Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat perbandingan profil kepribadian Five-Factor Model Personality Traits (FFM) pada gay dan pria heteroseksual. Penelitian ini termasuk penelitian kuantitatif dengan jumlah 106 responden yang semuanya berkelamin laki-laki, 51 responden dengan orientasi seksual heteroseksual dan 55 berorientasi gay. Peneliti menggunakan kuesioner adapatasi dari NEO Personality Inventory-Revised untuk mengukur profil individu dalam Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, dan Conscientiousness. Dari hasil penelitian disimpulkan bahwa terdapat perbedaan profil yang signifikan antara kedua orientasi seksual. Neuroticism tinggi pada gay, Agreeableness tinggi pada pria heteroseksual, dan pada ketiga dimensi lainnya tidak ditemukan perbedaan. Beberapa kelemahan dari penelitian ini ialah kuesioner yang dianggap peneliti masih perlu beberapa perbaikan dan juga metode pengambilan data oleh peneliti yang kurang memberikan privacy pada responden. Untuk penelitian yang akan datang, peneliti menganjurkan agar kuesioner diperbaiki dan digunakan untuk distribusi responden yang lebih luas.

---

The aim of this study is to examine a comparison between gay's and heterosexual's personality profiles in Five-Factor Model Personality Traits. This study is quantitative study with the total of 106 subjects, 51 subjects were men who have sexual orientation as heterosexual and the other 55 subjects were gay men. The study used NEO Personality Inventory-Revised adaptation questioner, which designed to measure individual profile on Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The result of the study revealed that there was significant profile difference between two sexual orientations. Neuroticism was high on gay, Agreeableness high on heterosexual men, and no significant differences on the other three dimensions. There were several limitations in the study. First, the questioner needs to be revised because several items did not valid measuring the five dimensions of traits. Second, the method of the study was failed to give subjects privacy while responding to the questioner. For future research, the researcher suggested a revised to the questioner and use broader range of subjects study.