User:Matthew.murdoch/sandbox

Here's some stuff on Agreeableness. I think I'll be scrapping constitutional psychology for the Lexical Hypothesis, as it currently has no page!

HEXACO Model
To address the absence of measures of Dark triad traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), Michael Ashton and Kibeom Lee proposed the addition of a sixth factor to the Five Factor Model. Validated with psycholexical studies similar to those used in the development of the Five Factor Model, the HEXACO Model adds Honesty-Humility to five factors resembling those in the NEO-PI. Although Honesty-Humility does not directly correspond to any Big Five trait, it is strongly correlated with the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets of Big Five Agreeableness. As both of these facets are only weakly correlated with Big Five Agreeableness, Ashton and Lee suggest dividing NEO-PI Agreeableness into two factors similar to those in the HEXACO Model: Honesty-Humility (i.e., Straightforwardness and Modesty) and a redefined Agreeableness (Trust, Altruism, Compliance, and Tender-Mindedness). Reflecting this conception of Honesty-Humility and HEXACO Agreeableness as unique though similar concepts, Ashton and Lee propose that they represent different aspects of reciprocal altruism: fairness (Honesty-Humility) and tolerance (Agreeableness).

Despite suggesting this reconceptualization of Agreeableness for the NEO-PI, Ashton and Lee do not believe HEXACO Agreeableness is accurately captured by Trust, Altruism, Compliance, and Tender-Mindedness. In addition to accounting for these four facets of Big Five Agreeableness, the HEXACO Model's construction of Agreeableness includes content categorized under Neuroticism in the NEO-PI (i.e., temperamentalness and irritability). To reflect the negative emotional content at the low end of HEXACO Agreeableness, this factor is also referred to as "Agreeableness (versus Anger)." The inclusion of anger in the definition of HEXACO Agreeableness further helps to differentiate this factor from Honesty-Humility. In response to offensive or transgressive actions, individuals who score low on Honesty-Humility tend not to respond immediately. Instead, they defer their response by planning their revenge and waiting for the perfect opportunity to enact it. Although those who score low on HEXACO Agreeableness also employ this premeditated strategy, they also tend to respond immediately with anger.

HEXACO Agreeableness Facets
To help capture the numerous distinctions between the Big Five and HEXACO models, Ashton and Lee propose four new facet labels in their conceptualization of Agreeableness: Forgiveness, Gentleness, Flexibility, and Patience. In addition to these four Agreeableness-specific facets, Lee and Ashton have proposed an additional "interstitial" facet located in a space shared by Agreeableness, Honesty-Humility, and Emotionality: Altruism versus Antagonism.


 * Forgiveness: A measure of an individual's response to deception or other transgressions. Individuals who score high on this facet tend to regain their trust and re-establish friendly relations by forgiving the offender, while those who score low tend to hold a grudge. Also known as "Forgivingness."


 * Gentleness: A measure of how an individual typically evaluates others. Individuals who score high on this facet tend to avoid being overly judgmental, while those who score low are highly critical and judgmental.


 * Flexibility: A measure of behaviors related to compromise and cooperation. Individuals who score high on this facet prefer cooperation and compromise as means of resolving disagreement, while those who score low tend to be stubborn, argumentative, and unwilling to accommodate others.


 * Patience: A measure of one's response to anger and aggravation. Individuals who score high on this facet tend to be able to tolerate very high levels of anger and maintain their composure while expressing anger. Those who score low on Patience have difficulties remaining calm while expressing their anger and tend to have quick tempers, becoming very angry in response to comparatively little provocation.


 * Altruism versus Antagonism: Although shared between three HEXACO factors, Altruism versus Antagonism is moderately correlated with Agreeableness. This interstitial facet assesses the extent to which an individual is sympathetic, soft-hearted, and helpful, with low-scoring individuals tending toward an antagonistic interpersonal style.

California Psychological Inventory
First published in 1956, the California Psychological Inventory has a long history of widespread use in personality research.

Cattell's 16 Personality Factors
Like all Big Five personality traits, the roots of the modern concept of agreeableness can be traced to a 1936 study by Gordon Allport and Henry S. Odbert. Seven years later, Raymond Cattell published a cluster analysis of the thousands of personality-related words identified by Allport and Odbert. The clusters identified in this study served as a foundation for Cattell's further attempts to identify fundamental, universal human personality factors. He eventually settled on 16 personality factors through the use of factor analysis. Further factor analyses revealed five higher-order, or "global," factors to encompass these 16. Although labelled "independence" by Cattell, a global factor defined by high scores on the E, H, L, and Q1 factors of the 16PF Questionnaire was an early precursor to the modern concept of agreeableness.

