title: The measurement equivalence of Big Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education.
abstract: Previous findings suggest that the Big-Five factor structure is not guaranteed in samples with lower educational levels. The present study investigates the Big-Five factor structure in two large samples representative of the German adult population. In both samples, the Big-Five factor structure emerged only in a blurry way at lower educational levels, whereas for highly educated persons it emerged with textbook-like clarity. Because well-educated persons are most comparable to the usual subjects of psychological research, it might be asked if the Big Five are limited to such persons. Our data contradict this conclusion. There are strong individual differences in acquiescence response tendencies among less highly educated persons. After controlling for this bias the Big-Five model holds at all educational levels.
authors.affiliation: Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences, GESIS, Mannheim, Germany.
authors.forename: Beatrice
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Rammstedt
authors.forename: Lewis R
authors.initials: LR
authors.lastname: Goldberg
authors.forename: Ingwer
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Borg
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Oct;85(4):723-35
references.pmid: 14561125
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990 Dec;59(6):1216-29
references.pmid: 2283588
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 1999 Jan 1;34(1):89-102
references.pmid: 26825130
references.citation: AJS. 1977 May;82(6):1289-317
references.pmid: 889001
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Aug;87(2):261-5
references.pmid: 15301631
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Apr;94(4):718-37
references.pmid: 18361680
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Sep;75(3):729-50
references.pmid: 9781409
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1958 Jul;55(4):243-52
references.pmid: 13567967
references.citation: Ment Retard. 1981 Apr;19(2):53-8
references.pmid: 7231176
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Feb;86(2):356-66
references.pmid: 14769090