Which of the following personality factors is most strongly associated with being more aggressive?

Agreeableness

Brad E. Sheese, William G. Graziano, in Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 2004

1 Describing Agreeableness: What Is It?

Agreeableness has become the label most frequently used for this personality dimension, but it is only one of many such labels. Some of the other labels used to describe the dimension (or closely related dimensions) are tendermindedness, friendly compliance versus hostile noncompliance, love versus hate, likability, communion, and conformity. It has been argued that none of these labels, including Agreeableness, adequately captures either the breadth or the substantive content of this dimension of personality. As a label, Agreeableness has been criticized specifically for being too narrow and perhaps for overemphasizing acquiescence. Theorists have suggested that it may be more appropriate to refer to the dimension either with numerals (the Roman numeral II has been used in the past) or simply with the letter A (for agreeableness, altruism, and affection).

At a theoretical level, Agreeableness describes an underlying system (latent variable) of individual differences. It is one of five broad personality dimensions that appear in all versions of the five-factor approach to personality (i.e., the Five-Factor Model). The five-factor approach describes personality at perhaps its broadest and most abstract (decontextualized) level. Trait adjectives that are positively associated with Agreeableness include kind, warm, cooperative, unselfish, polite, trustful, generous, flexible, considerate, and agreeable. Trait adjectives that are negatively associated with Agreeableness include cold, unkind, uncooperative, selfish, rude, distrustful, stingy, stubborn, and inconsiderate. Overall, Agreeableness describes a broad, but related, set of individual differences in how a person relates to others. Specifically, Agreeableness appears to describe differences in being predominantly prosocial or other-oriented versus antisocial or self-oriented in social interactions.

Self-report measures of Agreeableness are those most frequently used for assessment. The use of ratings of Agreeableness by knowledgeable others (e.g., peers, teachers, parents) in addition to self-ratings is desirable from a psychometric standpoint but is less common due to the increased demands associated with collecting this information. Currently, there are several measures available to assess Agreeableness within the framework of the five-factor approach to personality. The three most frequently used measures in research are Goldberg’s adjective markers, the questionnaire-format Big Five Inventory (BFI) developed by John, and the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO) developed by McCrae and Costa. These measures vary in their construction, length, and content, yet empirical research shows that the five-factor dimensions assessed by these measures, including Agreeableness, are nearly identical across measures. Focusing on Agreeableness, there is some discrepancy between the NEO and the other two measures. The main difference is that the NEO includes warmth as a facet of Extraversion, whereas in the other two measures warmth is associated with Agreeableness. Overall, however, outcomes of studies using different measures of Agreeableness show convergence. For most purposes, the various measures of Agreeableness are functionally equivalent.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0126574103000209

The role of human personality on trust in human-robot interaction

Gene M. Alarcon, ... Marc D. Pfahler, in Trust in Human-Robot Interaction, 2021

Agreeableness

Agreeableness is one of the more studied personality traits in teams. Agreeableness is evident in team performance through its impact on team processes and contextual performance. The friendly, trusting, compliant, and altruistic nature of the agreeable teammate fosters positive group processes such as cohesion, cooperation, and conflict resolution (Barrick et al., 1998). Agreeableness has been associated with trustworthiness perceptions in computer-mediated teams (Lyons et al., 2011), and meta-analyses have demonstrated Agreeableness as an important factor in team performance (Bell, 2007). Additionally, research on interpersonal trust has demonstrated Agreeableness to be a core factor that leads to trust in individuals, with the construct predicting trust beliefs and perceptions (Alarcon et al., 2018). These results are not surprising as dispositional trust is a subordinate trait of Agreeableness.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128194720000071

Understanding Individual Variation in Student Alcohol Use

Hong V. Nguyen, ... William H. George, in Interventions for Addiction, 2013

Agreeableness

Agreeableness reflects the individual's tendency to develop and maintain prosocial relationships. Individuals high in this trait are more trustworthy, straightforward, altruistic, compliant, modest, and tender-minded. Conversely, individuals low in agreeableness are less concerned about social approval and less concerned about protecting others and themselves from harm. Research shows that agreeableness tends to be negatively related to excessive drinking and alcohol-related problems, especially alcohol-related aggression. Regarding drinking motives, one study showed that agreeableness was predicted by both positive reinforcement motives (drinking to attain positive outcomes). It has not been determined whether the relationship between agreeableness and drinking is mediated by motives.

