Talk:Agreeableness

Untitled

This article seems a little biased. The term Disagreeable does not mean that a person is immoral. A lack of need to help others or lack of concern for the feelings of others does not mean there is a lack of concern for morals. Its a subtle but important distinction that should be made. One may be "disagreeable" but also be ethical and honorable in day to day activities. In other words one can be detached from the feelings of others but still carry out good works, not out of a concern for the other person but out of concern for the individuals understanding of good and evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.133.37 (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"People who score high on this dimension are empathetic, considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and generally likable. They also have an optimistic view of human nature."

Ones view on human nature is, while not fully separated from, nearly totally unrelated to ones view on individuals. This quote from Wikipedias article on Misanthropy ("Misanthropy does not necessarily imply an inhumane, antisocial, or sociopathic attitude towards humanity.") supports my objection.

Bitmaster 16:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The anecdote about the monk seems alittle informal for an encyclopaedic entry. I'm not sure if there's a policy about this, but anecdotes seem out of place in an article like this, I would think information of a more general nature would be more appropriate. For example, the article already mentions that agreeableness is associated with control of anger - this information is of general importance to the topic, whereas the anecdote reads more like story-telling, even if it does make a relevant point. Smcg8374 10:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcg8374 (talk • contribs)

Proposed Edits/Some Direction

This article is severely lacking, and a lot of the info seems miscategorized (or generally out of place). Here are a few suggestions:

• Add a photo. Possibly something that ties this to the Big Five/Five Factor Model. Or link to the Psychology portal...
• Move some of the info in the lead to proper sections. The connections to Machiavellianism and Adler, for example, could be placed in a section on similar/complementary concepts.
• Open with the history of its development, with focus on the proposed facets of agreeableness.
• Define and explore the six facets, possibly with sample scale items.
• Include a section on low agreeableness/disagreeableness.
• Add to the 'geography' section, incorporating some info from elsewhere in the world (to avoid a U.S. bias).
• Maybe a tie-in to positive psychology?
• A section on associations to other BF/FFM traits.
• Mental/physical health correlates.
• A section on the developmental/genetic factors associated with agreeableness.

Just a few ideas to help get things started. Matthew.murdoch (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to include info on HEXACO's definition/use of agreeableness and differences between the two. And CPI's Big Five, just to provide a couple of different definitions. Matthew.murdoch (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

peer review

I have reviewed you article and added in some hyperlinks to associated wiki pages. Overall, the article is very well organized. I really like how the NEO facets are clearly laid out, nice and concise but informative. Keep up the good work! A few suggestions for expansion: There is already a section describing the links between pro-social behavior and agreeableness. Maybe you can expand by describing other behaviours that have been found to be associated with agreeableness. How does high agreeableness relate to health? What about relationships or marital satisfaction? What are some of the practical implications of such findings linking agreeableness to certain behaviours? High agreeableness may be seen a positive trait. Have any studies shown that being too agreeable can lead to negative outcomes? Have any studies looked at the development of agreeableness over time/the factors that influence its development? Just some suggestions! Kilgoretrout10 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed your article. Also added some hyperlinks and made just a few minor changes. I think that your addition of sections on Cattell, the Big Five, NEO-PI facets and Hexaco have really strengthened the article by presenting some variation concerning agreeableness. The additions of these sections also help to more strongly define agreeableness. I found the new structure of the article very easy to navigate. The content is concise, too. Overall, the writing is very strong in terms of structure and content.

I just have a few suggestions/ideas:

