Agreeableness Research Paper

This sample Agreeableness Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Free research papers are not written by our writers, they are contributed by users, so we are not responsible for the content of this free sample paper. If you want to buy a high quality research paper on any topic at affordable price please use custom research paper writing services.

Abstract

Agreeableness is a personality dimension (or set of related traits) that describes a class of individual differences that generally have to do with being pleasant, likable, and harmonious in relations with others. Empirical research finds that Agreeableness as a dimension hangs together consistently (persons who are ‘‘kind’’ also tend to be ‘‘considerate’’), is relatively stable and enduring over time, and is related to many kinds of human activity.

Outline

Describing Agreeableness: What Is It?
External Correlates: What Is Agreeableness Related To?
Etiology/Antecedents: Where Does Agreeableness Come From?
Conclusion

1. Describing Agreeableness: What Is It?

Agreeableness has become the label most frequently used for this personality dimension, but it is only one of many such labels. Some of the other labels used to describe the dimension (or closely related dimensions) are tender mindedness, friendly compliance versus hostile noncompliance, love versus hate, likability, communion, and conformity. It has been argued that none of these labels, including Agreeableness, adequately captures either the breadth or the substantive content of this dimension of personality. As a label, Agreeableness has been criticized specifically for being too narrow and perhaps for overemphasizing acquiescence. Theorists have suggested that it may be more appropriate to refer to the dimension either with numerals (the Roman numeral II has been used in the past) or simply with the letter A (for agreeableness, altruism, and affection).

At a theoretical level, Agreeableness describes an underlying system (latent variable) of individual differences. It is one of five broad personality dimensions that appear in all versions of the five-factor approach to personality (i.e., the Five-Factor Model). The five-factor approach describes personality at perhaps its broadest and most abstract (decontextualized) level. Trait adjectives that are positively associated with Agreeableness include kind, warm, cooperative, unselfish, polite, trustful, generous, flexible, considerate, and agreeable. Trait adjectives that are negatively associated with Agreeableness include cold, unkind, uncooperative, selfish, rude, distrustful, stingy, stubborn, and inconsiderate. Overall, Agreeableness describes a broad, but related, set of individual differences in how a person relates to others. Specifically, Agreeableness appears to describe differences in being predominantly prosocial or other oriented versus antisocial or self-oriented in social interactions.

Self-report measures of Agreeableness are those most frequently used for assessment. The use of ratings of Agreeableness by knowledgeable others (e.g., peers, teachers, parents) in addition to self-ratings is desirable from a psychometric standpoint but is less common due to the increased demands associated with collecting this information. Currently, there are several measures available to assess Agreeableness within the framework of the five-factor approach to personality. The three most frequently used measures in research are Goldberg’s adjective markers, the questionnaire-format Big Five Inventory (BFI) developed by John, and the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO) developed by McCrae and Costa. These measures vary in their construction, length, and content, yet empirical research shows that the five-factor dimensions assessed by these measures, including Agreeableness, are nearly identical across measures. Focusing on Agreeableness, there is some discrepancy between the NEO and the other two measures. The main difference is that the NEO includes warmth as a facet of Extraversion, whereas in the other two measures warmth is associated with Agreeableness. Overall, however, outcomes of studies using different measures of Agreeableness show convergence. For most purposes, the various measures of Agreeableness are functionally equivalent.

2. External Correlates: What Is Agreeableness Related To?

Over the past decade or so, cross-cultural research has uncovered the same or similar five-factor personality structure in many cultures with many different languages and in both adults and children. In all cultures studied, Agreeableness has been seen as a major dimension of personality. At a minimum, this research indicates that Agreeableness describes a set of individual differences that are of interest worldwide. The dimension is not an artifact of the English language, college age participants, or Western cultural norms. Recent research also suggests that despite the clear preference that most groups have for persons with agreeable qualities over persons with disagreeable qualities, Agreeableness differences are also not an artifact of social desirability, self-presentation, or self-deception, nor are they merely a characteristic of observers’ evaluations. Instead, research suggests that Agreeableness describes a stable enduring set of qualities in individuals that is related to important social outcomes.

Agreeableness differences can be studied in many different ways. One of the most common ways is to bring persons who differ on Agreeableness into a laboratory, where their behaviors can be assessed in various kinds of social situations. Typically, these persons are college students. In laboratory studies of group processes, Agreeableness is related to lower within-group conflict and to positive within-group evaluations. For example, more agreeable people like their fellow group members more and are liked more in return. Research also shows that Agreeableness is negatively related to competitiveness in group interactions and is positively related to expectations of enjoying group interactions. These findings suggest that Agreeableness may contribute to group cohesion and may serve as a protective factor against group dissolution. These findings also provide empirical support for the notion that Agreeableness can be mapped onto the social motives described by communion.

