Straightforward means saying what you actually think, in plain words, with nothing shaved off for effect. That is the ordinary sense of the word, and it is roughly what Costa and McCrae meant when they named a facet Straightforwardness in the NEO PI-R 1.
It is not what our test asks you. On the IPIP-NEO-120 the same slot is called Morality, and it is scored from four statements, all reverse-keyed: using others for your own ends, cheating to get ahead, taking advantage of others, obstructing other people's plans. Nothing there is about flattery or hinting. It is about exploitation, and there is no reading of those items that makes them ethically neutral. The trouble with the name runs the other way. Four questions you answered about yourself do not audit a character, and a facet called Morality invites you to read the result as though they did.
What the Morality facet measures in the Big Five
Morality is the second facet of Agreeableness, the trait covering warmth, cooperation and concern for other people. Every item we use is public and listed on the methodology page.
Those four items sample one narrow thing: whether you say you take advantage of people when doing so would pay. That is a real question and worth asking. It is also all you get. The longer NEO PI-R facet reaches further — flattery, putting on a face, saying the warm thing you do not mean, timing a disclosure for effect 1 — and the 120-item form drops every bit of it. So wherever this page describes plain speech, that is the wider Straightforwardness construct, not the thing your score came from.
Two things the score is not. It is not a lie detector; it records what you were willing to say about yourself on a day when nothing was riding on the answer. And it is not general honesty — a scrupulously truthful person can still time a disclosure for advantage, and none of the four items would notice.
What the high end looks like
The high end is disagreement with all four statements. Adjectives are cheap here, so here is the behaviour they point at.
The shortcut is there and you do not take it. It would work, nobody would trace it, and someone else would absorb the cost. That is the case the items describe, and it is the only case that tells you anything.
People are not instruments. You notice when a friendship is being kept up for what it yields, largely because that framing is not one you reach for yourself.
Winning on a bent rule does not feel like winning. The result is identical and it still sits wrong, which is an inconvenient way to be built.
Obstruction is not in your repertoire. When somebody else's plan competes with yours, the move you reach for is a better plan, not a delay in their paperwork.
That is a good default and it is not a free one. The broader costs of sitting high on this trait are in when high Agreeableness works against you.
What the low end actually says
A low score means you agreed, to some degree, with statements about using people for your own ends, cheating to get ahead, taking advantage of others, and obstructing other people's plans. There is no gentler way to report that, and a page that finds one is doing you a disservice.
What it does not mean is that the matter is settled. Four items is a thin instrument. People answer them in a hurry, or against an unusually harsh reading of their own worst month, or with one particular person in mind. A low score is a reason to go and look at your own conduct in the cases the items name — the deal where somebody else absorbed the cost, the plan that got slower for reasons that were not about the plan — rather than a finding the test has established about you.
The strategic-presentation reading you may have met elsewhere, managing what people know and when, holding a card back in a negotiation, charm used deliberately, belongs to the wider NEO PI-R facet 1, which folds that softer content in alongside the hard items. It is a fair description of that construct. It is not a description of a low score on four questions about cheating, and treating the two as interchangeable is how a scale about exploitation gets read back to people as a compliment about their negotiating. Where negotiation genuinely turns on Agreeableness, the evidence is in negotiation by personality and what low Agreeableness is good for.
Why the evidence lives one model over
We have no criterion evidence to show you about this facet. Nothing in our reference library predicts an outcome from a Morality or Straightforwardness score, and the honest move is to say so rather than borrow a result from a neighbouring construct and hope the join does not show.
The result worth knowing sits in a different model. In workplace research comparing the two frameworks, HEXACO's Honesty-Humility factor predicted counterproductive work behaviour and integrity-test performance where the five-factor variables did less well 2. That finding belongs to Honesty-Humility, and it points the opposite way from how a page like this usually spends it: it is a mark against the five-factor model's coverage of this territory, not evidence that this facet does the job.
Then there is the self-report problem. These items are transparently socially desirable — anyone answering them for a job application can see which response looks good — so the score is easy to manage. It is a useful conversation with yourself and a bad screening tool for anyone else.
Morality, Straightforwardness, and Honesty-Humility
Three labels get collapsed into one word, and they carry very different amounts of instrument behind them.
| Morality (our four items) | Straightforwardness (NEO PI-R) | Honesty-Humility (HEXACO) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it asks | Do you say you exploit, cheat, or obstruct people? | All of that, plus flattery, front, and timing the reveal | Will you exploit someone when it pays and nobody is watching? |
| How much of it there is | Four items, one facet of six in Agreeableness | Eight items, one facet of six in Agreeableness | A whole factor, with four facets under it |
| What it misses | Everything softer than exploitation | Fraud, greed, entitlement | Little in this territory, by design |
Ashton and Lee's cross-language work kept surfacing a factor that English-only Big Five studies had scattered across Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; pulling it back together produced the sixth 3. Our four items are one small piece of what that took. So if the question you care about is whether somebody behaves well when behaving well costs them, the Big Five hands you a corner of the answer and HEXACO hands you the factor: Honesty-Humility explained, and HEXACO vs the Big Five.
Reading your own score honestly
Four items cannot tell you whether you are a good person, and any page that implies otherwise is selling you something. What the score can do is put a question in front of you in words blunt enough to be uncomfortable: when the plain way of getting what you wanted would have cost you something, what did you do instead?
Answer that from cases rather than from your self-image. Context belongs in the answer too, because plain with the people who have earned it and entirely strategic with everyone else is a common pattern, and one score flattens it. The items are a prompt. Your own history is the evidence.
Screen one trait free (3 min) → or take the full Big Five test (12 min, $2, report included) →
References
Footnotes
-
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1802_4 ↩
-
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907 ↩