Personality Psychology (740)

         a blog


De Vries et al., (2016)

Filed under: Uncategorized — drcb @ 1:51 pm
32 Comments to “De Vries et al., (2016)”
  1. Dakota Egglefield says:

    What struck me most about this article was how potentially important the sixth dimension in the HEXACO model, honesty-humility, may actually be. The authors explain that of most importance is the ability of this sixth factor to explain unique variance in antisocial criteria such as psychopathy, as well as Machiavellianism, narcissism, and egoism. This, of course, could be important when attempting to predict counterproductive or delinquent/criminal behaviors, but my curiosity has been sparked regarding the similarities and potential differences between agreeableness and honesty-humility.

    I was interested in how profiles of psychopathy map on to the Big 5 without the existence of the sixth factor. A study conducted by Woodmass & O’Connor (2018) explored the psychopathy continuum in order to determine what the opposite of psychopathy is, and they come up with “compassionate morality.” This could be a convincing argument, except that one of the main facets of this “compassionate morality” is agreeableness. The authors went on to highlight the assumption I had regarding agreeableness and the potential to encompass the traits found in honesty-humility, however they only slightly address this head on by stating evidence for the opposite of their argument, that some questionnaires, like the NEO-PI-R, do actually incorporate facets of honesty-humility in agreeableness. Their criticism simply indicates that some factor analyses show them as distinct factors with distinct predictive validity. This evidence makes it seem like honesty-humility would not actually have distinct factor loadings, and that we would see at least some overlap. I am not quite sure how to form a coherent argument with these pieces of information collected.

    Furthermore, regarding the potential overlap between agreeableness and honesty-humility, the authors reference a study with results that people high on agreeableness are more likely to be nominated by their peers as a friend (Selfhout et al., 2010). This reminds me of the Primary Mental Health Project study, started in 1958, that looked at longitudinal outcomes in order to identify variables that predict later adjustment difficulties. Among other variables, young children were asked to rate their classmates on how likable they were, and to assign their peers roles in the class play. When looking at outcomes in adulthood, the researchers found that children who were voted to play the villain in the school play were not only most disliked by their peers, but also had much higher rates of both psychopathology and criminal outcomes in their adult life. I wonder if these children (or now adults), would be self- and or other-rated as low in agreeableness or low in honesty-humility, or if there would be a difference?

    • Sara Babad says:

      Hi Dakota,

      I appreciate that you mentioned morality because that was something I was also thinking about. Is the trait of Honesty-Humility synonymous with morality such that someone low on H-H will have low morality and vice versa? This seems like a strange conclusion to draw because traits tend to be heritable. So does that mean we are saying that morality is heritable – that there are some people who are inherently more moral than others? I was under the impression that morality is a quality that can be fostered or developed but maybe I am wrong. Or perhaps it is a combination of both?

      • Katherine Chang says:

        Sara and Dakota,

        This actually reminds me Paul Bloom’s talk at INS from February. The gist that I got from it was that morality actually might be heritable. Here is a link to an interview with him:

        It was really interesting to see his research demonstrating the morality of babies but I still wonder if morality might be a combination of both (nature vs nurture). Growing up, my parents always said you’re the average of the 5 people you hang around with the most. Especially at a young age, peers can have a huge influence on an individual.

        According to the authors, the six factors of the HEXACO models are “virtually independent from each other in factor analyses” so maybe we’re not fully understanding some differences between our Big 5 and the HEXACO model? Maybe this is a jingle situation?

      • drcb says:

        Good saying, Kathie. Your parents remind me of Judith Harris’ thinking; she believed peer groups are where kids really learn (not parents).

    • Ulzhan Yeshengazina says:

      Hi Dakota,

      Thank you for your comment. I also wondered how Psychopathy would fit into Big5. We know that delinquency/antisocial behavior has links to high Neuroticism or in some cases with Extraversion. However, when we look into all five factors, we may find that high C may compensate, thus control an adverse outcome. I believe that it makes sense that Honesty-Humility as a sixth factor would better predict human behavior when you are working with forensic psychology. I see the importance of H-H as a sixth factor.

