The big-five personality profiles: A person-centered approach

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01866

Abstract

Abstract:

The big-five personality profile is the combination of the high and low level big-five personality traits in individuals, which fully considers the interaction between personality traits and reflects the differences in quantity and quality of the big-five personality traits among different subgroups. The big-five personality profile is significant to explain the variable-centered contradictory conclusions, which meets the needs of organizational management practice and has a stronger guiding significance for practice. To date, more and more research has applied person-centered approach to examine the role of personality profile in personnel evaluation, human resource development and decision-making. However, the existing relevant reviews of the big-five personality were variables-centered, and there is a lack of systematically reviewing the core issues of the big-five personality, such as the theoretical basis for dividing individuals into different subgroups based on the big-five personality, the number of profiles composed of the big-five personality traits and the characteristic similarity of the profiles obtained from different studies, etc. Moreover, the research on the big-five personality profiles has just started in the organizational behavior and human resource management field, so it is uncertain that how many big-five personality profiles can effectively explain the predictive role of personality.

The advantages of the big-five personality profiles research over the big-five personality traits research are reflected in: (1) The former considers personality as an integrated system, fully considering the interaction between the big-five personality traits. As an important supplement to the latter, it can expand the understanding of the relationship between personality traits and different outcomes. (2) The study of big-five personality profiles is convenient for variable combination, and the constructed profiles can be used as a variable, which is beneficial to explain the contradictory conclusions of past variable-centered research. (3) The research of big-five personality profiles, a typical application of person-centered approach, is more in line with the reality of sample heterogeneity. (4) The big-five personality profiles are more in line with reality of the individual's cognitive model and has a stronger guiding significance for practice.

Based on the person-centered approach, a systematic review of relevant research on the big-five personality profiles in the field of organizational behavior and human resource management. We found: (1) The number of big-five personality profiles is affected by measurement tools, research situation, sample characteristics, research methods and so on. Based on the ego control - ego resiliency model, four profiles can be identified, which include commonly known Resilient profile, Ordinary profile and Rigid profile. (2) The big-five personality profiles act more as independent variables to explore whether there are differences in key outcomes and as moderators regarded as important resources for individuals to cope with identity transformation and work pressures.

Four directions for future research were proposed: (1) Strengthen the theoretical foundation and explore the role of other theories in explaining the big-five personality profiles. (2) Strengthen repetitive research and identify the general big-five personality profiles, which is conducive to the comparison of subsequent research conclusions and also to provide guidance for practical managers. (3) Identify the antecedents of the big-five personality profiles to better understand why different research conclusions differ. (4) Include more personality traits to describe the personality profiles more thoroughly. Finally, in the field of organizational management and human resources management, future research can learn from the personality profiles in psychology to probe into the employee category with multiple personality traits to realize employee category management more comprehensively and accurately.

Key words: personality, big-five personality, person-centered, personality profile

CLC Number:

B848

YIN Kui, ZHAO Jing, ZHOU Jing, NIE Qi. The big-five personality profiles: A person-centered approach[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(10): 1866-1877.