Despite a seemingly protective effect, high agreeableness also carries a risk: individuals who are high in this trait are more susceptible to peer-drinking influences. Apparently, in their concern for complying with others and their efforts to meet group expectations, more agreeable individuals tend to drink less around light drinking peers, but drink more around heavy drinking peers. In a laboratory experiment, individuals high in agreeableness were more likely to match their drinking during a taste-rating task to that of a stranger, compared to individuals low in agreeableness. Thus, the relationship between agreeableness and college drinking is not always straightforward depending on social context.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123983381000968

Theoretical conceptualizations of agreeableness and antagonism☆

William G. Graziano, Renée M. Tobin, in The Handbook of Antagonism, 2019

Abstract

Agreeableness, arguably the largest dimension of the Five Factor approach to personality, is related to a range of variables associated with motives to maintain social harmony. As a personality dimension, agreeableness is less frequently studied empirically and even less well developed theoretically relative to the other four factors. At one end of this continuous personality dimension is antagonism. This chapter explores the theoretical conceptualizations related to antagonism. We discuss three classes of conceptual issues that have implications for the interpretation of empirical studies on antagonism-related outcomes (e.g., aggression, antisocial behavior): methodological assumptions, psychological mechanisms, and atheoretical approaches. Following these preliminaries, we critically reviewed theoretical approaches to the scientific explanations of empirical findings for the antagonism-agreeableness continuum.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128146279000098

Agreeableness, antagonism, and mental health across cultures

Amber Gayle Thalmayer, Jérôme Rossier, in The Handbook of Antagonism, 2019

Summary and conclusions

Agreeableness versus antagonism is a personality dimension that was defined first in North American cultures, but which corresponds to a reasonable degree with dimensions found in many other cultural settings. Studies translating Western measures into new languages have found that respondents in other cultural settings respond to Agreeableness items in similar ways, allowing a similar factor structure to emerge. There is not yet evidence for full measurement invariance of any personality measures in translation, thus there is not strong support for comparing mean scores across cultures, but such studies were reviewed. Of interest are findings that gender differences in Agreeableness, lower average scores for men, are more pronounced in industrialized nations with greater gender equity. Also of interest was the finding that Agreeableness appears to increase consistently across cultures with age, especially in the context of taking on financial responsibilities.

The disorders associated with antagonism also generally appear to exist across diverse cultural settings. A syndrome that matches psychopathy has been reported far back in time and across varied cultural settings. All human populations may include callous individuals who take advantage of others. Rates and types of aggressive behavior, however, vary considerably depending on local socialization processes, and thus associated disorders appear to be more common in the individualistic, industrialized west.

Future research of interest would include combined emic-etic studies of mental disorders in diverse cultures, in order to compare prevalence while also exploring local expressions of malaise. If the disorders described here are reliably less prevalent in more collectivistic, interdependent, and tight cultures, it would be useful to attempt to isolate cultural practices that could be imported to reduce antagonism. It would also be important to assess trade-offs in lower prevalence, for example, higher rates of internalizing syndromes. Similarly, if treatments vary in efficacy, the most effective could be tested for applicability to new contexts. Understanding that individualism, a dominant cultural value in Western cultures, likely increases antagonism, can help us understand the “shadow side” of the personal freedom and individualistic values we enjoy. Taking a fuller range of risks and benefits into account, we may find ways to temper the values we transmit to our children with appropriate concern for the feelings and the autonomy of others.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128146279000074

Personality and Behavioral Factors

Lee Ellis, ... Malini Ratnasingam, in Handbook of Social Status Correlates, 2018

4.1 Highest Order Personality Dimensions

Personality refers to people’s overall predispositions to display certain behavioral and attitudinal patterns. For example, some people are very outgoing and talkative while others are reserved and speak much less often.

