Assessing The Big Five Personality Traits With Latent Semantic Analysis

Description of the Journal Article

Discuss about the Big Five Personality Traits with Latent Semantic Analysis.

The personality traits of human nature have been categorized into five factors that are believed to be the control of human life and actions. These personality traits have been formed into a factor model that can be remembered and recited easily. This model is known as a five-factor model, and the following are the factors; Conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience and extraversion. These are broad factors that include other minor but significant characteristics, and if a person is perceived to have any or some of them, they portray different characters (Kwantes, Derbentseva, Lam, Vartanian, & Marmurek, 2016). For instance, the extraversion factor is related to several characters such as warmth, excitement, and positive emotions among others. It is from the idea of measuring these factors, where the authors of ‘Assessing the Big Five personality traits with latent semantic analysis’ Journal wished to develop a methodology for measuring and identifying them in people (Cattell, 1943). Therefore, it was thought that analyzing the semantic content of an individual; it was an excellent way to measure the factors (Kwantes, Derbentseva, Lam, Vartanian, & Marmurek, 2016).

This journal is focusing on tracking the word usage in a person’s speech of essay, thus helping in determining their characteristics. Therefore, the use of Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) technique has been used by the researchers to develop an algorithm that can be used in future for such personality tests (Kwantes, Derbentseva, Lam, Vartanian, & Marmurek, 2016). This research embraces the use of text analytic approach that is very keen in identifying every single word and technique used to a specific individual. Therefore, the words used are characterized by the type of behavior(s) an individual is thought to have (Campbell & Pennebaker, 2003). Ideally, every person’s speech and words uttered are thought to be influenced by the personality type. On this case, each person is expected to handle the same idea differently because of the difference in personalities.

Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) Ideology has been used in developing the idea of obtaining personality type from the words spoken or written over a certain approach. LIWC was developed and invented by Pennebaker and King (1999) who provided the idea of tallying and obtaining the frequency of specific word used from a certain point of interest. For instance, if an individual is interested in linguistics, a lot of articles and prepositions might be observed in their essays. After the texts have been obtained from different individuals, they are analyzed using the analytical analysis. The methods of analysis assume that the word will appear in a particular context that will provide a rationale of concluding the type of personalities perceived. In facilitating the research, cases under study were presented with the scenario, through which they would explain about their feeling and their actions. Therefore, it was assumed that almost every individual would react towards the scenario according to their personalities and it could be identified in the texts used (Kwantes, Derbentseva, Lam, Vartanian, & Marmurek, 2016).

Evaluations and Arguments

The authors of the paper were focused on testing whether it is possible to test the personalities of people through an automated method. This method would be able to use the way an individual would approach a certain scenario and through the words uttered, a certain characteristic/personality would be identified. Referring to other individual’s work of psychology such as Allport & Odbert 1936 and Pennebaker & King, 1999, much was developed towards developing a tool that would be used to identify personalities (Chung & Pennebaker, 2008). For instance, Allport & Odbert documented that there exist some words that play a great role in the case of personality. Also, Allport & Odbert believed that then words uttered by a particular individual had a lot to tell about their state of mind and psychological traits.

Instead of giving ideas that do not have facts with them, this study was developed to prove the argument that it was possible to identify character traits and personalities through patent semantic analysis. A study was undertaken involving a sample that consisted of some cases under observation. The response of these sample elements was to provide a stand on the issue of accessing the big five personality traits. The study will be successful if a tool of analyzing and understanding the personalities of speakers or authors through their speech is developed. Therefore, although it is a qualitative study, some quantitative analysis has also been used because the sample outcomes are used in decision making. The mean scores and standard deviation statistics show the semantic content in the speeches and responses provided.

The criteria used in this research was sensitive because of the activities that were to be undertaken and nature of the study. Firstly, the study needed to involve individuals who had not idea about the factors under observation. Otherwise, the research would produce biased results. The materials used are much effective as far as the objectives of the study are concerned. For instance, the scenarios developed would significantly provide relevant information as expected by the facilitators of the research. Also, Latent semantic analysis tool used could enhance the chances of acquiring the personalities of the participants. In this case, the frequencies of the words used by the sample units would be recorded, and the nature of the words would dictate the characters and nature of the person. The results obtained from the LSA techniques would be unaltered because the materials used were random from the internet (Landauer, Foltz, & Laham, 1998).

