BPS DOP 2020 Periodic Table of Personality (PTP) Symposium Slides

BPS DOP Conference 2020 Stratford-upon-Avon Symposium Personality Assessment Science & Practice: Mapping Measures to the Periodic Table of Personality Paper 1 Rainer Kurz: Locating Scales of a Multi-level ‘Big 5 + Achieving’ Measure on the Periodic Table of Personality Paper 2 Melanie Groenewald & Rainer Kurz: Mapping Hogan Bright Side, Dark Side and Inside Scales to the Periodic Table of Personality Paper 3 Stewart Desson: Mapping Lumina Spark to the Periodic Table of Personality Discussant Prof Steve Woods (University of Liverpool) EAWOP 2021 is in Glasgow, Scotland 26–29 May at the SEC. Visit www.eawop2021.org for further information. Locating Scales of a Multi-level ‘Big 5 + Achieving’ Measure on the Periodic Table of Personality 8th January 2020 BPS DOP Conference Stratford-upon-Avon [email protected] Dr Rainer Kurz Aims of the paper • Outline hierarchical models of personality • Share PAPI 3 SL Big 5 + Achieving Research Model • Introduce the Periodic Table of Personality • Locate cells for PAPI 3 SL N scales • Locate cells for PAPI 3 SL N higher-order scales • Evaluate construct convergence with TDA 3 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Contents Personality Trait Models Three Broad Constructs PAPI 3 SL Research Model Criterion Validation Studies The Periodic Table of Personality PAPI 3 SL N & TDA Study Discussion & Conclusions 4 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Kurz (2019): 56 Shades of Grey – Bright Side, Dark Side and Inside Personality Characteristics underpinning Performance, Wellbeing and Leadership Derailment. Big 5, Alpha & Beta Personality Factors Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41 :417-440. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256. Big 5 + 1 Personality Inventories SHL IMAGES (1993) HEXACO (2004; 2018) Imaginative Methodical Achieving Gregarious Emotional Sympathetic Social Desirability 6 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 http://hexaco.org/hexaco-online Personality Theory General Factor of Competency (Kurz, 2005) and Personality (Musek, 2007) General Factor Alpha & Beta Higher-order Factors (Digman, 1997) Big 5 Personality Factors (e.g. Norman, 1963; Digman, 1990; Barrick & Mount, 1991) 10 Aspects of Personality (DeYoung, Quilty & Peterson, 2007) Kurz (2005). Convivence of Personality, Motivation, Interest and Ability Theories in Competency. Presentation at the EAWOP Congress in Istanbul. Kurz (2018). 56 Shades of Grey – Bright Side, Dark Side and Inside Correlates of PAPI Dimensions. Paper at the BPS DOP Conference in Stratford-upon-Avon. 7 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 HIGHER-ORDER CONSTRUCTS IN BARTRAM (2005) Kurz (2011). Measuring and Predicting the Three Effectiveness Factors: Contextual, Leadership & Task Performance. Paper at the EAPA Conference in Riga. THREE BROAD CONSTRUCTS Kurz, Saville & MacIver (2009) Working Together Promoting Change Demonstrating Capability Contextual Leadership Task Ikeda (1999) Buddhism Compassion Courage Wisdom Siegel (2001) Psychiatry Relationships Energy Information Alpha Beta * ‘Gamma’? Stability Plasticity * ‘Solidity’? Kurz (2011) Digman (1997) DeYoung et al. (2002) Hogan & Holland (2003) Getting Along Getting Ahead * ‘Getting It Right’? * putative titles Kurz (2016). Measuring ‘Emotional Agilities’ through ‘Predictive Analytics’. Paper at the BPS DOP Conference in Nottingham. WHAT IS PAPI 3? Work related personality questionnaire Selection & Development NORMATIVE NORMATIVE IPSATIVE IPSATIVE Quick and easy Range of reports CROSS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT How we developed PAPI 3 Welsh, Tate & Mortenson (2015). Cross-cultural development of a personality tool for international use. Paper at the BPS DOP Conference. 11 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Global PAPI 3 Validation Study PAPI 3 SL N (7 point Likert Rating) N=929 participants Multiple organisations 2+ raters 22 Competencies (50 items) 61.6% (N = 572) female and 38.4% (N=357) male Nationalities: Dutch (N=197), French (N=197), Finnish (N=181), Danish (N=97), Swedish (N=91), Norwegian (N=44), British (N=42), Belgian (N=28) and German (N=15) PCA of N=929 Competency Reviewer Ratings The first unrotated PCA component showed positive loadings for all 22 competencies. The rotated solution featured performance components that broadly corresponded to the Contextual (Alpha), Leadership (Beta) and Task (Gamma) Effectiveness Factors of Kurz (2011). They were named Engaging, Enterprising and Excelling respectively. Empirical Structure of the Cubiks Competency Framework Kurz (2015). Personality Predictors of Leadership: Findings from Research in Europe Paper at the SIOP Conference in Philadelphia. 14 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 PAPI 3 Research Model Composite Predictors (Integer Weights 5-4-3-2-1) J Optimism U Resilience E Emotional restraint Y1 Calm Y2 Tolerant of criticism M Inspirational motivator S2 Harmoniser S1 Social B Need to belong to groups O Need to relate closely to individuals F Need to be upwardly supportive H Planner D Attention to detail C Need to be organised W1 Need for rules 15 Cubiks Adapting Z Need for change W2 Need for guidelines (-) R1 Creative R2 Conceptual Q Need to connect Creating Supporting Shaping Delivering All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Striving L Leadership role X Need to be noticed I Ease in decision making P Need to influence K Need to be direct G Work focus T Work tempo A2 Personal success A1 Competitiveness V Persistence Kurz (2015). Personality Predictors of Leadership: Findings from Research in Europe Paper at the SIOP Conference in Philadelphia. Observed Criterion-related Validity (N=929) Reviewers Competency Performance Criteria Ratings PAPI Competency Potential Predictors 16 Cross-validation Study (N=109) Observed Correlations M 4.63 SD .43 1 (.94) 2 1. GFP (Personality) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2. Enterprising (PAPI) 4.31 .73 .78** (.94) 3. Openness to Experience 4.51 .77 .49** .74** (.89) 4. Extraversion 4.17 .91 .77** .92** .42** 5. Excelling (PAPI) 4.96 .53 .53** .04 -.16* .15 (.91) 6. Need for Achievement 5.12 .67 .68** .41** .20* .43** .70** 7. Conscientiousness 4.82 .72 .19* -.27** -.38** -.14 .82** .17* (.93) 8. Engaging (PAPI) 4.60 .57 .76** .46** .34** .43** .16* .33** -.05 (.90) 9. Agreeableness 4.65 .68 .70** .54** .32** .54** .13 .32** -.07 .77** (.91) 10. Emotional Stability 4.56 .72 .57** .25** .24** .19* .13 .24* -.01 .86** .33** (.88) 11. Overall Performance 3.32 .43 .39** .38** .18* .41** .20* .18* .12 .22* .28** .09 12. Enterprising (Reviewers) 3.14 .50 .38** .39** .17* .43** .15 .16 .08 .22* .30** .08 .89** (.87) 13. Creating 3.22 .53 .31** .26** .18* .24** .18* .11 .15 .20* .22* .11 .70** .70** 14. Shaping 3.12 .55 .35** .38** .14 .44** .12 .15 .05 .20* .29** .05 .84** .97** .52** (.85) 15. Excelling (Reviewers) 3.46 .53 .25** .22* .10 .24** .24** .15 .21* .06 .10 .01 .84** .62** .53** .57** (.94) 16. Striving 3.56 .54 .30** .28** .15 .29** .18* .11 .15 .14 .20* .04 .89** .74** .64** .68** .89** (.91) 17. Delivering 3.37 .60 .19* .15 .05 .18* .25** .15 .22** -.00 .02 -.02 .70** .46** .39** .43** .95** .70** (.92) 18. Engaging (Reviewers) 3.38 .50 .37** .36** .19* .37** .11 .17* .02 .29** .33** .16* .83** .62** .55** .57** .53** .64** .38** (.90) 19. Supporting 3.52 .50 .30** .30** .14 .33** .06 .13 -.02 .23** .27** .11 .81** .61** .47** .58** .53** .61** .40** .95** (.82) 20. Adapting 3.19 .57 .42** .37** .21* .38** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). .16* .19* .07 .32** .35** .20* .75** .56** .58** .49** .46** .59** .31** .93** .77** 20 (.94) (.89) (.96) (.81) The rating scale in variables 1-10 was 1-7 and the rating scale in variables 11-20 was 1-5. Cronbach’s Alphas are shown in parenthesis and the expected relationships between variables are in bold. Jussila & Kurz (2019). Cross-validating Success Factors – Aligning Personality and Competency Assessment & Theory. 17 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2018 Paper at the EAWOP Conference in Turin. (.85) Emergence of the Periodic Table of Personality Anderson & Ones (2003). The construct validity of three entry level personality inventories used in the UK: Cautionary findings from a multiple-inventory investigation. European Journal of Personality. Woods (2009). The Comparative Validities of Six (plus one) Personality Inventories. Paper at the BPS DOP Conference. Woods & Hardy (2009). The Convergence and Joint Structure of Five Commercial Personality Inventories. Poster at the BPS DOP Conference. Woods & Hardy (2012). The higher-order factor structures of five personality inventories. Personality and Individual Differences. Woods & Anderson (2015). Mapping the Scales of Personality Inventories in IWO Psychology: Applying Circumplex Methods. Paper at the EAWOP Conference in Oslo. Woods & Anderson (2016). Toward a Periodic Table of Personality: Mapping Personality Scales Between the Five-Factor Model and the Circumplex Model. JAP. 18 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C) Model (Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992) 19 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Periodic Table of Personality (Woods & Anderson, 2015) “+/-” represent valence of the loading of the facet on the respective Big Five dimensions (e.g., for Leadership [Control], the high pole of the facet loads positively on Extraversion, and negatively on Agreeableness; the low pole loads negatively on Extraversion and positively on Agreeableness). Woods & Kurz (2016). Mapping Personality Inventories to the Periodic Table of Personality: Impact of Nonorthogonality. Paper at the ITC Conference in Vancouver. Each cell denotes (a) the AB5C sector location; (b) a symbol and facet label, if included in our facet model reported in Table 3; (c) an abundance number, which shows how well the facet is represented in the 10 PIs analyzed in the study. The abundance number is computed as the ratio of (% of PI scales located in the sector/[1/45]). This enables sector comparison, for example, a sector with an abundance number of 2.00 is twice as abundantly populated with PI scales than a sector with a number of 1.00. Greyed boxes are spaces in the table; no facet can be classified E+E-for example. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness. E E+ A- C E+E+ / E-E- A+E+ / A-E- C+E+ / C-E- X Need to be Noticed O Need to Relate Closely to Individuals B Need to Belong to Groups H Integrative Planner A+E- / A-E+ C+E- / C-E+ EA+ A A+A+ / A-A- ES+E+ / ES-E- O O+E+ / O-E- Z Need for Change ES+E- / ES-E+ O+E- / O-E+ E Emotional Restraint A Need to Achieve E+A+ / E-A- ES C+A+ / C-A- ES+A+ / ES-A- C+A- / C-A+ ES+A- / ES-A+ O+A+ / O-A- S Social Harmonizer E+A- / E-A+ T Pace I Ease in Decision Making P Need to Control Others K Need to be Forceful O+A- / O-A+ W Need for Rules and Supervision F Need to be Supportive C+ E+C+ / E-C- A+C+ / A-C- C+C+ / C-C- C- E+C- / E-C+ A+C- / A-C+ ES+ E+ES+/ E-ES- A+ES+ / A-ES- C+ES+ / C-ES- ES- E+ES-/ E-ES+ A+ES- / A-ES+ C+ES- / C-ES+ O+ E+O+ / E-O- A+O+ / A-O- C+O+ / C-O- O- E+O- / E-O+ ES+C+ / ES-C- O+C+ / O-C- ES+C- / ES-C+ O+C- / O-C+ ES+ES+ / ES-ES- O+ES+ / O-ES- D Attention to Detail C Organised Type N Need to Finish a Task O+ES- / O-ES+ ES+O+ / ES-O- L Leadership Role O+O+ / O-O- R Conceptual Thinker A+O- / A-O+ C+O- / C-O+ ES+O- / ES-O+ PAPI 2 Multiple-Inventory Construct Validation Study Questionnaires completed: • • • • • Trait Descriptive Adjectives (TDA) Personality & Preference Inventory (PAPI 3 SL N) Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) Sample • • • 22 128 professionals and managers 51 male, 77 female Median age 50, range 20-79 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Method – Higher-Order Personality Research Model & TDA Kurz (2015) developed based on theoretical considerations and results of a large-scale validation study higher-order score algorithms using 20 PAPI 3 SL Normative Dimensions and 10 Facets that were added with integer weights of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. Factor level scores were paired up to calculate cluster level scores. Three cluster levels scores were added into a ‘Performing’ Total score. For TDA orthogonal Big 5 regression scores were created through PCA with varimax rotation based on a larger sample of N=1213 participants in a wider study to increase robustness of the marker scores. PAPI scores were correlated with the orthogonal TDA Big 5 factor regression scores (as well as a Big 5 Sum calculated by adding them) in order to map variables on the Periodic Table of Personality. 