For decades, psychologists along with other social scientists have sought to determine if humans universally exhibit identifiable clusters of personality traits. Applying factor analysis to questions about personality traits to large samples of people throughout the world has brought researchers to an affirmative conclusion. Specifically, at the highest order of generality, there appear to be five major personality dimensions; these have come to be known as the Big Five.

In alphabetical order, the Big Five are as follows: agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, and openness to experiences (Goldberg 1993; John & Srivastava 1999; McCrae & Costa 1999; Gurven et al. 2013). Parenthetically, emotional stability is also sometimes referred to as its opposite: neuroticism. Findings regarding how each of these five major personality dimensions (or factors) have been found correlated with social status are summarized below.

4.1.1 Agreeableness

Agreeableness refers to the tendency to concur with others, especially others high in authority. As one can see in Table 4.1.1, studies have found agreeableness to be inversely correlated with social status or have concluded that there is no significant relationship between status and agreeableness.

Table 4.1.1. Relationship Between Social Status and Agreeableness

Direction of RelationshipAdult Status
Years of EducationOccupational LevelIncome or WealthLeadership or Eminence
Positive
Not significant NORTH AMERICA United States: Gensowski et al. 2011:21∗ EUROPE Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗ EUROPE Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗
NORTH AMERICA United States: Seibert & Kraimer 2001∗ (respondents in nonpeople-oriented jobs)
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Barrick & Mount 1991
Negative EUROPE Netherlands: Van Eijck & de Graaf 2004
LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN Bolivia: Gurven et al. 2013:Table 2
NORTH AMERICA United States: Goldberg et al. 1998
EUROPE Britain: Heineck 2011:Table 1 (both sexes); Nandi & Nicoletti 2014
NORTH AMERICA United States: Seibert & Kraimer 2001∗ (respondents in people-oriented jobs); Mueller & Plug 2006:Table 4; Gensowski et al. 2011:18∗ (lifetime earnings)
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Zhao & Seibert 2006 (entrepreneurs)

4.1.2 Conscientiousness

Individuals who make the greatest efforts to be organized and diligent in doing whatever projects they undertake as well as possible are said to be conscientious. Substantial research has examined the possible relationship between social status and conscientiousness. As shown in Table 4.1.2, the majority of these studies have concluded that persons of high social status tend to be more conscientious than those of low social status.

Table 4.1.2. Relationship Between Social Status and Conscientiousness

Direction of RelationshipAdult Status
Years of EducationOccupational LevelIncome or WealthLeadership or Eminence
Positive ASIA China: Wu 2014
EUROPE Netherlands: Van Eijck & de Graaf 2004
NORTH AMERICA United States: Goldberg et al. 1998
EUROPE Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗ ASIA China: Wu 2014∗; Japan: Lee & Ohtake 2012∗ (especially for ♂s)
EUROPE Britain: Heineck 2011:Table 1∗ (♀s); Netherlands: Nyhus & Pons 2005; Prevoo & Weel 2015:4
NORTH AMERICA United States: Mueller & Plug 2006 (both sexes); Gensowski et al. 2011:18 (lifetime earnings); Lee & Ohtake 2012∗ (especially for ♂s); Gensowski et al. 2011:Table 5
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Barrick & Mount 1991 (r = .17)
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Zhao & Seibert 2006 (entrepreneurs)
Not significantt LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN Bolivia: Gurven et al. 2013:Table 2 EUROPE Britain: Heineck 2011:Table 1∗ (♂s); Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗
Negative

4.1.3 Emotional Stability

Emotional stability (the opposite of neuroticism) is a fundamental personality trait that has to do with being even-tempered, particularly in the face of challenges and threats. Traits that tend to be associated with emotional instability are frequent feelings of anxiety and lack of self-confidence. According to Table 4.1.3, most studies have found social status positively associated with emotional stability, although several studies failed to find the association to be statistically significant, and one study of parental social status reported an inverse correlation.

Table 4.1.3. Relationship Between Social Status and Emotional Stability

Direction of RelationshipParental StatusAdult Status
Years of EducationOccupational LevelIncome or WealthLeadership or EminenceMultiple or Other SES Measures
Positive ASIA China: Wang et al. 2002 (college students, parent’s occupation & income) EUROPE Netherlands: Van Eijck & de Graaf 2004
NORTH AMERICA United States: Smith et al. 1983:659
EUROPE Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗ ASIA Japan: Lee & Ohtake 2012∗ (especially for ♀s)
EUROPE Britain: Heineck 2011:Table 1 (both sexes); Nandi & Nicoletti 2014; Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗; Netherlands: Nyhus & Pons 2005 (both sexes)
NORTH AMERICA United States: Mueller & Plug 2006:Table 4 (♂s); Lee & Ohtake 2012∗ (especially for ♀s); Cundiff et al. 2013:142 (r = .16)
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Zhao & Seibert 2006 (entrepreneurs) NORTH AMERICA United States: Cundiff et al. 2013:142 (SSS, r = .28 & .38)
Not significant LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN Bolivia: Gurven et al. 2013:Table 2
NORTH AMERICA United States: Goldberg et al. 1998
NORTH AMERICA United States: Gensowski et al. 2011:18 (lifetime earnings)
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Barrick & Mount 1991
Negative EUROPE Netherlands: H Bosma et al. 1999a (dad’s occupation)

4.1.4 Extraversion

Individuals who are extraverted tend to be energetic and outgoing particularly in the presence of others. The opposite of extraversion is introversion.

Table 4.1.4 shows that findings have been mixed regarding any relationship between extraversion and social status with a slight leaning toward there being a positive correlation. Part of the reason for the mixed results is that any extraversion–social status relationship that exists may depend on work expectations at various levels of social status. For instance, some high-status occupations (such as lawyers and politicians) may attract individuals who are unusually extraverted, while other high-status occupations (such as engineers and mathematicians) could appeal mainly to introverts. Consequently, the findings shown in Table 4.1.4 could to some extent reflect proportional differences of individuals who were sampled from various occupations.

Table 4.1.4. Relationship Between Social Status and Extraversion

Direction of RelationshipAdult Status
Years of EducationOccupational LevelIncome or WealthLeadership or Eminence
Positive LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN Bolivia: Gurven et al. 2013:Table 2 EUROPE Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗ ASIA Japan: Lee & Ohtake 2012∗ (especially for ♀s)
EUROPE Britain: Nandi & Nicoletti 2014; Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010∗ (education & work experience controlled)
NORTH AMERICA United States: Seibert & Kraimer 2001; Gensowski et al. 2011:18 (lifetime earnings); Lee & Ohtake 2012∗ (especially for ♀s)
Not significant NORTH AMERICA United States: Goldberg et al. 1998 EUROPE Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗; Netherlands: Nyhus & Pons 2005 (♂s)
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Barrick & Mount 1991
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Zhao & Seibert 2006 (entrepreneurs)
Negative EUROPE Netherlands: Van Eijck & de Graaf 2004 EUROPE Britain: Heineck 2011:Table 1 (both sexes); Netherlands: Nyhus & Pons 2005 (♀s)

4.1.5 Openness to Experience

People who score high on measures of openness to experience usually have a strong esthetic sense and a desire to try new things even if doing so involves some risk (McCrae 1987). Findings pertinent to how this dimension of personality correlates with social status are presented in Table 4.1.5. It indicates that a positive correlation exists between openness to experience and social status, although some studies have reported no significant correlations.

Table 4.1.5. Relationship Between Social Status and Openness to Experience

Direction of RelationshipAdult Status
Years of EducationOccupational LevelIncome or WealthLeadership or Eminence
Positive EUROPE Netherlands: Van Eijck & de Graaf 2004
LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN Bolivia: Gurven et al. 2013:Table 2
NORTH AMERICA United States: Goldberg et al. 1998
OCEANIA Australia: Wainwright et al. 2008
EUROPE Finland: Viinikainen et al. 2010:206∗ EUROPE Britain: Heineck 2011:Table 1 (both sexes); Nandi & Nicoletti 2014 OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Zhao & Seibert 2006 (entrepreneurs)
Not significant NORTH AMERICA United States: Gensowski et al. 2011:21∗ NORTH AMERICA United States: Mueller & Plug 2006 (both sexes); Gensowski et al. 2011:18∗ (lifetime earnings)
OVERVIEW Metaanalysis: Barrick & Mount 1991
Negative

4.1.6 Reflective Comments on Personality Traits and Socioeconomic Status

Regarding causes of variations in personality traits, research based on twins has indicated that genes are responsible for roughly half of the overall variations in all five of the major personality dimensions (Livesley et al. 1998; Matthews 2003; Funder 2015). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the associations between personality and social status are also partly reflective of genetic influences.