    • drcb says:

      There are some inconsistent results regarding Agreeableness vs Honesty-Humility. Although the HEXACO model is acknowledged, it is far from fully embraced.

  2. Sunghee kim says:

    The study showed very interesting findings. I just caught into the result of “people low on honesty-humility which strongly related to the dark triad traits psychopathy”. It literally explained that people low on honesty-humility showed traits of psychopathy but also demonstrated high success in some professional domain (pg.413). After I found out that it seemed interesting so I looked up and searched what was exactly “psychopathy”. Google dictionary defined psychopath as a “person who has a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior”. defined psychopathic traits which were: lack of empathy, guilt, conscience or remorse, a shallow experience of feelings or emotions, impulsivity, and control behavior.

    I thought it was very interesting how low honesty-humility so deeply related to the dark triad traits psychopathy. I personally thought people with dark traits of psychopaths more likely to be successful because they don’t feel guilty or empathy so they tend to do unethical/illegal things to establish their goals easily? I am not saying that all psychopaths are maniacs but this article provided the information that the low trait activation of honesty-humility revealed the traits of psychopathy.

    I am not sure if it would be relatable to mind perception from social psychology class (probably not but it reminds me of it); but anyway, this concept reminded me of the social class lecture about the mind perception. In the social psychology class, the class talked about mind perception and how do I perceive the mind of others (human or object or animal). Do I think a cow has mind as I do? Do I eat a cow because I don’t know the cow has a mind? These were the questions they were asking. And I told the class that because I know the fact that cow tastes good so I would try to ignore the fact that cow has mind otherwise I can’t eat cow. I think psychopaths don’t realize or ignore or block the facts in a way to realize that other people also have mind. That would be the reasons why they probably commit crimes and manipulates others.

    • minjung park says:

      Hi, Sunghee. Thank you for sharing your opinion. I am also taking a social psychology class with you, and the example you mentioned above made me recall the class time we talked about mind perception. Also, I was deeply impressed with your efforts that connect between mind perception and mind/ personality related to crime. Personally, I think that they might be associated with each other, as you said. When a person commits a crime, the person is more likely to focus on their feelings and to make reasonable minds that the criminal made rather than thinking of others. These rational thoughts can lead to acting badly. However, I am curious about how the low-level of honesty and humility have a significant influence on dark personality and crimes. Thank you.

    • drcb says:

      Good news – we’ll be talking about personality disorders next week!

  3. Sergiu Barcaci says:

    Initially, one of my gripes with the Big 5 was that I could think of plenty of other traits (such as the ones that are pointed out in the article- greed, avoidance, deceitfulness, narcissism, etc.) that aren’t outright measured by the Big 5 but in a way you could still justify them being a part of it- avoidance to extraversion, narcissism to neuroticism, deceitfulness to openness, etc. This article illustrates the importance of honesty-humility as a key dimension because it not only account for these, but also the “dark triad” of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. It also cements honesty-humility as its own separate dimension instead of a subdivision of agreeableness because it points out that agreeableness is reactive while H-H is proactive when it comes to interactions. I feel this right here is the key facet of this trait that lends more credence to the HEXACO model- it not only encompasses and allows the measurement of more lexical traits, it also takes into account peoples proactive and reactive attitude and behaviors.
    In regards to WEIRD societies, it’s interesting to think about how deeply we delve into personalities and traits within our modern societies but don’t think about how many of these traits actually sprung up because of modernity. We’ve talked in class about how a tribe of people were found to only have two key traits, so surely modernity and advancements allowed us the affordance and situational cues to develop certain traits, but what about the development over time? Even simply in non-WEIRD societies, how do our traits differ and expand over time? What’s the key development that allows for more traits to develop? Within these societies, it would be interesting to be able to somehow do a longitudinal study that would allow us to answer the question of whether these traits lie dormant or do they develop because of growth and modernity.

