Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the Big Five and the general factor of personality

被引:139
|
作者
van der Linden, Dimitri [1 ]
Scholte, Ron H. J. [2 ]
Cillessen, Antonius H. N. [2 ]
Nijenhuis, Jan Te [3 ]
Segers, Eliane [2 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Dept Psychol, Inst Psychol, NL-3000 HE Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Inst Behav Sci, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Amsterdam, Dept Psychol, NL-1012 WX Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
General personality factor; Social status; Adolescents; Big five; Structural equation modeling; PEER NOMINATIONS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The present study examined whether: (i) self-rated personality (Big Five) is related to peer-ratings of likeability and popularity in classmates and (ii) a General Factor of Personality (GFP), reflecting the shared variance of the Big Five, is related to social status. In a sociometric approach, adolescent classmates (N = 512) rated each other on likeability and popularity. The Big Five dimensions Extraversion and Emotional Stability were associated with likeability as well as popularity whereas Agreeableness was positively related to likeability and Conscientiousness negatively to popularity. Moreover, the results of correlation and regression analyses and Structural Equation Modeling converged in showing that the GFP was also a predictor of likeability and popularity, although the GFP played a somewhat larger role in likeability than in popularity. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:669 / 672
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The General Factor of Personality: The relationship between the Big One and the Dark Triad
    Kowalski, Christopher Marcin
    Vernon, Philip A.
    Schermerl, Julie Aitken
    [J]. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2016, 88 : 256 - 260
  • [42] The five factor model of personality: Openness a distinct but related construct
    Ferguson, E
    Patterson, F
    [J]. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 1998, 24 (06) : 789 - 796
  • [43] Comparison between Naive Bayes and certainty factor to predict big five personality
    Syaripudin, U.
    Zaenal, R.
    Duri, M. F. A.
    Firmansyah, E.
    Rahman, A.
    [J]. 4TH ANNUAL APPLIED SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, 2019, 2019, 1402
  • [44] PERSONALITY AS A FACTOR IN THE LEARNING PROCESS OF TEACHING-THE CONTEXT OF THE BIG FIVE THEORY
    Czarkowski, Jakub Jerzy
    Bursova, Janka
    Dolinska, Eva
    Simek, Vaclav
    Porubcanova, Dasa
    [J]. AD ALTA-JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH, 2023, 13 (01): : 75 - 80
  • [45] Factor structure and measurement invariance of a short measure of the Big Five personality traits
    Laverdiere, Olivier
    Morin, Alexandre J. S.
    St-Hilaire, France
    [J]. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2013, 55 (07) : 739 - 743
  • [46] How response biases affect the factor structure of Big Five personality questionnaires
    Morales-Vives, Fabia
    Lorenzo-Seva, Urbano
    Vigil-Colet, Andreu
    [J]. ANALES DE PSICOLOGIA, 2017, 33 (03): : 589 - 596
  • [47] Standardization of the five factor personality questionnaire: Relation with General Health Questionnaire
    Natsuno, Y
    Tsuji, H
    Tsuji, H
    Yamada, S
    Morita, Y
    Mukoyama, Y
    Hata, K
    Fujishima, Y
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 31 (3-4) : 25495 - 25495
  • [48] Validity of Observer Ratings of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Traits: A Meta-Analysis
    Oh, In-Sue
    Wang, Gang
    Mount, Michael K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2011, 96 (04) : 762 - 773
  • [49] The General Factor of Personality (GFP) correlated with intelligence and grades in a university classroom setting
    Schermer, J. A.
    Rothstein, M. G.
    Paunonen, S. V.
    King, G. A.
    [J]. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2016, 101 : 513 - 513
  • [50] Correspondence among observer ratings of Rorschach, big five model, and DSM-IV personality disorder constructs
    Mihura, JL
    Meyer, GJ
    Bel-Bahar, T
    Gunderson, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 2003, 81 (01) : 20 - 39