As to how genes could impact personality, most of the mediating variables are likely to include brain functioning patterns. In this regard, studies have implicated various neurotransmitters—e.g., dopamine and serotonin—as being more prevalent in some brains than in others, thereby impacting brain functioning patterns that cause certain personality patterns to be exhibited in some individuals more than in other individuals (Lesch et al. 1996; Comings et al. 2000; Munafò et al. 2008).

A recent Finish study assessed the lifetime earnings and occupation levels of 203 retirees. The researchers were able to compare these two social status indicators with each retirees’ personality traits first assessed at age 8 and assessed again at age 42 (Viinikainen et al. 2010). Both Socioeconomic Status (SES) traits were found to be positively correlated with extraversion measured at both ages (Viinikainen et al. 2010:Tables 2 and 3). This study indicated that measuring at least one of the highest level personality traits in childhood can be used to predict social status among the elderly.

Regarding which of the big five traits are most strongly correlated with social status, the answer is still unsettled. No matter what the answer is, however, at least two literature reviews have concluded that none of the five personality traits correlate as strongly with social status as is true for intelligence or cognitive ability (Barrick & Mount 1991; Almlund et al. 2011). Cognitive ability will be the focus of attention in Chapter 5.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128053713000042

On the ubiquity and importance of antagonism

Donald R. Lynam, Joshua D. Miller, in The Handbook of Antagonism, 2019

Antagonism in basic models of personality

Antagonism/Agreeableness appears in all major models of personality. It has its most explicit representation in the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM) which was derived from studies of the English language undertaken to identify the domains of personality functioning most important in describing oneself and others (Digman, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999; Wiggins & Pincus, 1992). This research was rooted in the lexical hypothesis which posits that most socially relevant and salient personality characteristics have been encoded in the natural language and that the representation in the language is reflective of their relevance and salience (e.g., Allport, 1937). This lexical research emphasized five broad personality domains, identified, in order of their relative linguistic representation from most to least, as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion entails an individual's proneness to positive emotions and degree of sociability. Agreeableness references an individual's interpersonal relationships and strategies; people high in Agreeableness tend to be trusting, straightforward, and empathic, whereas those who score low are manipulative, arrogant, and unconcerned about others. Conscientiousness deals with the “control of impulses,” and the ability to plan, organize, and complete behavioral tasks. The domain of Neuroticism includes emotional adjustment and emotional stability. The fifth domain, Openness, assesses an individual's interest in culture, and in experiencing and exploring new activities, ideas, and emotions. Each of these five broad domains can be further divided into finer-grained facets or components. Costa and McCrae (1995) proposed six facets within each domain on the basis of their research with the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). For example, they parse the domain of Agreeableness (vs Antagonism) into more specific facets of trust (vs suspicion), straightforwardness (vs deception), altruism (vs exploitation), compliance (vs aggression), modesty (vs arrogance), and tender-mindedness (vs tough-mindedness). Soto and John (2017) recently identified three facets under each of the five domains within the second version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-2). The facets underlying Antagonism/Agreeableness are compassion (e.g., is compassionate, has a soft heart), respectfulness (e.g., starts arguments with others), and trust (e.g., is suspicious of others’ intentions).

Antagonism/Agreeableness is also found in other major models of personality, often in combination with other basic dimensions. Eysenck's PEN model includes factors of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1970): Neuroticism entails emotional stability and adjustment; Extraversion reflects traits related to sociability and agency; and Psychoticism encompasses egocentricity, (lack of) interpersonal warmth, (lack of) empathy, and impulsiveness. Within this model, Antagonism is combined with Conscientiousness in the Psychoticism factor (McCrae & Costa, 1985). The case is similar in Tellegen's (1985) model which also posits three basic dimensions: Positive Emotionality which refers to the tendency to be positively engaged with others and the world; Negative Emotionality which reflects an individual's tendency to experience negative emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, and anger) and his or her tendency to break down under stress, and Constraint which assesses an individual's ability to control impulses, act deliberately, avoid potentially dangerous situations, and endorse traditional values and standards. In this model, the Negative Emotionality factor includes content from both Neuroticism (i.e., a subscale measuring stress reactivity) and Antagonism (i.e., subscales assessing aggression and alienation).