    • Sophie Schiff says:

      Hi Sergiu – Thanks for your comment. It’s very interesting to think about how society/modernity may influence specific traits, particularly in the context of this article and its inclusion of the HEXACO model. On a related note, I was also thinking that honesty-humility as a trait seems like it stands out, compared to the other traits, in how it may be affected by external factors. Perhaps by society as you mention, but I would also imagine that religiosity has a significant impact on an individual’s level of honesty-humility. Religion often has an explicit description of what is appropriate in the behaviors that seem relevant to honesty/humility (i.e. don’t steal). Although this seems like a highly idealized version of religious societies, perhaps in more religious societies, particularly ones that emphasize honesty and humility from a religious perspective, there is less variation in the honesty/humility trait.

      • Victoria Fairchild says:

        Hi Sophie, thank you for your comment on how honesty-humility might be influenced by religiosity. I think it’s harder to conceptualize honesty and humility as their own related dimension as they are defined very differently (especially across cultures) and we tend to think of them as learned values taught during childhood rather than more inherent traits. In societies where religion plays a more prominent role in daily life, I would imagine that this dimension also plays a more central role in personality as well, as honesty and humility are likely more often examined both by the individual and their society.

    • drcb says:

      How traits develop over history and cultures is certainly food for thought! And then you have comparative researchers finding some of the Big 5 traits in animals!

  4. Shanna Razak says:

    This article reminded me of a project I did in Experimental Psychology. I compared the personality traits of various majors. I predicted that students of the same majors were more likely to exhibit similar personality traits. For example past research suggests that those of the social sciences may exhibit high levels of extraversion and conscientiousness while arts and humanities majors may exhibit high levels of neuroticism. (Sylaska,2016). In addition when declaring major many students are encouraged to choose one that best fits their personality. In other words, they were told to choose a major that complements their personality traits. (Tranberg, Slane Ekeberg,1993). This was recommended because people are more likely to do better in a field that corresponds to their personality(Holland1985). This is an example of a benefit a situation may have on one’s personality trait as shown in the balancing-situation model
    I also found the HEXACO model to be very interesting, I never thought of characterizing humility and honesty as a personality trait. One of my first thoughts when reading about the HEXACO model was trying to figure out the purpose of having humility and honesty as a separate trait. I initially thought of humility and honesty as a facet to agreeableness. In other words, those who are more honest or show honest behavior may be more agreeable( they may get along better with other people). Although through the factor analysis provided I can see why these two items are separate.
    The utilization of the HEXACO model would have been very fascinating to study across the different majors. While conducting this project I believe that many business majors or people in this field have a charismatic and somewhat manipulative persona. However, I used the Big Five as the personality model for my project. That being said I really couldn’t figure out a proper term for the personality of a business major Business majors or those in the business field may exhibit low honesty and humility since they are in a situation which is constantly seeking out highly exploitative financial means.

    • Gregory Rosen says:

      Hi Shanna, Thank you for bringing up business majors and the business field, as it was on my mind today. Which direction of causality do you think is most prevalent — charismatic & manipulative people are drawn to business school, or business school fosters those qualities in people? Or would you frame it differently? I read two interesting and provocative blogs today, one which posits that Harvard MBA programs bring misery to the students and subsequently the rest of the world, and another that says most people are miserable whether or not they do an MBA and that the misery-causing behavior of MBA graduates is a symptom of mercenary societal values. They are short entertaining reads and here are the links:

    • Sergiu Barcaci says:

      Hi Shanna. Your project definitely compliments this studies posit that situations bring out relevant traits- those within their complimentary majors are more likely to succeed so that leads to the question of why people change/ drop majors. The next study should be on why students have changed or dropped majors just to see if it does correlate to their traits or if it is any other external reason. Your mention of not being able to completely fit in Business majors under the Big 5 (I, too, would figure it’s just a facet of agreeableness) also leads credence to the HEXACO model more precisely defining previously vague traits and allowing them to have a proper category and measure.