23 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Correlations PAPI 3 SL N vs. TDA Orthogonal Factors Big 5 + Achieving Constructs Creating Shaping Striving Delivering Supporting Adapting 24 PAPI 3 SL N Scale Name A Need to achieve A1 Competitiveness A2 Personal success V Persistence P Need to influence L Leadership role X Need to be noticed C Need to be organised H Planner D Attention to detail W Need for rules and guidelines W1 Need for rules W2 Need for guidelines N Need to finish a task R Conceptual thinker R1 Creative R2 Conceptual Z Need for change B Need to belong to groups S Social harmoniser S1 Social S2 Harmoniser O Need to relate closely Q Need to connect I Ease in decision making T Work tempo K Need to be direct E Emotional restraint J Optimism Y Core composure Y1 Calm Y2 Tolerant of criticism U Resilience M Inspirational motivator F Need to be upwardly supportive G Work focus SD Social desirability PAPI Dimension Sum W 2 3 1 2 5 4 2 4 3 1 -4 3 2 5 2 3 4 1 1 3 4 1 3 5 2 1 4 5 5 5 SUM .25 .19 .29 .41 .18 .51 .24 .14 .15 .11 -.16 -.02 -.25 .20 .36 .39 .23 .30 .25 .39 .35 .32 .14 .48 .33 .19 .23 -.05 .45 .40 .45 .25 .44 .50 .23 .44 .17 .66 E .30 .30 .22 .30 .46 .44 .63 -.24 -.07 -.17 -.20 -.17 -.17 .01 .07 .11 .01 .32 .36 .17 .23 .07 .27 .62 .41 .39 .52 -.38 .18 .19 .13 .21 .19 .40 .10 .32 -.04 .53 A -.26 -.27 -.18 -.06 -.29 -.06 -.06 .05 -.11 -.06 .20 .15 .20 -.02 .06 .10 .00 -.09 .34 .56 .49 .49 .47 .22 -.28 -.24 -.34 .14 .14 -.16 .01 -.28 -.19 .34 .23 .07 .08 .05 C .30 .18 .41 .29 .09 .13 -.23 .66 .61 .50 .30 .42 .10 .49 -.25 -.19 -.24 -.08 -.20 -.24 -.20 -.22 -.36 -.07 .20 .22 .05 -.08 .00 .01 .07 -.06 .08 -.15 .16 .16 .33 .25 ES -.07 -.11 -.01 .00 -.16 .17 -.14 -.04 -.07 -.09 -.20 -.10 -.26 -.05 .13 .07 .16 -.01 -.01 .21 .17 .20 -.11 -.02 .11 -.18 .06 .28 .44 .65 .64 .50 .56 .14 .10 .13 .18 .16 O .24 .26 .14 .29 .24 .36 .29 -.18 -.10 .02 -.48 -.40 -.43 -.06 .79 .76 .61 .50 .00 .09 .02 .15 .01 .22 .22 .16 .18 -.04 .17 .16 .10 .18 .31 .30 -.14 .21 -.23 .35 1st C+ E+ C+ E+ E+ E+ E+ C+ C+ C+ OC+ OC+ O+ O+ O+ O+ E+ A+ A+ A+ A+ E+ E+ E+ E+ EES+ ES+ ES+ ES+ ES+ E+ A+ E+ C+ E+ 2nd E+ AE+ C+ AO+ O+ EC+ EC+ OESC+ CO+ CE+ A+ CE+ CCO+ AAAES+ E+ E+ ES+ AO+ A+ C+ O+ OO+ Ratio 1.02 -1.11 1.89 1.04 -1.62 1.21 2.21 -2.72 -5.60 -2.96 -1.59 -1.06 1.69 -8.61 -3.15 -4.00 -2.51 1.56 1.07 -2.38 2.13 -2.24 -1.29 2.76 -1.48 -1.60 -1.56 -1.33 2.41 3.38 4.88 -1.78 1.79 1.18 1.38 1.53 -1.41 1.51 Vector .18 .17 .21 .18 .30 .33 .48 .49 .38 .28 .32 .33 .25 .24 .68 .61 .43 .35 .25 .37 .30 .28 .35 .43 .25 .21 .39 .22 .23 .46 .43 .33 .41 .28 .08 .15 .16 .40 PAPI 3 SL N E+ E E+E+ / E-E- A ES O A+E+ / A-E- C+E+ / C-E- ES+E+ / ES-E- O+E+ / O-E- S1 Social A Need to achieve A2 Personal success H Planner J Optimism Y Core composure Z Need for change C+E- / C-E+ ES+E- / ES-E+ O+E- / O-E+ ES+A+ / ES-A- O+A+ / O-A- ES+A- / ES-A+ O+A- / O-A+ A+E- / A-E+ E- C C Need to be organised D Attention to detail A+ E+A+ / E-A- A+A+ / A-A- C+A+ / C-A- A- E+A- / E-A+ C+ E+C+ / E-C- A+C+ / A-C- C+C+ / C-C- V Persistence F Need to be supportive N Need to finish a task C- E+C- / E-C+ A+C- / A-C+ ES+ E+ES+/ E-ES- ES- E+ES-/ E-ES+ O+ E+O+ / E-O- O- E+O- / E-O+ B Need to belong to groups M Inspirational motivator C+A- / C-A+ A1 Competitiveness P Need to influence I Ease in decision making T Work tempo K Need to be direct Y2 Tolerant of criticism ES+C+ / ES-C- O+C+ / O-C- ES+C- / ES-C+ O+C- / O-C+ S Social harmoniser S2 Harmoniser O Need to relate closely A+ES+ / A-ES- W Rules and guidelines R Conceptual thinker R2 Conceptual C+ES+ / C-ES- A+ES- / A-ES+ C+ES- / C-ES+ A+O+ / A-O- C+O+ / C-O- ES+ES+ / ES-ES- O+ES+ / O-ES- Y1 Calm W2 N. for guidelines O+ES- / O-ES+ E Emotional restraint L Leadership role X Need to be noticed Q Need to connect G Work focus A+O- / A-O+ C+O- / C-O+ W1 Need for rules SD Social desirability ES+O+ / ES-O- O+O+ / O-O- U Resilience R1 Creative ES+O- / ES-O+ Higher-Order Personality Research Model Variables PAPI Score Variable Name Performing Enterprising Excelling Engaging Creating Shaping Striving Delivering Supporting Adapting 26 Cubiks SUM .67 .49 .40 .56 .43 .45 .45 .22 .48 .43 E .51 .60 .19 .26 .34 .67 .47 -.11 .40 .07 A .03 -.15 -.06 .30 -.05 -.18 -.15 .04 .53 .02 All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 C ES O .18 .22 .43 -.06 .06 .57 .61 -.04 .05 -.14 .49 .25 -.16 .10 .68 .02 .02 .38 .31 -.03 .28 .65 -.03 -.16 -.26 .13 .20 .01 .61 .21 1st E+ E+ C+ ES+ O+ E+ E+ C+ A+ ES+ 2nd O+ O+ E+ A+ E+ O+ C+ (C+) E+ O+ Ratio 1.20 1.06 3.18 1.61 2.02 1.76 1.51 -4.21 1.32 2.89 Vector .45 .68 .41 .33 .58 .59 .32 .45 .44 .41 PAPI 3 SL Research Model Summary Variables E E+ E+E+ / E-E- E- 27 A C ES O A+E+ / A-ESupporting C+E+ / C-EExcelling ES+E+ / ES-E- O+E+ / O-ECreating A+E- / A-E+ C+E- / C-E+ ES+E- / ES-E+ O+E- / O-E+ A+A+ / A-A- C+A+ / C-A- ES+A+ / ES-AEngaging O+A+ / O-A- C+A- / C-A+ ES+A- / ES-A+ O+A- / O-A+ C+C+ / C-CDelivering ES+C+ / ES-C- O+C+ / O-C- ES+C- / ES-C+ O+C- / O-C+ ES+ES+ / ES-ES- O+ES+ / O-ES- A+ E+A+ / E-A- A- E+A- / E-A+ C+ E+C+ / E-CStriving A+C+ / A-C- C- E+C- / E-C+ A+C- / A-C+ ES+ E+ES+/ E-ES- A+ES+ / A-ES- C+ES+ / C-ES- ES- E+ES-/ E-ES+ A+ES- / A-ES+ C+ES- / C-ES+ O+ E+O+ / E-OShaping Enterprising Performing A+O+ / A-O- C+O+ / C-O- ES+O+ / ES-OAdapting O- E+O- / E-O+ A+O- / A-O+ C+O- / C-O+ ES+O- / ES-O+ O+ES- / O-ES+ O+O+ / O-O- Discussion & Conclusions • • • • 28 • The Periodic Table of Personality is a powerful methodology for exploring construct validity of personality scales Underlining constructs names located at the reverse pole of a cell facilitates interpretation Big 5 + Achieving model as well as higherorder scores map sensibly Good construct validity convergence for Extraversion-Shaping, Openness-Creating, Conscientiousness-Delivering; adequate convergence for Emotional StabilityAdapting; Agreeableness as well as Extraversion underpin Supporting; Extraversion as well as Conscientiousness underpin Striving Larger sample replication planned Locating Scales of a Multi-level ‘Big 5 + Achieving’ Measure on the Periodic Table of Personality 8th January 2020 BPS DOP Conference Stratford-upon-Avon [email protected] Dr Rainer Kurz Mapping Hogan Bright Side, Dark Side and Inside Scales to the Periodic Table of Personality Melanie Groenewald & Rainer Kurz The Periodic Table of Personality (PTP) • Proposed by Woods & Anderson (2016) • Based on the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex model (AB5C, Hofstee et al, 1992) • Framework for mapping scales from personality inventories to the Big Five • Enables comparison of scales 31 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 PTP and Hogan assessments Woods & Anderson (2016) Toward a Periodic Table of Personality: Mapping Personality Scales Between the FiveFactor Model and the Circumplex Model No Hostility Good attachment Moralistic 32 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 HPI primary scales (yellow) and subscales (black) on the periodic table of personality. N= 742 Lack of research to date locating HDS / MVPI scales on PTP Aims of the current study • Check the HPI cell locations on a different sample • Better understand how dark side aspects of personality as measured by the HDS relate to the Big Five • Explore the usefulness of the Periodic Table of Personality for values based assessments such as the MVPI 33 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Construct Validation Study 128 professionals