Person. individ. D$
Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 653465,
1992
0191-8869/92
$5.00 + 0.00
Pergamon Press Ltd
Printed in Great Britain
FOUR WAYS FIVE FACTORS
ARE BASIC
PAUL T. COSTA JR and ROBERT R. MCCRAE
Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, NIH, Baltimore,
MD 21224, U.S.A.
(Received
12 August
1991)
Summary-The
five-factor model has recently received wide attention as a comprehensive
model of
personality
traits. The claim that these five factors represent basic dimensions
of personality
is based
on four lines of reasoning and evidence: (a) longitudinal
and cross-observer
studies demonstrate
that
all five factors are enduring dispositions
that are manifest in patterns of behavior; (b) traits related to
each of the factors are found in a variety of personality
systems and in the natural language of trait
description;
(c) the factors are found in different age, sex, race, and language groups, although they may
be somewhat differently expressed in different cultures; and (d) evidence of heritability
suggests that all
have some biological basis. To clarify some remaining confusions about the five-factor model, the relation
between Openness
and psychometric
intelligence
is described,
and problems
in factor rotation
are
discussed.
INTRODUCTION
A recent symposium (Zuckerman, 1991) and article (Eysenck, 1991) addressed two central issues
in personality psychology: What are the criteria by which we determine that a personality
dimension is basic, and which dimensions of personality meet these criteria? There is perhaps more
agreement on the former than on the latter question. In this article we will argue that basic
dimensions must demonstrate their psychological reality through evidence of temporal stability and
cross-observer validity; must pervade the trait systems of both laypersons and personality theorists;
must recur in many different cultures; and must have some biological basis, although they need
not be tied to any particular neuro- or psychophysiological theory. We will also summarize data
showing that the dimensions of the five-factor model meet these criteria.
However, some clarifications are needed first. Although the terms jive-factor model and Big
Five have become popular in the past few years, there are still some confusions about the model
itself. As John (1989) pointed out, part of the confusion stems from the appearance that there
are many different “Big Five”s. It is true that a number of investigators have used different
instruments, labels, and conceptualizations, including Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963),
Digman and Inouye (1986), Goldberg (1990) Hogan (1986) Wiggins (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990),
and Costa and McCrae (1985). Despite differences in emphasis and interpretation, however, there
is agreement among all these investigators that they are addressing the same phenomenon; there
is also empirical evidence that their instruments show convergent validity (Borkenau & Ostendorf,
1990; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). The five-factor model
should not be identified with any of its operationalizations; it is an evolving scientific construct,
not an instrument.
Critics of the model sometimes object that five factors cannot adequately account for the
full range of personality traits (Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988), and of course they are correct. The
term “Big Five” is perhaps misleading here, because it suggests that the model posits only five
important traits. The alternative label, “the five-factor model,” may be more descriptive, because
a factor matrix contains both rows and columns, both variables and factors. The variables in
this model are specific personality traits. The instrument we have developed to measure the
model, the Revised NE0 Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), assesses
30 separate traits organized by the model into five domains: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion
(E), Openness (0), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). The model helps us specify
the range of traits that a comprehensive personality instrument should measure, and the factors
that emerge from an analysis of these traits are what we consider the basic dimensions of
personality.
653
PAUL T. COSTAJR and ROBERT R. MCCRAE
654
Table 1. Factor analysis of computer-administered
scales
Revised NE0 Personality
Varimax-rotated
NEO-PI-R
facet scale
Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety
N2: Angry hostility
N3: Depression
N4: Self-consciousness
N5: Impulsiveness
N6: Vulnerability
Extraversion facets
El: Warmth
E2: Gregariousness
E3: Assertiveness
E4: Activity
E5: Excitement seeking
E6: Positive emotions
Openness facets
01: Fantasv
02: A&h&s
03: Feelings
04: Actions
05: Ideas
06: Values
Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust
A2: Straightforwardness
A3: Altruism
A4: Compliance
A5: Modesty
A6: Tender-mindedness
Conscientiousness
facets
Cl: Competence
C2: Order
C3: Dutifulness
C4: Achievement striving
C5: Self-discipline
-. _...
C6: Uehberatmn
N = 41 I adult me” and women.
N
principal
Inventory
facet
component
E
0
A
C
0.80
0.64
0.77
0.75
0.48
0.67
-0.09
0.02
-0.15
-0.22
0.47
-0.14
0.05
-0.04
0.00
-0.08
0.11
-0.16
-0.01
-0.49
-0.04
0.04
-0.25
0.11
-0.03
-0.02
-0.20
-0.07
-0.15
- 0.40
-0.21
-0.22
- 0.27
0.00
-0.12
-0.22
0.57
0.69
0.52
0.49
0.63
0.58
0.26
-0.01
0.17
0.18
0.10
0.37
0.46
0.19
-0.31
-0.20
-0.22
0.23
0.09
0.01
0.43
0.58
-0.05
0.17
0.02
0.08
0.21
-0.13
-0.17
-0.06
0.13
-0.08
0.18
0.28
0.01
0.08
0.66
0.68
0.68
0.57
0.69
0.63
-0.24
0.23
0.01
0.17
-0.13
- 0.03
-0.12
0.02
0.26
-0.07
0.08
-0.10
-0.27
- 0.03
-0.14
-0.13
0.15
0.17
0.25
-0.11
0.26
-0.20
-0.23
0.11
0.10
-0.15
0.06
-0.02
-0.12
0.18
0.57
0.68
0.63
0.77
0.56
0.66
0.14
0.02
0.34
0.00
-0.13
0.08
-0.41
0.11
-0.17
-0.05
-0.33
-0.19
0.01
-0.09
-0.06
0.14
-0.07
-0.48
0.17
-0.16
-0.14
0.07
-0.02
-0.01
0.03
0.1 I
0.32
-0.09
0.11
0.21
0.67
0.66
0.67
0.77
0.75
0.40
Loadings
greater than
f0.40
are shown in boldface.
As an illustration
of the traits and their structure, Table 1 presents a factor analysis of NEO-PI-R
facets in a sample of 411 men and women, aged 19 to 96, who completed the NEO-PI-R
between
1989 and 1991. These subjects were participants
in the Baltimore Longitudinal
Study of Aging
(BLSA; Shock, Greulich, Andres, Arenberg, Costa, Lakatta & Tobin, 1984) but their data were
not used in any of the item selection studies for the NEO-PI-R.
