Which of these big five personality traits is an indication of how open or rigid?

1 Conceptualizations of Openness

Openness to Experience is the broadest of the five basic factors that comprise the Five-Factor Model (FFM), covering a wide range of loosely related traits. Among the relevant traits are tolerance of ambiguity, low dogmatism, need for variety, aesthetic sensitivity, absorption, unconventionality, intellectual curiosity, and intuition as measured by the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Perhaps because the links among such traits are not obvious, Openness is the least well understood of the five factors.

In studies of trait-descriptive adjectives, the fifth factor is usually called Intellect and is defined by terms such as perceptive, analytical, and reflective. Such words suggest intellectual ability, and Openness is sometimes confused with intelligence. In fact, intelligence (as measured by ability tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) shows small correlations with Openness but forms a separate factor. Years of education is also modestly related to Openness; however, it is not clear whether education promotes Openness or whether open individuals pursue more education.

Perhaps the most widely used measure of this factor is the Openness scale of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. In that instrument, Costa and McCrae provided subscales for six aspects of life to which individuals may be relatively more open or closed: fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. Thus, high scorers on the overall scale are imaginative, responsive to art and beauty, attentive to their own feelings, willing to try new activities, intellectually curious, and unconventional. These traits appear to have both a motivational and a structural component. Motivationally, open people are receptive to new experience and to a deeper examination of their own thoughts, feelings, and values. Structurally, they have a permeable style of consciousness in which remote associations are easily made. In contrast, closed people are more comfortable with the world they know and tend to compartmentalize their ideas and feelings.

Although Openness appears to be an experiential style, it has pervasive social consequences. Open individuals tend to join liberal political parties and religious denominations. They seek friends who share their interests in the arts and tend to marry spouses who have similar open interests and values. Openness is also related to vocational interests and occupational behavior. Because Openness is so clearly expressed in attitudes and behaviors, there is generally strong agreement between self-reports and observer ratings on this factor.

In general, psychologists tend to be more open than closed, and many assume that Openness is a desirable trait. However, closed individuals prefer their own conservative and down-to-earth approach to life and would rate the desirability of Openness differently. Openness is associated with some negative outcomes, including nightmares, depression, and drug experimentation. Closedness is associated with authoritarianism and difficulty in adapting to change.

Openness to experience

Individuals high in Openness to Experience are broadminded and have a willingness to try new things (LePine, 2003). Team members that are high in Openness to Experience can easily adapt to changing situations and seek alternative ways of solving problems. Lyons et al. (2011) found that amongst personality and individual difference variables investigated in a 5-person team-based aerial port simulation task, Openness to Experience predicted unique criterion in trustworthiness perceptions amongst teammates. However, Alarcon et al. (2018) found no relationship between Openness and trustworthiness perceptions, trust intentions, or trust behaviors. As such, the findings on Openness and trust are mixed.

In summary, extent research has investigated the role of personality in contexts comprising human-human trust. However, human-human trust may differ from human-automation trust, let alone human-robot trust. The following sections will unpack these similarities and differences in turn.

Openness to Experience

With respect to openness to experience, it is more difficult to make clear and consistent predictions regarding its influence on those events associated with well-being changes. Open individuals may live longer lives than their peers, but this effect appears dependent on which facet is examined (Jonassaint et al., 2007; Turiano, Spiro, & Mroczek, 2012). Mixed results also present with respect to the influence of openness on health (Goodwin & Friedman, 2006) and relationships (e.g., Noftle & Shaver, 2006), with results differing based on the specific outcome of interest. Accordingly, one would likely anticipate the “mixed bag” of results regarding the cross-sectional relations between this trait and well-being.

As such, openness to experience may be less consistent in the direction that it influences well-being change. Instead, one could predict this trait to hold an “opposite” role to conscientiousness. Namely, openness to experience may influence well-being trajectories less in their direction and more by virtue of creating greater fluctuations and variability. Similar to conscientiousness, though, this destabilizing effect may be difficult to identify in typical moderation tests. Therefore, future research needs to examine personality traits as predictors not only of change patterns, but also of well-being stability over time.