In some circumstances, being a more cooperative and generally more prosocial group member may contribute positively to group and individual functioning. In these circumstances, one would expect that Agreeableness is related to both group and individual-level performance. In some situations, however, being considerate, trusting, and compassionate may undermine a group’s performance or an individual’s performance. In these situations, Agreeableness may be unrelated, or even negatively related, to performance. One meta-analysis found that Agreeableness was negatively related to job performance for managers but also found that Agreeableness was positively related to job performance for professionals and skilled laborers. A later mea analysis found that in most studies, Agreeableness was unrelated to job performance but was positively related to teamwork. In a competitive business environment, Agreeableness may be a more desirable quality for group members than for managers or business leaders. To a certain extent, goals and tasks that emphasize competition, profits, and self-gain may run contrary to the selflessness and positive social orientation associated with Agreeableness. This may, in part, explain findings that, across the life span, Agreeableness is negatively related to extrinsic success (e.g., salary) and career satisfaction. Perhaps more agreeable individuals would find more satisfaction, if not more success, in helping professions or public service than in corporate job environments.

Other research (some laboratory and some field studies) has examined Agreeableness and dyadic relationship processes and outcomes. One area of interest has been the resolution of dyadic conflicts. If more agreeable individuals are more motivated to maintain positive social relations with others than are their less agreeable peers, one would expect more positive patterns of attributions and behaviors from agreeable individuals than from their peers when they have disagreements with others. We might also expect that a concern for others would lead to less disagreement or conflict with others in general. Research outcomes have shown that in both adolescents and adults, Agreeableness is positively related to constructive conflict resolution tactics (e.g., negotiation) and is negatively related to destructive conflict resolution tactics (e.g., physical force). Agreeableness is also negatively related to the number of daily conflicts that individuals report in daily diary records. After a conflict has occurred, agreeable individuals say that they are more upset by the conflict but are less likely to have vengeful attitudes about the conflict or to use vengeance as a problem-solving tactic.

In general, more agreeable individuals appear to behave in ways that are constructive rather than destructive to their relationships with others. This suggests that Agreeableness should be positively related to relationship quality (e.g., fewer conflicts, more satisfaction) and perhaps to relationship quantity (e.g., more friends, more robust social networks). Agreeable individuals may incur costs in maintaining their relationships, but they should also gain the benefits associated with having a strong social network. During adolescence, research found that Agreeableness was positively related to the quality of teacher and peer relations as well as to peer social status. In adults, research on social support showed that Agreeableness was positively related to the perceived support satisfaction, and negatively related to the frequency, of negative social exchanges.

These positive relationships with others may either stem from or contribute to a positive relation between Agreeableness and evaluations of the self. As discussed previously, agreeable individuals view others favorably and are viewed favorably by others. Research also shows that agreeable individuals view themselves favorably. During adolescence, Agreeableness and self-esteem are positively related in both self-ratings and teacher ratings. In adults, Agreeableness is positively related to happiness and subjective well-being. Agreeableness is negatively related to anger, hostility, and (indirectly) depression in both daily and general dispositional self-reports. In general, agreeable individuals earn higher scores on measures of adjustment than do their less agreeable peers. Conversely, research shows that less agreeable individuals are more likely to exhibit various kinds of externalizing problems during both adolescence and adulthood.

3. Etiology/Antecedents: Where Does Agreeableness Come From?

In considering the development of individual differences in Agreeableness, researchers have taken two distinct but related approaches. The first approach is to examine the specific contribution of genes to individual differences in Agreeableness. Over the years, behavioral genetic studies have attempted to determine the contribution of both genetic and environmental (shared and nonshared) influences on personality. Results have varied, with at least one study suggesting that among the Big Five dimensions, Agreeableness is the most susceptible to environmental influences. However, most of the behavioral genetic studies do not find that Agreeableness is any less heritable than the other Big Five dimensions. Some theorists suggest that all of the Big Five dimensions, including Agreeableness, represent entirely genetically driven, biologically based dispositions. Supporting this claim are a variety of studies showing that constructs related to Agreeableness, such as altruism, prosocial behavior, and empathy, also show moderate to high heritabilities.