In Table 1, most facets have their
largest loading on the intended factor, and the secondary loadings are similar to those seen in other
analyses; a minor rotation of the E and C factors would provide an even better fit. These data
provide an independent
replication
of the factor structure of the NEO-PI-R
presented by Costa,
McCrae and Dye (1991) and are of additional interest because they were administered
by computer
rather than by paper-and-pencil.
It is reassuring (though not surprising) that the five factors are
largely invariant
across method of administration.
Another frequent criticism of the five-factor model is based on a more general skepticism about
factor analysis itself as a way to understanding
personality
(Block, 1991). Certainly it is true that
there is nothing magical about factor analysis; if it were an infallible approach,
the questions
addressed by this article would long since have been answered. But factor analysis is a useful tool
for processing the quantities
of data that are needed to understand
something as complicated
as
individual differences in personality.
It identifies clusters of variables that are related to each other
and unrelated to other clusters of variables, and in this respect it systematizes the quest for those
basic requirements
of scientific constructs, convergent and discriminant
validity. Used intelligently,
it can yield valuable insights.
In any case, the test of whether factor analysis is useful does not lie in an analysis of the
technique, but in an evaluation
of the constructs
it yields. Do the dimensions
of the five-factor
model make conceptual
sense? Do they show convergence
across different instruments
and
observers? Are they useful in predicting important social and psychological outcomes? We think so.
Four
FOUR
CRITERIA
FOR
BASIC
655
ways
DIMENSIONS
OF
PERSONALITY
The reality of the factors
Surely no one would dispute that the basic dimensions of personality must refer to some objective
psychological
reality. But the belief that personality traits were nothing more than cognitive fictions
was widespread only a few years ago. And ironically, although it was Mischel’s (1968) influential
critique that popularized
this idea, earlier research on the five-factor model provided the most
powerful argument
for it.
As shown by D’Andrade
(1965) and by Passini and Norman (1966) the five-factor structure of
personality
could be recovered from ratings made on complete strangers. Because nothing was
known about the actual traits of these ratees, and thus about the covariation
of those traits, the
clear implication
of this finding was that the structure itself must somehow be built into our
cognitive system of person perception, constituting
an implicit personality theory. But this fact itself
was subject to radically different interpretations.
At one extreme, it was seen as evidence that traits
were nothing but fictions, projections
of our cognitive structure onto the interpersonal
world. At
the other, it was taken as an indication
that individuals
learned the true structure of personality
from their observations
of the real world and simply applied it to unknown
cases. Borkenau (in
press) has recently reviewed the evidence on these hypotheses and a number of more sophisticated
variants, and concluded that “traits are real and accurately perceived, provided that the judges have
the necessary information”
(p. 2).
This conclusion is based in large part on evidence of the stability and cross-observer
validity of
the five factors. Traits are defined as enduring dispositions
that can be inferred from patterns of
behavior; they should therefore be stable across long periods of time and be similarly assessed by
different observers. By these criteria, N, E, 0, A, and C are all indisputably
real traits.
Because most questionnaires
include scales measuring
aspects of N and E, there are many
longitudinal
studies of personality
in adulthood
that demonstrate
the stability of these two
dimensions.
For example, Finn (1986) reported uncorrected stability coefficients of 0.56 for MMPI
measures of both N and Social E in a sample of 78 middle-aged men retested after 30 years. Using
the NEO-PI, we found 6-yr retest correlations
of 0.83, 0.82, and 0.83 for N, E, and 0, respectively,
in self-reports from 398 men and women; similarly, we found 6-yr stability coefficients of 0.83, 0.77,
and 0.80 for spouse ratings of N, E, and 0 on 167 of these individuals
(Costa & McCrae, 1988b).
A 7-yr longitudinal
peer rating study of all five factors found stability coefficients of 0.67 for N,
0.81 for E, 0.84 for 0, 0.63 for A, and 0.78 for C (Costa & McCrae, in press). Corrected for
unreliability,
these values would approach unity.
All five factors have also been consensually
validated in studies examining
agreement across
observers-a
fact demonstrated
as long ago as 1966 by Norman and Goldberg, and subsequently
replicated by Funder and Colvin (1988) and others. Table 2 presents correlations
across observers
for factor scores from the NEO-PI-R.
The first column gives intraclass correlations
between peer
raters; the second and third columns give correlations
of self-reports with single peer and spouse
ratings. All these correlations
are statistically significant, and the median value of 0.50 shows that
they are substantial
in magnitude.
Indeed, all of them meet or exceed the so-called 0.30 barrier for
validity coefficients.
Self-reports
and various kinds of ratings are not interchangeable,
and
discrepancies
between them may sometimes be of clinical interest (Muten, 1991) but the consistent
convergences
attest to the reality of these five factors.
The reality of the factors is also seen in their practical utility. 0 is an important
predictor of
vocational
interests (Costa, McCrae & Holland,
1984) and C has recently emerged as the best
Table 2. Cross-observer
NEO-PI-R
Factor
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
For
correlations
for NEO-PI-R
factors
Peer/Deer
Peer/self
Spouse/self
0.35
0.41
0.50
0.52
0.30
0.33
0.43
0.55
0.51
0.46
0.61
0.58
0.67
0.57
0.37
intraclass correlations
between peer raters, N = 193 pairs; for
peer/self correlations, N = 250; for spouse/self correlations, N = 68.
All correlations are significant at P < 0.001.
PAUL
656
T.
COSTA JR and
ROBERT
R. MCCRAE
overall predictor
of job performance
(Barrick & Mount,
1991). A and C are related to life
satisfaction
even after accounting
for the major effects of E and N (McCrae & Costa, 1991). A
is essential
in understanding
the literature
in coronary-prone
behavior
(Costa, McCrae
&
Dembroski,
1989), C is a predictor of academic achievement
(Digman & Takemoto-Chock,
1981),
and knowledge of all five factors has proven to be useful in clinical psychology (Miller, 1991). The
five-factor model has much to offer applied psychology.
The pervasiveness
of the factors
If someone were to suggest that the only basic dimensions
of personality were E and A, the two
axes of the interpersonal
circumplex (McCrae & Costa, 1989b), the proposal would be greeted with
astonishment:
HOW could one possibly omit N, so crucial to measures of both normal personality
and psychopathology,
to perceived stress and ways of coping, to psychological
well-being,
to
somatic concerns, to low self-esteem? Surely we need N in our model as a basic dimension.
Just
as surely, we would argue, we need C and 0. The basic dimensions of personality are those which
together summarize with maximal efficiency the covariation
among all the traits in the personality
sphere; they must account for all the major variables that have been studied by psychologists
as
well as those traits that are used by laypersons to characterize themselves and their acquaintances.