Agreeableness also has shown both positive and negative influences on physical health (e.g., Goodwin & Friedman, 2006) and appears to negatively predict income levels (Judge, Livingston, & Hurst, 2012). Moreover, it is less clear whether agreeableness, unlike openness to experience, would play a role on the variance around one’s well-being trajectory. One potential reason for this lack of clarity is that the facets of agreeableness are differentially related to life satisfaction (e.g., Wood et al., 2008), which may obscure relationships at the domain level. Indeed, similar claims could be made for most of these larger composite traits. Accordingly, we turn our attention next to how more specific traits can inform us with respect to well-being moderators.

Openness to Experience

Traits associated with openness to experience include being imaginative and creative, inventive, open to unusual ideas, adventure, and nonconformity. Those scoring high in this dimension are independent-minded and willing to tolerate more ambiguity (or less certainty). As a result, they are often the first to entertain new concepts and beliefs (which are sometimes later confirmed and other times refuted). Some studies have indicated a relationship between openness and IQ.

Birth order effects on this factor are also somewhat mixed with firstborns scoring higher on aspects that focus more on intellect and intelligence, while laterborns score higher on measures that center on the desire for novelty, experimentation, and a taste for the unconventional. This interest in being unconventional is perhaps behind the tendency for laterborns to identify themselves (as well as for others to identify them) as rebellious, or the rebel of the family. Some studies have indicated that middleborns may be the most rebellious birth order as they are the ones most disadvantaged in the distribution of parental investment. This personality trait facilitates their ability to find their own unique niche by making them more willing than others to embrace the new and untried.

Cautious information interaction

We saw that high openness to experience leads to a broad and invitational information attitude. How, then, would low openness influence information interaction? Not surprisingly, in an opposite way. Just as openness may influence both the goal of information seeking and the way it is executed, so may its counterpart, conservativeness, render the opposite tendencies. Conservative persons foremost approach information acquisition in a practical, task-focused and down-to-earth fashion. Both search styles have their own benefits and drawbacks, dependent on the context and what the situation requires.

It has long been acknowledged that open persons are more likely to seek out new information than those with a closed mind (Rokeach, 1960). An early overview suggested that the personality traits which most strongly inspire active information seeking are low trait anxiety, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, need for clarity and self-esteem (Schaninger and Sciglimpaglia, 1981). Rigid persons tend to approach life in a controlled and predictable manner, and would therefore be less accepting of alterations. Influences from the outside, such as new information or unexpected news, could potentially disrupt their balance and control, and as a consequence they would avoid them (Long and Ziller, 1965; Rokeach, 1960). Shutting out information allows the person to maintain a stable conceptual system with less inner demand for change (Long and Ziller, 1965). One situation in which this was evident was during a political power shift where conservative persons appeared indifferent to the situation. Open-minded persons were often in opposition to authorities and had an active interest in renewal and transformation; consequently they would seek out information related to the power shift. In contrast, conservative persons who preferred stability and often felt obedient towards the authorities remained passive and were less interested in learning more Domachowski, 1983).

Similarly, dogmatic persons with low self-esteem and those intolerant of ambiguity have been shown to prefer information that supports their previous viewpoint (Clarke and James, 1967; McPherson, 1983). This attitude resembles that of persons who are closed to experience. Typical for them is to prefer things to remain as they have always been (Costa and McCrae, 1992). This is reflected in their information behavior, where they tend to prefer information content that substantiates their previous understanding of a topic, instead of novel and inventive findings (Heinström, 2002). Little openness in character is accordingly manifested in little openness to new information. Holding on to previous conceptions may provide a sense of safety. It has for instance been shown that authoritative persons actively work against attitude change in threatening situations by looking for information that confirms their previous viewpoints. Less authoritative persons would rather be on the look-out for a more balanced and objective view of what has occurred (Lavine et al., 2005). This preference for confirmation of familiar knowledge can be compared to adaptors, who generally are reluctant to entertain new ideas and conservative in character (Kirton, 1989). Overall one might say that when information symbolizes control and a means to avoid unpleasant changes, conservative persons would look for it in order to strengthen their position further. When status quo is more likely obtained through passivity, they would be less active. They would hence either investigate a situation or avoid information, depending on which route they deem more likely to help them sustain the stability and balance they strive for. Conservative persons consequently look for information in order to reduce risk and resist change.