Figures/Tables 1

References 54

[1]	白新文, 王二平, 李永娟. (2006). 大五人格与绩效:团队水平的研究. 心理科学进展, 14(1), 120-125.
[2]	孟慧, 李永鑫. (2004). 大五人格特质与领导有效性的相关研究. 心理科学, 27(3), 611-614.
[3]	任国华, 刘继亮. (2005). 大五人格和工作绩效相关性研究的进展. 心理科学, 28(2), 406-408.
[4]	万广圣, 崔丽娟. (2019). 结盟氛围感知、组织内信任对职场孤独感的影响: 人格特质的调节. 中国人力资源开发, 36(4), 30-44.
[5]	王孟成, 毕向阳. (2018). 潜变量建模与Mplus应用·进阶篇. 重庆大学出版社.
[6]	尹奎, 彭坚, 张君. (2020). 潜在剖面分析在组织行为领域中的应用. 心理科学进展, 28(7), 1056-1070.
[7]	章凯, 时金京. (2019). 人力资源开发的人格途径: 理论基础与管理启示. 中国人力资源开发, 36(1), 152-163.
[8]	张雨青, 林薇, 陈仲庚. (1995). 家长对子女人格特点的自由描述:中国儿童样本对“大五”人格结构的验证. 心理学报, 27(3), 281-287.
[9]	钟建安, 段锦云. (2004). “大五”人格模型及其在工业与组织心理学中的应用. 心理科学进展, 12(4), 578-583.
[10]	周琰喆, 李原. (2020). 基于人格特质视角的员工建言行为研究: 回顾与展望. 中国人力资源开发, 37(10), 33-51.
[11]	Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta- analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1111/peps.1991.44.issue-1 URL
[12]	Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410-424. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410 URL
[13]	Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Eds.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations: Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 39-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[14]	Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913 URL
[15]	Chang, L., Ma, M. C. K., Li, T., Wu, B. W., Chen, B. B., & Lu, H. L. (2011). Cultural adaptations to environmental variability: An evolutionary account of East-West differences. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 99-129. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9149-0 URL
[16]	Conte, J. M., Heffner, T. S., Roesch, S. C., & Aasen, B. A. (2017). A person-centric investigation of personality types, job performance, and attrition. Personality and Individual Differences, 104(1), 554-559. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.004 URL
[17]	Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R), Odessa. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
[18]	Deyoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1165-1180. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00327.x URL
[19]	Deyoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004 URL
[20]	Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. pmid: 16768595
[21]	Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2010). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types: Issues and controversies. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1070-1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00313.x URL
[22]	Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863-879. doi: 10.1037/a0037408 URL
[23]	Henning, G., Hansson, I., Berg, A. I., Lindwall, M., & Johansson, B. (2017). The role of personality for subjective well-being in the retirement transition- Comparing variable- and person-oriented models. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 385-392. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.017 URL
[24]	Herzberg, P. Y., & Roth, M. (2006). Beyond resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers? An extension of personality prototype research. European Journal of Personality, 20(1), 5-28. doi: 10.1002/per.557 URL
[25]	Honkaniemi, L., Feldt, T., Metsäpelto, R.-L., & Tolvanen, A. (2013). Personality types and applicant reactions in real-life selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(1), 32-45. doi: 10.1111/ijsa.2013.21.issue-1 URL
[26]	Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where theory meets the method. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 846-876. doi: 10.1177/1094428117744021 URL
[27]	Isler, L., Liu, J. H., Sibley, C. G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2016). Self-regulation and personality profiles: Empirical development, longitudinal stability and predictive ability. European Journal of Personality, 30(3), 274-287. doi: 10.1002/per.2054 URL
[28]	Jackson, D. N. (1999). Personality research form, manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
[29]	Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0837 URL
[30]	Lee, P., Joo, S.-H., & Lee, S. (2019). Examining stability of personality profile solutions between Likert-type and multidimensional forced choice measure. Personality & Individual Differences, 142, 13-20.
[31]	Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(2), 191-225. doi: 10.1080/10705510902751010 URL
[32]	McAdams, D. P. (1994). The person: An introduction to personality psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[33]	McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587-596. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1 URL
[34]	Min, H. Y., & Su, S. Y. (2020). Examining relationships between personality profiles and organizational health outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110-118.
[35]	Morin, A. J. S., Morizot, J., Boudrias, J.-S., & Madore, I. H. (2011). A multifoci person-centered perspective on workplace affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 58-90. doi: 10.1177/1094428109356476 URL
[36]	Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher-order dimensions of the Big Five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 447-478. doi: 10.1111/peps.2005.58.issue-2 URL
[37]	Park, H. H., Wiernik, B. M., Oh, I.-S., Gonzalez-Mulé, E., Ones, D. S., & Lee, Y. (2020). Meta-analytic five-factor model personality intercorrelations: Eeny, meeny, miney, moe, how, which, why, and where to go. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1490-1529. doi: 10.1037/apl0000476 URL
[38]	Peeters, M. A. G., van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 377-396. doi: 10.1002/per.588 URL
[39]	Penney, L. M., Hunter, E. M., & Perry, S. J. (2011). Personality and counterproductive work behaviour: Using conservation of resources theory to narrow the profile of deviant employees. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 58-77.
[40]	Perera, H. N., Granziera, H., & Mcilveen, P. (2018). Profiles of teacher personality and relations with teacher self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 171-178. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.034 URL
[41]	Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & de Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369-383. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.004
[42]	Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 157-171. pmid: 8558407
[43]	Schmiege, S. J., Masyn, K. E., & Bryan, A. D. (2018). Confirmatory latent class analysis: Illustrations of empirically driven and theoretically driven model constraints. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 983-1001. doi: 10.1177/1094428117747689 URL
[44]	Semeijn, J. H., van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & de Beuckelaer, A. (2020). Personality traits and types in relation to career success: An empirical comparison using the Big Five. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 69(2), 538- 556. doi: 10.1111/apps.v69.2 URL
[45]	Specht, J., Luhmann, M., & Geiser, C. (2014). On the consistency of personality types across adulthood: Latent profile analyses in two large-scale panel studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 540-556. doi: 10.1037/a0036863 pmid: 25133730
[46]	Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & White, L. A. (2012). Adaptive testing with multidimensional pairwise preference items: Improving the efficiency of personality and other noncognitive assessments. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 463-487. doi: 10.1177/1094428112444611 URL
[47]	Udayar, S., Urbanaviciute, I., Massoudi, K., & Rossier, J. (2020). The role of personality profiles in the longitudinal relationship between work-related well-being and life satisfaction among working adults in Switzerland. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 77-92. doi: 10.1002/per.2225 URL
[48]	van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B.(2010). The general factor of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 315-327. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003 URL
[49]	van der Wal, R. A. B., Bucx, M. J. L., Hendriks, J. C. M., Scheffer, G.-J., & Prins, J. B.(2016). Work stress and satisfaction in relation to personality profiles in a sample of Dutch anaesthesiologists: A questionnaire survey. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 33(11), 800-806. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000524 URL
[50]	Wall, H. J., Campbell, C. C., Kaye, L. K., Levy, A., & Bhullar, N. (2019). Personality profiles and persuasion: An exploratory study investigating the role of the Big-5, Type D personality and the Dark Triad on susceptibility to persuasion. Personality & Individual Differences, 139, 69-76.
[51]	Wang, M., & Hanges, P. J. (2011). Latent class procedures: Applications to organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 24-31. doi: 10.1177/1094428110383988 URL
[52]	Wojciechowski, T. (2020). Latent profile analysis of personality dimensions among juvenile offenders: Relevance for predicting offending seriousness. Crime & Delinquency, 67(2), 212-233.
[53]	Woo, S. E., Jebb, A. T., Tay, L., & Parrigon, S. (2018). Putting the “Person” in the center: Review and synthesis of person-centered approaches and methods in organizational science. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 814-845. doi: 10.1177/1094428117752467 URL
[54]	Wu, C.-H., Wang, Y., Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2020). Effects of chronic job insecurity on Big Five personality change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1308-1326. doi: 10.1037/apl0000488 URL