  5. minjung park says:

    From the reading of this article, I was deeply impressed to draw interesting findings by adding the HEXACO model to examine individual differences in personality. Before I read this article, I have never heard of the model. Through other psychology classes including Personality, I recognized that the Big 5 is the universal and basic model to test personality. However, I was interested that the Big 5 model including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness could not be applied for a survey to look at dark triad personality.

    The researchers offered that the HEXACO model suggests “honest-humility” as a new independent trait, which does not include in the Big Five model. What the most interesting thing about the trait is that “honest and humility” can explain more variance in antisocial personality traits like as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism that the Big Five model cannot explain.

    I have a question from these respects. Of course, I understand that the honesty-humility is the sixth characteristic of the HAXECO model as another independent characteristic that the Big Five model does not have. Besides, low honesty- humility can help explain dark-triad personality that is related to psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. However, I wonder how a high level of honest-humility can get other unique results, which cannot be achieved from using the Big Five model. That is, I am curious about whether using “honest-humility” can be a valuable, independent, and efficient way to examine the personality than the Big Five model that is currently widespread as a universal test of personality.

    • Sunghee Kim says:

      Hi, Minjung. Thanks for your opinion regarding the study. As you mentioned, there are many different types of personality traits (HEXACO, big 5 traits, etc.). As you know each person who created these models had different thoughts on how to measure the personality (and also personality traits only able to see an individual’s behavior just for 10 % and there are other aspects which related to the behavior itself) because there were so many different trait measures? I also found interesting how Honesty-Humility showed/explained about antisocial personality traits such as psychopathy, and narcissism. I don’t know the answer to the question you asked but I personally think a high level of Honesty-Humility would show the opposite behavior of narcissism and psychopathy?

    • Bengi says:

      Thank you for your insights, Minjung. I was also thinking about the critiques that the authors provided for the other theories of personality. I am not completely convinced about HEXACO’s superiority in terms of fitting to an evolutionary perspective and neither with Big Five’s flaws and asked in my discussion questions: “Why do you think authors use HEXACO model? What is distinctive about it in relation to the potential to work together with evolutionary psychology?” and “Did you find the evolutionary perspective towards the Big Five (trade-off model) useful? What is your own opinion about competitiveness?” I understand the relevance of situational affordances but I can’t see why survival, reproduction and offspring survival benefits associated with the evolutionary approach align equally well with Big Five.

  6. Sara Babad says:

    The article describes how people low in Honesty-Humility are more likely to exploit others and to seek out situations in which they can more easily exploit others. The article specifically mentioned sexual exploitation. This resonated with me since I research women who are at risk of being sexually exploited and started thinking about the actor-partner interactions we have been discussing in class. Someone who has been sexually victimized is more likely to engage in casual sexual encounters and is at greater risk for revictimization. And, based on the De Vries et al., 2016 article, those low in Honesty-Humility are more likely to sexually exploit others. Is it possible that those who have been revictimized develop or express personality traits or behaviors that make it more likely for them to interact with those low in Honesty-Humility, who will then exploit them? I would predict that those who have been victimized might be attracted to those who are exploitative because the interaction between the two reinforces cognitions of instability, power imbalance, and inferiority which the individual may be feeling after being victimized. And those low in Honesty-Humility, as the article discusses, likely consciously and unconsciously create or enter situations in which they can more easily exploit others, such as those who are already vulnerable. This can help explain the high rates of revictimization we often see, something that is difficult to explain when just looking at traits within the victim.

