Agreeableness World Map
Our final world trait map based on myPersonality data is for aggregate Agreeableness. Agreeableness can broadly be characterised as co-operative (high Agreeableness, high rank and dark orange on the map) vs. competitive (low Agreeableness, low rank and light orange on the map). myPersonality has already shown that high Agreeableness is associated with studying more social majors like massage therapy, sociology, and elementary education, whereas low Agreeableness is associated with studying more combative majors such as law, international relations and political science (see our Personality Matches feature to see which college major is closest to your personality).
Agreeableness shows the most clear geographical distinction out of the five traits, although perhaps not in the direction that one would expect. The most competitive area is Central and Eastern Europe, followed by South America. South East Asia has average to high Agreeableness scores, and the most co-operative countries are in North America and Africa.
That concludes our aggregate trait world mapping series, we hope you found it interesting and surprising.
Method & Results
Data from 484,834 myPersonality users who had taken 20 or more questions from the Big Five measure make up these results, from across 121 countries in the world. We set the criterion for inclusion at just 45 users, so there are actually 26 countries with fewer than 100 participants. This is not enough users to come to a reliable conclusion about the personality profile of a whole country, however, it was decided that it would be most interesting to show the breadth of countries on this map so that geographical areas of high and low scores could be seen.
Another caveat about making conclusions about a single country is that myPersonality’s tests are currently only available in English. So it is quite possible that people in a country who can read English and have internet access to use Facebook are not representative of other people in that country.
We’d like to thank Ammap who provided the mapping feature we have used.
Hello,
I am a PhD student at the University of South Florida, Counselor Education. I am very interested in doing psychological research on Facebook and was wondering if you would be so kind as to direct me to the resources you used. I am particularly interested in specific concerns with the logistics of using Facebook and how that related to IRB specifications, for example how you were able to program the quiz to get informed consent. I imagine you used Facebook’s programming language to do this rather than one of their canned applications to create a quiz. Any suggestions you can provide will be appreciated.
I will also post a link to your study on my wall.
Thank you,
Barbara LoFrisco
counselorbarb@earthlink.net
Your maps are fundamentally incorrect because they simply measure who is inclined to go on the internet and complete a personality test.
These people will be young and of an educated background. They will also tend to be male.
I have independently researched this for several years. Subjects are randomly selected to complete personality assessments.
Based on my model, only a few of your maps are accurate, extroversion, for example, is way off. So is conscienciousness. In fact, they would be more accurate if reversed. You can most obviously test your model by examining national stereotypes, for example, the Swedes are said to be the most consciencious people on the planet. However, your map has them with the lowest rates in the world. My map doesn’t. You’ve done something wrong.
You should at least be screening your data for gender, if not ethnicity and age.
I have no interest in collaboration because I am more intelligent than you.
Personally I would prefer that you spread disinformation because this knowledge is more powerful than your realise.
Idiot.
@Aaron
Hi Aaron, I’d be interested to hear about your dataset, particularly how you have collected significant numbers of personality profiles from a randomized sample.
I recommend an article in Science from a few years ago. It addresses your point about national stereotypes. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775052/ The authors conclude: “Perceptions of national character thus appear to be unfounded stereotypes that may serve the function of maintaining a national identity.”
@David
It is obvious by now, as evident in other comments given to you on this website, that the maps are fundamentally incorrect. These are being given to you by persons who have actually lived in these countries for several years.
Because you have insulted me by suggesting that national character is not associated with personality measures in the Big 5, I will absolutely refuse all cooperation at this point.
In addition, in order to further reduce your credibility, I would like to add there is more than one study which looks at national stereotypes and it shows, instead, mild accuracy. This is probably because the research was not done by a moneyed-up lefti-wing PC yuppie whose only interest is moving up one ladder on a pathetic rat-race by stealing a little bit of truth and multiplying it by a lot of contrivance. After all, studies indicate that Psychologists have the same personality profiles as Police Officers, and were not Radovan Karad Ernst Rodin psychiatrists? What does the “father of Nazi Racial Hygeine” and culprit of the Bosnian Genocide have in common? Indeed, you do still Electrocute depressed people and call it ‘therapy’.
I’ve had my dealings with the Mental Health Police, and they’re just like any other Police; mildly intelligent but ultimately sadistic, abusive and somewhat evil.
Anyway, why listen to me?
People are already logging on and telling you themselves.
Hate to share an opinion but at least this is not something that anyone needs to return to me. I believe the high agreeableness of the US, Canada, Norway, and Australia is due not to a lack of differing opinion but of a cuture taught to follow the trend opinion. They say ” better to be seen and not heard ” in some places in the US. I am a Wisconsin resident, but I am not very agreeable. The one thing that did not show in me was that I had a low Conscientiousnes rate, when the two different things may be divided. In short, the test was wrong on an individual scale but did show the sheepish factor of the US and other places. I must say only one thing, that I hope this test is not based on the world wide sales of Hanna Montana Albums, well this study I mean. Apologies, but I found myself a bundel of nerves because I left humor behind and stopped seeing the human side of things in psychology. This is my way of throwing 2 cents in. May someone use it to cover the tax on their coffee before finals. Thank you for listening. – Neurotic but Complicated. PS On an interesting note, while studying psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, I worked a telemarketing phone job for 4 years and foudn that a phrase titled “Not interested” was used by each person, with very little variation. This was in the state of Wisconsin, but it raises serious question to individual uniqueness. Personally, I found myself giving pointers to these reps when they called. Luck to you all.