For dogmatic persons ambiguity may be stressful, thus they particularly avoid inconsistent information (Donohew et al., 1972). They additionally know that new information may potentially disturb their present beliefs and disrupt the status quo they wish to maintain. Consequently they make decisions based on what they already know, and avoid further exploration of the matter (Long and Ziller, 1965). This has been shown for instance regarding pre-purchase information seeking, where dogmatic persons consult only a minimal amount of information (Lambert and Durand, 1977). While persons with high openness to experience rely on their own independent analyses when they need to make a choice, those with low openness tend to base their decisions on time-tested conventional wisdom (Matthews, 2008). This holds true even regarding their own well-being. Persons who are conservative tend to refrain from seeking out information or making independent decisions regarding their own health (Braman and Gomez, 2004). Persons with high openness, on the other hand, often prefer active involvement in the decision-making process (Flynn and Smith, 2007). In situations where fast decisions are needed, dogmatism may be advantageous, as dogmatic persons do not waste time on excessive information seeking. On other occasions, however, closing out information may be problematic and result in decisions based on insufficient information (Long and Ziller, 1965).

When cautious persons cannot avoid information seeking, as in looking for information for a study assignment, they prefer to retrieve only a few precise references related the topic, instead of a wide range of somewhat related documents. They feel no need to explore the search topic from many viewpoints, but instead strive for a clear-cut result right on target. Low openness to experience thus instigates a cautious information attitude which is narrow in content aim as well as in conduct (Heinstrom, 2003). A precise search result is less likely to offer new and challenging ideas, which is exactly what the conservative wants to avoid.

Those who are guarded against novelty also tend to feel tense while searching. Conservative persons are, as a rule, noticeably focused on the goal of a search, and consequently they wish to arrive at the end-goal as soon as possible. They have a higher need for closure and only feel satisfied when they find the desired information. This can be compared to open persons, who thrive on and enjoy the very process of seeking while it is still ongoing (Heinström, 2006c).

Typical for dogmatic persons is to be anxious and concerned (Rokeach, 1960). Striving to remain balanced and hold on to status quo in a world which is constantly changing may indeed be disquieting, not least in today’s information world where it is getting increasingly difficult to avoid the constant bombardment of news and new developments. It would seem plausible that a cautious search attitude and conduct would render those with a closed mind particularly vulnerable to feelings of information overload. Nevertheless, as long as they succeed in keeping their distress at bay and acquire only the narrow, on-target search result they strive for, cautious persons’ search approach may be effective. It is a practical way to search: limited, yes, but also focused. Through this search approach new discoveries are unlikely to be made, but instead cautious persons may efficiently retrieve exactly what they set out to find.

Formation of Creativity Schema: Relationships to Personal Characteristics

As shown in Fig. 1, we posit that three variables concerning the focal manager's personal characteristics are related to the formation of a creativity schema.

While we are prepared to argue for the likely importance of these three personal characteristics, we certainly are not suggesting that these individual differences are the only ones associated with the components of a creativity schema.

The first of these, openness to experience, is one of the Big Five personality dimensions (e.g. McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1999). It captures intellectual curiosity, imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, and wide interests, among other traits (John & Srivastava, 1999). Individuals scoring highly on the openness to experience dimension tend to seek and enjoy varied experiences for their own sake. Scratchley & Hakstian (2000–2001) found that openness to experience (operationalized as openness to change, openness to risk, and openness to ambiguity) was positively correlated with divergent thinking and could be used to successfully predict managerial creativity (operationalized as devising new ideas, work methods, and modes of operation useful to the organization). George & Zhou (2001) found that individuals high on openness to experience were the most creative when provided with positive feedback and when performing heuristic (as opposed to algorithmic) tasks. They concluded that openness to experience may support creative behavior when the situation allows for the manifestation of the possible influence of the trait. In addition to the production of new ideas, by extension openness to experience could be related to the recognition of new ideas as well. Thus, it appears that managers who are more open to experience would be more likely to perceive an idea to have high valence. Thus, we posit:

Proposition 1: Openness to experience is positively related to the valence component of creativity schema.

