<p>It's unclear if the idea of 'translation' from one personality framework to another is a meaningful concept. A score on any given personality factor represents some weighted combination of measures - usually endorsement of questionnaire items like "I am the life of the party", etc.</p>

<p>As such, every factor score is a unique variable that probably doesn't reflect some underlying property of the human brain, but is a scientifically convenient construct </p>

<p>Though personality theories are usually based on how different trait scores factor analyse, and so they often have a lot of overlap. Eysenck's Neuroticism and Extroversion factors are very similar to the Big Five N and E factors, because those emerge very strongly when you look at the common clusters of human traits. But they aren't identical, because they're comprised of different items and exist in a different multidimensional test structure with different cross-loadings.</p>

<p>The different theories are different <em>because</em> they cannot be translated to one another, though similarities can always be drawn.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-05T13:26:52.980Z
Apparently i made a category mistake in thinking the factors are measures for underlying concepts - like for example in time-spent-studying and class-attendence cound be percieved as measures of how motivated someone is for a course.
Ivana
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-29T17:36:13.497Z
2014-10-29T17:36:13.497Z
adb
<p>There are a several theories on personality: the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Big Five personality traits</a>, Watson en Clark's extraversion en neuroticism, Grey's Behavioural Inhibition &amp; Behavioural Activation (BIS/BAS), Eysecks Psychotocism, Extraversion and Neuroticism (PEN) model, the Socionics &amp; Information Metabolism theory discussed in <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1554/is-the-theory-of-information-metabolism-a-reasonable-scientific-theory">this related question</a>, the list goes on.</p>
<p>But are there any theories proposing 'translations' from a personality described according to one theory, to the same personality described according to one of the others?</p>
<p>I would expect that this translation would be mediated through latent variables.
However i have not found any research that does this, while there are papers on the relatioships between test-results. That is, there is empirical research that describes the correlations between the scores on questionnaires that are designed to measure personality according to different theories.</p>
<p>For example: From BIS/BAS to the big five - Smits and Boeck - European Journal of Personality Vol 20, no 4, 255–270</p>
<p>The reason i ask, is because i have a dataset of some 460 subjects who took several personality questionnaires (big 5 as well as BIS/BAS), in addition they completed the Adjective Check List (ACL). Test subjects also did tests which measure impulsiveness: a Response Inhibition task, a Reversal Learning task and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task.</p>
<p>I think it would be interesting to compare a model based on literature to the correlations found in this dataset.
Specifically i would try to predict certain approach/avoidance measurements (test-subjects also completed an approach-avoidance task) from the rest of the test data and the theoretical connections between the different factors that are supposed to underlie the measurements.</p>
<p>Other related questions:</p>
<p><a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/2015/what-is-the-support-for-a-global-personality-factor?rq=1">What is the support for a global personality factor?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3881/what-is-understood-about-interactions-between-personality-types-or-traits?rq=1">What is understood about interactions between personality types or traits?</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-25T18:45:57.380Z
[This great paper](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.648386) reviews mappings between Big 5, Big 6, and 2 versions of the pathological Big 5 (AMPD and ICD-11), and performs additional mappings using a popular meta-model (the CPM).
Arnon Weinberg
<measurement><personality><cognitive-modeling>
Connections between different theories of personality
Ivana
# Connections between different theories of personality

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-29)

There are a several theories on personality: the [Big Five personality traits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits), Watson en Clark's extraversion en neuroticism, Grey's Behavioural Inhibition & Behavioural Activation (BIS/BAS), Eysecks Psychotocism, Extraversion and Neuroticism (PEN) model, the Socionics & Information Metabolism theory discussed in [this related question](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1554/is-the-theory-of-information-metabolism-a-reasonable-scientific-theory), the list goes on.

But are there any theories proposing 'translations' from a personality described according to one theory, to the same personality described according to one of the others?

I would expect that this translation would be mediated through latent variables.
However i have not found any research that does this, while there are papers on the relatioships between test-results. That is, there is empirical research that describes the correlations between the scores on questionnaires that are designed to measure personality according to different theories.

For example: From BIS/BAS to the big five - Smits and Boeck - European Journal of Personality Vol 20, no 4, 255–270

The reason i ask, is because i have a dataset of some 460 subjects who took several personality questionnaires (big 5 as well as BIS/BAS), in addition they completed the Adjective Check List (ACL). Test subjects also did tests which measure impulsiveness: a Response Inhibition task, a Reversal Learning task and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task.

I think it would be interesting to compare a model based on literature to the correlations found in this dataset.
Specifically i would try to predict certain approach/avoidance measurements (test-subjects also completed an approach-avoidance task) from the rest of the test data and the theoretical connections between the different factors that are supposed to underlie the measurements.

Other related questions:

[What is the support for a global personality factor?](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/2015/what-is-the-support-for-a-global-personality-factor?rq=1)

[What is understood about interactions between personality types or traits?](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3881/what-is-understood-about-interactions-between-personality-types-or-traits?rq=1)

**Tags:** measurement, personality, cognitive-modeling

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: [This great paper](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.648386) reviews mappings between Big 5, Big 6, and 2 versions of the pathological Big 5 (AMPD and ICD-11), and performs additional mappings using a popular meta-model (the CPM).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-10-29. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

It's unclear if the idea of 'translation' from one personality framework to another is a meaningful concept. A score on any given personality factor represents some weighted combination of measures - usually endorsement of questionnaire items like "I am the life of the party", etc.

As such, every factor score is a unique variable that probably doesn't reflect some underlying property of the human brain, but is a scientifically convenient construct

Though personality theories are usually based on how different trait scores factor analyse, and so they often have a lot of overlap. Eysenck's Neuroticism and Extroversion factors are very similar to the Big Five N and E factors, because those emerge very strongly when you look at the common clusters of human traits. But they aren't identical, because they're comprised of different items and exist in a different multidimensional test structure with different cross-loadings.

The different theories are different *because* they cannot be translated to one another, though similarities can always be drawn.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Apparently i made a category mistake in thinking the factors are measures for underlying concepts - like for example in time-spent-studying and class-attendence cound be percieved as measures of how motivated someone is for a course.  

---