All five factors are needed to do that.
There is relatively little dispute about the dimensions
of E and N, which have long been
recognized as the Big Two (Wiggins, 1968). We will therefore focus attention
on 0, A, and C,
pointing
out the range of traits that would be lost if these three dimensions
were omitted. In
particular,
we wish to correct the impression that A and C are narrow, first-order traits (Eysenck,
1991). As the facet scales in Table 1 show, A and C are broad, second-order
factors defined by
many specific traits.
The first source of evidence on the pervasiveness
of the five factors comes from studies of trait
terms in natural languages (John, Angleitner
& Ostendorf,
1988). The tradition of research that
stretches from Allport and Odbert (1936) to Ostendorf (1990) through Cattell (1946) Tupes and
Christal (1961) and Goldberg (1981) was, of course, the origin of the five-factor model. The English
language includes thousands of terms to describe aspects of personality, and analysis after analysis
has found five similar factors (Goldberg,
1990).
It is true that the five factors are not equally well represented
among trait adjectives.
At one extreme, there are hundreds
of terms relevant to the A factor, including
at the low
pole abrasive, abusive, acrimonious,
aggressive, altercative,
antagonistic,
argumentative,
arrogant, autocratic,
and avaricious,
and at the high pole acceding, accommodating,
acquiescent,
affable, affectionate,
altruistic,
amiable,
approachable,
assistful,
and, of course, agreeable
(cf. Norman,
1967). At the other extreme, there are relatively
few adjectives
that describe
0 (McCrae,
1990) and most of them, like curious, creative, inquisitive,
and intellectual
refer
only to the more cognitive
forms of 0, leading many lexical researchers
to call this factor
“Intellect.”
Some psychologists
might object that lay vocabularies
are not the best source for scientific
descriptions
of personality.
More psychologically
informed descriptions are provided by the items
in Block’s (1961) California
Q-Set. Table 3 lists items that define the 0, A, and C factors found
in this instrument
(McCrae, Costa & Busch, 1986).
Scales related to these three factors can also be found in instruments
designed to operationalize
many of the classic theories of personality.
Henry Murray’s (1938) catalog of needs includes
Understanding,
Change, Sentience, and Autonomy,
all related to 0; Abasement,
Nurturance,
and
low Aggression,
all related to A; and Achievement,
Order, Endurance,
and Cognitive Structure,
all related to C (Costa & McCrae, 1988a). C. G. Jung’s (1923/1971) psychological
functions are
the basis of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator;
correlations
of its scales with measures of the
five-factor model show that Sensing vs Intuition,
Thinking vs Feeling, and Perceiving vs Judging
are related to 0, A, and C, respectively (McCrae & Costa, 1989a). Angleitner and Ostendorf (199 1)
recently recovered the five factors in an analysis of temperament
scales. There the 0 factor was
defined in part by Zuckerman’s
(1979) Experience Seeking scale, the A factor included Strelau,
Angleitner,
Bantelmann
and Ruth’s (1990) Inhibition
scale, and the C factor was marked by
Windel and Lerner’s (1986) Persistence scale.
Four
ways
Table 3. Some item definers of 0, A, and
C factors in the California O-Set
openness
Aesthetically reactive
Values intellectual matters
Wide range of interests
Rebellious, non-conforming
-VS-
Sex-role stereotyped behavior
Favors conservative values
Uncomfortable
with complexities
Judges in conventional
terms
Agreeableness
Sympathetic, considerate
Arouses liking
Warm, compassionate
Behaves in giving way
-VS-
Expresses hostility directly
Basically distrustful
Shows condescending behavior
Critical, skeptical
Conscientiousness
Productive
Behaves ethically
Has high aspiration level
Dependable, responsible
-vsSelf-indulgent
Interested in opposite sex
Enjoys sensuous experiences
Unable to delay gratification
Adapted
from McCrae
er al. (1986).
Aspects of 0 are seen in Tellegen’s (1982) absorption;
Gough’s (1987) flexibility, Rokeach’s
(1960) dogmatism,
Fenigstein,
Scheier and Buss’s (1975) private self-consciousness,
Holland’s
(1985) artistic interests, Guilford, Zimmerman
and Guilford’s (1976) thoughtfulness,
Kris’s (1952)
regression in the service of the ego. Aspects of A are seen in Erikson’s (1950) trust vs mistrust,
Snyder’s (1974) self-monitoring,
James’ (1907) tough vs tender-mindedness,
Horney’s
(1945)
“moving against” tendency,
Freud’s (19 14/ 1957) narcissism, Adler’s (1938/ 1964) social interest.
Aspects of C are seen in White’s (1959) competence, Cattell, Eber and Tatsuoka’s (1970) superego
strength, Rotter’s (1966) locus of control, Hartshorn,
May and Maller’s (1929) character, Lorr’s
(1986) persistence, and McClelland,
Atkinson,
Clark and Lowell’s (1953) achievement
motive. 0,
A, and C-like
N and E-are
basic themes that have recurred in innumerable
forms throughout
the history of personality
psychology.
Each of them is indispensable.
The universality
of the factors
Truly basic dimensions
of personality
ought to be universal-found
in both sexes, in all races,
in various age groups, in different cultures. Whether such dimensions exist is an empirical question.
There is no guarantee
that thoughts, feelings, and actions must covary in the same way in all
different groups. For example, it is unlikely that the same personality factors found in adults would
also be found in infants, and it would surprise few social psychologists
if the factors found in
modern industrial
societies differed from those found in hunting and gathering cultures.
However, if any personality
factors can be found that do cross all these boundaries,
they would
surely have more claim to being basic than would factors that are only found in specialized
populations.
Each of the dimensions
of the five-factor model has evidence of universality.
The factors have been found in teachers’ ratings of children (Digman & Inouye, 1986), in college
students (Goldberg,
1990), in adults (see for example Table 1). In a sample of 1539 individuals
tested as part of a study of job performance
(Costa et al., 1991), we examined factors of the
NEO-PI-R
in men and women, in older and younger adults, and in white and non-white subjects.
In each case, five very similar factors were found, with coefficients of congruence
for the 15
comparisons
ranging from 0.91 to 0.99.