Watson, Clark, and Harkness (1994) have argued that these “Big Three and Big Five models define a common ‘Big Four’ space in which (a) two traits are equivalent (Neuroticism and Extraversion), (b) the third Big Three dimension (Constraint or Psychoticism) represents some combination of two Big Five factors (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness), and (c) the final Big Five trait (Openness, or imagination) is excluded” (p. 24). They label the Big Four as Neuroticism (or Negative Emotionality), Extraversion (or Positive Emotionality), Conscientiousness (or Constraint), and Agreeableness. The top half of Table 2 presents the correspondence among major dimensions of general personality functioning.

Table 2. Relations of general models of personality and models of disordered personality with the domains of the FFM

NeuroticismExtraversionOpennessAgreeablenessConscientiousness
Domains from models of general personality functioning
HEXACOaEmotionality eXtraversion Openness Agreeableness
Honesty-Humility
Conscientiousness
NEO PI-RNeuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
BFINeuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
P-E-NbNeuroticism Extraversion Psychoticism (−)
Lie (−)
Psychoticism (−)
MPQcNEM (stress reaction) Communal PEM Absorption NEM (aggression (−)) CON
Domains from models of maladaptive personality
PID-5Negative affectivity Detachment (−) Psychoticism Antagonism (−) Disinhibition (−)
DAPPdEmotion dysregulation Inhibition (−) Dissocial behavior (−) Compulsivity
CAT PDeNegative emotionality Positive emotionality Oddity Antagonism (−) Disconstraint (−)
SNAP temperamentsfNegative Positive Disinhibition (−)
SNAP traitsfDependency Detachment (−)
Exhibitionism
Eccentric Perceptions Aggression (−)
Manipulativeness (−)
Impulsivity(−)
Workaholism
Disinhibition (−)

aAssignments based on results from Brockleback, Pauls, Rockmore, and Bates (2015) and Gaughan, Miller, and Lynam (2012).bAssignments based on results from Costa and McCrae (1995).cAssignments based on Church (1994) and Gaughan, Miller, Pryor, and Lynam (2009).dAssignments based on Markon et al. (2005) and Van den Broeck et al. (2014).eAssignments based on Wright and Simms (2014).fAssignments based on Markon et al. (2005).

More recently, a six-factor model of personality has been introduced that largely (but not identically) captures the FFM/Big Five and adds an additional Honesty-Humility factor that comprises traits of sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty (e.g., Lee & Ashton, 2008). This model and resultant scales (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2018) were created on the basis of data that suggest that this domain is sufficiently separable from the domain of Agreeableness in lexical analyses. We would note that measures of the FFM, typically from the NEO family of measures (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) contain this Honesty-Humility content to a much greater extent than do measures from the Big Five tradition (e.g., see Miller et al., 2011). Crowe and colleagues’ item-level analysis of existing Agreeableness measures included HEXACO items from Honesty-Humility but found little evidence that it formed a separate factor.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128146279000013

