the five factor model

dibi

hi guys! i'm doing a presentation next week on why i DON'T think the five factor model is a valid and comprehensive description of human personality. been reading through the articles..there aren't many completely against the big five..but any new ideas from anyone? i personally think there has to be more to describing one's personality..using the big 5 is just the "scientific" way of doing it, so personality can me measured, it seems more practical and methodical fore companies than just sitting down and having a big chat with someone,finding out all about them before you hire them or whatever (personality tests used in personal selection for example) the only thing that really sticks out for me is that you just cannot get the whole picture of a person from 5 traits that seem to be common across the board...just because they're common traits shouldn't mean they should be the only traits we use to assess someone's ability to work or study or whatever..maybe i'm looking at it the wrong way?

TrollHammaren

I'm not a huge fan of the personality side of psychology, but have you considered bringing in studies on social facilitation or other phenomena that affect how people respond to these tests? I know there are a few studies that suggest that many people respond to tests about themselves in an idealised way. I'll give a more helpful response tomorrow when I'm (hopefully) not sleep deprived!

Focalbhach

I don't know whether the company hiring someone is simply an example or if it's the main focus of your presentation... but, either way, I think it has to be pointed out that "sitting down and having a big chat with someone" isn't going to give you a "whole picture" any more than the Big Five will.

I can't think of a reference offhand, but I remember reading a paper suggesting that while there's a face validity aspect to interviews, they don't really add much in the way of predictive validity when compared to other methods of hiring (in terms of how well someone does the resulting job). In other words, interviews are intuitively appealing to those doing the hiring, but don't necessarily tell you much about how effectively a person will work for you. However, I read this ages ago and not especially closely, so there may have been further nuances that I don't remember. If you search one of the databases something should come up.

El_Duderino 09

Also look up generalisability. in italy for example, some of the traits have subtle differences. they are, to an extent, bound by language and culture and cant give a reliable score for people of different cultures or backgrounds

krd

Focalbhach wrote: »

I can't think of a reference offhand, but I remember reading a paper suggesting that while there's a face validity aspect to interviews, they don't really add much in the way of predictive validity when compared to other methods of hiring (in terms of how well someone does the resulting job). In other words, interviews are intuitively appealing to those doing the hiring, but don't necessarily tell you much about how effectively a person will work for you.

The illusion of asymmetric insight. I've had the experience a few times, where I've done a very good phone interview - but when I've turned up for the interview, in my suit etc - I've had a very bad reaction, from the same person who was warm and chatty with me. But the reaction is generally as instantaneous, as first head to toe glance.

Personally, myself, I wouldn't be that prone to thinking I can read someone else's mind - or determine their life story by looking at them - I would be aware, I'm only speculating. But, people, create elaborate narratives for people just at a glance.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight