Interrelationship of Socionics, Functional Ensemble of Temperament (FET), and Big Five Indicators

1) BRIEFLY ABOUT THE FET SYSTEM OF INDICATORS

In the 1980s, at the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences (IPAN, now IPRAN), V. M. Rusalov developed the “Structure of Temperament Questionnaire” (“STQ”, 105 questions). The questionnaire was based on the concept of independently dividing a person’s temperament characteristics into energetic (ergic) and speed (tempo) components, which in turn manifest independently in three different spheres – the sphere of physical activity, the sphere of social-communicative activity, and the sphere of intellectual activity. Thus, the questionnaire contained six main scales. Rusalov’s work was continued and developed by his colleague Irina Trofimova, who added to these scales the Sensation Seeking Scale (derived from Martin Zuckerman’s “Sensation Seeking” questionnaire), the Empathy Scale, the Behavioral Plasticity Scale, the Satisfaction Scale, the Impulsivity Scale, and the Anxiety Scale. This yielded 12 scales in total, and Trofimova constructed for them the short STQ-77 questionnaire for mass testing (only 6 questions per scale, i.e., 72 substantive questions plus 5 control questions from the lie scale, for a total of 77 questions). Subsequently, I. Trofimova moved to Canada to work in her specialty and take up permanent residence, but she did not discontinue the popularization of this method among psychologists and neurobiologists, recommending her questionnaire and the system of partitioning human temperament into axes reflected by it for free use by any interested scientists.

From the above it is clear that the FET system of traits is not empirical but purely theoretical, arising from ideas about the different manifestation of the temperament properties of the same person in the spheres of physical work, communication, and intellectual activity, as well as, in turn, the division of temperament characteristics into three categories: ergic (endurance under prolonged and intense loads), speed-related, and plastic (the ability to switch, i.e., to rapid and easy excitation as well as inhibition in activity).

2) BRIEFLY ABOUT THE BIG_FIVE FACTOR SYSTEM

The five-factor personality system is an empirical system that arose at the intersection of factor studies of respondents’ answers to psychological questionnaires (with Cattell’s questionnaire used as the principal basis) and factorization of the results of studying English-language words by the semantic differential method. In both cases, 5 main factors were ultimately identified, which were eventually consolidated into a single system of five basic and mutually orthogonal (i.e., mutually independent) personality factors. To measure these five factors, our work used the validated IPIP NEO-PI-R questionnaire. This questionnaire is an open implementation of the proprietary licensed test. Although it uses different questions than the proprietary licensed questionnaire, it reproduces almost exactly their aggregate semantic content and the structure of subfactors (aspects) comprising each of the test’s five personality factors. For scientific research within the five-factor model, the IPIP NEO-PI-R questionnaire is often used precisely because its use does not require agreements with the authors of the original NEO-PI-R method.

Each factor in the questionnaire consists of 6 aspects, and to measure each of them the questionnaire contains 4 questions (thus 24 questions for each of the five factors, and 120 questions in the questionnaire in total). As an example, we shall describe in more detail the 6 measured aspects for the extraversion factor from this questionnaire:

Friendliness (Friendliness)

Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly, and it is easy for them to establish close and candid relationships. People with low Friendliness scores are not necessarily cold and hostile; however, they are not drawn to others and are regarded as distant and reserved.

Sociability (Gregariousness)

Sociable people are energized and enjoy themselves in company. They like the excitement of crowds. People with low scores become overloaded by feelings in a large crowd, and therefore actively avoid such crowds. They do not necessarily dislike the company of other people; however, they require personal space and their own private time to a much greater extent than people with high scores on this aspect.

Self-Confidence (Assertiveness)

People with high self-confidence scores like to speak loudly and clearly, take responsibility, and direct the activity of other people. They usually seek leadership in a group. People with low scores usually do not speak much and allow others to direct the actions of groups.

Activity (Activity Level)

Active individuals lead busy lives at a fast pace. They move quickly, decisively, and energetically, and engage in many kinds of activity. People with low scores on this scale set a slower, unhurried, and relaxed pace.

Seeking Vivid Sensations (Excitement-Seeking)

People with high scores on this scale quickly become bored without a high level of stimulation. They like bright lights, noise, and bustle. They like taking risks and seeking thrills. People with low scores cannot tolerate noise and excitement and have a negative attitude toward thrill-seeking.

Cheerfulness (Cheerfulness)

This scale assesses positive mood and feelings, rather than negative emotions (which are assessed by the neuroticism factor). People with high scores on this scale usually experience a broad range of positive feelings, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy. People with low scores are not inclined to enter such an energetic and elevated mood.

3) ON THE RESULTS OF COMPARING SOCIONICS, FET, AND IPIP NEO-PI-R INDICATORS WITH ONE ANOTHER IN A MIXED SAMPLE OF 231 RESPONDENTS

Table 1. Linear correlations between socionics traits (measured directly by questionnaire, as primary measures), FET scales, and BIG_FIVE

Sample of 231 respondents; correlations were calculated after mathematical equalization of the sample to equal representation of sociotypes (by dividing all correlated indicators by the square root of the proportion of the respondent’s sociotype in the sample).

