Establishing the substantive interpretation of the GFP by considering evidence from research on personality disorders and animal personality

In research on individual differences, various structural models aim at providing a comprehensive description of personality. These models assume multiple, mostly independent personality dimensions. More recently, the so-called General Factor of Personality (GFP) has become a proliferous, but contentious, topic. The notion of the GFP is based on the observations that personality dimensions are not independent, but in fact show consistent inter-correlations, leading to a relevant proportion of shared variance among them (Figueredo et al., 2006). The GFP seems to capture the socially desirable ends of personality scales, and, in terms of the Big Five model, high-GFP individuals score relatively high on openness, conscientiousness, extraversion (mainly the sociability-facet), agreeableness, and emotional stability (Rushton and Irwing, 2009; van der Linden et al., 2010a). Some authors have suggested that the GFP simply reflects methodological artifacts (Ashton et al., 2009; Backstrom et al., 2009; Hopwood et al., 2011b; Pettersson et al., 2012). However, much of this criticism has been addressed (Rushton and Erdle, 2010; Loehlin, 2012; Dunkel and van der Linden, 2014; van der Linden et al., 2014a). The objective of the present work is not to reiterate these issues, as they have been discussed extensively elsewhere (Irwing, 2013; van der Linden et al., 2016). Instead, we contend that criticism mostly offered within the specialty of personality psychology misses the bigger picture. More specific, evidence in favor of the GFP as a substantive and theoretically coherent construct has been provided in other research fields long before it became a contentious issue in personality psychology. Here we introduce two lines of evidence that may further corroborate the substantive interpretation of the GFP, specifically, findings from personality pathology as well as from animal personality. Looking at the GFP from a different perspective may help to overcome the current debates within personality psychology. In the following we will first briefly introduce work on the GFP and its theoretical foundation as social effectiveness. Afterwards we outline research from psychiatric nosology and animal ecology and discuss these in context

Dynamic self- and other-focused emotional intelligence: A theoretical framework and research agenda

This paper introduces a theoretical framework for research on the dynamics of self- and otherfocused \nemotional intelligence (EI). The EI-framework focuses specifically on the interplay \nbetween different EI dimensions when individuals are processing their own emotions and the \nemotions of others. The framework captures different phases of processing self- and otheremotions. \nThe first phase consists of situational cues (e.g., an argument) that elicit \ninterdependent emotions in the self and others. The next phase specifies differential and \ninteracting effects of EI dimensions when processing these emotions, and the third phase \ndescribes what proximal and distal consequences this processing may have. In addition, the \nframework includes candidate dispositional and contextual factors (e.g., emotion-type, \nmotivation) that may qualify the process

How Emotional Intelligence Might Get You the Job: The Relationship Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Faking on Personality Tests

This study examined trait emotional intelligence (EI) in relation to the ability to fake on personality tests. Undergraduate students (N = 129) were first instructed to fill out a personality inventory honestly, and s

Psychopathy as a predisposition to lie hedonistically

Excessive lying is generally considered to be a hallmark of psychopathy. Meanwhile, the empirical evidence for the association between psychopathy and lying is somewhat limited. In the present study, non-clinical volunteers completed a measure of psychopathy, and were then brought in an experimental situation (a puzzle task) in which they could opt to lie for potential personal gain (i.e. monetary reward). Findings suggest that 19% of participants (i.e. 31 out of 166) lied about their performance in the puzzle task, thus increasing their likelihood of gaining additional reward. These lying participants scored significantly higher on psychopathy than did their honest peers. Thus, the findings support the hypothesis that psychopathy is characterised by deceitful behaviour. Particularly, psychopathic boldness was associated with lying.</p

The motivation and opportunity for socially desirable responding does not alter the general factor of personality

Socially desirable responding may affect the factor structure of personality questionnaires and may be one of the reasons for the common variance among personality traits. In this study, we test this hypothesis by investigating the influence of the motivational test-taking context (development vs. selection) and the opportunity to distort responses (forced-choice vs. Likert response format) on personality questionnaire scores. Data from real selection and assessment candidates (total N = 3,980) matched on gender, age, and educational level were used. Mean score differences were found between the selection and development groups, with smaller differences for the FC version. Yet, exploratory structural equation models showed that the overall factor structures as well as the general factor were highly similar across the four groups. Thus, although socially desirable responding may affect mean scores on personality traits, it does not appear to affect factor st