The genetics and evolution of the general factor of personality
By J. Rushton, T. Bons, Y. Hur. 2008
306 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9020121c5788b600c8db53cef5d9bb700c36cf4b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Clinical Psychology
- Dimitri van der Linden
- J. Rushton
- P. Irwing
- Jan Cieciuch
- K. V. Petrides
- C. Dunkel
- P. Vernon
- J. Schermer
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Dimitri van der Linden
- K. V. Petrides
- Jan Cieciuch
- Włodzimierz Strus
- P. Vernon
- T. Rowiński
- J. Schermer
- C. Dunkel
Citations in the corpus
- A General Factor of Personality in 16 sets of the Big Five, the Guilford–Zimmerman Temperament Survey, the California Psychological Inventory, and the Temperament and Character Inventory (2009, background): “We have hypothesized that the GFP is analogous to g and predicts social efficiency in the way g predicts cognitive efficiency (Rushton et al., 2008).”
- The Circumplex of Personality Metatraits: A Synthesizing Model of Personality Based on the Big Five (2014, background): “An intensive debate on the status of the GFP is currently underway (see Just, 2011), as the above criticism has been countered by the advocates of the substantive nature of the GFP (Musek, 2007; Rushton et al., 2008; Rushton & Erdle, 2010; Rushton & Irwing, 2011).”
- The General Factor of Personality (GFP) as social effectiveness: Review of the literature. (2016, background): “Based on twin data, it is now well-established that the GFP has a ge- netic component of approximately 50% (Figueredo et al., 2004; Loehlin & Martin, 2011; Rushton et al., 2008; Veselka et al., 2009).”
- Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the Big Five and the general factor of personality (2010, background): “Other researchers however, have argued that the GFP may be a substantive factor that is, just as other personality factors, related to a range of different life domains (Musek, 2007; Rushton et al., 2008; van der Linden et al., 2010).”
- The correlation between general intelligence (g), a general factor of personality (GFP), and social desirability (2010, background): “Rushton, Bons, and Hur (2008) report that the GFP is an overriding personality dimension, is genetic in origin, and which facilitates within-group harmony.”
- The General Factor of Personality, BIS-BAS, expectancies of reward and punishment, self-esteem, and positive and negative affect (2010, background): “The South Korean twin data showed the GFP had emerged by 2- to 3-years of age (Rushton et al., 2008).”
- The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study (2010, unknown): “Although there are now several studies supporting the existence of a GFP (e.g., Musek, 2007; Rushton & Irwing, 2008; Rushton & Irwing, 2009a, 2009b; Rushton et al., 2008) there are hardly any studies that directly addressed its potential theoretical or practical value.”
- Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality (2016, methodology): “Although the abovementioned theoretical perspectives associated with the GFP, the big two, and the big five—i.e., life history (Rushton et al., 2008), evolved cybernetic mechanisms (DeYoung, 2015), and individual reaction norms (Penke et al., 2007)—describe and explain the origins of personality…”
- A General Factor of Personality (GFP) from two meta-analyses of the Big Five: Digman (1997) and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005) (2008, background): “Rushton, Bons, and Hur (2008) who found it accounted for 56% of the reliable variance in the Big Five factors, the EAS temperament traits of Emotional Stability, Activity, and Sociability, and measures of altruism and prosocial behavior.”
- The General Factor of Personality and Evaluation (2012, methodology): “Rushton et al. (2008), however, have argued against interpreting the GFP as a response bias.”