• The NEO-PI facets (and HEXACO section) are presented as low and high in terms of the facets. I am wondering how someone "in between" or "average" might appear. One specific example might be regarding the "compliance" facet. High score = meek, mild, and prefer cooperation or deference as a means of resolving conflict. Low score = aggressive, antagonistic, quarrelsome, and vindictive. How would an assertive person who might not be quarrelsome, nor meek be defined in terms of compliance or by agreeableness in general?
• Is there any evidence that links this trait to physical health? I see that you have noted this possibility, above. I was wondering, for example, about individuals who are suspicious, resentful, antagonistic, mistrustful, frequently angry and are at higher risk for coronary heart disease. Maybe these facets are connected to agreeableness. Also, this phenomenom is higher in men than women which ties into the gender differences noted in the article. Just a thought.
• What are the antecedents of agreeableness? Is the trait genetic? Does environment help to shape? I see this noted in your list above too. Specifically, I was wondering if child-rearing that includes punitiveness, conflict, abuse, lack of acceptance that is linked to the development of suspicion, resentfulness, antagonisim, mistrust, frequent anger in children, etc. - particularly in boys. Maybe these facets are connected to agreeableness. This has the gender connection, again, that is mentioned in the article.
• Are there life-span chaneges? I remember from class that some individuals become happier as they age. Part of this might involve only doing activities, spending time with people that one wants to spend time with. Is this related to agreeableness, where individuals are becoming more assertive about what makes them happy? Is this related to a change in agreeableness (maybe a decrease), whereby individuals learn to do what they want, regardless of what others think - to become happier?

Just some more suggestions.Owleye769 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Matthew.Murdoch: Did more editing and earlier left suggestions on your talk page.Owleye769 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential Edits

This article has some improvements in overall structure and quality that need to be addressed. A few suggestions include:

• Introduction
  • In this section there is not enough citing. When you refer to high verse low scoring and the traits that accompany these scores it sounds like opinion instead of fact. This can be remedied either by restructuring phrasing or citing references. For example "People who score high on this dimension tend to believe that most people are honest, decent, and trustworthy." This sounds like an inference about a persons beliefs rather than a factual statement about potential, but not always expressed traits.
• History
  • In the History section specifically the first paragraph is structured in a way that is difficult to read. It begins with the header "Cattell's 16 Personality Factors", yet the first sentence leads with "Like all Big Five personality traits..." but the Big Five has yet to be discussed. Consider revising or potentially taking out.

• These inconsistencies and structural issues are seen throughout. Overall nice base work though!

--Mkburnett4 (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Geography section's picture (maybe) contradicts text

The picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agreeableness_by_state.jpg does not show that the southern US states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_south_census.png are more agreable than, say, western and northern states. 116.15.176.229 (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Agreeableness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229034356/http://www.ipat.com/about/16pf/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.ipat.com/about/16pf/Pages/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317204325/http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/davidm/203/2007/honesty%20Ashton%20and%20Lee%202005.pdf to http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/davidm/203/2007/honesty%20Ashton%20and%20Lee%202005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317220126/http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/davidm/203/2007/Psyc%20Props%20lee%20and%20ashton%202004.pdf to http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/davidm/203/2007/Psyc%20Props%20lee%20and%20ashton%202004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318164923/http://mypersonality.org/research/2008/12/09/the-relationship-between-us-state-and-personality/ to http://mypersonality.org/research/2008/12/09/the-relationship-between-us-state-and-personality/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

10 facets

I've seen the dimension of agreeableness being subdivided into compassion and politeness in various studies, based on this one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17983306 (966 citations)

It might be worth mentioning these two facets and how they relate to the five facets mentioned on this wiki page. Currently these two terms are not used at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eczanne (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Biased?

The article seems rather biased towards the positivity of high agreeableness. It seems to extol the virtues of being agreeable (and prosocial and what have you), while not looking at the negative sides (such as being more prone to being taken advantage of or high conflict avoidance leading to unresolved conflicts). While agreeableness definitely has positive sides, low agreeableness is not just anti social behaviour. There's a reason evolutionarily why both sides of the spectrum exist, one is not objectively better than the other. The article should better reflect positive and negative sides of low and high agreeableness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.82.232 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is super biased. Low agreeableness has nothing to do with morality or antisocial traits - those are issues of neuroticism. It's simply not prioritizing feelings, emotions, and relationships over facts.--23.91.47.42 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Any extreme score should produce extreme behavior. And extreme is rarely productive/positive. I'm guessing that those martyr mothers who will give their children the food off their own plates and end up with nothing are a good example of being too nice, too generous. And how about those young women on Youtube who talk about the joys of being BDSM submissives/slaves? That's agreeable to the point of pathology. MarkinBoston (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)