Personality and motivation

Paula Thomson, S. Victoria Jaque, in Creativity and the Performing Artist, 2017

FactorDescription
Agreeableness (high)
From five-factor model (FFM)
Agreeable, relational, communal, easygoing, cooperative, empathic, friendly, nurturing, warm, supportive, generous
Agreeableness (low) Aggressive, argumentative, cynical, hostile, exploitative, headstrong, suspicious, psychoticism
Conscientiousness (high)
From FFM
Careful, conscientious, controlled, orderly, persevering, reliable, responsible, self-controlled
Conscientiousness (low) Disorderly, impulsive, needy, psychopathic deviance
Extraversion (high)
From FFM and three-factor model (3FM)
Active, adventurous, ambitious, assertive, autonomous, confident, dominant, energetic, expressive, exhibitionistic, hypomanic, impulsive, independent, positive emotions, self-sufficient, sensation-seeking, sociable
Extraversion (low) Dependent, depressed, introverted, reflective, reserved, submissive, unambitious, unsociable, unadventurous, cautious, sensation-avoiding
Introversion (high)
From 3FM
Low tolerance threshold for arousal, desire to withdraw from social settings (especially if overstimulating), withdrawal behavior
Introversion (low) Higher tolerance for arousal, sensation-seeking, approach behavior
Neuroticism (high)
From FFM and 3FM
Anxious, depressed, emotional, excitable, hypochondria, insecure, nervous, worried
Neuroticism (low) Calm, happy, stable, well-adjusted
Open to experience (high)
From FFM
Aesthetic appreciation, achievement, independence, creative, curious, exploratory, flexible, humorous, imaginative, intelligent, open-minded, original, preference for complexity, sensitive, tolerance for ambiguity, supernatural beliefs, wide interests
Open to experience (low) Conventional, inflexible, rigid, socialized, narrow interests
Psychoticism (high)
From 3FM
Susceptibility to develop psychotic symptoms, creative, overinclusive thinking
Psychoticism (low) Narrow-focused thinking, low creativity

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128040515000123

How to Measure the Personality

Per Bech, in Personality and Disease, 2018

Other Attempts to Describe Personality Traits

The factor of agreeableness from the five-factor model has been referred to when measuring family functioning in clinical outcome studies in both somatic and mental disorders (Cosci, Svicher, & Bech, 2016). However, because also the NEO-PI factor of agreeableness contains both negatively and positively worded items, it was especially the items measuring the subscale for “generally trusting others” that were examined (Cosci et al., 2016). Within the Eysenck dimensions, this subscale would seem to be an element in extraversion (sociability) (Cosci et al., 2016).

Type A behavior (characterized by impatience, competitiveness, and aggression) has been considered to be a personality dimension within the concept of abnormal illness behavior (Cosci & Fava, 2016), which predicts how patients adhere to medical advice. However, Type A behavior should be regarded as part of the Eysenck extraversion personality trait (Aronowitz, 1998; Eysenck & Fulker, 1982).

The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) questionnaire developed by Cloninger (1994) contains dimensions of novelty seeking, harm avoidance, and reward dependence. In contrast to the EPQ or the NEO-PI, the TCI is based on neurobiological considerations, which should still be referred to as rather speculative theories. The harm avoidance subscale, which measures anxiety and depression, was found by De Fruyt, Van De Wiele, and Van Heeringen (2000) to overlap with neuroticism, while the novelty seeking subscale overlaps with extraversion (De Fruyt et al., 2000; Gillespie, Johnstone, Boyce, Heath, & Martin, 2001). The reward dependence subscale would also seem to overlap with extraversion (De Fruyt et al., 2000; Gillespie et al., 2001). The clinically derived personality dimensions of neuroticism and extraversion cover to a large extent in which the personality traits found to have both clinical and psychometric validity.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128053003000025

Antagonism and crime

Matt DeLisi, in The Handbook of Antagonism, 2019

Agreeableness, Antagonism, and antisocial behavior

Several metaanalyses revealed that Agreeableness is robustly and inversely associated with diverse forms of antisocial conduct (Heaven, 1996; Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011; Miller & Lynam, 2001). In their review of 53 studies, Jones et al. (2011) found that Agreeableness had the strongest associations with antisocial conduct among the components of the Five-Factor Model. Specifically, the weighted average effect size for the association between Agreeableness and antisocial behavior was − 0.308 and the weighted average effect size for the association between Agreeableness and aggression was − 0.327. Moreover, Jones and colleagues found that the relationship between Agreeableness and antisocial conduct permeated all facets of the personality dimension. Specifically, the mean effect sizes for antisocial behavior and aggression, respectively, by facet included Trust (r = − 0.174 and r = − 0.181), Straightforwardness (r = − 0.297 and r = − 0.246), Altruism (r = − 0.210 and r = − 0.256), Compliance (r = − 0.268 and r = − 0.264), Modesty (r = − 0.170 and r = − 0.162), and Tender-mindedness (r = − 0.113 and r = − 0.171). Empirically, there is no question that Agreeableness matters for the study of antisocial conduct.

