al., 2005). On a related point I have recently just come across the concept of 'bounded emotionality' which seems to have been around for some time and described emotional control in organizations (Putnam & Mumby, 1993). In the DRM working was associated with the second lowest level of positive emotion (after commuting) indicating that there may be some truth to the contention. A recent study showing that traders with a higher level of emotional reactivity (both positive and negative emotion) demonstrated higher levels of performance would suggest that 'bounded emotionality' may be detrimental to employers
(MYEONG-GU SEO et al., 2007).

Self-monitoring and mimicry of positive and negative social behaviors

This study examined the role that self-monitoring plays in behavioral mimicry. Participants were exposed to videotaped targets who were laughing, yawning, frowning, or neutral in their expression. Participants’ behavioral mimicry while viewing the targets was recorded. It was hypothesized that higher self-monitors would show greater mimicry than lower self-monitors. It was also hypothesized that participants would respond differently to positive and negative target expressions. Participants who scored higher in self-monitoring did mimic the targets’ behaviors more often, and participants showed less mimicry of frowns than of laughs or yawns.

Self-Monitoring Without Awareness: Using Mimicry as a Nonconscious Affiliation Strategy

This research sought to extend the current conceptualization of self-monitoring by examining whether self-monitoring motives and behaviors can operate outside of conscious awareness. Two studies examined nonconscious mimicry among high and low self-monitors in situations varying in affiliative cues. Participants interacted with a confederate who shook her foot (Study 1) or touched her face (Study 2). In both studies, high self-monitors were more likely to mimic the confederate's subtle gestures when they believed the confederate to be a peer (Study 1) or someone superior to them (Study 2). Low self-monitors mimicked to the same degree across conditions. Thus, when the situation contains affiliative cues, high self-monitors use mimicry as a nonconscious strategy to get along with their interaction partner.

Personlity traits, the Big how many?!

A new study has identified an intermediary level of the Big Five personality traits between the individual facets and the five domains. It would be interesting to see the extent to which the 10 factors are intercorrelated and represent 'aspects' on the Big Five or ten distinct factors:

Factor analyses of 75 facet scales from 2 major Big Five inventories, in the Eugene-Springfield community sample (N=481), produced a 2-factor solution for the 15 facets in each domain. These findings indicate the existence of 2 distinct (but correlated) aspects within each of the Big Five, representing an intermediate level of personality structure between facets and domains. The authors characterized these factors in detail at the item level by correlating factor scores with the International Personality Item Pool (L. R. Goldberg, 1999). These correlations allowed the construction of a 100-item measure of the 10 factors (the Big Five Aspect Scales [BFAS]), which was validated in a 2nd sample (N=480). Finally, the authors examined the correlations of the 10 factors with scores derived from 10 genetic factors that a previous study identified underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets (K. L. Jang et al., 2002). The correspondence was strong enough to suggest that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates.

Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five.