A General Factor of Personality: Evidence from the HEXACO Model and a Measure of Trait Emotional Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to determine if a general factor of personality (GFP) could be extracted from the six dimensions of the HEXACO model and four factors of trait emotional intelligence. Participants were 1,192 pairs of twins (666 MZ pairs, 526 DZ pairs) between the ages of 19 to 86 years, who completed the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire - Short Form and the HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised. Principal components analysis yielded a strong GFP accounting for 33% of the variance, on which all variables with the exception of honesty-humility from the HEXACO showed moderate to large loadings. Behavioral genetic (BG) analyses revealed that individual differences in the GFP were entirely attributable to additive genetic and non-shared environmental factors - results that are in accord with previous BG analyses of a GFP. The present study adds to the body of evidence in support of a heritable GFP but an alternative perspective is also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".