Beginning with Bond’s work in the 197Os, a number of cross-cultural
studies on the five-factor
model have been conducted, many using translations
of Norman’s (1963) instrument
(Bond, 1979;
Bond, Nakazato
& Shiraishi, 1975; Borkenau & Ostendorf,
1990; Yang & Bond, 1990). Most of
658
PAUL T. COSTA JR and
ROBERT R. MCCRAE
these studies have recovered factors very similar to those reported by Norman. For example, Yang
and Bond factored 718 ratings of father made by Chinese college students. Of the 20 Norman scales,
they found 19 with their highest loading on the intended factor.
Borkenau and Ostendorf (1990) provided a more formal analysis of the five-factor model, using
both the Norman rating scales and their German translation
of the NEO-PI. When separate results
for men and women were compared using Everett’s (1983) procedure, five and only five factors
were replicable in both instruments,
and confirmatory
factor analyses showed that these were the
factors hypothesized.
Currently
there is considerable
interest in the question of whether a different factor structure
might be found if more culture-specific
variables were included. Ostendorf (1990) reported analyses
of the German language lexicon that provide an almost perfect replication
of the structure in
English. Yang and Bond (1990) sought to examine the structure of personality using representative
Chinese trait adjectives; they found five factors, but they were not identical to the standard five.
Church and Katigbak
(1989) used items generated
by Filipino students in both English and
Tagalog, and found factors they interpreted
in terms of the Big Five. Yang and Bond chose to
emphasize the cultural differences; Church and Katigbak seemed more impressed by the similarities.
Clearly, this is an issue that will require more research.
Some of that research is currently being conducted by Michael Bond, who, with Wai-kwan Li,
has translated
the NEO-PI-R
into Chinese.
Fung Yi Liu (1991) administered
this Chinese
NEO-PI-R
to a sample of 100 college students; she also administered
a set of items intended to
measure distinctively
Chinese characteristics
organized into three scales. When the 30 NEO-PI-R
scales were factored, the five factors were recovered, with 26 facets having their highest loading
on the intended factor. Of more interest is the fact that a joint analysis showed that the three
indigenous
Chinese scales also fit within the five-factor solution. For example, one of the Chinese
scales was Filial Piety, a variable measuring
deference to parents. It loaded on the A factor.
Perhaps what these cross-cultural
studies really show is that the ways in which the basic factors
of personality
are manifested differ somewhat from culture to culture. Among American college
students, disregard for one’s parents’ wishes is more or less the norm, and says relatively little about
personality.
Among Chinese students, however, it seems that only highly antagonistic
individuals
lack filial piety.
The biological
basis of the factors
The fact that the five factors are found in many different cultures suggests that they are basic
features of human nature itself. This does not necessarily mean that they are biologically
based,
because human beings share more than a common biology. They are, for example, all social beings
with the capacity for abstract thought through symbolization;
the five factors may represent
alternative
ways in which people in a social environment
can respond to their life experience.
But as it happens there are good reasons to suspect that all five factors have some biological
foundation,
because measures of all five have shown evidence of heritability.
This should be
reassuring to those who prefer to “select personality
variables that are genotypically
rooted in our
biology as much as possible” (Caspi & Bern, 1990, p. 556). There is a large body of research on
genetic influences on N and E (Eaves, Eysenck & Martin, 1989), and the few studies that have
examined the heritability of 0 have also shown consistent genetic influences. Using a short Swedish
version of the NEO-PI, Plomin and McClearn (1990) reported that 41% of the variance in the 0
scale was attributable
to additive genetic influences.
Tellegen and Waller (in press) reported
substantial
heritabilities
for two Multidimensional
Personality Questionnaire
(MPQ) scales related
to 0, Absorption
and (low) Harmavoidance.
Loehlin’s (1987) cross-pair analysis of California
Psychological
Inventory
items recovered a genetic factor that included “the pursuit of culturelectures, discussion,
opera-and
a willingness
to tackle uncertain
and ambiguous
problems”
(p. 142) that Loehlin identified with Norman’s fifth factor, Culture, and that we would call 0.
Eysenck (1990) has also reviewed a number of studies that establish genetic influences on his third
factor, Psychoticism.
From the perspective of the five-factor model, Psychoticism is a combination
of low A and C (Goldberg,
1991; McCrae & Costa, 1985a), so Eysenck’s data suggest heritability
for A and C. There is also more direct evidence: The MPQ Aggression
scale (Tellegen &
Waller, in press) and measures of altruism, empathy, nurturance,
and aggressiveness
(Rushton,
Four ways
659
Fulker, Neale, Nias & Eysenck, 1986) reflect aspects of A, and all show substantial heritability;
the MPQ Achievement and Control scales, which are related to C, both show genetic influences,
as did a brief Swedish version of the NEO-PI C scale (Plomin & McClearn, 1990).
It seems likely that there are neurobiological structures that underlie such heritable personality
traits, and Tooby and Cosmides (1990) argued that shared neurophysiological systems may account
for the covariation of specific traits into broad factors. Cloninger (1988) presented a theory of
personality structure based on such a principle, and some, like Claridge (1986), have argued that
no personality dimension can be taken seriously unless it is supported by theory linking it to a
biological mechanism.
We believe that this latter view is profoundly mistaken. The fact is that we know much more
about personality structure than we do about the functioning of the brain, and it is poor science
to try to explain the known on the basis of the unknown. Consider for a moment the far-reaching
developments in our understanding of neurophysiology that have occurred since 1961. In
retrospect, it would have been folly for Tupes and Christal to attempt to explain their five factors
in terms of the comparatively primitive neuroscience of the day. Their factors have survived the
past 30 years very well; any biological explanation they might have proposed would surely be
hopelessly outdated. Will today’s neurobiological explanations fare any better?
We do not mean to suggest that studies of personality and psychophysiology are unimportant;
they may teach us much about both individual differences and neuroscience. But it seems to us
that such studies should begin with our current understanding of the organization of personality
into five factors. Every psychophysiological study should include measures of all five; empirical
links between these factors and neurophysiological variables, even if they are not anticipated by
theory, may give valuable clues to the biological basis of personality.
SOME
RESIDUAL
ISSUES
In view of the accumulated evidence in its favor, many personality psychologists have recently
adopted the five-factor model (McCrae, 1992). Eysenck (1991) noted that in 1983 Kline and Barrett
concluded from their review that the three-factor model of Eysenck was the most adequate
representation of personality structure; yet by 1991, Kline and Lapham had come to believe that
the Big Five provided “probably the best account of ratings in personality” (p. 631). Again,
Eysenck pointed out that in 1990 Angleitner believed that only four of the factors-(N,
E, A, and
C) had a temperamental basis; in 1991 Angleitner and Ostendorf reported a joint analysis of
five-factor and temperament scales which showed that all five were necessary to account for aspects
of temperament.