    I also found it interesting that Emotionality seems to have more to do with sensation seeking and risk-taking than Extraversion or Openness to Experience. The authors describe how those low in emotionality are more likely to take risks and that extraversion has more to do with social attention than with sensation seeking, in general. And that Openness to Experience has more to do with exploration when a novel situation presents itself than with seeking out risks and thrills. I think this really clarified for me how sensation seeking and risk-taking relate to personality traits. The Five Factor Model conceptualizes Neuroticism as correlating highly with psychopathology, but I feel that the HEXACO model does a good job of also explaining traits like sensation seeking that are not necessarily pathological. I also appreciated the HEXACO’s model’s use of Domain Specific Situational Affordances (DSSA) to explain how a trait like Conscientiousness, which is often viewed as universally positive, can have negative effects in certain contexts. The authors specifically talk about too much conscientiousness when working a group, which can lead to other members of the group engaging in social loafing – not pulling their weight.

    The HEXACO-DSSA perspective also clarified something I experienced as an undergraduate. I was involved in a group project in which one member of the group was highly conscientious. Although I always try to be an active member of a group project, she was so conscientious (and perhaps not very agreeable) that she eschewed help from anyone and seemed content to do the entire project on her own without allowing anyone else to contribute. She redid everyone else’s work and not only did she not mind, she seemed annoyed that anyone else had contributed. I recall being confused by the experience but in hindsight, this might be a good example of someone who was so conscientious that her behavior was not longer optimally effective for the environment. One would not think that high conscientiousness could be problematic, but I think even from an evolutionary perspective, not being able to work as part of a group could lead to exclusion from a group or no-one from the group surviving. In this way, this trait is just as nuanced as any other trait that can have both positive and negative outcomes depending on context.

    • Crystal Quinn says:

      Hi Sara, you bring up excellent points. I would agree with your prediction that those who have been victimized might be attracted to those who are exploitative, similar to the finding that those how are anxious tend to attract avoidant partners. As we have learned in some of our psychopathology classes, the dynamic reinforces negative cognitions and expectations, which are (usually) unconsciously sought. Thank you for pointing that out, what an interesting point. I also like your comment on how too much conscientiousness when working a group can lead to negative consequences such as social loafing or negative feelings between group members. I agree that conscientiousness is usually positive, but as you pointed out, can also be negative. This is important to think about– especially for those of us high on this trait!

    • Scott Ewing says:

      And interesting that in the Cuperman and Ickes article, the conscientious people were perceived as more self-conscious. I’d think that might translate into attentiveness to the needs and contributions of others, but I guess not. Maybe openness is a mediator.

  7. Gregory Rosen says:

    While I appreciated the enormous scope of this article, I felt like the authors had bitten off too much. My alarm bells went off as soon as I saw evolutionary psychology. I didn’t see how it adequately defended against criticism of that field: “The major critiques of evolutionary psychology center around its three main assumptions: that the mind is a collection of special-purpose modules; that those mental modules are adaptations, formed via natural selection; and that the Pleistocene era was the period in which these modules evolved” (Mitchell, 1999, p. 7).
    Mitchell wrote that essay for the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), which is a hub of complexity science. A group leader at SFI once told me that evolutionary psychology is “in practice really crappy science by almost all practitioners no matter how famous.”
    Relatedly, Fajkowska (2014) defined personality: “as a complex hierarchical system of a set of variables interacting and transacting1 among them and with the environment, which tend to achieve the relatively stable patterns of organization that may not be entirely predictable” (p.2). I think a dynamic systems approach is essential for combining evolutionary theory with psychology. Richardson & Marsh (2014) provide a helpful explanation of dynamical systems theory in personality psychology. As they wrote, “Advances in the modeling and analysis of complex dynamical systems have also led to the steady rise of dynamical systems in social-personality psychology” (p.254). This entails mathematical modeling of collectives at all levels of biological organization, including the brain as a collective. It includes study of all species, which reminds me that our other article (Gosling, 2003) for this week was about dogs. Gosling posited that Conscientiousness did not apply to dogs, and I wondered if Honesty-Humility would.