A second variable that might be related to creativity schema is the manager's functional background. This background is an indicator of the type of knowledge he or she possesses with regard to the domain of the proposed creative idea. Amabile (1988) identified ‘domain-relevant skills’ as being important for creativity. By extension, knowledge and skills relevant to the domain of some proposed idea could also be a factor in the recognition and appreciation of an idea as being novel and valuable. Functional background also results in a manager's selective perceptions of ambient stimuli (e.g. Dearborn & Simon, 1958; Waller, Huber & Glick, 1995). That is, the cognitive map derived from experience in a particular functional background directs a manager's attention to certain events in the surrounding environment, and to certain attributes of the creative idea. Functional background would appear to be associated with how the manager makes sense of why an idea might be developed, how it fits into the employee's work, whether the idea is significant in this context, and whether or not it is likely to be successfully implemented. Therefore, we suggest:

Proposition 2: Functional background is related to all three components—causality, valence, and inferences—of creativity schema.

A third individual difference construct that may be related to the formation of creativity schema is captured by the broad notion of cognitive complexity. Research has identified a number of cognitive abilities that are related to creativity (Hayes, 1989; Woodman et al., 1993). For example, the cognitive ability of divergent production, consisting of processes of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, has long been considered as a cognitive key to creativity (Guilford, 1984; Mumford, 2000–2001). Interestingly, with regard to the recognition as opposed to the production of creative ideas, the cognitive ability of convergent production or thinking may be more critical. Whereas divergent thinking might allow the individual to find or produce numerous original ideas, it is convergent thinking that allows the individual to select from among the ideas those that might be most useful or valuable. Runco (1999) explores the role of critical thinking in creativity and his conclusions suggest that this aspect of cognitive functioning might be crucial for the recognition of the value of an idea, particularly when the idea is one among many. In a similar vein, Hogarth (1987) suggested that the ability to reason and to understand the causality of events was a crucial component of creativity. In general, we would expect managers with higher cognitive complexity (with the attendant cognitive abilities implied by that construct) to be better able to process the complex information that might be needed for judging an idea as creative. Specifically, we expect:

Proposition 3: Cognitive complexity is positively related to the causality and inferences components of creativity schema.

7.3.7 Openness to Experience

The traits that belong to the Openness to Experience factor include aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, and unconventionality. A common element of these traits seems to be a tendency to engage actively in idea-related endeavors: For example, an aesthetically appreciative person tends to contemplate artistic or natural beauty, an inquisitive person tends to search for understanding of the human or natural world, a creative person tends to generate new ideas and new solutions, and an unconventional person tends to be receptive to people and ideas that are new or strange. As explained in this way, the potential costs and benefits of having high or low levels of Openness to Experience might be imagined (see Table 7.1). A person with a very high level of Openness to Experience would tend to discover, learn, and invent new things that would then be useful in social- or task-related endeavors. But, on the other hand, a person with a high level of Openness to Experience would also expend a great deal of energy by engaging actively in idea-related endeavors. Moreover, these endeavors might also involve some risks, to the extent that one's new ideas and discoveries are mistaken or dangerous or might elicit hostility from more conventional persons.

Big 5 and Other Personal Traits

Several studies have shown that openness to experience is positively related to higher levels of CSE (Hsu et al., 2011; Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska, & Gralewski, 2013; Shin et al., 2012; Strickland & Towler, 2011). Concerning the other Big 5 factors, Hsu et al. (2011) found that CSE also related to conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion, whereas Karwowski et al. (2013) found a positive connection for CSE with conscientiousness and extraversion, and a negative association with neuroticism. In a meta-analysis assessing the relationship of the Big Five personality traits with creative self-beliefs, including CSE, Karwowski and Lebuda (2016) found relations between CSE and all five, with the strongest relationship with openness, and quite weak relations for CSE with agreeableness and neuroticism. The meta-analysis also showed CSE to be strongly related to plasticity (a metatrait combining openness and extraversion).