The Big Five
Cattell's factor analytic approach to the identification of universal personality structures inspired countless studies in the decades following the introduction of the 16PF. Using Cattell's original clusters, the 16 Personality Factors, and original data, multiple researchers independently developed a five factor model of personality over this period. From the early 1960s on, these explorations typically included a factor called "agreeableness" or "sociability." Despite repeated replications of five stable personality factors following Cattell's pioneering work, this framework only began to dominate personality research in the early 1980s with the work of Lewis Goldberg. Using lexical studies similar to those of Allport and Odbert, Goldberg chose the term "Big Five" to reflect the sheer number of personality-related terms encompassed by each of these five distinct factors. One of these, agreeableness, was defined by a number of personality-related words similar to those present in earlier and more recent manifestations of the construct; examples include "friendly," "good-natured," "cooperative," "trustful," "nurturing," "sociable," and "considerate."

NEO-PI
Beginning in the 1970s, Paul Costa and Robert McCrae began researching the development of personality assessments based on factor models. Beginning with cluster analyses of Cattell's 16 Personality Factors, Costa and McCrae initially settled on a three-factor model of personality. These three factors were neuroticism (vs. emotional stability), extraversion (vs. introversion), and openness (vs. closedness) to experience, resulting in the acronym "NEO." Due to similarities between their three-factor NEO Personality Inventory and Goldberg's Big Five, Costa and McCrae began work on the development of scales to assess agreeableness and conscientiousness in the early 1980s. This work culminated in the 1985 publication of the first NEO-PI Manual to be based on the full Five Factor Model. Although this marked the introduction of agreeableness to the NEO-PI, it took an additional seven years for Costa and McCrae to identify and elaborate on the facets comprising this factor in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.

Facets
In the NEO-PI, each of the five factors identified by Costa and McCrae are identified with six lower-level traits. Known as facets, the lower-level traits subsumed by agreeableness were first introduced with the 1992 publication of the revised version of the NEO-PI. Based on the modern NEO-PI-R, the six facets of agreeableness are: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness.

Trust
Trust is a defining feature of psychosocial development, personality theory, and folk psychological conceptions of personality. Individuals who score high on this facet are trusting and generally believe others' intentions to be benevolent. Those scoring low on this facet tend to be cynical and view others as suspicious, dishonest, or dangerous.

Straightforwardness
Despite a long history in moral philosophy, straightforwardness is not as vital to personality theory as the other facets of Agreeableness. Those scoring high on straightforwardness tend to interact with others in a direct and frank manner. Individuals who score low on this facet are less direct, tend to be high in self-monitoring, and are generally deceitful or manipulative. Although the two concepts are not identical, many of the items in the straightforwardness scale assess Machiavellianism. As such, those who score high on straightforwardness tend to be low in Machiavellianism, while those who score low on this facet scale tend to be higher in Machiavellianism. Straightforwardness is similar to the honesty aspect of Honesty-Humility in the HEXACO Model.

Altruism
Similar to altruism in animals and ethical altruism, this facet is defined by measures of selflessness, self-sacrifice, generosity, and consideration, courtesy, and concern for others. Altruism is similar to Alfred Adler's concept of social interest, which is a tendency to direct one's actions toward the betterment of society. Individuals who score low on altruism tend to be discourteous, selfish, or greedy, a pattern of behaviors known as "self interest" in Adlerian psychology.

Compliance
As a facet of Agreeableness, compliance is primarily defined as a measure of an individual's response to situations involving conflict. Those who score high on compliance tend to be meek, mild, and prefer cooperation or deference as a means of resolving conflict. In contrast, individuals who score low on compliance tend to be aggressive, antagonistic, quarrelsome, and vindictive.

Modesty
The facets of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, and compliance are all defined by one's interpersonal or social behaviors. In contrast with these, modesty measure's an aspect of an individual's self-concept. Those who score high on measures of modesty tend to be humble and other-focused, while those who score low on this facet are more arrogant and self-aggrandizing. Low modesty is otherwise known as conceit or Narcissism and, in extreme cases, can manifest as Narcissistic personality disorder. Otherwise known as "humility" in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, modesty resembles the humility aspect of Honesty-Humility in the HEXACO Model.

