Please cite this article in press as: Selden, M., Goodie, A.S., Review of the effects of Five Factor Model personality traits on network structures and perceptions of structure. Soc. Netw. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.05.007 ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model SON-1029; No. of Pages 19 Social Networks xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Networks journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socnet Review of the effects of Five Factor Model personality traits on network structures and perceptions of structure Mary Selden * , Adam S. Goodie University of Georgia, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 29 July 2016 Received in revised form 19 May 2017 Accepted 26 May 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Social network Network perception Network structure Personality Five Factor Model Big five personality a b s t r a c t We review recent research on Five Factor Model personality and social network analysis to assess how structures develop and are perceived. Extraversion and agreeableness relate consistently to personal but not workplace networks. Extraverts are more likely to seek connections, whereas agreeable individu- als receive connections from others. Openness predicts network diversity and is marginally related to position when groups pursue collective goals. Conscientiousness is associated with maintaining certain personal relationships, but is strongly related to central positions in workplace networks. Neuroticism has no consistent relationship with network size or composition, and is differentially related to network positions, depending on the context. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Introduction Social network analysis (SNA) has been used to study enti- ties (people, businesses, etc.) and the relationships between those entities (giving advice, trade, disease spread, etc.) in a variety of dis- ciplines (Scott, 2000; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). The structure and properties of the network depend on the study design, network type, and types of relationships that are being represented. While SNA has been used extensively in fields like sociology, its increased popularity in psychology has led to a surge of studies merging the traditional structural approaches of SNA with the individual differ- ences literature. One topic that has been only recently explored is how individual differences in personality affect network structures and perceptions. There have been few attempts (e.g., Burt et al., 2013; Fang et al., 2015; Kilduff and Tsai, 2003) to synthesize the existing research related to personality and SNA. Here we review both consistencies and inconsistencies in the literature that uses the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. * Corresponding author at: Psychology Department, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA 30602, United States. E-mail address: mselden19@gmail.com (M. Selden). Incorporating personality traits into the social network paradigm At the extreme, traditional structuralists tout that network structure is the major determinant of human interaction, and reject the suggestion that individuals have agency over their social envi- ronments (e.g., Mayhew, 1980). Kilduff and Tsai (2003) provide a detailed outline of the controversy regarding this perspective. Adherents to this “anti-categorical imperative” (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003, p. 68) doubt the efficacy of predicting human behavior using only the characteristics of individuals—of claiming dispo- sitions drive dyadic and group behavior (Wellman, 1983). They highlight the role that networks play in creating or hindering opportunities for social interaction and resources (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003; Wellman, 1983). However, these views discount the fact that humans are active agents, and their social relationships and environments are affected by their motivations, behaviors, and per- sonalities. The traditional structuralists’ strong anti-individualist stance is not shared by all; some social network researchers have attempted to look at individual motivations and predispositions to assess how these characteristics help shape network structure (e.g., Kadushin, 2002) and explain changes in network patterns (like intransitivity; Hallinan and Kubitschek, 1988). Kilduff and Tsai (2003) describe the work of “pioneering” structuralists (p. 80; see also Burt et al., 2013). Recently, a literature has emerged to link indi- vidual differences and social networks. These authors contend, and we concur, that individual differences in personality are related to both perceptions of the network itself (e.g., Casciaro, 1998; Clifton http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.05.007 0378-8733/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.