Concerning other personality traits, Chong and Ma (2010) found a positive pattern between CSE and the trait of polychronicity (preference to be engaged in two or more tasks or events simultaneously), while another study reported that individuals presenting with an overall “cautious” personality tended to have lower levels of CSE (Choi, 2004). The positive psychology traits of optimism (Gupta & Sing, 2014; Hsu et al., 2011; Li & Wu, 2011), hope, and resilience (Gupta & Sing, 2014) also demonstrate a positive link with being more efficacious about one’s creative capability.

9.1.9 Openness to Experience

Finally, the report gives the definition of Openness to Experience and the person’s score.

Openness to Experience describes a dimension of cognitive style that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Open people are Intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. Intellectuals typically score high on Openness to Experience; consequently, this factor has also been called Culture or Intellect. Nonetheless, Intellect is probably best regarded as one aspect of Openness to experience. Scores on Openness to Experience are only modestly related to years of education and scores on standard intelligent tests.

Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from Concrete Experience. Depending on the individual's specific Intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language, music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts. People with low scores on Openness to experience tend to have narrow, common interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change.

Openness is often presented as healthier or more mature by psychologists, who are often themselves Open to Experience. However, open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different environments. The Intellectual style of the open person may serve a professor well, but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in police work, sales, and a number of service occupations.

Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative.

Further Studies of the CPPT and the CPPT-K

The CPPT scores have been related to openness to experience and the six facets of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in a sample of 110 adults (Ruch & Köhler, 1998). Significant positive overlaps were found between all five CPPT scores (NP, WP, OP, WI, and FA) and openness to experience. The subscales openness to fantasy, actions, and values also correlated significantly and positively with the quality but not the quantity scores of the CPPT. As expected, the numerically largest correlations were found for openness to fantasy. Openness to experience was also found to be the most important broad personality trait for creativity (e.g., Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O’Connor, 2009b; Tan, Lau, Kung, & Kailsan, 2016). Additionally, all five CPPT scores were correlated with lower levels of seriousness, indicating that people who had a playful, nonserious attitude produced more and funnier punch lines (Ruch & Köhler, 1998).

Additionally, several unpublished theses supervised by the first author investigated the CPPT and the CPPT-K in Germany, Ireland, and Switzerland. One study administered the CPPT along with several self-report measures of humor production to 252–360 German-speaking adults. First, the quality scores of the CPPT were again very highly correlated and virtually interchangeable, while the quantity score was related, but clearly distinguishable from the quality. Second, the quality scores of the CPPT showed small positive correlations with the reflective vs boorish styles of humorous conduct (from the HBQD), with the affiliative humor styles (from the Humor Styles Questionnaire). Third, the CPPT-K could be clearly distinguished from humor appreciation scores, again supporting the discriminant validity of the CPPT-K. Finally, the largest personality correlations were found between openness to experience and both the quality and quantity scores of the CPPT.

Another study investigated the overlap of the CPPT-K scores with self-reports of the HBQD in a sample of 76 German adults. The reflective/boorish style of humorous conduct correlated positively and significantly with the CPPT-K NP score. Internal consistencies for the CPPT scores were again sufficient (Cronbach’s alpha>0.75). This finding was not replicated in a sample of 144 Irish adults, in which the scores of the HBQD and the CPPT-K did not correlate significantly with one other.

The CPPT-K scores were also correlated with the eight scales of the Comic Style Markers (Ruch et al., 2018). As expected, positive and significant correlations were found with wit as well as with nonsense, fun, and benevolent humor. The relationships of the CPPT with creativity tests are of interest in future studies, possible also employing the novel coding scheme for the responses from both tests to investigate the overlap of the scores when the same coding scheme is employed.