But others are not yet persuaded that the five-factor model best represents the basic dimensions
of personality. Eysenck (1990, 1991) has argued that his three-factor model accounts for the most
important dimensions of personality; and Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thornquist and Kiers (1991) have
proposed a replicable five-factor model which appears to be substantially different from the
standard model. Two different problems appear to account for these differences of opinion:
confusions of 0 and intelligence, and differences in factor rotation.
Openness,
culture,
intellect,
and IQ
The fifth factor in Norman’s (1963) influential study of peer ratings was labeled “Culture,” and
the most intense disputes among five-factor theorists have concerned the proper conceptualization
and name for this factor (e.g. Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1985c, in press; Peabody, 1987).
Most now agree that Culture is not an appropriate name for the factor, because it suggests an
acquired sophistication that is not central to the factor as it is typically found in analyses of
adjectives or scales. It is important to note, however, that there are empirical links between
Norman’s fifth factor and 0 (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1985b).
A more viable alternative name for this factor is Intellect (Goldberg, 1990). In lexical studies,
the fifth and smallest of the factors is chiefly defined by terms like curious and perceptive, and is
frequently labeled Intellect. However, we feel this label is misleading for three reasons. First, it
ignores the fact that many intellect-like terms (e.g. logical, foresighted; see John, 1990) typically
load on the C factor. Second, it suggests an unduly narrow interpretation of the 0 factor. Although
open individuals are indeed intellectually
curious, they are also aesthetically sensitive, high in need
for variety, and liberal in their value systems. Third, the label Intellect strongly suggests that this
factor is interchangeable
with g, psychometric
intelligence. If 0 were nothing more than a reflection
of intelligence, there would indeed be little reason to regard it as a basic dimension of personality,
as Eysenck (1991) argued.
In fact. however, the correlation
between 0 and IQ. though positive and significant,
is
consistently quite small, and joint factor analyses show separate 0 and Intelligence factors (McCrae
& Costa, 1985b, c). The relations among 0, Intellect, C. and psychometrically-assessed
intelligence
are illustrated in Fig. 1 (McCrae & Costa, in press).
Because the relative independence
of 0 from IQ is of such importance,
it may be worthwhile
to present additional
data on the question. A few years ago a subset of participants
in the BLSA
were administered
the complete
Revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scales (WAIS-R);
they
had also completed the NEO-PI. Complete data were available for 36 men. aged 19 to 86, and
31 women, aged 17 to 83. Correlations
of the 1I ago-corrected
WAIS-R
scales with the
NEO-PI 0 domain scale showed significant correlations
with only six scales, and no correlation
greater than 0.35. Correlation
of the full WAIS score with 0 was only 0.33. Given the high
reliability of both instruments.
it is clear that almost all of the reliable variance in 0 is unrelated
to intelligence.
It is also noteworthy
that the two WAIS-R scales that showed the highest correlations
with 0
were Block Design and Object Assembly, both of which “seem to get at some sort of creative
ability” (Wechsler, 1958, p. 80). This is consistent with the finding that 0 is related to divergent
thinking abilities and to scales intended to lneasure creativity (McCrae.
1987). To use Welsh’s
(1975) terms, it is Origence, not Intellect~nce.
to which 0 more closely corresponds,
and this is
surely a basic part of personality.
There are three crucial steps in factor analysis: the choice of variables; the selection of the proper
number of factors to retain; and the method of rotation. Digman and Inouye (1986) have observed
that “If a large number of scales is used and if the scope of the scales is very broad, the domain
of personality
descriptors
is almost completely
accounted
for by five robust factors” (p. 116).
Recently. Zuckerman
er ul. (1991) supported
this generalization
in their analyses of a set of 33
personality scales: a five-factor solution proved to be most replicable across samples. But although
three of the factors-Sociability,
Neuroticism-Anxiety,
and Aggression-Hostility-appeared
to
MEASURED
INTELLIGENCE
CONSCIENTIOUSNE
Fig.
1. Schematic
representation
Intellect.
of relations
among 0
Adapted
from McCrac
Meusured
IO Experience.
and Costa (111press).
Intelligence.
C. and
Four ways
661
correspond
well to E, N, and low A, the two remaining factors, Impulsive-Unsocialized
Sensation
Seeking and Activity, did not seem equivalent
to 0 or C.
These authors explained
the differences in structure
by pointing
out that markers for the
dimension of Culture or 0 were deliberately omitted-perhaps
because of the confusion of 0 with
intelligence.
But if this factor had really been omitted, why did five robust factors emerge instead
of the four we might expect?
We suspect the problem is one of rotation as well as variable selection. We have argued that
each of the five factors is pervasive, appearing in many different guises; and although Zuckerman
and colleagues may have intended to omit 0, it is by no means clear that they succeeded. One of
their variables, for example, is the Experience Seeking scale, which is known to correlate with
NEO-PI 0 (McCrae & Costa, in press).
Even when all five factors are represented in a set of variables, it is not necessarily the case that
recognizable
factors will be found. Although
simple structure has been the guiding principle in
factor analysis for decades, we know that personality
traits do not necessarily conform to it. The
interpersonal
circumplex (Wiggins, 1979) is only the most famous illustration
of the fact that many
important
personality
traits are defined by two or more factors; the secondary
loadings of
NEO-PI-R
facet scales on the factors in Table 1 provide another example. And because traits can
be found almost anywhere in a five-dimensional
space, the axes chosen by a varimax rotation will
depend completely on the selection of variables. That is why it is usually advisable to include known
markers of the basic dimensions
of personality
in factor analyses of diverse variable sets: The
marker scales not only identify the obtained factors, they also guide the varimax rotation (Costa
& McCrae, 1988a; Angleitner
& Ostendorf,
1991).
Fortunately,
we do not need to rely slavishly on varimax rotation. All orthogonal
rotations are
mathematically
equivalent,
showing the same relations between variables from different perspectives. If we wish to see how Zuckerman
et al.‘s data might have looked if strong markers of all
five factors had been included, we can choose surrogate markers within the data set and rotate the
factors to a target defined by these variables (Schonemann,
1966). In this case, N, E, 0, A, and
C can be represented
by EPQ N, EPQ E, Experience Seeking, low PRF Aggression,
and PRF
Cognitive Structure-all
known markers of these factors.