剖面数量	作者 (年份)	国家	测量工具	样本量	剖面名称与特征	结果变量
2剖面	van der Wal等(2016)	荷兰	44-BFI (McAdams, 1994)	655	灵活适应剖面(68%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高贫乏剖面(32%)：高神经质、其他人格特质低	工作压力、工作满意度
2剖面	Semeijn等(2020)	荷兰全球工厂	60-NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992)	293	灵活适应剖面(15%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高内化/外部化剖面(85%)：高神经质, 低外向性、低宜人性	职业成功
3剖面	Udayar等(2020)	瑞士	60-NEO FFI (McCrae和Costa, 2004)	1204	灵活适应剖面(14%)：低神经质、高外向性与高尽责性普通剖面(75%)：所有人格特质中等过度敏感剖面(11%)：高神经质、低外向性与低尽责性	——
4剖面	Henning等(2017)	瑞典	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	2797	灵活适应剖面(41%)：中低神经质、中高其他人格特质保守剖面(37%)：中神经质、中低宜人性、中低外向性、中高尽责性、中低经验开放性追求自由剖面(13%)：中神经质、中高宜人性、中高外向性、中低尽责性、高经验开放性无控制剖面(9%)：高神经质、低宜人性、低尽责性、中低外向性、中低经验开放性	——
4剖面	Min和Su (2020)	——	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	537	灵活适应剖面(22%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高普通剖面(47%)：所有人格特质中等执拗剖面(14%)：中高神经质、其他人格低消极紧迫剖面(18%)：高神经质、低宜人性、低尽责性	——
4剖面	Min和Su (2020)	——	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	545	灵活适应剖面(11%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高普通剖面(56%)：所有人格特质中等执拗剖面(14%)：高神经质、其他人格低, 尽责性尤低保守剖面(18%)：高尽责性、中低其他人格特质	反生产行为组织公民行为工作倦怠
4剖面	Perera等(2018)	澳大利亚	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	574	灵活适应剖面(13%)：低神经质、中高其他人格特质普通剖面(67%)：所有人格特质中等执拗剖面(12%)：中高神经质、其他人格特质低兴奋剖面(8%)：中高神经质、高外向性、高宜人性、高经验开放性、低尽责性	自我效能工作投入工作满意度
4剖面	Honkaniemi等(2013)	芬兰	PRE (Jackson, 1999)	218	灵活适应剖面(45%)：中低神经质、中高宜人性、中高外向性、高尽责性过度控制剖面(13%)：中高神经质、低宜人性、低外向性无控制剖面(10%)：高神经质、高外向性、低尽责性波西尼亚人剖面(32%)：中低神经质、中高宜人性、中高经验开放性	——
5剖面	Conte等 (2017)	美国	TAPAS (Stark等, 2012)	4763	灵活适应剖面(24%)：低神经质、高宜人性、中低外向性、中高尽责性、中高经验开放性过度控制剖面(20%)：中高神经质、中宜人性、中低外向性、中低尽责性、低经验开放性无控制剖面(26%)：中高神经质、中宜人性、高外向性、中低尽责性、高经验开放性友好剖面(7%)：中神经质、中高宜人性、中高外向性、中低尽责性、中低经验开放性尽责或不宜人剖面(33%)：中低神经质、低宜人性、中高外向性、高尽责性、高经验开放性	工作绩效、工作倦怠