Curiously, for most of its history, academic criminology went to great lengths to deny the association between personality functioning, criminality, and criminal behavior even when their own data rejected such a thesis (cf., Andrews & Wormith, 1989; Hindelang, 1972; Schuessler & Cressey, 1950; Tennenbaum, 1977; Waldo & Dinitz, 1967). This denial was even more curious in that systematic reviews of personality differences between offenders and nonoffenders routinely showed significant differences particularly for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. In this way, criminology was overtly antagonistic to personality. It has been suggested (Wright & DeLisi, 2015) that since American criminology was a subdiscipline of sociology, researchers rejected the psychological focus on personality in favor of macro, sociological constructs, or social processes (e.g., labeling, peer effects) that were “preferred” ways to conceptualize the criminal offender.

The general associations between Antagonism and deviance are also seen among specific forms of criminal behavior. To illustrate, Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias (2015) reviewed 27 studies and found that Agreeableness was the strongest personality correlate of bullying with an effect size of r = − 0.24. However, Agreeableness was negatively but not significantly associated with criminal victimization. In their study using data from nearly 1700 high school students, van Geel, Goemans, Toprak, and Vedder (2017) found that Agreeableness was significantly inversely correlated with traditional bullying, cyberbullying, Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. In multivariate models, Agreeableness was significantly predictive of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying even when controlling for other personality dimensions and powerful psychological constructs, such as psychopathy.

Lower Agreeableness has also been reported for a variety of other offender classifications including risky driving/traffic offenders (Brown et al., 2017), general delinquency and victimization (Wilcox, Sullivan, Jones, & Van Gelder, 2014), interpersonal violators (McNulty & Russell, 2016), animal abusers (Parfitt & Alleyne, 2018), homicide offenders (Khalili et al., 2017), sexual offenders (Challinor & Duff, 2017), and violent offenders (Kolla, Meyer, Bagby, & Brijmohan, 2017). Agreeableness is also inversely associated with subclinical behaviors, such as plagiarism (Wilks, Cruz, & Sousa, 2016), externalizing symptoms (Miller, Lynam, & Jones, 2008), being influenced by media (Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006), confrontation (Kammrath, McCarthy, Cortes, & Friesen, 2015), and fear of crime (Ellis & Renouf, 2018).

In forensic samples that include the most pathological types of offenders, such as those who perpetrate sexual homicide and multiple homicide, the offender personality style is not only Antagonistic, but also often malevolent and sadistic (Chan & Heide, 2016; Geberth & Turco, 1997; Meloy, 2000; Myers & Monaco, 2000). These offenders are chillingly cold and callous, and their grandiose and self-centered needs are so pathological that they feel entitled to sexually assault and murder victims. Sexual homicide and multiple homicide offenders, such as those that perpetrate mass murders, often feel tremendous estrangement from others and from society at large and thus experience little altruism or warm. Often part and parcel of these personality features are feelings of persecution and the belief that the offender is morally above or better than others. Indeed, an antagonistic notion that other people do not matter facilitates their ability to indiscriminately kill.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128146279000207

What personality trait is most strongly associated with prosocial behavior?

Among broad personality traits, Honesty-Humility has been most consistently and most strongly linked to prosocial behaviour (Thielmann et al., 2020).

What is one explanation for gender differences in aggression quizlet?

Research has shown that gender differences in aggression may be due to cultural and socialization processes that promote different kinds of aggression. There may be socialized differences in the way girls and boys construct their worlds.

Is the hormone that is typically implicated in aggressive behavior?

Hormones Influence Aggression: Testosterone and Serotonin. Hormones are also important in creating aggression. Most important in this regard is the male sex hormone testosterone, which is associated with increased aggression in both animals and in humans.

What is the nature of the relationship between self control and aggression?

Robust experimental evidence demonstrates that self-control failures frequently predict aggression and, conversely, that bolstering self-control decreases aggression. Research on rumination also suggests that maladaptive anger regulation decreases self-control and, consequently, increases aggression.