Methodology

Research proceedings are highly sensitive to the methods used for selecting the participants who make up the sample. The process of selecting the sample units need to be fair and unaltered, which ensures that it is fair and random. In the case of this project, the study was undertaken in a university and the sample selected was to depend on the knowledge the individuals had about the research. In this case, one hundred and fifteen first years were used as subjects under study. All the individuals were within the age group of 18 to 23 years. Twelve members of the sample were reported to be using English as their first language, which meant that the population was homogeneous, and knowledge of English language would not alter the results.

Only 87 members of the sample out of hundred and fifteen were able to complete the survey successfully. Despite the fact that there was no maximum turnout of the sampled individuals, the study generated positive results, and the hypotheses were justified. This meant the information that was used in the analysis was for these participants, who were able to complete the BFI (Big Five Inventory) and the essays (Yarkoni, 2010). The results obtained were analyzed, and their effects were as the enumerators expected it.

Based on Table 3 below, it was found that contentiousness and agreeableness could not be determined using the Latent analysis techniques, but the factors tested positively. Thereby, it was found that the middle sized corpora can be used adequately for training, especially where documents that are relevant to traits are used. Also, the correlation coefficients did not show much difference despite the use of distinct volumes of the articles for the study. It was found that for instance, individuals who scored highest in neuroticism has used words such as lazy and smart for their positive view and scared & horrible for their negativity (Kwantes, Derbentseva, Lam, Vartanian, & Marmurek, 2016).

Table 3: Correlation Coefficients

This personality and individual differences study have provided a great change in the psychology research and posed a challenge to the world or research. Through this research, a tool was provided to help in determining personalities using the way a person responds to certain issues and words used in a speech. Some observations and findings were discovered in the same study such as the relationships frequency of words used and the character of agreeableness.

Selection of Participants

This study had several limitations attached to the way the research was conducted and its requirements. For instance, selecting the sample was limited to the type of people to be selected because all individuals person were supposed to be tolerable and consistent. This is the reason why there, not maximum turn out of the sample unit selected because some of them could not stand all the activities as expected. Also, the scenarios generated did not provide maximum certainty that they could invoke the participants to display their characters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the study of personality and individual differences has generated positive results towards the objectives. Some of the personalities were observed about the analysis criteria developed but because of some challenges and limitations there no maximum observations. For instance, agreeableness and conscientiousness might not have been observed effectively because semantic analysis might not be the perfect measure. Finally, it can be concluded that not all the personalities got the perfect measure, which affected the expected outcomes.

References

Campbell, R. & Pennebaker, J. (2003). The Secret Life of Pronouns: Flexibility in Writing Style and Physical Health. Psychological Science, 14(1), 60-65. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01419

Cattell, R. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476-506. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054116

Chung, C. & Pennebaker, J. (2008). Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: An automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 96-132. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006

Kwantes, P., Derbentseva, N., Lam, Q., Vartanian, O., & Marmurek, H. (2016). Assessing the Big Five personality traits with latent semantic analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 229-233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.010

Landauer, T. (1999). Latent semantic analysis: A theory of the psychology of language and mind. Discourse Processes, 27(3), 303-310. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545065

Landauer, T., Foltz, P., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 259-284. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028

McCrae, R. & John, O. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. J Personality, 60(2), 175-215. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

Pennebaker, J. & King, L. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296-1312. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296

Pennebaker, J. & King, L. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296-1312. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296

Perry, S. (2003). Big five personality traits and work drive as predictors of adolescent academic performance.

Personality and individual differences. (2001). Personality and Individual Differences, 30(8), I-XII. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00038-1

Teovanovic, P. (2014). Anchoring effect: Individual differences approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, S77. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.461

Yarkoni, T. (2010). Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 363-373. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.04.001