剖面数量	作者 (年份)	国家	测量工具	样本量	剖面名称与特征	结果变量
2剖面	van der Wal等(2016)	荷兰	44-BFI (McAdams, 1994)	655	灵活适应剖面(68%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高贫乏剖面(32%)：高神经质、其他人格特质低	工作压力、工作满意度
2剖面	Semeijn等(2020)	荷兰全球工厂	60-NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992)	293	灵活适应剖面(15%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高内化/外部化剖面(85%)：高神经质, 低外向性、低宜人性	职业成功
3剖面	Udayar等(2020)	瑞士	60-NEO FFI (McCrae和Costa, 2004)	1204	灵活适应剖面(14%)：低神经质、高外向性与高尽责性普通剖面(75%)：所有人格特质中等过度敏感剖面(11%)：高神经质、低外向性与低尽责性	——
4剖面	Henning等(2017)	瑞典	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	2797	灵活适应剖面(41%)：中低神经质、中高其他人格特质保守剖面(37%)：中神经质、中低宜人性、中低外向性、中高尽责性、中低经验开放性追求自由剖面(13%)：中神经质、中高宜人性、中高外向性、中低尽责性、高经验开放性无控制剖面(9%)：高神经质、低宜人性、低尽责性、中低外向性、中低经验开放性	——
4剖面	Min和Su (2020)	——	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	537	灵活适应剖面(22%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高普通剖面(47%)：所有人格特质中等执拗剖面(14%)：中高神经质、其他人格低消极紧迫剖面(18%)：高神经质、低宜人性、低尽责性	——
4剖面	Min和Su (2020)	——	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	545	灵活适应剖面(11%)：低神经质、其他人格特质高普通剖面(56%)：所有人格特质中等执拗剖面(14%)：高神经质、其他人格低, 尽责性尤低保守剖面(18%)：高尽责性、中低其他人格特质	反生产行为组织公民行为工作倦怠
4剖面	Perera等(2018)	澳大利亚	20-mini-IPIP (Donnellan等, 2006)	574	灵活适应剖面(13%)：低神经质、中高其他人格特质普通剖面(67%)：所有人格特质中等执拗剖面(12%)：中高神经质、其他人格特质低兴奋剖面(8%)：中高神经质、高外向性、高宜人性、高经验开放性、低尽责性	自我效能工作投入工作满意度
4剖面	Honkaniemi等(2013)	芬兰	PRE (Jackson, 1999)	218	灵活适应剖面(45%)：中低神经质、中高宜人性、中高外向性、高尽责性过度控制剖面(13%)：中高神经质、低宜人性、低外向性无控制剖面(10%)：高神经质、高外向性、低尽责性波西尼亚人剖面(32%)：中低神经质、中高宜人性、中高经验开放性	——
5剖面	Conte等 (2017)	美国	TAPAS (Stark等, 2012)	4763	灵活适应剖面(24%)：低神经质、高宜人性、中低外向性、中高尽责性、中高经验开放性过度控制剖面(20%)：中高神经质、中宜人性、中低外向性、中低尽责性、低经验开放性无控制剖面(26%)：中高神经质、中宜人性、高外向性、中低尽责性、高经验开放性友好剖面(7%)：中神经质、中高宜人性、中高外向性、中低尽责性、中低经验开放性尽责或不宜人剖面(33%)：中低神经质、低宜人性、中高外向性、高尽责性、高经验开放性	工作绩效、工作倦怠