and managers (51 male, 77 female; Median age 50, range 20-79) completed: • Trait Descriptive Adjectives (TDA) • Personality & Preference Inventory (PAPI 3 – see previous paper) • Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) • Hogan Development Survey (HDS) • Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) 34 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Method Following the approach of Woods & Anderson (2016) Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used to create orthogonal Big 5 regression scores from TDA items. Analysis was carried out on a larger sample (N = 1,213) to increase robustness of marker scores. Correlations were calculated between TDA Big Five regression scores as well as the sum of these (Big 5 sum) and: • HPI scale scores • HDS scale scores • MVPI scale scores • Summary scores across scale scores within each assessment 35 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Measure of normal personality (bright side) 206 items, True / False response scale Based on Big 5 model of personality with: 36 • Emotional stability measured by Adjustment • Extraversion split into Sociability and Ambition • Agreeableness measured by Interpersonal Sensitivity • Conscientiousness measured by Prudence • Openness split into Inquisitive and Learning Approach Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Hypotheses HPI For HPI, expect sizeable correlations between the seven primary scales and their Big 5 counterpart: • • • • • 37 Adjustment – Emotional stability Sociability and Ambition – Extraversion Interpersonal Sensitivity – Agreeableness Prudence – Conscientious Inquisitive and Learning Approach – Openness Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Results - Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) HPI Validity HPI Adjustment HPI Ambition HPI Sociability HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity HPI Prudence HPI Inquisitive HPI Learning Approach HPI Service Orientation 38 Cubiks .39 .18 .02 .32 .42 .21 .12 .00 .57 .63 -.21 .20 .40 .64 .09 -.17 .40 .29 .47 -.19 .17 -.24 .30 .45 .25 .08 -.11 -.05 .13 .08 -.21 .19 .34 .60 .51 .19 All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 .25 .56 .26 -.04 .22 .18 .08 .00 .15 .01 -.01 .26 .29 .02 -.39 .55 .21 .26 C+ ES+ E+ E+ A+ C+ O+ O+ E+ ES+ E+ ES+ O+ E+ OO+ AA+ 1.31 2.74 2.38 2.22 1.61 -1.16 -5.05 -1.02 1.17 .17 .36 .46 .49 .31 .35 .31 .09 .63 E E+ E+E+ / E-E- A A+E+ / A-E- C C+E+ / C-E- A+E- / A-E+ O+E+ / O-E- Adjustment Excitable Imaginative C+E- / C-E+ ES+E- / ES-E+ O+E- / O-E+ C+A+ / C-A- ES+A+ / ES-A- O+A+ / O-A- Commerce A+ E+A+ / E-A- Reserved Affiliation Diligent A- E+A- / E-A+ C+A- / C-A+ C+ E+C+ / E-C- A+C+ / A-C- C- E+C- / E-C+ A+C- / A-C+ ES+ E+ES+/ E-ES- A+ES+ / A-ES- Ambition Altruistic ES- E+ES-/ E-ES+ A+ES- / A-ES+ C+ES- / C-ES+ O+ E+O+ / E-O- A+O+ / A-O- C+O+ / C-O- A+A+ / A-A- Aesthetic ES+A- / ES-A+ Cautious Power O+A- / O-A+ Learning Approach C+C+ / C-C- ES+C+ / ES-C- O+C+ / O-C- ES+C- / ES-C+ O+C- / O-C+ Security C+ES+ / C-ES- ES+ES+ / ES-ES- O+ES+ / O-ES- (Adjustment) (Scholarship) Hedonism O+ES- / O-ES+ ES+O+ / ES-O- Sociability E+O- / E-O+ O+O+ / O-O- Inquisitiveness (Ambition) O- O ES+E+ / ES-E- Interpersonal Sensitivity E- ES A+O- / A-O+ C+O- / C-O+ Dutiful Science Prudence Tradition ES+O- / ES-O+ Factor loadings from current study shown in yellow; factor loadings from Woods and Anderson (2016) shown in black and brackets if different Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Identifies behavioural tendencies that emerge under pressure Based on DSM IV Axis II personality disorders, but uses work relevant items and measures sub-clinical constructs 168 items, True / False response scale 40 Moving Away: Moving Against: Moving Towards: • Excitable • Bold • Diligent • Skeptical • Mischievous • Dutiful • Cautious • Colorful • Reserved • Imaginative • Leisurely Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 HDS Manual: Correlations between HDS and HPI scales Emotional Stability Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness (Interpersonal Sensitivity) (Inquisitive) Openness (Learning Approach) Moving Away Moving Against Moving Towards Table 3.1 from HDS manual 41 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Hypotheses HDS Moving Away: • Excitable – Emotional Stability (neg) • Skeptical – Emotional Stability (neg) • Cautious – Emotional Stability (neg) Moving Against: • Bold - Extraversion • Mischievous - Extraversion • Colorful - Extraversion • Imaginative - Openness and Openness (neg) 42 • Reserved – Agreeableness (neg) • Leisurely – Agreeableness (neg) Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Moving Towards: • Diligent - Conscientiousness • Dutiful - Agreeableness Results - Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Hogan Score Variables HPI SUM HDS Excitable HDS Skeptical HDS Cautious HDS Reserved HDS Leisurely HDS Bold HDS Mischievous HDS Colorful HDS Imaginative HDS Diligent HDS Dutiful HDS SUM MVPI Recognition 43 Cubiks SUM .63 -.42 -.37 -.45 -.32 -.25 .30 .28 .40 .34 .03 -.09 -.12 .11 E .48 -.27 -.21 -.60 -.51 -.32 .30 .47 .67 .29 .24 -.23 -.16 .30 All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 A .09 -.19 -.23 .27 -.44 .07 -.16 -.12 .04 -.07 .34 .35 -.13 -.08 C .12 -.02 .07 -.10 .21 -.03 .20 -.19 -.23 -.19 .70 .10 .12 -.01 ES .37 -.38 -.33 -.24 .07 -.10 -.01 .02 -.01 .09 -.19 -.13 -.24 -.13 O 1st 2nd .24 E+ ES+ -.02 ES- E-.08 ES- A-.24 EA+ .03 EA-.12 EO.27 E+ O+ .41 E+ O+ .35 E+ O+ .61 O+ E+ .07 C+ A+ -.31 A+ O.16 ES- E.13 E+ O+ Ratio 1.31 1.39 1.44 -2.27 1.15 2.62 1.09 1.15 1.93 2.10 2.04 -1.13 1.53 2.26 Vector .36 .21 .16 .43 .45 .12 .16 .39 .57 .46 .60 .22 .08 .10 E E+ E+E+ / E-E- A A+E+ / A-E- C C+E+ / C-E- A+E- / A-E+ O ES+E+ / ES-E- O+E+ / O-E- Adjustment Excitable Imaginative C+E- / C-E+ ES+E- / ES-E+ O+E- / O-E+ Interpersonal Sensitivity E- ES Commerce A+ E+A+ / E-A- C+A+ / C-A- ES+A+ / ES-A- O+A+ / O-A- Reserved Affiliation A+A+ / A-A- Diligent Skeptical Aesthetic A- E+A- / E-A+ C+A- / C-A+ ES+A- / ES-A+ O+A- / O-A+ C+ E+C+ / E-C- A+C+ / A-C- C- E+C- / E-C+ A+C- / A-C+ ES+ E+ES+/ E-ES- A+ES+ / A-ES- Ambition Altruistic ES- E+ES-/ E-ES+ A+ES- / A-ES+ C+ES- / C-ES+ O+ E+O+ / E-O- A+O+ / A-O- C+O+ / C-O- O- E+O- / E-O+ Cautious Power Learning Approach C+C+ / C-C- ES+C+ / ES-C- O+C+ / O-C- ES+C- / ES-C+ O+C- / O-C+ Security C+ES+ / C-ES- ES+ES+ / ES-ES- O+ES+ / O-ES- Hedonism O+ES- / O-ES+ ES+O+ / ES-O- Sociability Leisurely Bold Mischievous Colorful Recognition O+O+ / O-O- Inquisitiveness A+O- / A-O+ C+O- / C-O+ Dutiful Science Prudence Tradition ES+O- / ES-O+ Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) Measures deep routed values, internal motivators and drivers 200 items, True / False response scale 10 value dimensions: 45 • Recognition • Tradition • Power • Security • Hedonism • Commerce • Altruistic • Aesthetic • Affiliation • Science Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Aesthetic Affiliation VALUES CIRCUMPLEX Science Altruistic Hedonism Tradition Commerce Security Power Recognition 46 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Schwartz (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. Convergence of HPI, HDS and MVPI scores 6 factor solution across HPI, HDS, MVPI on a sample of 1,041 (taken from HDS manual, table 3.8) Component construct names proposed by Kurz (2016) 47 Hypotheses MVPI 48 • Recognition - Extraversion • Tradition – Conscientiousness • Power - Extraversion • Security – Conscientiousness • Hedonism – Openness / Extraversion • Commerce – Extraversion • Aesthetic – Openness • Altruistic - Agreeableness • Science – Openness • Affiliation – Agreeableness Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Results - Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) 49 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 E E+ E+E+ / E-E- A A+E+ / A-E- C C+E+ / C-E- A+E- / A-E+ O ES+E+ / ES-E- O+E+ / O-E- Adjustment Excitable Imaginative C+E- / C-E+ ES+E- / ES-E+ O+E- / O-E+ Interpersonal Sensitivity E- ES Commerce A+ E+A+ / E-A- C+A+ / C-A- ES+A+ / ES-A- O+A+ / O-A- Reserved Affiliation A+A+ / A-A- Diligent Skeptical Aesthetic A- E+A- / E-A+ C+A- / C-A+ ES+A- / ES-A+ O+A- / O-A+ C+ E+C+ / E-C- A+C+ / A-C- C- E+C- / E-C+ A+C- / A-C+ ES+ E+ES+/ E-ES- A+ES+ / A-ES- Ambition Altruistic ES- E+ES-/ E-ES+ A+ES- / A-ES+ C+ES- / C-ES+ O+ E+O+ / E-O- A+O+ / A-O- C+O+ / C-O- O- E+O- / E-O+ Cautious Power Learning Approach C+C+ / C-C- ES+C+ / ES-C- O+C+ / O-C- ES+C- / ES-C+ O+C- / O-C+ Security C+ES+ / C-ES- ES+ES+ / ES-ES- O+ES+ / O-ES- Hedonism O+ES- / O-ES+ ES+O+ / ES-O- Sociability Leisurely Bold Mischievous Colorful Recognition O+O+ / O-O- Inquisitiveness A+O- / A-O+ C+O- / C-O+ Dutiful Science Prudence Tradition ES+O- / ES-O+ E E+ E+E+ / E-E- A A+E+ / A-E- C C+E+ / C-E- A+E- / A-E+ O ES+E+ / ES-E- O+E+ / O-E- Adjustment Excitable Imaginative C+E- / C-E+ ES+E- / ES-E+ O+E- / O-E+ Interpersonal Sensitivity E- ES Commerce A+ E+A+ / E-A- C+A+ / C-A- ES+A+ / ES-A- O+A+ / O-A- Reserved Affiliation A+A+ / A-A- Diligent Skeptical Aesthetic A- E+A- / E-A+ C+A- / C-A+ ES+A- / ES-A+ O+A- / O-A+ C+ E+C+ / E-C- A+C+ / A-C- C- E+C- / E-C+ A+C- / A-C+ ES+ E+ES+/ E-ES- A+ES+ / A-ES- Ambition Altruistic ES- E+ES-/ E-ES+ A+ES- / A-ES+ C+ES- / C-ES+ O+ E+O+ / E-O- A+O+ / A-O- C+O+ / C-O- O- E+O- / E-O+ Cautious Power Learning Approach C+C+ / C-C- ES+C+ / ES-C- O+C+ / O-C- ES+C- / ES-C+ O+C- / O-C+ Security C+ES+ / C-ES- ES+ES+ / ES-ES- O+ES+ / O-ES- Hedonism O+ES- / O-ES+ ES+O+ / ES-O- Sociability Leisurely Bold Mischievous Colorful Recognition O+O+ / O-O- Inquisitiveness A+O- / A-O+ C+O- / C-O+ Dutiful Science Prudence Tradition ES+O- / ES-O+ Summary In conclusion HPI and HDS scales converge with relevant TDA scales • HPI highly converges with TDA Sum – GFP? • HDS Moving Against scales correlated positively with TDA Sum • HDS Moving Away scales correlated negatively with TDA Sum • HDS Moving Towards scales correlated positively with TDA Agreeableness MVPI correlation patterns are more varied, but largely in line with expectations An avenue for future research would be to look at replicating the preliminary findings of this study with a larger sample 52 Cubiks All Rights Reserved © Cubiks Intellectual Property Ltd 2020 Mapping Lumina Spark to the Periodic Table of Personality Dr. Stewart Desson Lumina Learning Aims of the Talk The Lumina Spark Model Evaluative Bias The Periodic Table of Personality Structured Cautious 25.00 EvidenceBased Reliable Purposeful 20.00 Practial Collaborative 15.00 Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Radical Flexible Conceptual Adaptable © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. The Lumina Spark Model Conscientiousness - Extraversion + Extraversion - Emotional Stability + Emotional Stability - Conscientiousness + © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Aims of the Talk The Lumina Spark Model Evaluative Bias The Periodic Table of Personality Structured Cautious 25.00 EvidenceBased Reliable Purposeful 20.00 Practial Collaborative 15.00 Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Radical Flexible Conceptual Adaptable © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Evaluative Bias Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Talkative Unexcitable Energetic Shy Verbal Unrestrained Assertive Bashful Vigorous Untalkative Inhibited Bold Quiet Daring Withdrawn Reserved Active Timid © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Evaluative Bias Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Extraversion Introversion Unrestrained Unexcitable Talkative Inhibited Assertive Untalkative Verbal Bold Vigorous Timid Withdrawn Daring Bashful Active Shy Energetic Quiet Reserved Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Evaluative Bias Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Difference between Opposite Polarities TDA Spark % Difference Openness 1.8 0.6 -67% Conscientiousness 2.2 0.7 -68% Extraversion 1.3 0.4 -69% Agreeableness 2.6 0.2 -92% Desson (2017) © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial Evaluative Bias 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable “When an evaluatively unbalanced set of descriptors such as the Big Five adjectival markers (Goldberg, 1992) is subjected to a simple structure rotation algorithm, the resulting factors almost invariably end up contrasting positive versus negative descriptors (Goldberg, 1992).” Pettersson, Mendle, Turkheimer, Horn, Ford, Simms and Clark (2014) © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial Evaluative Bias 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Valuing certain personality traits more than others First researched by Peabody (1967) Largely ignored in psychometrics Affected by unbalanced valence in the wording of items from opposite polarities Also affected by lack of direct measurement of “undesirable” traits © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Evaluative Bias Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Extraversion I make new friends easily Introversion Sometimes I listen too much and don’t give my view © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Evaluative Bias Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Extraversion Adaptive Introversion Adaptive Extraversion Maladaptive Introversion Maladaptive I make new friends easily I choose my words carefully before I speak Sometimes I talk too much Sometimes I listen too much