The “Big Five”

The second personality model, known as the “Big Five” personality structure model, is more of an empirical phenomenon based on observation, rather than a theory of personality. The Big Five constitutes a taxonomy of personality traits: Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openess to Experience. The Big Five structure does not imply that personality differences can be reduced to only five traits.

Rather, these five dimensions represent personality at the broadest level of abstraction, and each dimension summarizes a large number of distinct, more specific personality characteristics.

3.2.1 Extroversion

The first personality dimension, extroversion, reflects the same personality trait as the one outlined in the MBTI model. It refers to a pronounced engagement with the external world. It addresses an individual’s preference for sociability and interactivity versus solitude and privacy. Extroverts tend to be highly social, talkative, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive, and ambitious. They typically have a high desire for material gain, status, recognition, and power. On the opposite end of this spectrum are introverts, who tend to be quiet, deliberate, and disengaged with the social world.

Extroverts typically experience positive affectivity, which predisposes them to experience positive moods and emotions. Since people who are high on positive affectivity feel positively engaged in both achievement and interpersonal contexts, they commonly perceive others in a positive light, to seek out and enjoy social interaction, and to think and act in ways supportive of positive feelings (Tellegen, 1982, 1985). In the negotiation setting, this translates to a more optimis tic attitude about the negotiation process, as well as a more positive view of their negotiation counterparts.

3.2.2 Agreeableness

The second personality dimension, agreeableness, reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony. Agreeable individuals are generally considerate, friendly, cooperative, and willing to compromise. They tend to be less suspicious and antagonistic towards others than disagreeable individuals. Disagreeable individuals are skeptical about others’ motives causing them to exude a sense of suspicion and unfriendliness. They typically place self-interest above others’ well-being.

3.2.3 Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness concerns the way in which individuals control, regulate, and direct their impulses. This dimension measures convergent, task-oriented versus divergent, process-oriented working styles. Conscientious individuals are usually methodical, dependable, and risk-averse. They show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement through purposeful planning and persistence. Less conscientious individuals, on the other hand, tend to be more spontaneous, flexible, and adaptable. They prefer more autonomous working environments, and are typically more tolerant of risk and ambiguity.

3.2.4 Neuroticism

Neuroticism measures characteristic responses to stress. It is associated with emotional instability, mistrust, anxiety, self -pity, and a lack of psychological adjustment (Goldberg, 1990). Highly neurotic individuals have a tendency to be emotionally-reactive, experiencing a wide emotional range – particularly negative ones. On the other end of the spectrum, emotionally stable individuals are less prone to experience negative mood states.

They are less emotionally reactive and tend to experie nce and express anxiety indirectly.

Negotiators who are highly neurotic are more predisposed to experience negative moods and emotions than emotionally stable counterparts. These highly neurotic negotiators will likely be more distressed, anxious, and mistrustful during the negotiation,

which commonly leads to more hostile or competitive behavior.

3.2.5 Openness

This dimension addresses a person’s preference for abstract ideas and possibilities versus concrete realities and facts. It refers to a cognitive style that measures the depth, breadth, and variability of a person’s imagination and urge for experiences. Individuals who are higher on this dimension tend to have more non-linear thought processes and learning styles. They are more theory-driven, and tend to act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. Conversely, closed individuals are more application or process-driven. They are conventional, conservative, and resistant to change – preferring familiarity over novelty.

Costa and McCrae (1994) noted that these five robust factors of personality have been consistently observed in both children and adults, have strong relationships to actual behavior, and have been found to remain relatively stable throughout the life span.

Although the Big Five structure’s original derivation relied heavily on American and Western European samples, there is a growing body of research demonstrating its applicability to other cultures (John et. al., 1984; Goldberg, 1981). As such, the Big Five Personality taxonomy continues to maintain a significant position in personality research.

There are several weaknesses that should be noted of the Big Five model, particularly the fact that it is not based on any underlying theory. It is merely an empirical finding based on certain descriptors and observations, clustered under factor analysis.

Furthermore, the factor analysis methodology used to investigate these phenomena has been criticized for its lack of a well-supported, universally recognized scientific or statistical basis for choosing among solutions with different numbers of factors (John and Srivastava, 1999). This has led to a controversial dispute as to the optimal number of factors maximize the predictive power of the model. In spite of these weaknesses, John and Srivastava (1999) conclude that the Big Five structure is a major improvement over earlier factor systems - capturing, at a broad level of abstraction, the commonalities among most

of the existing systems of personality description, and providing an integrative descriptive model for personality research.