The second approach to identifying the root of individual differences in Agreeableness has been to link adult personality to infant and child temperament. One problem is that the individual differences identified through modern temperament approaches rarely map directly onto adult personality traits. Agreeableness, in particular, has no clear antecedent among temperament constructs. This may, in part, have to do with the emphasis of Agreeableness on the quality of peer relations and other-oriented responsiveness. During infancy, it may be difficult to detect individual differences in the concern for the quality of relationships with others given that infants have a comparatively limited repertoire of both behaviors and communication abilities. In addition, in comparison with other personality dimensions such as Extraversion and Neuroticism, if Agreeableness is already present as a disposition, it may require the development of more elaborate cognitive processes (e.g., perspective taking, theory of mind) before it can be observed.

Among the temperament traits that have been observed, theorists have suggested that individual differences in effortful or executive control may be an antecedent of individual differences in Agreeableness. Effortful control refers to the ability to suppress a dominant response for a subdominant response. In particular, effortful control is related to the ability to cope with frustration and respond adaptively to goal blockage. More generally, researchers have proposed that effortful control is linked to both cognitive (e.g., attention) and emotional self-regulatory capabilities. In this light, individual differences in Agreeableness may reflect differences in the ability to monitor and control a variety of self-centered or even antisocial impulses in social situations. For example, in daily interactions, less agreeable individuals report feeling (and probably exhibit) more anger and hostility than do their more agreeable peers. These feelings of anger and hostility may stem from an underlying inability to regulate or suppress emotions to avoid damaging relationships.

Even if there were large heritable or temperamental contributors to Agreeableness, it would still be necessary to know how social learning histories and life experiences shape these tendencies into adult individual differences. There is good evidence that cultures differ in the values they assign to Agreeableness; accordingly, we might expect average differences in Agreeableness among children reared in different cultures. Nevertheless, differences within cultures remain. Agents of socialization may leave their marks, but persons enter the socialization environment with something more complicated than blank slates. Some individuals will be receptive to agents of socialization, absorbing and internalizing cultural values, whereas other individuals will resist. In this approach, then, socialization can produce large effects on Agreeableness, yet adult differences in Agreeableness within cultures are the end-state products of Person Socialization interactions.

Consistent with this line of reasoning, recent research has demonstrated complex links between childhood self-regulation and adult Agreeableness. Childhood self-regulation has, in turn, been linked both to the quality of child-rearing practices and to temperamental characteristics. It is possible that temperamental characteristics and socialization experiences may interact in a variety of ways to produce individual differences in Agreeableness. For example, temperamental characteristics may contribute to the selection of particular social ecologies that restrict the range of socialization experiences available to any given individual. Children who lack self-control and are easily frustrated may make for poor relationship partners and may subsequently be rejected by their peers. Consequently, these children might miss important socialization experiences provided by peer relationships. Temperament may interact with parent–child relationships to affect socialization experiences in a similar way. As children get older, they may also consciously choose to place themselves in particular environments that are consonant with their temperamental predispositions. Similarly, as adult personality characteristics emerge, they may interact with situations to reinforce underlying predispositions. For example, if given a choice, highly agreeable children may choose to avoid highly competitive situations. If forced into competitive situations, highly agreeable children may attempt to convert the situation into a more cooperative one or otherwise adapt to the social norms associated with highly competitive interactions.

4. Conclusion

Agreeableness is a dimension of personality associated with motives for maintaining positive relations with others. It is a superordinate descriptor for a system of lower order affective, behavioral, and cognitive tendencies. Cultures may differ in the emphasis they put on socializing children into seeking harmonious relations with others, but differences remain within cultures. Agreeableness differences in people seem to be relatively stable over time and across settings. Agreeableness may have developmental origins in temperament and in skills in coping with frustration. These differences are associated with corresponding tendencies in dealing with conflict, emotional responsiveness to others, group interaction, interpersonal relationships, and self-evaluation. For many life events, Agreeableness is associated with positive outcomes such as good social relations, friendships, better adjustment, and social recognition (with the exception of external rewards, e.g., salary). There is some suggestion that agreeable persons are less effective as managers, but there is no evidence (at least so far) for claims that agreeable persons are less attractive, more conforming, more compliant, or more submissive than their peers.

References:

Graziano, G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego: Academic Press.
Kohnstamm, A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (1998). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement in interpersonal In D. Cicchetti, & W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking critically in psychology: Essays in the honor of Paul E. Meehl (pp. 89–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.