Table 4 presents the results of an orthogonal
Procrustes rotation of the Zuckerman
et al. (1991)
five-factor solution. The N factor is almost identical to the original N-anxiety
factor and, like
NEO-PI-R
N, also includes elements of angry hostility. The E factor contains most of the markers
of the originally
Sociability
factor, but it also includes scales measuring
monotony
avoidance,
activity,
and energy level. It thus resembles
the NEO-PI-R
E domain,
with its Warmth,
Gregariousness,
Excitement
Seeking, and Activity facets. The A factor is similar to the reflected
Aggression-Hostility
factor, and the C factor is defined by variables measuring cognitive structure,
inhibition,
responsibility,
and persistence.
As in the NEO-PI-R,
scales measuring
activity have
secondary loadings on the C factor.
The factor intended to represent 0 appears to be a rather rough approximation
to the standard
factor. Although the Experience Seeking scale was used to target the factor and does show a substantial loading on it, the highest loading variable is PRF Autonomy,
which reflects independence
of judgment and was a definer of the 0 factor in a joint analysis of the PRF and NEO-PI (Costa
& McCrae, 1988a). CPI Socialization
is another definer of this factor. That is understandable
when
it is recalled that open individuals
can be rebellious and non-conforming
(see Table 3); CPI
Socialization
is known to be negatively related to 0 (McCrae, Costa & Piedmont, in press). The
peculiarly rebellious cast that this factor has may explain the loading of EPQ P, which is otherwise
essentially uncorrelated
with 0 (McCrae & Costa, 1985a). Given the intentional
omission of variables related to culture and 0, some variation from the ideal pattern of loadings is to be expected.
How well this factor would correlate with more orthodox versions of 0 is an empirical question.
The Zuckerman
et al. study thus can be seen as a confirmation
of the standard five-factor model.
But if rotation is arbitrary,
could we not equally well assert that the factors found in natural
language are merely rotational
variants of the Zuckerman
et al. factors? Which rotation will lead
us to the truly basic dimensions
of personality?
Consider the analogy of a map. A map of the British Isles may with perfect fidelity to the
geographical facts represent Ireland to the right of Britain-provided
that the top of the map points
662
PAUL T. COSTA JR and
Table 4. Orthogonal
ROBERT R. MCCRAE
m-rotation of Zuckerman et al.‘s (1991) five factor solution
Original
Factor/
variable
Re-Rotated Factor
Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking
PRF Cognitive Structure
SSS Experience Seeking
KSP Impulsivity
EASI Decision Time (quick)
KSP Monotony Avoidance
EPQ Psychoticism
CPI Socialization
SSS Disinhibition
SSS Thrill and Adventure Seeking
SSS Boredom Susceptibility
Neuroticism-Anxiety
KSP Anxiety
EPQ Neuroticism
EASI Fear
EASI General Emotionality
KSP Psychasthenia
JPI Anxiety
EASI Inhibitory Control (lack of)
Aggression-Hostility
(vs Social Desirability)
PRF Aggression
KSP Hostility
KSP Social Desirability
EASI Anger
JPI Responsibility
EPQ Lie
KSP Inhibition of Aggression
Sociability
PRF Affiliation
JPI Social Participation
EASI Sociability
KSP Detachment
PRF Autonomy
EPQ Extraversion
Activity
EASI Activity
JPI Energy Level
EASI Persistence (lack of)
N
E
O?
A
C
0.06
0.02
0.00
-0.13
0.03
0.11
-0.22
0.07
-0.19
0.02
-0.21
0.14
0.43
0.35
0.54
0.05
0.02
0.32
0.37
0.17
-0.44
0.52a
0.38
0.41
0.43
0.49
-0.56
0.10
0.37
0.34
-0.07
-0.02
-0.09
-0.06
-0.17
-0.38
0.34
-0.27
-0.04
-0.33
0.62’
-0.44
- 0.43
-0.44
-0.30
-0.43
0.26
-0.57
-0.20
-0.26
-0.24
-0.15
-0.20
0.15
-0.24
0.05
0.21
0.10
0.02
-0.02
0.07
~ 0.08
-0.16
0.20
0.02
-0.21
0.13
-0.19
-0.08
-0.21
-0.38
-0.03
0.06
0.05
0.15
0.03
0.19
-0.16
0.21
0.50
-0.24
0.42
-0.06
-0.17
0.42
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.19
0.02
-0.06
-0.31
0.02
0.00
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
-0.11
- 0.7Sa
-0.67
0.67
- 0.63
0.59
0.53
0.53
0.07
-0.01
0.13
0.18
0.40
0.34
-0.01
-0.01
0.02
-0.21
0.07
-0.17
-0.15
0.63
0.60
0.72
-0.52
-0.22
0.778
- 0.42
-0.32
-0.19
0.28
0.70
0.14
0.30
0.17
- 0.02
-0.24
-0.20
-0.09
-0.25
-0.30
-0.15
0.12
- 0.09
-0.21
0.03
-0.36
0.12
0.58
0.44
-0.27
0.35
0.33
0.09
-0.08
0.08
0.03
0.40
0.39
-0.58
0.83
0.81”
0.77
0.77
0.71
0.69
0.49
Original data are reported in Zuckerman
et al. (1991). Loadings over kO.40 are given in boldface.
CPI = California Psychological Inventory. EASI = Emotionality-Activity-Sociability-Impulsivity
scales.
EPQ = Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire.
JPI = Jackson Personality
Inventory.
KSP = Karolinska
Scales of Personality. PRF = Personality Research Form. SSS = Sensation Seeking Scales.
“Target variable toward which factor was rotated.
South. We may choose to put any direction we wish at the top of our map, but if we want to see
how Britain is situated with respect to France, Germany,
and Norway, it would be helpful if all
cartographers
adopted the convention
of putting North at the top of the map. In the same way,
it would be helpful to personality
researchers if factor analysts oriented their factors with respect
to the standard five, either through the inclusion of markers in the battery, or through rotations
guided by variables of known factorial composition.
In the case of geography, the placement of North rather than, say, East-by-Southeast,
at the top
of the map is not entirely arbitrary; it is determined by the ease with which stars and the compass
can be used to locate North. Personality
structure is not that simple, but the frequency with which
the five factors of N, E, 0, A, and C emerge in analyses of natural languages (Ostendorf,
1990)
and joint analyses of diverse personality
questionnaires
(Boyle, 1989) suggests that these may
indeed be the best orientations
within the five-dimensional
sphere of personality.