Table 1-b. Linear correlations between socionics functions (recalculated from 15 socionics traits), FET scales, and BIG_FIVE

Sample of 231 respondents; correlations were calculated after mathematical equalization of the sample to equal representation of sociotypes (by dividing all correlated indicators by the square root of the proportion of the respondent’s sociotype in the sample).

Table 2. Weight coefficients for Reinin traits normalized to unit sigma when using their sum to model FET and BIG_FIVE factors that are likewise normalized to unit sigma

Table 3. Intercorrelation matrix of FET and BIG_FIVE indicators

Sample of 231 respondents; correlations were calculated after mathematical equalization of the sample to equal representation of sociotypes (by dividing all correlated indicators by the square root of the proportion of the respondent’s sociotype in the sample).

Table 4. Intercorrelation matrix of BIG_FIVE subfactors

Sample of 231 respondents; correlations were calculated after mathematical equalization of the sample to equal representation of sociotypes (by dividing all correlated indicators by the square root of the proportion of the respondent’s sociotype in the sample).

Projections of centered indicators of the FET (STQ-77) and BIG_FIVE (IPIP NEO-PI-R) scales onto 16 socionics types

Projections of centered indicators of BIG_FIVE (IPIP NEO-PI-R) aspects (subfactors) onto 16 socionics types

Correlations between the magnitudes of socionics traits, directly measured in respondents using V. Talanov’s questionnaire (Form 082), and the main FET indicators (according to the STQ-77 questionnaire) and the five BIG_FIVE factors according to the IPIP NEO-PI-R questionnaire are shown in Table 1. Table 1-b presents correlations with the 12 socionics functions.

Correlations cannot in principle be one hundred percent (unity) – even if the two compared indicators were based on exactly the same, completely identical meaning. The reason is that each factor is measured using a limited number of questions. Therefore, its experimentally measured (empirical) value always consists of two components – a useful (semantic) component and a purely random (noise) component. That is, F=f+e, where f – the useful semantic component of the factor, e – the purely statistically random (noise) component caused by the fact that a limited number of questions is used to measure the factor, and F – the result of measuring the factor by questionnaire.

The more questions are used to measure a factor or its individual component (aspect), the higher the correlations obtained. This is clearly noticeable, for example, when comparing the correlations of socionics traits with FET indicators (for each of which 6 questionnaire questions are used for measurement) and with BIG_FIVE factors (for each of which the questionnaire uses four times as many questions, namely 24). In the first case, the correlations, as we can see, are lower (see the last yellow row in Table 2).

The BIG_FIVE neuroticism factor is most closely associated with socionics constructivism, dynamics, judiciousness, and process, while being “smeared” across several socionics traits. This is understandable – the neuroticism factor is essentially composite, reflecting things that are causally entirely unrelated to one another – anxiety, depression, and weakness of emotional control. Among the functions, it is most strongly associated with strengthening Qe and Fe and weakening Se.

The BIG_FIVE extraversion factor corresponds very well to socionics extraversion.

The “openness to experience” factor corresponds well to socionics intuition, while also having smaller positive projections onto socionics extraversion and irrationality. It is associated with both Ne and Ni, but the association with Ne is much stronger.

The BIG_FIVE “agreeableness” factor corresponds very precisely to the pole of socionics judiciousness, while also having a positive projection onto yielding. Among the socionics functions, it rather well reflects the balance between Ne and Si on the one hand and Ni and Se (especially Se) on the other. But it is also associated with strengthening Fi and weakening Ti.

Finally, the BIG_FIVE “conscientiousness” factor is closest to socionics rationality.

The partial “smearing” of each of the Big Five factors across several socionics traits at once naturally gives rise to the desire to construct, from all 15 Reinin traits, a linear combination that would correlate maximally with each of the Big Five factors. We implemented this task using a standard Excel neural network that selects the optimal combination of weight coefficients before the socionics traits in order to achieve the maximum correlation coefficient between their linear combination and each of the Big Five factors (it is clear that, for each factor, its own linear combination of traits will be obtained according to the distribution of its coefficients). The results are shown in Table 2.

It can be seen from it that the sum of socionics traits with coefficients reproduces the independently measured magnitude of each of the Big Five factors very accurately – the mean correlation between the factors and their trait-based socionics model is 0.85, which is very high (given the inevitability of random components that reduce correlation in measurements, it can be asserted that all Big Five factors are reproduced one hundred percent on the basis of the magnitudes of socionics traits).

P/S: If you are interested in a detailed analysis of the tables presented, we recommend downloading the figures to your computer in order to view them on a wide screen. Their resolution is sufficient for this (but on iPhone screens you are unlikely to be able to make out the numbers, especially in the last large Table 4).