Has Average Joe Got Inner Conflicts? Positioning the Self and the Meaning of Mid-Range Scores on the Big Five Traits

Abstract

In this article we explore dilemmas with interpreting mid-range scores on Big Five personality traits. Using dialogical self theory, we hypothesized that mid-trait individuals would report more conflict between I-positions congruent with the trait domain concerned, for example, conflict between I-as-bold and I-as-reserved in the domain of Extraversion. A community sample of 147 participants completed a Big Five trait measure, the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), and the I-Position Inventory (IPI). The IPI contains 88 I-position statements generated from previous research and clinical assessments. Fifty-two of the statements form 26 opposing pairs (e.g., I-as-optimist vs. I-as-pessimist). To measure the most salient I-position conflicts, respondents were asked to rank these pairs (only the top five pairs were ranked). In support of the conflict hypothesis, for three of the Big Five traits, individuals who scored mid-range reported more conflict between I-positions congruent with the trait than did respondents in the upper and lower quartiles of the distribution (significant for Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness). We argue the findings highlight problems of interpretation for mid-range trait scores that arise from the limitations of aggregation methods, but also from a compromised theoretical foundation. Trait theory masks dynamic processes as well as social contexts.

Notes

We adopt the term I-position in the text, following the usage proposed originally by Hermans and Kempen (1993).

The I-position sorting procedure was conducted by the authors rather than by independent judges. This should be considered a limitation of the study. Counterbalancing this, we believe the Big Five domain has been defined with sufficient breadth, clarity, and specificity as to render the sorting task relatively unambiguous. We would also claim the list in Table 1 has good face validity.

The weaker correlations in the Openness domain may be attributable to the inclusion of I-as-religious as a criterion for O (see Table 1). Open individuals may be attracted to spirituality in many forms, but not to organized religion.

The term society of mind has sometimes been criticized by commentators as a form of retreat to a “Cartesian theatre” (e.g., Baerveldt, 2013; Stam, 2003). Our understanding of the term is that phenomenological experience always entails the social, even and especially when we are alone, “in reflection.”