Draft Exam Answer: Compare and contrast the ‘Big Five’ model of personality with Eysenck’s ‘Giant Three

Compare and contrast the ‘Big Five’ model of personality with Eysenck’s ‘Giant Three

Trait theory, otherwise known as dispositional theory is an approach used to study the human personality. Trait theorists are primarily concerned with the measurement of individual traits, defined as habitual patterns of behaviour, thoughts and emotions. It is of general consensus that personality traits are stable over time, prone to individual differences and influence behaviour. Traits are seen as existing on a continuum with each individual rating somewhere along a spectrum. For example, extraversion refers to how stimulated an individual may be by the company and interaction with others, an individual can rate high or low on the scale of extraversion with individuals rating highly typically being highly sociable individuals that seek stimulation from being around others. Most trait theorists agree that personality forms a hierarchy with supertraits or central traits at the top, with secondary or narrow traits forming these supertraits. These traits are influenced by behaviour. The two most popular trait theories are Eynseck’s Personality Questionnaire, a 3-factor model of personality (Giant Three) and the “Big Five” model of personality. These two models will be explained below, evaluating their similarities and differences.

Eysneck (1951) developed a 3-factor model of personality based on factor analysis. These personality dimensions consist of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. As briefly touched on earlier, extraversion refers to the type of energy one has, and whether they seek stimulation from being around others. Individuals showing high scores of extraversion are likely to be highly sociable and outgoing. Conversely individuals scoring low extraversion feel the need to spend time alone, needing time to process and relax. Neuroticism refers to how emotionally stable an individual is, people high in neuroticism are seen as emotionally unstable, unpredictable and exert poor impulse control. Finally, psychoticism is defined as a pattern of personality traits displaying aggression and high levels of interpersonal hostility.

A major strength of Eysneck’s 3-factor model is that it provides a detailed theory of the causes of personality and attempts to account for the individual differences witnessed in behaviour. A study examining neuroticism in monozygotic and dizygotic twins suggested that neuroticism is hereditarily determined (Eysneck, 1951). Further research by Eysneck found that individual differences in neuroticism may be due to differences in the limbic system responsible for the control and regulation of emotions. Individual differences in levels of extraversion have been linked to variability in cortical arousal, with introverts displaying higher levels of activity than extraverts (Eysneck, 1985). This explains why extraverts seek external stimulation more often than introverts. There is little evidence for the trait of psychoticism however with this trait being the most criticized in the model. It has been argued that the trait is too heterogeneous to be taken as a single trait, and that agreeableness and conscientiousness, both of which correlate with low levels of psychoticism, are better suited factors to a personality model.  There has been much research to argue that there are in fact 5 global factors of personality (Goldberg, 1996, 1999, & Costa & McCrae, 1987, 1992).

The 5-factor model (Big Five), is a personality matrix including both variables and factors. Variables are specific personality traits, with 30 separate traits organised into five domains, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Extraversion and Neuroticism are the same as in Eysneck’s 3-factor model and there is little dispute around these traits, with much research confirming their stability and impact on personality over time. Openness is defined as an individual’s openness to experience and refers to an individual’s willingness to consider new ideas. Conscientiousness refers to an individual’s determination to succeed, linked to traits such as self-discipline, planning, persistence and control. Agreeableness in-part replaces Eysneck’s “psychoticism”, with people whom score low in levels of agreeableness scoring high on levels of psychoticism. Agreeableness refers to an individual’s ability to maintain friendships, and refers to the quality of interpersonal relationships they hold.  Costa and McCrae (1992) have found that these three traits are accurate predictors of behaviour. Openness was found to be an important predictor of vocational interest, conscientiousness was found to correlate with job performance and academic achievement and agreeableness and conscientiousness combined signified life satisfaction. It is argued that these three traits are broad second order traits defined by many significant traits and are a much better measurement of personality, with many traits being lost from the model if these traits are omitted (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Therefore it is argued that the “Big Five” model is better able to capture the variation in personality when compared to Eysneck’s “Giant Three”.

Eysneck (1992) disputes the need for a 5-factor model of personality however, and argues that the correlations between psychoticism in the 3-factor model and agreeableness and conscientiousness in the 5-factor model are high and therefore the traits of A and C should be considered as secondary traits which form psychoticism. There was also a high correlation found between the traits of extraversion and openness (0.43) suggestive that openness should be seen as a primary factor of extraversion and not as a separate factor of the model. He argues therefore there is little evidence on psychometric grounds to warrant using the additional traits of A, C and O as the 5-factor model disregards high correlations between factors arguably of higher order (Eysneck, 1992). Royce and Powell (1983) conducted a meta-analysis of factorial studies, emerging with 3 major dimensions similar to P, E and N. Similarly, Tellagan and Waller (1991) also support three main factors, P, E and N. Costa and McCrae (1992) are criticised for failing to acknowledge the work of Cattell whom also identifies three major factors, two of which are E and N which both the “Giant Three” and “Big Five” include, however Cattell’s third factor was similar to P, although the item pool was argued to not include relevant items to support P.

One major criticism of “Big Five” is that there appears to be much subjectivity and misinterpretation around the naming of the factors. Eysneck’s 3-factor model has a large theoretical framework to support the model (1992). He argues that there is a well supported theory of neuroticism linked to genetic components, learning theory and conditioning principles, all of which support the traits impact on behaviour (Eysneck, 1992). There is little support for the trait of conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness. Costa and McCrae argue the need for personality dimensions linked to biological mechanisms as they argue that the model explains the structural way in which personality is organised. Eysneck (1992) argues however that factor analysis is not enough to support a model to explain personality and argues that measurement without a supportive theoretical explanation is blind. Recent research has found however that all five traits do correlate with brain structure (Taki et al. 2012, DeYoung et al. 2010).

In conclusion, both models offer a viable measure of personality however it is argued that “Big Five” is better able to capture the variability of personality and the differences between individuals. The “Giant Three” is better able to explain how environmental influences impact on behaviour and draws more theoretical conclusions linked to both biology and psychology. While Eysneck’s trait of psychoticism is often criticised, the three alternative traits in Big Five are often disputed and there is ambiguity around what the traits should be called, what they should include and their meaning are subjective therefore open to misinterpretation. A common criticism of both models is that the factors are broad, and it is hard to draw conclusions or predict behaviour based on the scores of these personality measures. Research is still being developed on the measurement of personality with new models such as HEXACO attempting to challenge Big Five (Lee & Ashton, 2004) however the Big Five is still considered the most popular measure of personality and is still widely used today.