Acknowledgements-Thanks
this article were presented
July 1991.
are due to Dr Marvin Zuckerman
for permission to present his reanalyzed data. Portions of
at the Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Oxford, England,
REFERENCES
Adler, A. (1964). Social interest: A challenge to mankind. New York: Capricorn
Books.
Allport, G. W. & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical
study. Psychological Monographs, 47(211).
Angleitner, A. (1990). Personality psychology:
Trends and developments.
Paper presented at the 5th Congress of European
Personality Psychology, Ariccia, Italy, June.
Four
ways
663
Angleitner,
A. & Ostendorf,
F. (1991). Temperament
and the Big Five factors of personality.
Paper presented at the
Conference on the Development of the Structure of Temperament and Personality from Infancy to Adulthood, Wassenaar,
The Netherlands,
June.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality
dimensions
and job performance:
A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment andpsychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Block, J. (1991). My uneasiness
with the five-factor
model of personality.
Paper presented at the Conference on the
Development of the Structure of Temperament and Personality from Infancy to Adulthood, Wassenaar,
The Netherlands,
June.
Bond, M. H. (1979). Dimensions
of personality
used in perceiving peers: Cross-cultural
comparisons
of Hong Kong,
Japanese, American,
and Filipino university students. International Journal of Psychology, 14, 47-56.
Bond, M. H., Nakazato,
H. & Shiraishi, D. (1975). Universality
and distinctiveness
in dimensions
of Japanese person
perception.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 346-357.
Borkenau,
P. (in press). Implicit personality
theory and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality.
Borkenau,
P. & Ostendorf,
F. (1990). Comparing
exploratory
and confirmatory
factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor
model of personality.
Personality and Individual Dtjerences, II, 5 15-524.
Boyle, G. J. (1989). Re-examination
of the major personality-type
factors in the Cattell, Comrey and Eysenck scales: Were
the factor solutions by Noller et al. optimal? Personality and Individual Dtfirences, IO, 128991299.
Caspi, A. & Bern, D. J. (1990). Personality
continuity and change across the life course. In Pervin, L. A. (Ed.), Handbook
of personality: theory and research (pp. 549-575). New York: Guilford.
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY: World Book.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W. & Tatsuoka,
M. M. (1970). The handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.
Champaign,
IL: Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing.
Church, T. A. & Katigbak, M. S. (1989). Internal, external, and self-report structure ofpersonality
in a non-Western culture:
An investigation
of cross-language
and cross-cultural
generalizability.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
8577872.
Claridge, G. (1986). Eysenck’s contribution
to the psychology
of personality.
In Modgil, S. & Modgil, C. (Eds), Hans
Eysenck: consensus and controversy (pp. 73-85). London: Falmer Press,
Cloninger, C. R. (1988). A unified biosocial theory of personality
and its role in the development
of anxiety states: A reply
to commentaries.
Psychiatric Development, 2, 833120.
Costa, P. T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NE0 Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1988a). From catalog to classification:
Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 5.5, 258-265.
Costa, P. T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1988b). Personality in adulthood:
A six-year longitudinal
study of self-reports and spouse
ratings on the NE0 Personality
Inventory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54. 853-863.
Costa, P. T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NE0 Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NE0 Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psvcholoaical
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr a McCrae, R. R. (in press). Trait psychology
comes of age. In Sonderegger,
T. B. (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on motivation: Psychology and aging. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr, McCrae, R. R. & Dembroski,
T. M. (1989). Agreeableness
vs. antagonism:
Explication of a potential risk
factor for CHD. In Siegman, A. & Dembroski,
T. M. (Eds), In search of coronary-prone behavior: Beyond Type A (pp.
4163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Costa, P. T., Jr, McCrae, R. R. & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness:
A revision
of the NE0 Personality
Inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.
Costa, P. T., Jr, McCrae, R. R. & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality
and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69, 390-400.
D’Andrade,
R. B. (1965). Trait psychology
and componential
analysis. American Anthropologist, 67, 215-228.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,417440.
Digman, J. M. & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification
of the five robust factors of personality.
Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, SO, 116-123.
Digman, J. M. & Takemoto-Chock,
N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality:
Re-analysis, comparison,
and interpretation
of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 1499170.
Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J. & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture, and personality: An empirical approach. New York:
Academic Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Everett, J. E. (1983). Factor comparability
as a means of determining the number of factors and their rotation. Multivariate
Behavioral Research. 18. 197-2 18.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental
contributions
to individual differences: The three major dimensions of
personality.
In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Biological
foundations
of oersonalitv:
Evolution.
behavioral
eenetics. and
psychopohysiology
[Special issue]. Journal of Personality, 58, 2455262.
_
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality:
16,5, or 3?-Criteria
for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 773-790.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F. & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:
Assessment and theory. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-528.
Finn, S. E. (1986). Stability of personality
self-ratings
over 30 years: Evidence for an age/cohort
interaction.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 8 13-8 18.
Freud, S. (1957). On narcissism: An introduction.
In Strachey, J. (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological
works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 73-102). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published
1914.)
Funder, D. C. & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship,
agreement, and the accuracy of personality
judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149-158.
Fung Yi Liu. (1991). The generahzability
of the NE0 Personality
Inventory
to an university sample in Hong Kong.
Unpublished
manuscript,
Chinese University of Hong Kong.
664
PAUL T. COSTA JR and
ROBERT R. MCCRAE
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler,
L. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg,
L. R. (1990). An alternative “description
of personality”:
The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59, 121&1229.
Goldberg,
L. R. (1991). Comparing
the Big Five factor structure with its competitors:
I. Eysenck’s P-E-N model. Paper
presented at the Conference on the Development of the Structure of Temperament and Personality from Infancy to
Adulthood, Wassenaar,
The Netherlands,
June.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Invenfory administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists
Press.
Guilford,
J. S., Zimmerman,
W. S. & Guilford,
J. P. (1976). The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Handbook:
twenty-jive years of research and application. San Diego, CA: EdlTS Publishers.
Hartshorn,
H., May, M. A. & Maller, J. B. (1929). Studies in the nature of character, Vol. 2: studies in service andself-control.
New York: Macmillan.
Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personality Inventory manuar. Minneapolis,
NM: National Computer
Systems.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Self-Directed Search-I985
edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: W. W. Norton.
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: a new name for some old ways of thinking. London: Longmans
Green.
John, 0. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy
of personality
descriptors.
In Buss, D. M. & Cantor, N. (Eds), Personality
psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261-271). New York: Springer-Verlag.
John, 0. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy:
Dimensions
of personality
in the natural
language
and in
questionnaires.
