Beyond these substantive concerns, methodological critiques have also been leveled at the substantive interpretation of the GFP, as discussed in the Introduction. These include that the GFP is an artifact of the preponderance of scales that reflect blends of core traits (e.g., Ashton et al., 2009) and that response tendencies such as socially desirable responding and halo effects contribute to general factors that explain covariation among personality scales (e.g., Anusic et al., 2009; Bäckström et al., 2009). It has also been suggested that the overall statistical importance of a GFP is of a much lower magnitude than that of ‘g’ in the cognitive domain (Revelle & Wilt, 2010), implying that less attention should accordingly be paid to the substantive interpretation of GFP than is given to the interpretation of ‘g’.