    Because this paper is already three years old and huge in scope, I also wonder how it stands up today. For instance, Smaldino et al. (2018) concluded that cross-cultural studies challenge the HEXACO model, which de Vries et al. partially acknowledge in their conclusion about WEIRD and non-WEIRD societies. I suppose reading these older articles are more an exercise in analyzing literature in general rather than becoming informed of the latest information.

    Fajkowska, M. (2014). The Complex-System Approach to Personality: Main theoretical
    assumptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 15-32.

    Gosling et al. (2003). A dog’s got personality: A cross-species comparative approach to
    personality judgments in dogs and human. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1161-1169.

    Mitchell M. (1999). Can Evolution Explain How the Mind Works? A Review of the
    Evolutionary Psychology Debates. Complexity, 3 (3), 17–24.

    Richardson et al. (2014). Complex dynamical systems in social and personality psychology:
    Theory, modeling and analysis. Retrieved from

    Smaldino et al. (2018). Niche Diversity Can Explain Cross-Cultural Differences in Personality
    Structure. 10.31234/

  8. Crystal Quinn says:

    I have always been a fan of the Big 5 because I feel that I can easily describe my own personality and the personality of others accurately with the model. In addition, while teaching a Health Psych class, I noticed substantial research that links aspects of the big 5 with health outcomes. For example, neuroticism has significantly predicted the presence of chronic illnesses. In another example, openness has also appeared to form a buffer against depression because it encourages one to pursue activities that bring about joy. At the same time, openness to actions has the potential to be costly to one’s health– one who pursues dangerous activities such as substance abuse may be experiencing a lot of positive emotion, but also face many health risks (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, Jr., 1994).

    While reading the article I felt that, given the evidence, I do not agree with a unidimensional or 2-dementional representation of personality. I didn’t think I would be open to the HEXACO model (I’m lower on openness  ), but actually, it does make sense to me that honesty could account for delinquent and criminal behaviors; so, I think there is some evidence that such a conceptualization is useful. Moreover, I appreciated the evidence of incremental validity that this 6th dimension contributes to the prediction of a number of antisocial behaviors such as lying, cheating and stealing.

    Some of my students and I took the HEXACO personality assessment at (inspired by others who have taken similar actions on this blog), as well as a big 5 inventory. The vast majority of students, including myself, felt that the HEXACO model added a lot of information above and beyond the big 5! In addition, results appeared consistent between overlapping dimensions (unofficial convergent validity evidence?).

    Despite the fact that I find the H-factor helpful, I might even propose that honesty and humility don’t reflect one factor, but rather two. I don’t really see how honesty and humility have to be on the same factor since I feel someone can possibly be higher on one than the other. The connection is not clear to me. What do you all think? Do you see that honesty and humility need to be connected in 1 dimension?

    • Dakota Egglefield says:

      Hi Crystal,

      I had a similar thought regarding honesty-humility. It is interesting that they (the factor analysis, or the HEXACO researchers) chose those two words to encompass this dimension, because they really do have two separate meanings. I do like the HEXACO model for it’s predictive validity for antisocial traits, but I wonder if both honesty and humility, although I agree that they might not be unidimensional, would map onto agreeableness in the Big 5 or even facets of honesty-humility would map on to agreeableness in the HEXACO model. We have learned both in this class and in our psychometrics class this semester that the Big 5 are orthogonal traits – they are independent and do not correlate strongly with each other. However, when we bring the sixth trait of honesty-humility into the picture, we start to see more overlap with agreeableness and thus the traits become more relatable to each other. If the HEXACO model is is developed from the Big 5, then shouldn’t the traits continue to be fairly orthogonal?

      • Chen Tiferet-Dweck says:

        Hi Dakota, and Crystal.
        I was thinking of humility as a character that is closer to shyness. Humble persons do not brag on their success and with that regard, I would suggest humility should be a sub-characteristic of Extravagantly. That is humility is reflected within people that are low on extravagant.
        I also do not see how humility and honesty can be combined into one dimension conceptually. I feel honesty should be standing on its own.
        Can honestly be a personality dimension? I feel honesty is a tool that people adopt and use it on different levels in different social situations. Are talking smoothly, politically correct can be sub-characteristic of honesty? or these also correlated with agreeableness? I am not really sure.