and don’t give my view © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Evaluative Bias Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Conscientiousness - Emotional Stability + Extraversion - Extraversion + Emotional Stability - Conscientiousness + © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Structured Cautious EvidenceBased Practial 25.00 20.00 Reliable Purposeful Collaborative 15.00 Evaluative Bias Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Flexible Radical Conceptual Adaptable Conscientiousness - Emotional Stability + Extraversion - Extraversion + Emotional Stability - Conscientiousness + © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Evaluative Bias Ashton et al (2020) and Bäckström et al (2009) suggest there to be a General Factor of Social Desirability in High Stakes contexts in evaluatively biased psychometrics. Structured Cautious 25.00 EvidenceBased Reliable Purposeful 20.00 Practial Collaborative 15.00 Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Difference in self-reported scores between job applicants and nonapplicants was assessed across the Lumina Spark qualities Average difference of just .71 raw score between the samples across all qualities Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Biggest differences found in “Observing” (E-), “Flexible” (C-), and “Spontaneous” (C-). Imaginative Spontaneous Radical Flexible Conceptual Adaptable Applicant Sample Non-Applicant Sample Aims of the Talk The Lumina Spark Model Evaluative Bias The Periodic Table of Personality Structured Cautious 25.00 EvidenceBased Reliable Purposeful 20.00 Practial Collaborative 15.00 Intimate Empathetic 10.00 Measured Accommodating 5.00 Observing Demonstrative 0.00 Logical TakesCharge Competitive Sociable Tough Imaginative Spontaneous Radical Flexible Conceptual Adaptable © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Mapping Lumina Spark to the Periodic Table of Personality The Lumina Spark Model The Periodic Table of Personality © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Mapping Lumina Spark to the Periodic Table of Personality Sample 671 Professionals 56% Female, 44% Male Mixed Backgrounds Measures Lumina Spark - 240 items (Desson, Benton, & Golding, 2014) Trait Descriptive Adjectives – 100 items (Goldberg, 1992) © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Mapping Lumina Spark to the Periodic Table of Personality Hypotheses All 40 Lumina Spark qualities will load primarily or secondarily onto their expected factors The Adaptive and Maldaptive forms of all 40 qualities will also load primarily or secondarily onto their expected factors. © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Lumina Spark 40 Qualities Aspect Quality O E A C ES Conceptual .53** .04 -.05 -.19** .06 O+ C- 2.79 .56 Imaginative .63** .14** -.01 -.32** .07 O+ C- 1.97 .71 Radical .48** .21** -.19** -.18** .02 O+ E+ 2.29 .52 Introspective .32** -.15** .11** .07 -.35** ES- O+ 1.09 .47 O+ E+ O- A C ES Practical Quality -.38** -.12** O E -.05 .30** -.06 Primary Secondary Ratio Vector O- C+ 1.27 .48 Evidence Based -.13** -.28** -.03 .38** -.18** C+ E- 1.36 .47 Cautious -.31** -.35** .02 .18** -.25** E- O- 1.13 .47 Grounded -.36** -.36** -.04 .41** -.10* C+ O- 1.14 .55 Sociable .10* .60** .22** -.20** -.01 E+ A+ 2.73 .64 Observing .00 -.67** -.16** .10* -.12** E- E- 4.19 .69 .18** .59** .14** -.13** -.01 E+ O+ 3.28 .62 Measured -.07 -.53** -.27** .19** .00 E- A- 1.96 .59 Takes Charge .22** .56** -.15** -.04 -.07 E+ O+ 2.55 .60 Intimate -.05 -.57** .05 -.09* E- E- 4.75 .58 .20** .66** .13** -.24** -.19** E+ C- 2.75 .70 Contains Emotions .01 -.61** -.18** .11** -.06 E- A- 3.39 .64 -.18** -.34** .31** -.09* -.13** E- A+ 1.10 .46 Tough .21** .34** -.36** .13** .02 A- E+ 1.06 .50 Competitive .16** .26** -.32** -.02 -.06 A- E+ 1.23 .41 Logical .03 -.06 -.26** .21** .09* A- C+ 1.24 .33 Accommodating E- .12** Collaborative .06 -.04 .43** -.03 -.03 A+ A+ 7.17 .43 Empathetic .01 -.08* .51** -.09* -.15** A+ ES- 3.40 .53 Regard for Others .08* -.09* .54** -.08* -.06 A+ A+ 6.00 .55 Independent of Others .08* -.04 -.44** .07 -.25** A- N+ 1.76 .51 Purposeful .06 .08* -.16** .43** -.15** C+ A- 2.69 .46 Adaptable .07 -.02 .16** -.42** .02 C- A+ 2.63 .45 -.05 .52** -.13** C+ E- 2.48 .56 Flexible .18** .07 .08* -.53** .09* C- O+ 2.94 .56 C+ ES+ Aspect Demonstrative Expresses Emotions A+ Primary Secondary Ratio Vector Structured -.12** -.21** Reliable -.14** -.12** A- C- .04 .52** -.11** C+ O- 3.71 .54 Spontaneous .30** .17** .05 -.49** -.03 C- O+ 1.63 .57 Focuses Feelings .05 -.02 -.12** .63** -.08* C+ C+ 5.25 .64 Follows Feelings .25** .31** .06 -.31** -.04 C- E+ 1.00 .44 Optimistic .24** .38** .19** -.10** .29** E+ ES+ 1.31 .48 Vigilant -.12** -.40** .05 .07 -.55** ES- E- 1.38 .68 -.06 Confident .22** .50** -.14** .04 .18** E+ O+ 2.27 .55 Even Tempered -.03 -.32** .26** .17** .53** ES+ E- 1.66 .62 Resilient .09* -.05 -.07 .05 .56** ES+ ES+ 6.22 .57 n = 671 ES- Modest -.09* -.41** .20** -.33** E- ES- 2.05 .46 Impassioned .08* .15** -.23** -.11** -.55** ES- A- 2.39 .60 Responsive -.02 -.13** ES- ES- 4.69 .62 -.02 -.13** -.61** Lumina Spark 40 Qualities Evidence-Based (O-) Behavioural measures of Low Openness converge with Conscientiousness (Botwin and Buss, 1989) Confident (ES+) Maladaptive form of ES+ might converge with ESTo be confirmed through mapping adaptive and maladaptive forms separately © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Primary Secondary E+ E- E+ E+ A+ A- C+ C- ES+ ES- O+ O- A+ E+ A- E+ C+ E- C- E+ ES+ E+ ES- E+ O+ E+ O- E+ Tough Competitive E+ E- E- E- A+ A+ A+ Sociable Accommodating Collaborative Regard for Others E+ A- E- A- E- C+ E+ C- C+ A- C- A- ES- E- Even-Tempered Vigilant ES+ A+ ES+ A- Purposeful A+ C+ A+ C- O+ E- O- E- ES- A+ O+ A+ O- A+ ES- A- O+ A- O- A- A- C+ C+ C+ O+ C+ O- C+ Logical Focuses Feelings A- C- Impassioned ES+ C+ ES- C+ Practical C- C- ES+ C- ES- C- ES- E+ O+ E- ES+ A+ ES+ A- ES+ C+ ES+ O- C- C- ES+ ES+ ES+ O+ ES+ O- ES+ O+ ES- O- ES- Resilient E- ES- A+ ES- A- ES- Modest Empathetic Independent of Others E- O+ A+ O+ A- O+ C+ ES- C- ES- ES- ES- Responsive C+ O+ Demonstrative Takes Charge Confident E+ O- O+ C- Imaginative Conceptual Optimistic E+ ES- O- C- A+ ES+ E- Expresses Emotions E+ ES+ O+ E- C- C- E- Radical Adaptable A- A- C+ ES+ C+ A+ Contains Emotions Measured E+ C+ C+ E- Structured Evidence-Based E+ A+ A- C- A- E- Intimate Observing E- A+ A+ E- Follows Feelings C- O+ ES+ O+ Spontaneous Flexible E- O- Cautious A+ O- A- O- C+ O- Grounded Reliable C- O- ES- O+ O+ O+ Introspective ES+ O- ES- O- O- O- Aspect Lumina O+ Spark 40 Qualities E+ Adaptive and Quality O E A C ES Conceptual (EU) .55** .10** -.05 -.06 .16** O+ Imaginative (EU) .65** .17** .00 -.19** .13** Radical (EU) .47** .22** .05 Introspective (EU) .35** .02 -.14** ES -.01 C+ .40** -.15** C+ E- 1.54 .48 .17** -.25** E- O- 1.23 .48 .49** -.06 C+ E- 1.48 .59 C- 3.42 .68 Evidence Based (EU) -.26** .00 2.14 .52 Cautious (EU) -.30** -.37** .04 O+ A+ 2.06 .39 Grounded (EU) -.29** -.33** -.04 -.02 -.29** -.12** C- O+ 1.45 .35 -.03 -.42** C- O+ 1.24 .54 Radical (O) .38** .15** -.04 O+ A- 1.73 Introspective (O) .13** -.29** -.02 .15** -.45** ES- E- 1.55 Practical (O) -.09* -.41** Primary Secondary Ratio Vector O- 1.19 .40 -.09* -.11** .16** -.12** O- C+ 2.56 .44 Evidence Based (O) -.17** -.23** -.09* .21** -.18** E- C+ 1.10 .31 .44 Cautious (O) -.28** -.26** -.02 .16** -.20** O- E- 1.08 .38 .54 Grounded (O) -.35** -.30** -.02 .13** -.13** O- E- 1.17 .46 Sociable (EU) .08 .62** .25** -.08* .01 E+ A+ 2.48 .67 Observing (EU) .01 -.65** -.12** .13** -.14** E- E- 4.64 .66 Demonstrative (EU) .14** .51** .30** -.09* .01 E+ A+ 1.70 .59 Measured (EU) -.05 -.48** -.21** .24** .06 E- C+ 2.00 .54 .00 Takes Charge (EU) .21** .55** -.06 .11** E+ O+ 2.62 .59 Intimate (EU) -.07 -.47** .06 -.04 E- A+ 2.14 .52 Expresses Emotions (EU) .19** .64** .16** -.18** -.12** E+ O+ 3.37 .67 Contains Emotions (EU) .09* -.57** -.17** .13** -.10** E- A- 3.35 .59 Sociable (O) .10** .39** .11** -.31** -.04 E+ C- 1.26 .50 Observing (O) -.03 -.52** -.19** .00 -.04 E- A- 2.74 .55 Demonstrative (O) .17** .50** -.10** -.13** -.03 E+ O+ 2.94 .53 Measured (O) -.09* Takes Charge (O) .18** .39** -.24** -.03 E+ A- 1.63 .46 Intimate (O) .00 .17** .56** -.18** -.28** .05 -.09* -.27** -.25** E- .22** -.47** -.30** .05 -.11** E- A- 1.57 .56 -.55** .02 -.14** E- E- 3.93 .57 -.05 E+ C- 2.07 .62 Contains Emotions (O) .06 .03 E- E- 3.73 .58 .30** -.07 -.12** A+ E- 1.07 .41 Tough (EU) -.11** -.56** -.15** .22** .35** -.27** .18** .09* E+ A- 1.30 .44 Collaborative (EU) .10* .21** .36** -.01 .07 A+ E+ 1.71 .42 Competitive (EU) .17** .27** -.27** .04 -.06 A- E+ 1.00 .38 Empathetic (EU) .05 -.02 .52** -.01 -.03 A+ A+ 10.40 .52 Logical (EU) .03 -.08* -.09* .23** .09* C+ A- 2.56 .25 .19** -.04 .41** -.04 .11** A+ O+ 2.16 .45 Independent of Others (EU) .08* -.14** -.33** .11** -.17** A- ES- 1.94 .37 -.10** -.12** E- A+ 1.38 .41 Tough (O) .14** .24** -.40** .02 -.10* A- E+ 1.67 .47 -.14** E- A+ 1.32 .41 Competitive (O) .11** .18** -.33** -.11** -.06 A- E+ 1.83 .38 -.16** -.24** A+ ES- 1.29 .39 Logical (O) .02 -.01 -.43** .07 .05 A- A- 6.14 .44 Regard for Others (EU) Accommodating (O) -.13** -.33** .24** Collaborative (O) -.02 -.33** .25** Empathetic (O) -.04 -.12** .31** Structured (EU) -.11** -.11** .06 .06 .43** -.09* -.24** A+ ES- 1.79 .49 Independent of Others (O) .04 .11** -.41** -.01 -.25** A- ES- 1.64 .48 -.10** .49** -.10* C+ C+ 4.90 .50 Adaptable (EU) .13** .08* .17** -.30** .08* C- A+ 1.76 .34 .42 -.03 .57** -.06 C+ C+ 4.07 .59 Flexible (EU) .20** .06 .13** -.37** .08* C- O+ 1.85 -.06 .00 .04 .52** -.03 C+ C+ 8.67 .52 Spontaneous (EU) .31** .16** .10* -.44** .01 C- O+ 1.42 .54 Focuses Feelings (EU) .13** .05 -.08* .64** .00 C+ C+ 4.92 .65 Follows Feelings (EU) .28** .28** .07 -.13** -.03 O+ E+ 1.00 .40 Purposeful (O) .04 .09* -.19** .17** -.17** A- ES- 1.12 .25 Adaptable (O) -.05 -.17** .07 -.39** -.08* C- E- 2.29 .43 -.03 -.23** -.06 .17** -.21** E- ES- 1.10 .31 Flexible (O) .08* .05 -.01 -.55** .07 C- C- 6.88 .56 -.22** -.25** .02 .32** -.19** C+ E- 1.28 .41 Spontaneous (O) .18** .12** -.03 -.41** -.09* C- O+ 2.28 .45 Reliable (O) -.13** -.14** -.04 A- Reliable (EU) Structured (O) n = 671 C .31** E+ .03 Purposeful (EU) ES+ A O+ O- -.26** -.11** .00 O+ -.08* -.22** -.17** E Practical (EU) .34** -.07 O .57 .20** Regard for Others (O) C+ -.02 Quality 3.44 Conceptual (O) Accommodating (EU) A+ .17** Aspect ES+ Imaginative (O) Expresses Emotions (O) Maladaptive -.15** -.16** Primary Secondary Ratio Vector C- Focuses Feelings (O) -.09* -.11** -.13** .40** -.16** C+ ES- 2.50 .43 Follows Feelings (O) .11** .24** .02 -.51** -.05 C- E+ 2.13 .56 Optimistic (EU) .21** .38** .15** .10** .38** ES+ E+ 1.00 .54 Vigilant (EU) -.10* -.36** .09* .10** -.53** ES- E- 1.47 .64 .16** .04 -.28** E- ES- 1.11 .42 -.19** -.12** -.56** ES- A- 2.95 .59 Confident (EU) .22** .49** -.04 .12** .30** E+ ES+ 2.23 .54 Modest (EU) .00 -.31** Even Tempered (EU) .00 -.30** .26** .12** .52** ES+ E- 1.73 .60 Impassioned (EU) .04 .08* -.02 Resilient (EU) .10** .02 -.03 .07 .54** ES+ ES+ 5.40 .55 Optimistic (O) .17** .21** .17** -.38** .01 C- E+ 1.81 .43 ES- Responsive (EU) -.18** -.02 -.09* -.55** ES- E- 3.06 .58 Vigilant (O) -.13** -.37** -.02 -.01 -.46** ES- E- 1.24 .59 .50 Confident (O) .14** .33** -.24** -.07 -.04 E+ A- 1.38 .41 Modest (O) -.19** -.41** .18** Even Tempered (O) -.07 -.24** .17** .21** .35** ES+ E- 1.46 .42 Impassioned (O) .14** .22** -.24** Resilient (O) .04 -.16** -.12** .00 .45** ES+ E- 2.81 .48 Responsive (O) -.04 -.01 -.01 -.17** -.29** E- ES- 1.41 -.42** ES- A- 1.75 .48 -.18** -.58** ES- C- 3.22 .61 -.07 Lumina Spark 40 Qualities Adaptive and Maladaptive Confident (revisited) Maladaptive form of ES+ might converge with ES- To be confirmed through mapping adaptive and maladaptive forms separately Assessing the Adaptive and Maladaptive forms separately confirms this explanation, with the adaptive form of Confident loading as expected, and maladaptive Confident drawing onto ES-. Other Rejected Hypotheses Of the other unexpected loadings, their adaptive or maladaptive counterparts all loaded as expected, suggesting that for some facets of personality, valence could affect location on the Periodic Table. © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. Primary Secondary E+ E- A+ A- C+ C- ES+ ES- O+ O- A+ E+ A- E+ C+ E- C- E+ ES+ E+ ES- E+ O+ E+ O- E+ Collaborative (EU) Tough (O) Competitive (EU) Competitive (O) Follows Feelings (O) Optimistic (O) Optimistic (EU) E- E- A+ E- A- E- C+ E- C- E- ES+ E- ES- E- Observing (EU) Contains Emotions (O) Intimate (O) Accommodating (EU) Grounded (EU) Evidence-Based (EU) Reliable (O) Adaptable (O) Even-Tempered (EU) Resilient (O) Even-Tempered (O) Vigilant (EU) Vigilant (O) Responsive (EU) Introspective (O) E+ A+ E- A+ A+ A+ C+ A+ C- A+ ES+ A+ ES- A+ Sociable (EU) Demonstrative (EU) Intimate (EU) Collaborative (O) Accommodating (O) Empathetic (EU) E+ A- E- A- A- A- C+ A- Takes Charge (O) Tough (EU) Confident (O) Contains Emotions (EU) Measured (O) Observing (O) Logical (O) Logical (EU) E+ C+ E- C+ A- C+ C+ C+ E+ E+ E+ E- A+ A- E+ C- ES- E+ O+ ES+ A- E- ES+ A- C- C- C- A+ ES+ A- ES+ C+ ES+ E- ES- A+ ES- A- ES- C+ ES- Modest (O) Modest (EU) Structured (O) Regard for Others (O) Empathetic (O) Independent of Others (O) Independent of Others (EU) Purposeful (O) Focuses Feelings (O) E- O+ A+ O+ A- O+ C+ O+ Cautious (EU) O+ A+ A+ O- O- A+ ES- A- O+ A- Impassioned (EU) Impassioned (O) Radical (O) ES- C+ O+ C+ O- A- O- C+ ES+ C- C- ES+ O+ C- Responsive (O) Imaginative (EU) ES+ ES+ O+ ES+ Resilient (EU) Conceptual (EU) C- ES- C- O+ ES- C- ES- ES- O+ ES- ES+ O+ ES- O+ O+ O+ ES+ O- ES- O- O- C- O- ES+ O- ES- Imaginative (O) Spontaneous (EU) Spontaneous (O) Flexible (EU) Conceptual (O) Regard for Others (EU) E- O- Grounded (O) Cautious (O) Practical (O) Flexible (O) Expresses Emotions (EU) Takes Charge (EU) Demonstrative (O) E+ O- O- A+ C- O- E- Introspective (EU) ES+ C+ Confident (EU) E+ ES- O+ E- C- C- A- O+ E- Reliable (EU) Focuses Feelings (EU) Structured (EU) Purposeful (EU) Expresses Emotions (O) Sociable (O) E+ ES+ ES+ Adaptable (EU) Measured (EU) Evidence-Based (O) C+ C- A+ C+ Radical (EU) Follows Feelings (EU) A- O- C+ O- Practical (EU) C- O- O- O- Primary Secondary E+ A+ A- C+ C- ES+ ES- O+ O- E+ E+ E+ E- A+ E+ A- E+ C+ E- C- E+ ES+ E+ ES- E+ O+ E+ O- E+ Gregariousness Warmth E- E- A+ E- Positive Emotionality A- E- E- A+ A+ C+ A+ ES- E- O+ E- O- E- C- A+ ES+ A+ ES- A+ O+ A+ O- A+ ES- A- O+ A- O- A- Calmness E- A- A- A- C+ A- C- A- ES+ A- Critical Enquiry (versus Rule Conformity) Leadership (Control) E+ C+ C+ E- A+ ES+ E- Emotional Control Affiliation E+ A- A- C- E- Cautiousness E+ A+ A+ C+ E- Ingenuity/Creativity E- C+ A+ C+ A- C+ Work Pace E+ C- E- C- A+ C- C+ C+ ES+ C+ Orderliness Socialisation A- C- C- C- ES+ C- ES- C+ O+ C+ O- C+ ES- C- O+ C- O- C- C- Unconventionality E+ ES+ ES+ Social Poise E+ ES- ES- A- ES+ E- ES- A+ ES- C+ ES+ C- ES+ Dutifulness A- ES- C+ ES- C- ES- A- O+ C+ O+ C- O+ ES+ ES+ O+ ES+ Stability Efficiency of Thought/Inquisitiveness ES- ES- O+ ES- ES- O+ O+ O+ O- ES+ O- ES- Emotional Sensitivity E- O+ A+ O+ Leadership (Boldness) E+ O- O- A+ ES+ Pleasantness Expressiveness E+ O+ O+ E- ES+ ES+ O+ Industriousness E- O- A+ O- Nurturance (versus Self-Reliance) A- O- C+ O- Intellect C- O- ES+ O- ES- O- O- O- Inflexibility Woods and Anderson (2016) Primary Secondary E+ A+ A- C+ C- ES+ ES- O+ O- E+ E+ E+ A+ E+ A- E+ C+ E- C- E+ ES+ E+ ES- E+ O+ E+ O- E+ Gregariousness Warmth Collaborative (EU) Tough (O) Competitive (EU) Competitive (O) Follows Feelings (O) Optimistic (O) Positive Emotionality Optimistic (EU) E- E- A+ E- A- E- C+ E- C- E- ES+ E- ES- E- Observing (EU) Contains Emotions (O) Intimate (O) Accommodating (EU) Cautiousness Grounded (EU) Evidence-Based (EU) Reliable (O) Adaptable (O) Emotional Control Even-Tempered (EU) Resilient (O) Even-Tempered (O) Vigilant (EU) Vigilant (O) Responsive (EU) Introspective (O) E+ A+ E- A+ A+ A+ C+ A+ C- A+ ES+ A+ ES- A+ Affiliation Sociable (EU) Demonstrative (EU) Intimate (EU) Collaborative (O) Accommodating (O) Empathetic (EU) Adaptable (EU) Calmness C- A- ES+ A- E- A+ A- C+ C- E+ A- E- A- A- A- C+ A- Leadership (Control) Takes Charge (O) Tough (EU) Confident (O) Contains Emotions (EU) Measured (O) Observing (O) Logical (O) Logical (EU) E+ C+ E- C+ Work Pace Measured (EU) Evidence-Based (O) E+ C- E- C- ES- O+ A+ C- A- C+ C+ C+ ES+ C+ Orderliness Reliable (EU) Focuses Feelings (EU) Structured (EU) Purposeful (EU) Socialisation A- C- C- C- ES+ C- Flexible (O) E- ES+ Social Poise Confident (EU) A+ ES+ A- ES+ Pleasantness C+ ES+ C- ES+ Dutifulness E+ ES- E- ES- A+ ES- A- ES- C+ ES- Expressiveness Modest (O) Modest (EU) Structured (O) Emotional Sensitivity Regard for Others (O) Empathetic (O) Independent of Others (O) Independent of Others (EU) Purposeful (O) Focuses Feelings (O) E+ O+ E- O+ A+ O+ A- O+ C+ O+ C- O+ Industriousness Imaginative (O) Spontaneous (EU) Spontaneous (O) Flexible (EU) Conceptual (O) C+ O- C- O- Leadership (Boldness) Expresses Emotions (EU) Takes Charge (EU) Demonstrative (O) E+ O- O- A+ C+ Expresses Emotions (O) Sociable (O) E+ ES+ ES+ E- Regard for Others (EU) E- O- A+ O- Cautious (EU) Nurturance (versus Self-Reliance) A- O- Inflexibility Practical (EU) Ingenuity/Creativity Radical (EU) Follows Feelings (EU) O+ E- Grounded (O) Cautious (O) O+ A+ ES- A- O+ A- Impassioned (EU) Impassioned (O) Critical Enquiry (versus Rule Conformity) Radical (O) ES- C+ O+ C+ O- A- O- C+ Practical (O) ES- C- O+ C- Responsive (O) Unconventionality Imaginative (EU) O+ ES+ Stability Resilient (EU) Efficiency of Though/Inquisitiveness Conceptual (EU) ES+ O+ O- A+ Introspective (EU) ES+ ES+ C- ES- O- E- ES- ES- O+ ES- ES- O+ O+ O+ O- C- O- ES+ O- ES- Intellect ES+ O- ES- O- O- O- Conclusions Reduced evaluative bias by bifurcating Big Five Factors into discrete polarities and assessing adaptive and maladaptive forms Additionally provides greater construct validity through an increased fidelity More comprehensive coverage of the Periodic Table of Personality Further research to be done on affect of valence on location on Periodic Table through crossvalidation of the current study Extra items to be developed and tested in order to align the qualities with expected factors and improve construct validity © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. References Ashton, M. C., Xia, A., & Lee, K. (2020). Is there a G in HEXACO? Testing for a general factor in personality self-reports under different conditions of responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 156(1). Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 335-344. Botwin, M., & Buss, D. M. (1989). Structure of act-report data: Is the five-factor model of personality recaptured?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 988-1001. Desson, S. (2017). Development of an integrated adaptive and maladaptive personality model for measuring the big five (Doctoral Thesis). Desson, S., Benton, S., & Golding, J. (2014). Measuring both ends of the Big 5 personality scales independently. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. Woods, S. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2016). Toward a periodic table of personality: Mapping personality scales between the five-factor model and the circumplex mode. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 582-604. © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved. BPS DOP Conference 2020 Stratford-upon-Avon Symposium Personality Assessment Science & Practice: Mapping Measures to the Periodic Table of Personality Paper 1 Rainer Kurz: Locating Scales of a Multi-level ‘Big 5 + Achieving’ Measure on the Periodic Table of Personality Paper 2 Melanie Groenewald & Rainer Kurz: Mapping Hogan Bright Side, Dark Side and Inside Scales to the Periodic Table of Personality Paper 3 Stewart Desson: Mapping Lumina Spark to the Periodic Table of Personality Discussant Prof Steve Woods (University of Liverpool) EAWOP 2021 is in Glasgow, Scotland 26–29 May at the SEC. Visit www.eawop2021.org for further information. © Lumina Learning. All rights reserved.