Tender-Mindedness
Tender-mindedness is defined as the extent to which an individual's judgments and attitudes are determined by emotion. Coined by William James, this term was also prominent in early versions of the 16PF. Tender-mindedness is primarily defined by sympathy and corresponds to the International Personality Item Pool's "sympathy" scale. . In contrast, "tough minded" is a trait associated with Psychoticism on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.

Glen's Reference List
1     ^Citeman Network. http://www.citeman.com/1623-affective-events-theory.html

2	^Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., Dalal, R.S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction's position within the nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 515-538. DOI: 10.1348/096317906X136180.

3	^Mobley W.H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240.

4	^Tett R.P., & Meyer J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.

5	^ Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work, by Weiss, Howard M.; Cropanzano, Russell Staw, Barry M. (Ed); Cummings, L. L. (Ed), (1996). Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18, pp. 1–74

6	^ Fuller, J. A., Stanton, J. M., Fisher, G.G., Spitzmüller, C., Russell, S.S., Smith, P.C. (2003). A Lengthy Look at the Daily Grind: Time Series Analysis of Events, Mood, Stress, and Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 88(6), Dec 2003, 1019-1033. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1019

7    ^Boffey, P.M.  (1985). Satisfaction on the job: Autonomy ranks first. The New York Times. May 28, 1985.

8    ^Dell 'Antonia. (2012). Flexible work schedules mean employees stay longer. The New York Times. March 1, 2012.

9	^Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J.D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10	^Watson D., & Clark L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience negative emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.

11	^Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

12	^ Lee, K., & Allen, N. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.

13	^ Rolland, J.P., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). The validity of FFM personality dimensions and maladaptive traits to predict negative affects at work: A six month prospective study in a military sample. European Journal of Personality, 17, S101-S121.

14	^Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, p.p. 265-268. New York: Guilford Press.

15	^Ilies, R., Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561-575.

16	^Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162-173.

17	^Taggar, S., & Neubert, M. (2004). The Impact of Poor Performers on Team Outcomes: An Empirical Examination of Attribution Theory. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 57, 935-968.

18	^Zimmerman, R.D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals' turnorver decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00115.x.

19   ^Maertz, C.P., & Griffeth, R.W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management, 30, 667–683.

20	^Niles, F.S. (1999). Toward a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs. Human Relations, 52, 855–867.

21   ^Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking critically in psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, 89–113. New York: Cambridge University Press.

22	^Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15: 327–353.

23	^Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), Five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives, 88–162. New York: Guilford Press.

24	^Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology, p.p., 767–793. San Diego: Academic Press.

25	^Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. 2004. Interactive effe5-286. New York Guilford Pressdddfdddffdcts of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609.

26	^Ghiselli, E.E. (1974). Some perspectives for industrial psychology. American Psychologist, 80, 80–87.

27	^Deyoung, C.G., Hirsh, J.B., Shane, M.S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J.R. (2009). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21, 820-828.

28	^Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

29	^Maertz, C.P., & Griffeth R.W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management, 30, 667–683.

30	^De Young, C.G., Shamosh, N.A., Green, E.A., Braver, T.S., & Gray, J.R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from openness: Differences revealed through fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883-892.

31	^Brief, A.P., & Weiss, H.M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.

32	^Brief, A.P., Butcher, A.H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 55–62.

33	^ Miner, A.G., Glomb, T.M., & Hulin, C. (2005). Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 171–193.

34	^Herrbach, O. (2006). A matter of feeling? The affective tone of organizational commitment and identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 629-643.

35	^Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace. Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

36	^Gaddis, B., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M.D. (2004). Failure feedback as an affective event: Influences of leader affect on subordinate attitudes and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 663–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.011.

36	^Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.

37  ^Ilies, R., & Judge, T.A.  (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 89, 1119-1139.

38  ^Brief, A.P., Houston Butcher, A., & Roberson, L.  (1995). Cookies, Disposition, and Job Attitudes: The Effects of Positive Mood-Inducing Events and Negative Affectivity on Job Satisfaction in a Field Experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 62, 55-62. dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1030.

39 ^Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K.  (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530.