Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects.

Marsh, Herbert W., Nagengast, Benjamin, Morin, Alexandre J. S.·2013·Developmental Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0026913
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This substantive-methodological synergy applies evolving approaches to factor analysis to substantively important developmental issues of how five-factor-approach (FFA) personality measures vary with gender, age, and their interaction. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) conducted at the item level often do not support a priori FFA structures, due in part to the overly restrictive assumptions of CFA models. Here we demonstrate that exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), an integration of CFA and exploratory factor analysis, overcomes these problems with the 15-item Big Five Inventory administered as part of the nationally representative British Household Panel Study (N = 14,021; age: 15-99 years, Mage = 47.1). ESEM fitted the data substantially better and resulted in much more differentiated (less correlated) factors than did CFA. Methodologically, we extended ESEM (introducing ESEM-within-CFA models and a hybrid of multiple groups and multiple indicators multiple causes models), evaluating full measurement invariance and latent mean differences over age, gender, and their interaction. Substantively the results showed that women had higher latent scores for all Big Five factors except for Openness and that these gender differences were consistent over the entire life span. Substantial nonlinear age effects led to the rejection of the plaster hypothesis and the maturity principle but did support a newly proposed la dolce vita effect in old age. In later years, individuals become happier (more agreeable and less neurotic), more self-content and self-centered (less extroverted and open), more laid back and satisfied with what they have (less conscientious, open, outgoing and extroverted), and less preoccupied with productivity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0026913

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S.
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2013-06
Volume
49
Issue
6
Pages
1194-1218
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
DOI
10.1037/a0026913
OpenAlex
W2147981382
Cited by
422
References
19
FWCI
22.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.