      • Shanna Razak says:

        I believe that honesty is a facet of humility. The HEXACO model measures fairness and avoidance of greed. With the characteristic of being humane or having humility, one must be honest among other things. Being unfair leads to a string of lies. The HEAXCO model also measures one’s avoidance of greed. To be greedy, a path of dishonesty may come along with this (such as stealing). Other facets of humility may include modesty or humbleness. In terms of greed one who is modest is usually satisfied with the bare minimum and are not envious of those who have more than them. They would not go through dishonest extremes to gain more wealth.

    • drcb says:

      The items load on the same factor and so they titled it honesty-humility to capture the breadth of the factor.

  9. Ulzhan Yeshengazina says:

    I enjoyed reading this article, and I appreciated the authors’ thorough investigation of how each personality dimensions (GFP, Big2, Big5, and HEXACO) may or may not explain human behavior in certain situations from an evolutionary perspective. From what we have learned people do not always need to express traits in all case due to its irrelevance. Past few weeks we have learned how culture, gender, history may shape our personality, and it is also inevitable to note the changes in how we inherit certain traits through selection from the evolutionary perspective. Historically, women and minorities had little to no choice in finding a better fit for their trait and thus succeed in the workforce and marriage. Whereas now, we have an enormous amount of options, for example, we can easily create an environment to fit our needs (express true personality/trait) by merely changing the country we live in, find a job we can best express ourselves, and find a partner through match/date/online. I believe it is logical that we may need the sixth dimension to fit some of the factors that Big5 and other high-order dimensions left out.

    The article also made me think of some reasons why we need Honesty-humility as of the separate dimension of personality. For example, as the author indicated that people who are low in H-H have unfair, exploitative manners and more likely to use exploitative sexual strategies. I am sure everyone is reading news (not to get political here), but it makes sense that this trait may as well be separate from Big5. Some might argue that high in Neuroticism may overlap with low H-H. What do you think?
    However, I can only speak about people with low H-H. I am not sure how high H-H would differ from C and A. I would think that Emotional stability and agreeableness may overlap with people with high H-H. Maybe we can discuss this in the class. Fascinating article.

    • Shira Russell-Giller says:

      Ulzhan, I know you didn’t want to get political but I really appreciated your astute comment on relating the H-H dimension to current times. The initiation of the Me Too and Times Up movements in the passed few years have certainly highlighted people who possess qualities that are linked to low H-H, including the likelihood to sexual harass, Machiavellianism, criminality, and narcissism. From a psychological perspective, it would be fascinating if we could give the HEXACO personality test and the Big 5 test to the sexual harassment offenders of the last few years (as well as controls), and see whether the H-H dimension stands strongly on it’s own as a unique personality factor. Perhaps extremely low H-H scores on early HEXACO tests may even be used as predictors of future sexual predators/harassers/offenders.

  10. Ariel Zucker says:

    Ulzhan and Shira, thank you both for your comments and insights.
    Along the lines of Shira’s comment, it might be interesting to expand your idea to look at criminals more broadly. I would imagine that, if the H-H dimension stands strongly on it’s own as a unique personality factor, we should see low H-H scores broadly across many people that have engaged in criminal behavior. My thinking is that if we see low H-H scores in sexual offenders only, H-H might be a better predictor for psychopathology than for a personality factor.

  11. drcb says:

    Here we have it — it can work BOTH ways:

    In positive frequency-dependent selection, the fitness of a phenotype increases as it becomes more common.
    In negative frequency-dependent selection, the fitness of a phenotype decreases as it becomes more common. This is an example of balancing selection.

Leave a Reply




Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar