Unifying the Aspects of the Big Five, the Interpersonal Circumplex, and Trait Affiliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Two dimensions of the Big Five, Extraversion and Agreeableness, are strongly related to interpersonal behavior. Factor analysis has indicated that each of the Big Five contains two separable but related aspects. The present study examined the manner in which the aspects of Extraversion (Assertiveness and Enthusiasm) and Agreeableness (Compassion and Politeness) relate to interpersonal behavior and trait affiliation, with the hypothesis that these four aspects have a structure corresponding to the octants of the interpersonal circumplex. A second hypothesis was that measures of trait affiliation would fall between Enthusiasm and Compassion in the IPC. METHOD: These hypotheses were tested in three demographically different samples (N = 469; 294; 409) using both behavioral frequency and trait measures of the interpersonal circumplex, in conjunction with the Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS) and measures of trait affiliation. RESULTS: Both hypotheses were strongly supported. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a more thorough and precise mapping of the interpersonal traits within the Big Five and support the integration of the Big Five with models of interpersonal behavior and trait affiliation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".