In Pervin, L. (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research. New York: Guilford.
John, 0. P., Angleitner,
A. & Ostendorf,
F. (1988). The lexical approach
to personality:
A historical
review of trait
taxonomic
research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171-203.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (Baynes, H. G. Trans., revised by Hull, R. F. C.). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton
University Press. (Original work published
1923).
Kline, P. & Barrett, P. (1983). The factors in personality
questionnaires
among normal subjects. Advances in Behaciour
Research and Therapy, S, 141-202.
Kline, P. & Lapham, S. (1991). The validity of the PPQ: A study of its factor structure and its relationship
to the EPQ.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 63 1636.
Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic explorations in art. New York: International
Universities.
Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Heredity, environment,
and the structure of the California
Psychological
Inventory.
Multioariate
Behavioral Research, 22, 1377148.
Lorr, M. (1986). Interpersonal Style Inventory (ISI) manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological
Services.
McClelland,
D. C., Atkinson,
J. W., Clark, R. A. & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achieaement motioe. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McCrae,
R. R. (1987). Creativity,
divergent
thinking,
and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 125881265.
McCrae, R. R. (1990). Controlling
neuroticism
in the measurement
of stress. Stress Medicine, 6, 2377241.
McCrae, R. R. (Ed.) (1992). The Five-Factor
Model: Issues and applications
[Special issue]. Journal of Personality, 60(2).
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (1985a). Comparison
of EPI and Psychoticism
scales with measures of the five-factor
model of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587-597.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (1985b). Openness to experience. In Hogan, R. & Jones, W. H. (Eds), Perspectioes in
personality (Vol. 1, pp. 145-172). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
“adequate
taxonomy”:
Intelligence
and personality
McCrae,
R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (1985~). Updating
Norman’s
dimensions
in natural language and in questionnaires.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 7 lo-72 1.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (1989a). Reinterpreting
the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator from the perspective of the
five-factor model of personality.
Journal of Personality, 57, 1740.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (1989b). The structure of interpersonal
traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586595.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, I7, 227-232.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr (in press). Conceptions
and correlates of Openness to Experience. In Briggs, S. R., Hogan,
R. & Jones, W. H. (Eds), Handbook of personality psychology. New York: Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness
in personality systems: The California
Q-Set and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 54, 430446.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr & Piedmont, R. L. (in press). Folk concepts, natural language, and psychological
constructs:
The California
Psychological
Inventory and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality.
Mershon,
B. & Gorsuch,
R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality
sphere: Does increase in factors increase
predictability
of real-life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 675480.
Miller, T. (1991). The psychotherapeutic
utility of the five-factor model of personality:
A clinician’s experience. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 57, 415433.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorafions in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Muten, E. (1991). Self-reports,
spouse ratings, and psychophysiological
assessment in a behavioral medicine program: An
application
of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 449464.
Norman,
W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate
taxonomy
of personality
attributes:
Replicated
factor structure
in peer
nomination
personality
ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 Personality trait descriptors: normative operating characteristics for a university population. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.
Norman, W. T. & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness
in personality
structure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 4, 681691.
Four
ways
665
Ostendorf,
F. (1990). Sprache und Per&mlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validitiit des Fiinf-Faktoren-Modells der Persiinlichkeit
[Language
and personality
structure: Toward the validation
of the five-factor model of personality].
Regensburg:
S.
Roderer Verlag.
Passini. F. T. & Norman, W. T. (1966). A universal conception
of personality structure? Journal of Persona&v and Social
Psychology, 4, 4449.
Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative
trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 59-71.
Plomin, R. & McClearn, G. E. (1990). Human behavioral genetics of aging. In Birren, J. E. & Schaie, K. W. (Eds), Handbook
of the psychology of aging (3rd Edn, pp. 67-78). New York: Academic Press.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Rotter,
J. B. (1966). Generalized
expectancies
for internal
versus external control
of reinforcement.
Psychological
Monographs, 80(l).
Rushton,
J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C., Nias, D. K. B. & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Altruism and aggression:
The
heritability
of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 119221198.
Schonemann,
P. H. (1966). A generalized solution of the othogonal
Procrustes problem. Psychometrika, 31, I-10.
Shock, N. W., Greulich, R. C., Andres, R., Arenberg, D., Costa, P. T., Jr, Lakatta, E. G. & Tobin, J. D. (1984). Normal
human aging: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (NIH Publication
No. 84-2450). Bethesda, MD: National
Institutes of Health.
Synder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring
of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Strelau, J., Angleitner,
A., Bantelmann,
J. & Ruth. W. (1990). The Strelau Temperament
Inventory-Revised
(STI-R):
Theoretical
considerations
and scale development.
European Journal of Personality, 4, 209-235.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Differential Personality
Questionnaire.
Unpublished
manuscript,
University of
Minnesota.
Tellegen, A. & Walker,
N. G. (in press). Exploring
personality
through
test construction:
Development
of the
Multidimensional
Personality
Questionnaire.
In Briggs, S. R. & Cheek, J. M. (Eds), Personality measures: Deuelopmenf
and evaluation (Vol. 1). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Toobv. J. & Cosmides. L. (1990). On the universality
of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of
genetics and adaptation.
Journal of Personality, 38, 1768.
Trapnell, P. D. & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal
Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions
of personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781-790.
Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality
factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Technical Report
No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th Edn). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Welsh, G. S. (1975). Creativity and intelligence: A personaIi/y approach. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for Research in Social
Science, University of North Carolina.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation
reconsidered:
The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 2977333.
Wiggins, J. S. (1968). Personality structure. In Farnsworth,
P. R., Rosenzweig, M. R. & Polelka, J. T. (Eds), Annual review
of psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 293-350). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological
taxonomy of trait-descriptive
terms: The interpersonal
domain. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 395412.
Windel, M. & Lerner, R. M. (1986). Reassessing the dimensions
of temperament
individuality
across the life span: The
Revised Dimensions
of Temperament
Survey (DOTS-R). Journal of Adolescent Research, I, 213-230.
Yang, K. & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring
implicit personality
theories with indigenous
or imported constructs:
The
Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58, 1087-1095.
Zuckerman,
M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zuckerman.
M. (Chair). (1991). How do we determine which are the basic dimensions of personality? Symposium presented
at the Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Oxford, July.
Zuckerman,
M., Kuhlman,
D. M., Thornquist,
M. & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust questionnaire
scale factors
of personality
without culture. Personality and Indiaidual Differences, 12, 929-941.
---~,1