The Models of Five, PEN, and the Three-Factor

The Five-Factor Model 

This is an assemblage of five wide-ranging domains or elements usually alluded to as the ‘Big Five.’ These dimensions include Openness to Experience, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, as well as Extraversion. This model was developed in order to encapsulate and represent as much of the diverse behaviours and personalities of individuals as possible, usually only a minute dimension of traits (Soto and Jackson, 2018). Many psychologists concur that these five dimensions capture the most basic and crucial individual variances in personality traits, and it can be utilized as a foundation for the conceptualization of other alternative traits models. For instance, Patrick (2018) depicts that the triarchic model is based upon and is compatible with the Five-Factor Model because it is a trait-oriented model. 

The Big Five model is a result of the contributions of a myriad of independent researchers. For instance, in 1936, Gordon Allport and Henry Odbert established a catalogue of 4500 phrases that related to traits of personality, and this provided a basis for other psychologists to commence the determination of basic personality dimensions. Thereafter, in the 1940s, Raymond Cattel and his colleagues utilized factor analysis to narrow down the list that was made by Allport to sixteen traits and finally, several psychologists further decreased these traits to five basic ones and among these were Costa, McCrae, Goldberg, Smith, Norman, and Donald Fiske (Lim, 2020). Lewis Goldberg particularly lobbied for the five primary personality factors, and his works expounded on McCrae and Costa’s works, which affirmed the validity of the model. 

Each of the five personality traits is representative of extensive categories that cover a myriad of personality-related terms, and while the model is entirely exhaustive, it covers all personality-related terms. Nevertheless, among the most crucial aspects of this model is that it is focused on the conceptualization of the qualities as a variety in lieu of black and white categories. Therefore, it recognizes that most individuals are posited in the intermediate regions, while not many individuals are found in extreme ends. 

The Big Five are affected by both nurture and nature, and a myriad of studies have depicted that the heritability of the Big Five is in the ranges of 40-60% (Lim, 2020). Therefore, the studies are indicative of the hereditary nature of personality traits. However, one of the criticisms of the Big Five is that the traits are usually too broad, and also, there are arguments from several psychologists that more than five traits are needed to encapsulate the entirety of personality. 

PEN 

This is a biological theory of personality that was conceptualized by Hans Eysenck, who is an influential psychologist. This model embarks on the elucidation of the three broad factors of personality, including Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. The beliefs of Eysenck were that biological factors such as hormone levels and cortisol arousal, in conjunction with environmental factors like behaviour that are learned via conditioning, influence an individual’s score on dimensions of personality (Eysenck’s PEN Model of Personality, 2017). Before the development of the PEN model, Eysenck measured personalities based on two primary dimensions, including neuroticism-emotional stability and extraversion-introversion. 

Two essential principles that have been integrated into the PEN model are the state-trait distinction and aggregation. The principle of aggregation is that the measures will attain greater consistency when they entail several items. For instance, extraversion comprises a myriad of factors, habits, and behaviours and thus ought to have considerable dependability. Furthermore, the state-trait distinction is also founded upon the PEN model, and at the upper tier, the Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism superfactors are traits which are very stable across situation and time. Therefore, whereas the states can be variable, traits are typically stable. Eysenck contends that the five-factor model is an assortment of superfactors and factors. Both PEN and the Five-Factor model have Neuroticism and Extraversion at the highest tier. Nevertheless, the superfactor of Psychoticism entails lower-level factors of (non-) conscientiousness and (dis-) agreeableness. In the same manner, the big five entails ‘intellect’ at the uppermost tier. Eysenck, therefore, posits that this is an inferior means of gauging intellect, which is a cognitive capacity which can better be depicted in I.Q assessments instead of self-reports on adjective surveys. 

Three-Factor 

This is a model that was proposed by Tellegen as he initially conceptualized three dimensions of higher-order, including Negative Emotionality (NEM), Positive Emotionality (PEM), as well as constraint. This would come to be recognized as the three-factor model. However, later on, a fourth dimension was added whereby PEM was split into Communal PEM and Agentic dimensions of PEM. High scores on PEM are alluded to by Waller and Tellegren as “efficacious, as actively involved in their social and work environments and as ready to experience the positive emotions congruent with these involvements” (Church 1994). 

According to Church (1994), to date, Waller and Tellegen have elucidated on the most direct empirical contrast of the three and Five-Factor models, and their connections are suggestive of the ensuing: (a) Communal PEM, particularly Social Closeness, is analogous with Big Five’s Extraversion; (b) MPQ Aggression is a robust indicator of the opposing end of Agreeableness from Big Five; (c) Stress Reaction is almost similar to Neuroticism, showcasing that NEM is a holistic concept than Neuroticism; (d) both achievement and control are linked with Big Five Conscientiousness; and (e) Openness to Experience from Big Five is an intricate MPQ term that is significantly correlated with Absorption. Therefore, this shows the correlation between Big Five models and Tellgen’s three-factor model. 

Current Questions in Conceptualization of Psychopathy 

There is a myriad of questions when it pertains to the conceptualization of psychopathy. They are discussed below: 

What is the most up-to-date definition of Psychopathy? 

This is a question that tends to get a holistic view of psychopathy and thus provides one with an in-depth understanding of what psychopathy entails. Similarly, this question is essential considering the constant evolution of what psychopathy entails since new research adds to the existing knowledge, and thus getting the most up-to-date definition is crucial in order to attain the most accurate conceptualization. 

Are the Concepts Applicable? 

This is among the most immediate questions amid any forms of conceptualization because the practicality of the concept is a significant issue before its widespread adoption and application. Concepts should be applicable, and those conceptualizing should take this into consideration before deciding on sharing their concepts and theories. 

Can the Concept be proven, and How can it be Proven? 

This is an exigent issue since most concepts do not usually go past the concept stage after they have been introduced. This is because some, or most of them, are too intricate and necessitate unfeasible means of proving the concepts, and thus most concepts fail in this regard. 

Are the concepts Holistic and Comprehensive? 

This is a crucial question that tends to assess whether the concept addresses only part of the features of psychopathy while leaving out a huge part of the domain. Concepts should strive to be as holistic and comprehensive as possible to encapsulate some of the basic as well as intricate elements of the issue under scrutiny, in this case, being psychopathy. Some of the most successful concepts and theories are those that tend to be holistic enough to address all the inherent issues in the particular domain it addresses. 

Conclusion 

While the Five-Factor, Three-Factor, and PEN Models have been conceptualized by different individuals in different periods, they share some concepts and thus, to a certain degree, have similarities in terms of their mechanism. However, the most utilized theory is the Five-Factor one because it is more comprehensive and methodical compared to the others. Still, there is a necessity for more research in order to develop concepts that fully encapsulate the domain of human personality. 

References 

Church, A. T. (1994). Relating the Tellegen and five-factor models of personality structure.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,  67 (5), 898. 

Hans Eysenck’s PEN Model of Personality. (2017). Retrieved 1 September 2020, from https://www.psychologistworld.com/personality/pen-model-personality-eysenck#:~:text=The%20PEN%20model%20is%20a,extraversion%20and%20neuroticism%20(PEN). 

Jackson, J. J., & Soto, C. J. (2015). Five-factor model of personality. Oxford bibliographies in psychology. Retrieved 1 September 2020, from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0120.xml#:~:text=The%20five%2Dfactor%20model%20of,Experience%20(sometimes%20named%20Intellect). 

Lim, A. (2020). Big Five Personality Traits | Simply Psychology. Retrieved 1 September 2020, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/big-five-personality.html 

Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2018).  Handbook of psychopathy . Guilford Publications.